The ban against domestic propaganda that had been in place since shortly after WW2 was
repealed in 2013. It was known as the Smith-Mundt Act. As part of the repeal, NDAA authorized
a huge grant program for NGOs, think tanks, civil society and other experts outside
government who are engaged in "counter-propaganda" related work. Sounds like doublespeak for
censorship and support for "fake news." I hope Glenn will investigate and connect the dots
some day.
omg. I read the whole article...and I'm not really that smart.
Best line: " ...but in journalism, evidence is required before news outlets can validly
start blaming some foreign government for the release of information. And none has ever been
presented."
Four years ago I was railing against Hillary Clinton on Facebook without any
censoring.
Tonight I watched an interview Tucker Carlson did with Glenn Greenwald regarding the
Hunter Biden/Joe Biden scandal and Tucker showed a poll revealing that 51% of those polled
believe this scandal is "Russian Disinformation" with ZERO evidence.
Why do those being polled believe this? Because the bulk of the MSM they watch have told
them so and the major tech platforms have ALL censored the pertinent information so there is
NO debate amongst the electorate. All of this less than one week from our national
election.
With Facebook and Twitter and Google's and the bulk of the MSM's heavy fingers on the
scales of public information there are only two words to describe this:
ELECTION INTERFERENCE.
And this with over 70 million voters already having cast their ballots!
Regardless of the outcome next Tuesday, these tech/media corporations should ALL be
brought down at least to the point where they can never be allowed to interfere in another
American election again, regardless of the higher-ups personal political preferences.
And this is the system the war-mongering DNC wants to "spread around the world" with their
"regime change wars"?!
Stephanie, why do you want Trump gone? Trump is bait. His presence is resulting in many,
many bad actors revealing themselves to be nefarious. Just look at Twitter/Facebook censoring
this blockbuster news (along with the rest of the media). We, The People, are finally seeing
first had the level of tyranny that's upon us. None of it has anything to do with Trump. But
it's Trump's existence in the White House that is bringing it to light. Without him, we would
have never seen it for what it is. Think about that.
I may disagree with your take on CIA involvement, but the above paragraph couldn't be more
accurate. Trump's election was like throwing a brick through a rotten, wasp-infested
beehive.
I'll second that. Though perhaps to be fair to the original sentiment, perhaps the brick has
only knicked the beehive, and then smashed a window or two along it's way. He is arguably
inevitable, even desirable from some perspective, but the degree of nuisance is not erased, so
much as outweighed, by the necessity. We would be living in a better world, by definition, if
someone like him had never been required to improve it.
Agreed. I have been telling Democrats all they need do is run better candidates - and
virtually every time, I get people trying to claim there was never anything wrong with Hillary
or Joe and also Trump is Literally Hitler Incarnate.
I grew up watching psychos in the Extreme Right talk that way about whoever THEY didn't like
politically. Arguing that Bill Clinton was going to send Janet Reno to take their guns and cart
them off to FEMA camps like a scene out of "Red Dawn" or something. But this isn't the fringes
talking anymore. It's the mainstream, and it's on the Left.
Glen, I just paid for a subscription so that I can say this one FACT. The PODESTA EMAILS
WERE NOT THE RESULT OF A HACK.
Please stop reporting this nonsense. The cover story was all part of the plan (approved by
HRC) to shift attention to a Trump-Russia collusion narrative that has always been fiction.
Guccifer 2.0 was created out of this same scheme. The meta data on the files prove that it's
impossible that those emails were hacked, they had to be downloaded on a local device
(thumbdrive most likely).
The FISA Abuse, the spying on Trump, The plan to implicate collusion, the Flynn frameup,
the Impeachment, The Mueller investigation were not the base crimes, those were all part of a
cover up. By you insinuating that the DNC server got hacked (which there is zero evidence
for), you are wittingly or unwittingly complicit in perpetuating the lie that it was. You're
missing a much, much bigger story here. The biden laptop isn't even the tip of the icebeg
here.
Ask yourself this; "Why would dozens of high level DOJ, FBI, CIA and Whitehouse officials
in the Obama Administration put their careers on the line and commit literally hundreds of
felonies all in an effort to obstruct/neutralize Trump?" That is first question any true
journo should be asking right now.
You mention in this article that the media is basically over-compensating for helping Trump
win in 2016. That is extremely naive on your part. The media/twitter/facebook/CNN/MSNBC, etc.
is too well orchestrated, too well coordinated to be operating even vaguely independently. This
is project Mockingbird happening on a scale almost unimaginable. Maybe even the Intercept was
intercepted. Why would the publication that you founded not allow you to publish this? If you
look back at 2016, the entire media industrial complex was just as coordinated as it is now,
they just got sloppy because they were certain Trump wasn't going to win. Who's being naive now
Kay?
I also get frustrated with what I see as a naive interpretation, by figures like Dan
Bongino, Tim Pool, etc. I wonder if there is a fear by some to point behind the curtain, that
they will be attacked and cancelled for "conspiracy theories."
Neither Tim or Dan are really journalists and besides, this story is so massive and so
incomprehensibly large in scope/scale/magnitude that we shouldn't get too frustrated.
The main point to remember here is that none of this has anything to do with Trump. Look at
the timeline in its entirety, the best we are able to do and then plot a graph of the Media
Industrial Complex's behavior. They were out to derail Trump from the moment he came down the
escalator and it's not because he's a womanizer or that he's a game show host. They couldn't
afford to have an non-establishment player come in and wreck their plans. The question is, what
the f#$% were their plans? Why did they risk so much to keep him out of the WH?
My view is that the constant sturm und drang about the corruption of the elections (voter
suppression, mail fraud, ballot harvesting, etc, etc) is a ploy to distract from the fact that
the real corruption already happened long before the election.
The real corruption is even mentioned by Glenn in his draft: the SELECTION process.
The media do what they're told, and what they are doing is keeping up the drumbeat of
election corruption. In other words, they've been told to distract all attention from the real
story.
The real story is that, to the people who control candidate selection, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO
WINS.
That is the whole point of controlling the selection process. Oh yes, I know the media hates
Trump and so do the establishment. Really? The same establishment that just benefitted from the
greatest upward transfer of wealth in human history, during a pandemic panic, under Trump?
Bezos has gained over 70 billion in net worth this year, under Trump. You think he hates Trump?
Really?
You think Biden will do less? Or perhaps you think he would do more than the greatest upward
transfer of wealth in human history?
Republicans versus Democrats is a con game. It's a kabuki theatre of manipulation of
parochial tribalism, a Punch n Judy Show for the rubes.
As was once mentioned in the UT threads at Salon, isn't it time for a second political
party, Mr Greenwald?
It's not about their plans. It's just a non-violent (so far) class war. Trump is a vessel
for the working classes to carry their dissatisfaction of elite leadership. It's easier to
communicate directly to the people now due to social media, so the traditional media can't tell
the people how to vote (can't declare a candidate to be beyond the pale any more, squashing
their chances, and they used to have that power). The media are part of the elite leadership,
they don't like the working classes not listening to them, and they don't like the loss of
power. That's their agenda.
They have taken to "any means necessary" to keep that power, even though now it's basically
lying and obfuscation. They are trading off their legacy trustworthiness for short term
benefit, but they are destroying that foundation of trust as well. That happens slowly but
surely as more people see through them. Takes too long in the experience of everyone who is
reading this, because we're well ahead of the curve. The average mid level elite is a working
professional with kids too busy and not interested enough to dig to the next level and has been
taking their word - but they too see the truth every time they really look and over time that
is going to go as we all hope it will. It's just going to take a while.
"The guy who co-founded one of the current-day major online journalism outlets isn't really
a journalist" - Someone Posting to the Comments on an Article by a Guy Who Co-Founded One of
the Current-Day Major Online Journalism Outlets
There is good cause to question the Snowden story. He was CIA. Once a CIA agent, always a
CIA agent. It's plausible that he was inserted into booz allen hamilton in an attempt to harm
the NSA (on behalf of the CIA). Tell me this Glen, how did Snowden evade the largest
dragnet/manhunt ever on the planet to evade the authorities and make it to Moscow? Am I the
only one who finds this a little fishy? As someone who has been in software for 40 years, when
I heard him on Joe Rogan podcast about a year ago, I didn't find his backstory credible at all.
He sounds intelligent, but when you get beyond that and listen to him from a technological
perspective, his story doesn't add up. I find it hard to believe.
Why would a "patriot" doing work on behalf of the CIA be thrown to the wolves? Why wouldn't
they cover for him after it was released? I haven't been in software for 40 years, but I
believe that the Snowden story is extremely credible.
Snowden was a libertarian high school dropout hacker
The Deep State hired 800,000 employees/contractors around the Beltway after 9/11 on a war
footing, so anyone that was seen as clean and patriotic may not have needed a lot of standard
credentials by the usual bureaucratic managerial idiot types working for the Feds
I've been told that military field grade IT is all from the 1990s, dunno about national
security agencies, but unless you have actually worked with national security IT stuff I'm not
sure why your views should hold much weight
Senior people I know in the military and national security apparatus have told me that
corruption, waste and inefficiency are rampant (80-90%?)
Sorry, but I've heard that "anything CIA is automatically X" way too many times in my life.
Often from people trying to sell books about how we never landed on the Moon (you'd be amazed
how many ex-[alphabet agency] agents "back up" these claims with the worst sort of
pseudo-authoritative malarkey).
Hah! They "helped" Trump by running two billion dollars' worth of 95% negative coverage. It
made Trump look like the victim of a massive smear campaign by partisan hacks. What have they
been doing to "over-compensate", exactly? Make it 99%?
Whether or not they helped Trump, Greenwald's article claimst that journalists feel
responsible for Trump being elected last time so they are trying not to make the same
'mistake'. At least that's what Glenn is asserting here.
They're not wrong. They helped elect him with their sheer negativity. I've seen these people
argue the point, and they always point the finger at other journalists somehow NOT being
negative enough. It's never themselves.
So there's no collective soul-searching going on, no self-awareness, only a drive to be
angrier and finger-wagging with less concern for the actual facts of any given matter. They
don't realize how transparent it's become for those not already personally invested in the
extant narratives.
This, I think, is why we are seeing many more people defect to Trump rather than away from
him; when one is personally and deeply invested in a narrative, it's an article of faith.
Imagine you walk into church one day and the pastor says "this just in: the Archangel Gabriel
was a child molestor who felt up Baby Jesus". Next week, they accuse the Virgin Mary of the
same. Would a member of the faithful just roll with that, or consider moving to another church
altogether just to avoid the emotional whiplash?
More to the point, the head of Crowdstrike, the company run by a known Russia-hater the
Democrats sent their server to instead of the FBI, and who never provided that server to the
FBI, admitted in a Senate hearing that there was, in fact, no evidence of hacking. He was under
oath that time. Russiagate remains one of the most successful propaganda campaign in
history.
Just before or just after Trump's 2016 election I was in a Manhattan restaurant with my
domestic partner talking with strangers from DC. It turned out that they worked in the State
Dept. and they told us that since Trump questioned the veracity of some things the intelligence
establishment had said, they would absolutely bring him down. We were shocked but have
remembered this throughout the FISA debacle,the Mueller mess,the impeachment and this election
cycle.
Right. Thank you. I wrote to Matt T. about this same issue in his article. I'm hoping they
will do the investigation required for them to amend their articles. It really is a fundamental
mistake to perpetuate this propaganda.
It's literally in the Mueller report that the DNC server was hacked, without a shred of
evidence. As Fox Mulder said "Trust No One". Matt & Glen really need to get to the point
where they chuck everything they think they know and start over. Everything has been a lie. Why
would anyone believe ANYTHING the FBI or DOJ of Obama WH put out at this point? The MSM has no
credibility, FBI/DOJ/CIA? This cancer has metasticized to the point where the patient is on
life support.
We need to understand that Trump is Chemo. It takes an outsider to come in, someone who
didn't need this job, someone who couldn't be bought, to come in and kill that cancer.
Just to offer some confirmation for that, Here is a CNN article from the time: "A phishing
email sent to Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta may have been so sophisticated
that it fooled the campaign's own IT staffers, who at one point advised him it was a legitimate
warning to change his password."
However, they also report that the link was from " [email protected] ." I searched
for whether that email address had been reported as malicious on the day that the story broke.
Far from being "sophisticated", it was just a phishing link that was going around randomly, and
had already been reported to this spam reporting site:
So, despite (much of) the media converging on a "sophisticated spear phishing" narrative,
this looks to be a link that was sent to a large number of people over a long period, and just
a case of random spam phishing that got lucky.
re: "so sophisticated that it fooled the campaign's own IT staffers"
I'm not a google mail user, but in general it is pretty rare for a phishing email to NOT
have extended headers (server route log) that reveal a bogus or weird looking origin.
"Alleging" would be more accurate. They've been acting quite more brazenly as a
misinfo/disinfo arm of the DNC. Whether or not the DNC has deep enough connections with the CIA
to provide a useful and reliable data/policy bridge is another question, but both DNC and GOP
likely have enough connections to establish semi-functional "lamprey" networks just due to
their longevity and resulting personal/professional contacts therein.
Hi Frank. " The PODESTA EMAILS WERE NOT THE RESULT OF A HACK.
Please stop reporting this nonsense. The cover story was all part of the plan (approved by
HRC) to shift attention to a Trump-Russia collusion narrative that has always been fiction.
Guccifer 2.0 was created out of this same scheme. The meta data on the files prove that it's
impossible that those emails were hacked, they had to be downloaded on a local device
(thumbdrive most likely)."
Based on the forensics that was my conclusion but beware of these rabbit holes. It has never
been discussed that those details can also be faked (the meta data.) Certainly Gucifer which
seemed like damage control. I am unsure of the claims about his being backtracked tho.
So it's possible that the evidence is faked having accepted the conclusions of VIPS
analysts.
Could be. It would also mean that it was the first time Wikileaks published something that
wasn't authentic. Assange knows where the emails came from and he asserted that they didn't
come from Russia.
Note to all: You must use actual (historical) ISP speeds as of the specific months in
question. They increased a good deal in the months that followed in that area.
I agree that there was a massive fake Russia story created by GPS Fusion, the Clinton
campaign, Clinton allies, with the help of US intelligence, often willing and sometimes just
incompetent.
But there is definitely some evidence of a DNC hack. Among other things, the Dutch
intelligence services seem to have observed evidence in their spying on the Internet Research
Agency - reported by mutliple sources including Dutch media. What the nature of the hack was
and how it gibes with the evidence that there must have been a person on the ground to transfer
the data files that fast is of course fair to discuss.
There is also evidence, both purposely forgotten in media coverage after Jan 2017, of an
attempted RNC hack and the overt public hack and release of Colin Powell's email to embarass
and hurt Trump. There is plenty of other evidence of Internet Research Agency activity that was
pro-BLM and anti-Trump, making their more likely overall goal the sowing of chaos than only
supporting Trump. Thus the need for GPS/Clintonistas/Intelligence/Mueller's team to spin a
narrative.
I became a fan of yours when I was in law school at UC Hastings in 2003. Your the best, for
sure. But fuck...
I got to be honest...I'm glad the press is ignoring this story. There's just too much at
stake. Biden might be losing his edge, his family might be trading in his name, but who gives a
shit? The alternative is worse by light years.
And yeah, I don't trust the "people" out there to get it right. The "people" are rubes.
Those idiots voted for this piece of shit once before, they'll do it again, in a heartbeat.
More importantly, you really want to do Rudy Giuliani's work for him? I don't know, I don't
get it...why so eager to make the campaign's case for them? It's not a rhetorical question. I
just don't get it.
Alex: you are saying that we should not have independent press, that the media ought to be
agents of propaganda, consciously decieving the public for the greater good.
Maybe Biden is the lesser evil in this election. But without actual journalists like Glenn
we could never know.
I get the frustrations over Trump. He is a disaster. But the answer to that disaster does
not concist in advocating for more lies and propaganda.
I have yet to hear a reasonable case for Trump being either the greater evil or a disaster.
Many of the allegations against Trump have remained that - allegations - but in Biden's case
some of the same accusations (particular about racism) is in his Senate record. He was a
terrible candidate to position against Trump, and he picked as his veep the only person in the
entire primary season to get blown out by a single phrase from Tulsi Gabbard - who the rest of
the party's establishment absolutely despised because Hillary said so.
With Trump? Roaring economy brought to a halt not even by coronavirus, but massive economic
lockdowns that break the economy down to virtually Blue-State (down) / Red-State (up)
comparisons. Democrats were accusing Trump of "meddling" when he was still a candidate and
nonetheless pressured a Detroit factory into staying in the US. The man understands economic
leverage, and to ignore or deny that is like denying the Sun heats the Earth.
Three Middle East peace deals leading to an equal number of Nobel nominations. He is roasted
for de-escalating international tensions, lauded only when he fires missiles at nations
Democrats think need shooting at, and then castigated for killing a terrorist leader in the
same nation they were cheering him for firing missiles at.
I see very little criticism of Trump that isn't associated with bald-faced party-based
opposition, from establishment Republicans who hated his cockblocking of JEB BUSH FOR GODSAKE
to Democrats who still think Hillary's shit job as Secretary of State (ruining more nations
than Trump has cut peace deals for) is beyond reproach.
Speaking as a lifetime independent, please: the naked, incessant and baseless fury
demonstrated by Democrats and the Radical Left since 2016 has NOT been a selling point for
us.
Biden has been credibly accused of actually pinning a staffer against the wall and stuffing
his fingers up her vagina. The media didn't attack her story, but her college credentials, and
dumped the story after.
Biden has actually authored racist legislation and in recent years spoke of "being able to
work across the aisle" - with racist segregationists.
Trump's been merely ACCUSED of a shit-ton of things. But I don't join lynch-mobs. Same
reason the lynching of Justice Kavanaugh (seriously, you guys went after him over "I like beer"
and school calendars you had to try and reinterpret as codebooks?) made me see the Democratic
Party as a progressively more lunatic outfit. Reducing impeachment to "who needs criminal
charges? we really just hate the guy" wasn't a winner with us independents either, not just
speaking for myself there.
A pox on both your damned parties, and thank Trump for being that pox.
Gee Alex, elitist much? You don't like Trump so the people making an informed choice is not
a worthy goal? Anyone who disagrees with your world view is a rube who is not smart enough to
see the light - as defined by you? And you wonder why Trump won last time. The left is
populated by arrogant asses who think because they came out of college with a degree in some
worthless major, they are smarter than everyone else. Well, I went to college to but got a
degree in engineering vice sociology but I guess I'm just an educated rube.
Your law school tuition dollars were clearly wasted. Most of the people/rubes/idiots I know
and love learned the difference between "your" and "you're" in high school - and acquired
critical thinking skills at the same time. Too bad you missed out.
Yeah, we the people (rubes) are fn sick of the fn lawyers (especially from UC Hastings)
being in political control of our country and want a non-political person to clean up. What's
so hard for you to understand?
How's your guy doing you fucking rube? Great choice! Job well done!! If you ever wonder why
nobody gives a shit about your opinion, the fact that you chose a fucking reality star who ran
every business he ever owned into the ground, and fancies a bizarre hairdo, that's why no one
cares what you say. You're fucking stupid.
bahahahahaha...go crawl back into your fucking prol shit hole dwelling and latch onto
Tucker's teat. You're a fucking joke and always will be, no matter how special your dear leader
makes you feel.
Our local sanitation workers are much more thoughtful and respectful actually. I am voting
for Biden but I find this lawyer's response detestable. We need to grow up and stop with ad
hominem attacks that do nothing to advance the discussion.
Morals and ethics obviously mean nothing to a lawyer. If this was Don Jr, you would be out
for blood. As an independent voter, I want to know that I'm not voting for a piece of shit that
has been compromised by the Russians and Chinese! People like you, the FAKE NEWS media, and
antifa, etc are a major reason why I won't ever give my vote to Biden!
Elitists like Alex G. made the election of Donald Trump as president both inevitable and
necessary. The more he disses the "people" aka "rubes," the more President Trump's re-election
becomes equally inevitable and necessary. To borrow from Sen. Ted Cruz's exchange with Twitter
CEO Jack Dorsey, "Who the hell made Alex G. the final authority on how and what people should
think, say and do?"
One thing we know for sure is Alex G. never learned any humility or manners growing up. To
substantiate this, he stands condemned out of his own mouth. Last thing this country needs is
to have an authoritarian demagogue like him anywhere near the levers of power.
Please go back and fact check the old stories that made us hate Trump in the first place.
They've proven to be lies. He isn't perfect, but Biden will destroy this country. He's beyond
corrupt. Go look at the source materials.
Arrogant, smug D party loyalist goons and assholes like you are a very large part of why
people voted for Trump in 2016 and will vote for him in this election. T-R-0-L-L
I believe in the democratic system. The people may make mistakes, but so can anyone else. An
average of all the people is more accurate than randomly picking subsets of people to make
decisions. You say that you and your friends are not a random subset, you are better than
average. Your opponents say the same thing. We have a system for resolving these disputes.
Maybe you can invent a better one, but "I'm right and my opponents are wrong" is not a new
approach.
In answer to your "Why" question, perhaps Mr. Greenwald believes the same thing.
Glenn - new subscriber today (saw you with Tucker Carlson). As a conservative voter, I
support your new venture, not because your story is critical or suspicious of Biden, but
because we need more talented journalists willing to just investigate possible corruption and
inform the public. I also support Matt Taibbi for the same reason. The last line of your
article sums it up best for me.
"The whole point is that the press loses its way when it cares more about who benefits from
information than whether it's true."
Good luck, I hope you find this new path rewarding professionally and financially.
Agreed, I also like reading Quillette for it's equal publication of articles (they printed
that big article from the Environmentalist who demonized Environmentalism after he was banned
from his original publisher), and I also like reading Sharyl Attkisson as well.
I find it interesting how Glenn sees all the propoganda from these agencies in the media,
but fails to see the full extent of it in social media and therefore is unable to report on it
adequately. The DNC server hack is more of the same.
I paid for a subscription precisely because I believe that, despite what you may or may not
personally believe, you don't allow it to influence your pursuit of the truth. I want the truth
- nothing less and nothing more.
I just signed up, too, for that very reason. When those in positions of power put on a mask
and practice deception, they must be exposed. Sunlight is the cure for the disease of
corruption.
Personally, having read your work going back to Cato Institute and Volokh, I'm happy you're
independent and I can directly fund you. I'm willing to throw even more money at your projects.
Consider crowdfunding video documentary teams and other large projects. Your following after
all of this is going to be as large as ever.
I've supported him here as well because I think he is an important voice right now. There
are few journos out there right now who have Glenn's credibility who are willing to take on
media groupthink. But it is a tough environment. With NYT offering their digital for 4$ a month
that gives access to all of their writers/content, it is very difficult for writers like Glenn
to compete.
If this is humor, this is very dark humor. The saddest thing of all in this is that very
little of Glenn's excellent article is new. One of Donald Trump's presidency greatest
accomplishment has been to show me how the main stream media 'plays' its dirty games... The
entire mainstream media collectively abandoned its integrity during the last decade.
It's beyond what Orwell could have ever possibly imagined. Targeted gaslighting on an
individual basis using social media to brainwash people into believing whatever they want you
to believe?
I just paid for an annual subscription out of a total frustration with the current
outrageous, unfair, evil and dishonest media situation in the US (and elsewhere also).
Totalitarism is approaching and I have decided to participate in the fight against the
threatening darkness. Good luck.
"... I hope you don't mind me opining that the story as written is most likely to be a complete fiction, designed to hide the real source of the fantasy story book that is the Steele dossier. The main mission here being to admit that the dossier was indeed a pack of lies but with the important corollary that J Steele did indeed do some sort of research to dig up the dirt on Trump. Heaven forbid that it ever was discovered that himself, Pablo Miller and Sergei Skripal made the whole thing up over a meal of Zizzi's garlic bread and risotto, washed down with white wine and a bottle of Vodka over at the Mill. ..."
After more than four years of Russiagate we finally learn (paywalled
original ) where the Steele dossier allegations about nefarious relations between Trump and Russia came from:
A Wall Street Journal investigation provides an answer: a 40-year-old Russian public-relations executive named Olga Galkina
fed notes to a friend and former schoolmate who worked for Mr. Steele. The Journal relied on interviews, law-enforcement records,
declassified documents and the identification of Ms. Galkina by a former top U.S. national security official.
In 2016, Ms. Galkina was working in Cyprus at an affiliate of XBT Holding SA, a web-services company best known for its
Webzilla internet hosting unit. XBT is owned by Russian internet entrepreneur Aleksej Gubarev.
That summer, she received a request from an employee of Mr. Steele to help unearth potentially compromising information
on then-presidential candidate Donald Trump 's links to Russia, according to people familiar with the matter. Ms. Galkina was
friends with the employee, Igor Danchenko, since their school days in Perm, a Russian provincial city near the Ural mountains.
Ms. Galkina often came drunk to work and eventually got fired by her company. She took revenge by alleging that the company
and its owner Gubarev were involved in the alleged hacking of the Democratic National Committee. A bunch of other false allegations
in the dossier were equally based on Ms. Galkina's fantasies.
So the Steele Dossier that kicked off 4 years of Russiagate hysteria among the US ruling class was cooked up by two Russian
alcoholics from Perm. "Gogolesque" does not begin to describe the grotesque credulity & stupidity of the American elites.
The tales in the dossier were real disinformation from Russians but not '
Russian disinformation ' of the
American Newspeak variant.
The FBI, and others involved, knew very early on that the Steele dossier was a bunch of lies. But the issue was kept in the
public eyes by continues leaks of additional nonsense. All this was to press Trump to take more and more anti-Russian measures
which he did with
unprecedented generosity . The accusations about a Trump-Russia connection were the 'Russia bad' narrative that pressed and
allowed Trump to continue the anti-Russian policies of the Obama/Biden administration.
A similar string of continuous policies from the Obama/Biden administration's 'Pivot to Asia' and throughout the four years
of Trump is the anti-China campaign.
We now hear a lot about Hunter and Joe Biden's
corrupt deals with Chinese entities. These accusations come with more evidence and are far more plausible than the stupid
Steele dossier claims. Their importance is again twofold. They will be used to press a potential President Joe Biden to act against
China but they will primarily be used to intensify a public anti-China narrative that creates public support for such policies.
I don't know how or at what level, but we are being played. A narrative is being aggressively rammed down our throats about
China in
exactly the same way it was being aggressively rammed down our throats about Russia four years ago;
two unabsorbed
nations
the US government has long had
plans to attack and undermine .
Russiagate was never really about Trump. It was never about his campaign staff meeting with Russians, it was never about a
pee tape, it was never about an investigation into any kind of hidden loyalties to the Kremlin. Russiagate was about
narrative managing the United States into a new cold war with Russia with
the ultimate target being its far more powerful ally China, and ensuring that Trump played along with that agenda.
...
If Biden gets in we can expect the same thing: a president who advances escalations against both Russia and China
while being accused of the other party of being soft on China. Both parties will have their foot on the gas toward brinkmanship
with a nuclear-armed nation, with no one's foot anywhere near the brakes.
""Gogolesque" does not begin to describe the grotesque credulity & stupidity of the American elites."
Not at all. The "elites" know what's going on; it's being done for their benefit, after all. It's the "normals" who are being
sheared of the little wool left on our backs. Just one more true grand larceny before the whole thing falls apart. And for this
we need a real enemy. From the great Antiwar.com:
It's like living in a "B" movie. Probably many of the same sorts of people behind it too. The lack of imagination and knowledge
in these propaganda narratives tells you a lot about the mediocrities behind them. In considering these US foreign policy excesses,
real and imagined, I keep thinking at some point reality is going to raise its ugly head and Washington will collapse in a puddle
of spite. I expect the next adminstration to be overwhelmed by its domestic problems, along with quite a few other countries.
I look at what is going on in Western societies today and I think of the movie Brazil.
I think this stuff will matter more if Trump wins than if Biden wins. (I'm thinking 3:2 odds in favor of Biden, by the way).
If Biden wins, Republicans will make a lot of noise, but that's about it. Without a huge majority of Congress, they can't do
even what little token effects Democrats had to "stop Trump". Then, whenever Harris takes over, she can just distance herself
from the whole thing.
If Trump wins, however, the flag humpers in the administration will have the ammunition they need in the fight over Russiagate.
Not to shut it down, but to take control of it for their own political ends, and perhaps take down someone famous in the media
and intimidate the rest - in a replay of the post-9/11 Bush era (not that it ever stopped). So you can thank Democrats for handing
them the setup to do all that, not to mention for nominating Biden, if that is the path we take.
More realistically, Trump still loses, but Dems might fail to get an effective majority in the Senate (something like a 51-49
majority might not be enough in practice, because the most conservative Democrats in the Senate vote Republican half the time.).
Again it makes no difference for foreign policy, but it could really change how the country responds to economic hardship, now
baked in due to the virus.
The MIC needs a Cold War to boost military expenditure. The bigger the boogeyman the more money will be spent the more profits
will be generated.
They don't want a hot war as all those profits are meaningless if you are reduced to ashes.
The last thing the MIC can afford is for peace and goodwill amongst nations to break out. There is absolutely no profit in
that.
Eisenhower warned against the rise of the MIC for this very reason. If war is profitable then to keep generating more profits
you need to keep on generating more wars.
Trump proposed to ally with Russia against China. MAGA clearly implies the US was, is weakening, one way out (classical) is
to ally (perhaps only lightly) with one of the other two strong powers. This was total anathema to part of the PTB, mostly represented
(officially) by Dems. An all-out attack on Trump thus took place (before he was elected, because all was known) as a stooge for
Russia, etc. Russia 3x, Russiagate, all of it clumsily made-up rubbish.
Surely now with Hunter's lap-top and the exposé of Biden-China ties (pay to play at the highest level, potentially billions,
not minor corruption chicken-sh*t..) it is possible to grasp that one faction of what some call the Deep State is more pro-China
i.e. the aspirations towards that type of society (I leave that aspect aside ..) and the opportunities for money extraction /
deals - see tech etc. / also sales (MIC, etc.) favor China. The noise about Chinese incursions (Tibet, sea.. etc.), Chinese human-rights
violations (Uighurs, etc.), and the OBOR initiative have always been somewhat glancing more pro-forma than anything else..
It was the 'Dem' faction of the duopoly, Obiman + Biden who 'did' Ukraine, an anti-Russian move (on the face of it. Perhaps
it was just an extraction scheme, Mafia style. Of course they had the keen involvement of Germany and support from France.)
I have boiled down complex issues to just one "narrative arc", a simplification if you will, I am aware there is much more
to it all
Question. There is a well-know board on which sit, amongst many others:
Mary T. Barra (CEO Gen. Mot.)
Carlos Ghosn (Renault etc.)
H. Kruger (BMW)
Elon Musk
Henry Paulson
Lloyd Blankfein
Laurence Fink (Blackrock)
M. L. Corbat (Citigroup)
Tim Cook
Michael Dell (Dell co.)
S. Nadella (Microsoft)
IMO, the current Imperial policy goals of the Outlaw US Empire will continue regardless who wins. IMO, the ultimate question is
if the Empire has enough power to continue on its current track. As most know, I see a drowning empire trying to disrupt the rapid
rise of two strategically bound nations and those allied with them. China just finished planning and publishing its 14th 5-year
plan. This Global Times editorial is supremely
confidant for good reason:
"The fifth plenary session of the 19th CPC Central Committee is leading the country forward. China has the capital and ability
to do so. In this turbulent world, the meeting has provided a practical and significant guide for our direction, goal and tactics.
Despite the many problems, China's political philosophy can constantly generate positive energy to solve the problems, instead
of letting the problems crush positive energy.
"At the moment, China is facing the most problems and challenges. However, the country is also the most confident now. Other
countries have posed many difficulties, but they provide reference and proof that we are doing better . As the world suffers
from shrinking demand and negative growth, we are demanding real and comprehensive growth to realize new achievements in six areas.
The country is self-driven ." [My Emphasis]
It's been announced that "The 19th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) will hold a press conference Friday
to introduce the guiding principles of its fifth plenary session."
As for Russia's direction, that was very clearly mapped out by Putin and Lavrov's recent Valdai Club speeches and Q & A sessions
and other interviews over the past ten days or so. Compared to the drowning Outlaw US Empire, China and Russia combine to offer
the world two not so different examples that are clearly superior to Neoliberal Parasitism. And the longstanding Imperial edict
of the Outlaw US Empire saying no threat of a better example can be allowed to exist forms the basis for the confrontation. However,
it's no longer just China and Russia that provide such threats as a majority of the world's nations want to join Win-Win and scupper
Zero-sum. So the already joined contest between two differing ideological blocs will escalate until the drowning Outlaw US Empire
finds it no longer possess the power to dominate outside its borders, but will still have its domestic populace to exploit until
they too revolt.
The similarities are there, except that Trump's investigation had not one document of compromat even after 3 years, whilst Biden's
already has many from day 1.
Yes, the deepstate attacks Russia from the left, and China from the right, but this does not imply that members of the body
politic are not subservient to either side, ever.
Only that Trump was never a Russian stooge, nor did they ever hold compromising documents over him, whilst Biden seems the
Cleon of the modern age, that his business partners say he is. Is this compromat? Maybe, but at the very least this is graft.
And that should be enough to send him into the gutter.
This is a good report as is usually the case here at MoA. Yet, there is nothing really new in this at all other than the details
of how the Western empire goes about enforcing its will on the world.
Sense August 6, 1945 the Imperial policy has been "Global full spectrum domination." and to that end it was determined that Russia
and China were to be considered one enemy and must be attacked simultaneously.
In the 75 years sense that date when the Western empire declared the world belonged to it and it alone to rule the Western empire
has slaughtered innocent people across the globe tens of millions of them, additionally in the last 20 years alone the Western
empire has displaced over 37 million people, kicked them out of their homes destroyed their towns and communities. For 75 years
non stop slaughter of innocent people.
Western Liberal Democracy and indeed Western civilization itself is an utter and contemptible failure irredeemable in any form
which we might recognize as "democracy'
Why do media corporations put out remake after remake of popular movies? Is it because they lack imagination, or is it that
audiences prefer the familiar.
They use the same war propaganda time after time because the audience falls for it more easily if they've heard it before.
I agree with Michael, however, that we are in dire planetary straits at this point.
Apparently, our ruling overlords are putting in a Hail Mary plan to slow down the destruction of the ecosystem. I don't believe
that it is the virus that made them screech the brakes on the global economy back in March. They have a plan to reset and scale
back consumption.
We all knew it couldn't last forever, anyway, right?
I'm not so sure about the overall conclusions, instead I'm sidetracked by the attempt to whitewash Russiagate. I guess they
finally figured out they had to come up with some kind of lame excuse to brush it off.
"It wasn't me! It was some crazy drunk Russian woman from Perm! She was angry!"
Well that explains everything. They must have been so scared :D
Because that's what people do when they get fired isn't it? Instead of getting a new job (or drinking a bit more, or sliding
down the slippery slope of society) they make up and tell stories about politicians in other countries. Not to blackmail anyone,
oh no, only to try to tarnish the reputation of the old boss to get revenge. Stuff like this is why watching soap operas (including
"Friends") is bad for you :)
"We need a scapegoat but we don't have any good ones available right now, however someone we know has an aunt in Perm who
will do anything for money"
It still doesn't make sense but now instead of a problem that doesn't make sense they have a solution that doesn't make sense.
They probably threw a party to celebrate how smart they were.
"A narrative is being aggressively rammed down our throats about China": I usually respect Caitlin's work a lot but how does
this jive with the MSM and Techno-platforms desperate attempts to block all circulation of anything to do with the Biden corruption
scandals? Digging deeper into these issues is toxic not just for Biden, but for a significant segment of the neoliberal elite.
The economic elites need time to decouple their profits from China before any real head-to-head battle commences, Biden (or
Kamala) will bark a lot but bite much less given the probable wealth-vaporization of increased hostilities with China.
P.S. the number of COVID cases in Sweden is exploding, so to quote one of my favourite movie reviewers (The Critical Drinker)
can the Sweden trolls please "just go away now".
I don't argue popularity, but strength. Trump is a weakling, both as a person and as a president IMO.
US presidential system won't allow true leaders but puppets (or easily manipulated persons), it is all I'm saying. Do we need
more than last 4 years of Trump's reign as a proof?
Because the U.S. public is close to brain dead We can't detect obvious lies no matter how brazen.
Let's suppose I told you something was absolutely true and I literally started out by saying, 'Once upon a time there was an
evil stepmother ...'. Or I told you about about a villainous neighbor while literally playing a sad song on a violin.
I do not consider myself a genius, in fact I was a neocon but good God, I could just tell I was being lied to just by the pattern
of the stories. I didn't know what the truth was but I knew they were lying.
A doozy with FOX promoting genocide against Iran
FOX news does a story about the terrorist attack in France and in the very next segment without any commercial breaks they
interview a Congressman about Iran. Now they did not say Iran was responsible but clearly this was a puppet show to make just
that association. In addition to the standard blood libel, the Congressman talked about a tweet the Ayatollah made in 2014, so
it was not as if there even was any newsworthy item to discuss about Iran. It was just to frame them for something they did not
do.
On top of the 2001 Sino-Russian Friendship Treaty, both nations also signed an agreement in 2008 officially ending all territorial
disputes between the two countries. With no exceptions, the border between Russia and China is fixed.
In addition northeast China (or that area historically known as Manchuria) is now
a rustbelt area and is deindustrialising.
People especially young people are moving away from this part of the country and into the cities farther south to find more job
opportunities. According to
this Mercatornet.com
article , fertility rates in this part of Northeast Asia across all ethnic groups are the lowest in the world and this part
of China is heading for demographic collapse.
Probably the only people in China and Russia who still have fantasies about seizing one another's territories in Northeast
China and the Russian Far East are gameboys who spend too much time playing computer games or nattering with one another on their
blogsites and who would suffer cardiac arrest the moment they step away from the screen (or who would suffer cardiac arrest anyway
from playing games two or three days straight).
US economy and US life in general is wholly dependent on China. Face masks or pharmaceuticals, car parts or building materials,
it comes from China. No, we cannot resume making these things in US, we do not know how. When 3M was told to get busy and make
masks under Defence Procurement authority all they could do was refer to Chinese subsidiary. Clear enough it is the "subsidiary"
that has the whip hand. What do we have for them? Treasury bonds? Or we can start handing over real estate. Maybe if we give them
the West Coast they will supply us for a time.
One of the big stalls with the Foxconn-Racine plant has been there are no American engineers to hire. Just none. All Chinese
staff would be easier. Or Chinese lords supervising American coolies.
US basically does not trade with Russia. They have unloaded US paper securities. All we get from them is service as a bogeyman.
If we needed another bogey we could get that easy, make up some shit as always.
Mostly true but it's not because the US cant make these products it's because the shareholder class decided long ago
their portfolios would be better enhanced by cheaper labor costs outside the US.
And just as important, the US consumer prefers a "bargain price" and wants cheap goods more than a living wage, especially
those consumers who own some stocks (52% of Amerikkkans own at least some shares, usually in a 401k plan) and believe they too
are participating in the global wealth machine.
BTW, nearly as much stuff is made in Mexico and exported into the US as is made in China and products from both countries are
made by multinational corporations whose ownership consists largely Amerikkkan/western elites.
The problem isn't national-based, it is class based and international .
They are only trying to trick us into believing the problem is we are lazier than the Chinese.
The Chinese authorities have been prosecuting corrupt officials for many years. The prospect of certain USAi officials like
the Biden family carpetbaggers and their Chinese associates being prosecuted in public courts in China with no plea bargaining
and all those other niceties would be a delight for eyes and ears.
Be careful with those threats USAi, it could come back to haunt you.
I hope you don't mind me opining that the story as written is most likely to be a complete fiction, designed to hide the
real source of the fantasy story book that is the Steele dossier. The main mission here being to admit that the dossier was
indeed a pack of lies but with the important corollary that J Steele did indeed do some sort of research to dig up the dirt
on Trump. Heaven forbid that it ever was discovered that himself, Pablo Miller and Sergei Skripal made the whole thing up over
a meal of Zizzi's garlic bread and risotto, washed down with white wine and a bottle of Vodka over at the Mill.
I am with you Corkie. That is about the strength of it. The WSJ is BS from front page to last.
Update (1745ET): President Trump just took a minute away from the campaign trail to weigh in
on the 'coming out' of Miles Taylor, the formerly "anonymous" op-ed writer and self-proclaimed
leader of the internal White House #resistance,
"Who is Miles Taylor?" President Trump wrote, before recounting Taylor's association with
various adversaries of the administration. He added that "they should fire, shame, and punish
everybody associated with this FRAUD on the American people" - a group that would presumably
include some members or former members of his own inner circle, as well as the editors of the
NYT.
A photo of Taylor and Trump has been circulating on Twitter since before Trump published his
tweet, and we imagine Trump's response to the inevitable reporter question will be his usual
"so what?".
Meanwhile, CNN has reportedly decided not to fire Taylor, even though he lied on air to one
of the network's anchors (anderson cooper, clip below) despite being a paid employee of the
company.
It's still unclear what Google's response will be.
* * *
Roughly two years have passed since an anonymous Trump Administration insider
published an op-ed - then later, a whole book - warning Americans how President Trump was a
danger to the nation, primarily due to his "lack of character".
Well, on Wednesday afternoon, with six days left until the big day, the MSM and their
political operative allies, orchestrated the public coming-out of Miles Taylor, a former senior
official within Trump's Homeland Security Department who, before today, was best known as the
first former senior administration official to endorse Joe Biden for president.
In the year since Taylor has left the White House, he has parlayed his national security
bona fides (which were burnished during a stint working for Dick Cheney in the Bush White
House) into a top job working for Google, as well as a lucrative contract to appear as a
talking head on CNN and...did we mention the book deal?
Shortly following a teaser from George Conway, who called his fellow conservative Republican
a "true patriot"....
...Buzzfeed Ben - excuse us, Ben Smith - the former top man at Buzzfeed who left that
struggling media company to take the coveted job as the NYT's media columnist (a position
formerly held by both Brian Stelter and, before him, the legendary American media reporter
David Carr), was the first to confirm Taylor's identity, followed by a tweet from Taylor
acknowledging that it was all true.
Taylor published a statement on his reasoning for "why I'm no longer 'anonymous'" via his
new Medium page, which is strange, considering he now works for CNN, technically. In the
statement, Taylor wrote that Trump "sees personal criticism as subversive" followed by a Teddy
Roosevelt quote condemning those who say the president must not be criticized as "not only
unpatriotic and servile, but...morally treasonable to the American public." Later in the piece,
he quoted Abraham Lincoln.
Though Taylor acknowledged that he has been a life-long Republican, and that he "wanted this
president to succeed", he said Trump is "a man without character", and "his personal defects
have resulted in leadership failures so significant that they can be measured in lost American
lives."
More than two years ago, I published an anonymous opinion piece in The New York Times about
Donald Trump's perilous presidency, while I was serving under him. He responded with a short
but telling tweet: "TREASON?" Trump sees personal criticism as subversive. I take a different
view.
As Theodore Roosevelt wrote, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about
him or anyone else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant,
about him than about anyone else." We do not owe the President our silence. We owe him and the
American people the truth. Make no mistake: I am a Republican, and I wanted this President to
succeed. That's why I came into the Administration with John Kelly, and it's why I stayed on as
Chief of Staff at the Department of Homeland Security. But too often in times of crisis, I saw
Donald Trump prove he is a man without character, and his personal defects have resulted in
leadership failures so significant that they can be measured in lost American lives.
I witnessed Trump's inability to do his job over the course of two-and-a-half years.
Everyone saw it, though most were hesitant to speak up for fear of reprisals. So when I left
the Administration I wrote A Warning, a character study of the current Commander in Chief and a
caution to voters that it wasn't as bad as it looked inside the Trump Administration -- it was
worse. While I claim sole authorship of the work, the sentiments expressed within it were
widely held among officials at the highest levels of the federal government. In other words,
Trump's own lieutenants were alarmed by his instability.
Much has been made of the fact that these writings were published anonymously. The decision
wasn't easy, I wrestled with it, and I understand why some people consider it questionable to
levy such serious charges against a sitting President under the cover of anonymity. But my
reasoning was straightforward, and I stand by it. Issuing my critiques without attribution
forced the President to answer them directly on their merits or not at all, rather than
creating distractions through petty insults and name-calling. I wanted the attention to be on
the arguments themselves. At the time I asked, "What will he do when there is no person to
attack, only an idea?" We got the answer. He became unhinged. And the ideas stood on their own
two feet. To be clear, writing those works was not about eminence (they were published without
attribution), not about money (I declined a hefty monetary advance and pledged to donate the
bulk of the proceeds), and not about crafting a score-settling "tell all" (my focus was on the
President himself and his character, not denigrating former colleagues). Nevertheless, I made
clear I wasn't afraid to criticize the President under my name. In fact, I pledged to do so.
That is why I've already been vocal throughout the general election. I've tried to convey as
best I can -- based on my own experience -- how Donald Trump has made America less safe, less
certain of its identity and destiny, and less united. He has responded predictably, with
personal attacks meant to obscure the underlying message that he is unfit for the office he
holds. Yet Trump has failed to bury the truth.
Why? Because since the op-ed was published, I've been joined by an unprecedented number of
former colleagues who've chosen to speak out against the man they once served. Donald Trump's
character and record have now been challenged in myriad ways by his own former Chief of Staff,
National Security Advisor, Communications Director, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense,
Director of National Intelligence, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and others he
personally appointed. History will also record the names of those souls who had everything to
lose but stood up anyway, including Trump officials Fiona Hill, Michael McKinley, John Mitnick,
Elizabeth Neumann, Bob Shanks, Olivia Troye, Josh Venable, Alexander Vindman, and many more. I
applaud their courage. These are not "Deep Staters" who conspired to thwart their boss. Many of
them were Trump supporters, and all of them are patriots who accepted great personal risks to
speak candidly about a man they've seen retaliate and even incite violence against his
opponents. (I've likewise experienced the cost of condemning the President, as doing so has
taken a considerable toll on my job, daily life, marriage, finances, and personal safety.)
These public servants were not intimidated. And you shouldn't be either. As descendants of
revolutionaries, honest dissent is part of our American character, and we must reject the
culture of political intimidation that's been cultivated by this President. That's why I'm
writing this note -- to urge you to speak out if you haven't.
While I hope a few more Trump officials will quickly find their consciences, your words are
now more important than theirs. It's time to come forward and shine a light on the discord
that's infected our public discourse. You can speak loudest with your vote and persuade others
with your voice. Don't be afraid of open debate. As I've said before, there is no better screen
test for truth than to see it audition next to delusion. This election is a two-part
referendum: first, on the character of a man, and second, on the character of our nation.
That's why I'm also urging fellow Republicans to put country over party, even if that means
supporting Trump's Democratic opponent. Although former Vice President Joe Biden is likely to
pursue progressive reforms that conservatives oppose (and rest assured, we will challenge them
in the loyal opposition), his policy agenda cannot equal the damage done by the current
President to the fabric of our Republic. I believe Joe Biden's decency will bring us back
together where Donald Trump's dishonesty has torn us apart.
Trump has been exactly what we conservatives always said government should NOT be:
expansive, wasteful, arbitrary, unpredictable, and prone to abuses of power. Worse still, as
I've noted previously, he's waged an all-out assault on reason, preferring to enthrone emotion
and impulse in the seat of government. The consequences have been calamitous, and if given four
more years, he will push the limits of his power further than the "high crimes and
misdemeanors" for which he was already impeached.
Trust me. We spent years trying to ameliorate Trump's poor decisions (often unsuccessfully),
many of which will be back with a vengeance in a second term. Recall, this is the man who told
us, "When somebody's president of the United States, the authority is total." I believe more
than ever that Trump unbound will mean a nation undone -- a continued downward slide into
social acrimony, with the United States fading into the background of a world stage it once
commanded, to say nothing of the damage to our democratic institutions.
I was wrong, however, about one major assertion in my original op-ed. The country cannot
rely on well-intentioned, unelected bureaucrats around the President to steer him toward what's
right. He has purged most of them anyway. Nor can they rely on Congress to deliver us from
Trump's wayward whims. The people themselves are the ultimate check on the nation's chief
executive. We alone must determine whether his behavior warrants continuance in office, and we
face a momentous decision, as our choice about Trump's future will affect our future for years
to come. With that in mind, he doesn't deserve a second term in office, and we don't deserve to
live through it.
Removing Trump will not be the end of our woes, unfortunately. While on the road visiting
swing states for the past month, it's become clear to me how far apart Americans have grown
from one another. We've perpetuated the seemingly endless hostility stoked by this divisive
President, so if we really want to restore vibrance to our civic life, the change must begin
with each of us, not just with the occupant of the Oval Office. Fortunately, past generations
have lit the way toward national reconciliation in even harder times.
On the brink of a civil war that literally split our nation in two, Abraham Lincoln called
on the people not to lose sight of one other. He said in his Inaugural Address:
We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it
must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every
battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land,
will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the
better angels of our nature.
Heed Lincoln's words. We must return to our founding principles. We must rediscover our
better angels. And we must reconcile with each other, repairing the bonds of affection that
make us fellow Americans.
Mere minutes after Taylor's big coming-out, the online backlash began. Even members of the
'#resistance' slammed Taylor for his involvement in executing Trump's child-separation policy,
and for waiting this long to speak up.
As it turns out, Google execs reportedly misled their own employees when they insisted that
Taylor wasn't involved with the child-separation policy, an issue that ranks as Trump's
paramount sin among denizens of Silicon Valley.
Many also complained about the NYT hyping up the identity of the "anonymous" insider to try
and suggest that he was a top-level staffer, prompting speculation about Rex Tillerson, John
Kelly or even James Mattis. Trump's current chief of staff Mark Meadows,
And journalist Judd Legum with the extended version of that explanation, in which he
denounces "Anonymous" as little more than a grifter, who played a "critical role" in the family
separation policy, now working to parlay his brief time in the Trump Administration into a
quick buck.
Some were incredulous that Taylor left the administration and now works for Google and
CNN.
https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-18&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1321546046363721728&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fanonymous-author-outs-himself-liberal-media-immediately-slams-him-child-separating&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=550px
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
With Taylor now outed as a child prison guard, as we have no doubt he will be branded by the
left, we imagine Google will need to make a statement at some point about whether Taylor will
continue on in his role, or be...fired.
play_arrow Unknown User , 58 minutes ago
A typical Neoliberal incapable of comprehending loyalty and ready to sellout anyone for a
dollar.
Everybodys All American , 1 hour ago
This little man operates like a CIA agent. I'd be shocked if that's not the case. He
actually said he believes in Joe Biden's' decency. No one in their right mind is saying that
...
gmrpeabody , 50 minutes ago
Biden's decency..? Now THAT'S funny...
JLee2027 , 1 hour ago
Just another one who betrayed his country for bucks and fame. Hope it was worth it.
Perseus-Reflected , 1 hour ago
Looks like a latte-drinking little b!tch to me.
aspen1880 , 58 minutes ago
he "identifies" with bish
chelydra , 4 minutes ago
The epitome of an effete, preening dandy.
hot sauce technician , 1 hour ago
Everything the biden campaign is doing seems to backfire on it.
LVrunner , 58 minutes ago
Should be giving away puppies soon like Hilary did at this point.
Redhotfill , 1 hour ago
Working for Google, CNN, Book deal yeah Pay Offs! Surprised no Netflx stock options.
44magnum , 1 hour ago
Or a seat on the board
mrslippryFIST , 1 hour ago
The year isnt over yet.
OGAorSAD , 1 hour ago
And we care why? Should be a headline with Section 230 being repealed, and multiple
indictments of Biden's, Clinton's, and Obama's
nope-1004 , 54 minutes ago
Never heard of him.
The fact that he's a documented public liar and democrat makes complete sense though.
mrslippryFIST , 1 hour ago
Hah, little beta cuck didn't get his 15mins so he outs himself to get his 15 mins of
fame.
This is what participation ribbons gives you.
Willie the Pimp , 1 hour ago
What else would you expect from an obvious jizz guzzler? The LGBT have destroyed the
USSA.
pictur3plane , 1 hour ago
SOY BOY NOTHING BURGER.
JRobby , 52 minutes ago
Oh! Look! He shops at Amazon!!!
Pop this prick and dump him in a landfill
Friedrich not Salma , 54 minutes ago
DNC probably asked him to reveal himself to eat up Teevee time and distract from Hunter's
story.
Md4 , 53 minutes ago
Zactly.
Where's Hunter?
Boxed Merlot , 31 minutes ago
...Where's Hunter?...
Chillin with Mr. Corzine? You remember that guy don't you? He's another GS Vice President
and Mr. Obama's prized confidant in his financial wizardry that ripped off his "investors" to
the tune of frn1B and slunk out of the public eye.
Who are these people? Look at the way they dress. Look at the smug arrogant look on their
faces.
They are caught in a bubble and are totally divorced from reality.
It should be requirement of every individual who enters government to spend at least one
year unclogging apartment building sewer stoppages.
Having a basic grasp of reality and a first hand look at where sewage actually goes is
vital to a healthy reality based outlook on life.
Peace
Salsa Verde , 1 hour ago
Scumbags gonna scum.
EnoughBS21 , 56 minutes ago
How's it feel, little traitor? You threw Trump under the bus and now your "new friends"
are tossing you away.
A Mister nobody!
Md4 , 54 minutes ago
And was " anonymous".
Credible?
44magnum , 1 hour ago
Trump has no character and Biden is senile.
So he picks Biden and the whore? She is definitely a character.
I am more equal than others , 1 hour ago
Judging character from afar. It is an amazing skill that has never existed.
novictim , 46 minutes ago
On the scales of justice, Trump is light as a feather while these Leftist
infiltrator-traitors and grifters, China-stooges and bribe takers, are lead weights on the
American Republic. There is no parallel to the corruption that has been revealed about the
Russia-Collusion hoax and now the truth about Biden's sale of US' China-policy in return for
the CCP padding the Biden family nest egg.
Watergate has nothing on these latest scandals. And Trump comes away from all of this like
a shining star.
JmanSilver.Gold , 44 minutes ago
Just another leftwing swamprat.
Floki_Ragnarsson , 46 minutes ago
So this weasel turd creates the problem, whines about it, and then makes a book deal, bags
a CNN job, etc?
Obviously a slimy Democrud.
Teamtc321 , 51 minutes ago
***** shadow man talks about character? Typical Demshelvic POS.
Joe Biden is burning down.
zerozerosevenhedgeBow1 , 1 hour ago
Ahh... Wallet before country, honor and integrity. I see a trend of "Public Service".
Delete his security clearance before he tries to change genders, because politically then you
probably couldn't afterwards.
Hipneck911 , 45 minutes ago
So a minor level DHS obama holdover who is a lifelong democrat-donated to Obamas
campaign-and probably had all of maybe ONE meeting where the President was present. AKA
typical leftist LOSER.
Imagine That , 1 hour ago
Big fuss about a chicken-sh*t nobody, who the world will forget before he changes his silk
panties.
Pvt Joker , 45 minutes ago
"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies"
Yeah, Imma say this guy and any one who thinks like him is my enemy.
Occams_Razor_Trader_Part_Deux , 47 minutes ago
You had me till Vindman.................... you're an operative .....................
Blaster09 , 55 minutes ago
Another POS!!!
lwilland1012 , 1 hour ago
Give people enough time, and they will always show you their true colors. Just watch and
listen.
novictim , 42 minutes ago
But the election is on Tuesday. Millions have already voted.
The MSM has betrayed every American in ways unthinkable just a decade ago.
Dindu Nuffins , 45 minutes ago
Not worth changing the news cycle from the laptop. No one cares who this rat is,
undifferentiated as he is from the many others.
In the final debate, Joe Biden ensured that mudslinging and innuendo about Donald Trump
substituted for a discussion of what America's actual national interests are towards
Russia.
Final presidential debates have traditionally centered on national security, but the
October 22 showdown between President Donald Trump and Democratic challenger Joe Biden was
almost entirely devoid of any substantive foreign policy discussion. Instead, Biden launched
a fusillade of attacks on Trump about Russia that represented a seamless continuity with the
calumnies that many Democrats have directed at the president ever since he was first
elected.
There are a number of factors that make us suspicious of Russian involvement. Such an
operation would be consistent with Russian objectives, as outlined publicly and recently by the
Intelligence Community, to create political chaos in the United States and to deepen political
divisions here but also to undermine the candidacy of former Vice President Biden and thereby
help the candidacy of President Trump. For the Russians at this point, with Trump down in the
polls, there is incentive for Moscow to pull out the stops to do anything possible to help
Trump win and/or to weaken Biden should he win. A "laptop op" fits the bill, as the publication
of the emails are clearly designed to discredit Biden.
Such an operation would be consistent with some of the key methods Russia has used in its
now multi-year operation to interfere in our democracy – the hacking (via cyber
operations) and the dumping of accurate information or the distribution of inaccurate or
misinformation. Russia did both of these during the 2016 presidential election –
judgments shared by the US Intelligence Community, the investigation into Russian activities by
Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and the entirety (all Republicans and Democrats) on the current
Senate Intelligence Committee.
Such an operation is also consistent with several data points. The Russians, according to
media reports and cybersecurity experts, targeted Burisma late last year for cyber collection
and gained access to its emails. And Ukrainian politician and businessman Adriy Derkach,
identified and sanctioned by the US Treasury Department for being a 10-year Russian agent
interfering in the 2020 election, passed purported materials on Burisma and Hunter Biden to
Giuliani.
Jim Clapper
Former Director of National Intelligence
Former Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
Former Director of the National Geospartal Intelligence Agency
Former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency
Mike Hayden
Former Director, Central Intelligence Agency
Former Director, National Security Agency
Former Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence
Leon Panetta
Former Director, Central Intelligence Agency
Former Secretary of Defense
John Brennan
Former Director, Central Intelligence Agency
Former White House Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Advisor
Former Director, Terrorism Threat Integration Center
Former Analyst and Operations Officer, Central Intelligence Agency
Thomas Finger
Former Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis
Former Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Research, Department of State
Former Chair, National Intelligence Council
Rick Ledgett
Former Deputy Director, National Security Agency
John McLaughlin
Former Acting Director, Central Intelligence Agency
Former Deputy Director, Central Intelligence Agency
Former Director of Analysis, Central Intelligence Agency
Former Director, Slavic and Eurasian Analysis, Central Intelligence Agency
Michael Morell
Former Acting Director, Central Intelligence Agency
Former Deputy Director, Central Intelligence Agency
Former Director of Analysis, Central Intelligence Agency
"... When everything is fine, and the macro economic indicators are stable, various funds are building up their assets, consumption is on the rise and so on. In such times, you hear more and more that the state only stands in the way, and that a pure market economy would be more effective. But as soon as crises and challenges arise, everyone turns to the state, calling for the reinforcement of its supervisory functions. This goes on and on, like a sinusoidal curve. This is what happened during the preceding crises, including the recent ones, like in 2008. ..."
"... So, again, no model is pure or rigid, neither the market economy nor the command economy today, but we simply have to determine the level of the state's involvement in the economy. ..."
"... In the U.S., since 1980, money has increasingly become the source of political power. This is dictatorship. The U.S. has transformed itself from an imperfect democracy, into an almost perfect 'oligarchic dictatorship' where the corporations oversee the government, rather than the government overseeing the market. This is the very definition of fascism. And under such a system, the U.S.'s market economy has been transformed into an economy of serial monopolies. ..."
"... i continue to believe the planet is being screwed by big finance.. ..."
"... Very true jadan, your view on Putin, and every time I read an excerpt or a speech by him I notice he is far above our western "leaders" with their meaningless chatter and hollow phrases. ..."
Most of the commentators on yesterday's
post were right. It was the Russian President Vladimir Putin
who said this :
Many of us read The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry when we were children and remember what the main character said:
"It's a question of discipline. When you've finished washing and dressing each morning, you must tend your planet. It's very tedious
work, but very easy."
I am sure that we must keep doing this "tedious work" if we want to preserve our common home for future generations. We must
tend our planet.
The subject of environmental protection has long become a fixture on the global agenda. But I would address it more broadly
to discuss also an important task of abandoning the practice of unrestrained and unlimited consumption – overconsumption – in
favour of judicious and reasonable sufficiency, when you do not live just for today but also think about tomorrow.
We often say that nature is extremely vulnerable to human activity. Especially when the use of natural resources is growing
to a global dimension. However, humanity is not safe from natural disasters, many of which are the result of anthropogenic interference.
By the way, some scientists believe that the recent outbreaks of dangerous diseases are a response to this interference. This
is why it is so important to develop harmonious relations between Man and Nature.
I found the excerpt remarkable because it included this, on might say, anti-capitalistic statement:
.. an important task of abandoning the practice of unrestrained and unlimited consumption – overconsumption – in favour of judicious
and reasonable sufficiency, when you do not live just for today but also think about tomorrow.
That 'green' statement will rile those people who argue for free markets and a right to sell bullshit in ever more flavors. In
their view the fight against such 'communists' thinking must be renewed.
As the full English transcript of Putin's speech and the two and a half hour Q&A
is now available I can also quote another interesting
passage where Putin talks about capitalism and the role of the state. His standpoint seems very pragmatic to me:
Question : Mr President, there has been much talk and debate, in the context of the global economic upheavals, about the
fact that the liberal market economy has ceased to be a reliable tool for the survival of states, their preservation, and for
their people.
Pope Francis said recently that capitalism has run its course. Russia has been living under capitalism for 30 years. Is it time
to search for an alternative? Is there an alternative? Could it be the revival of the left-wing idea or something radically new?
Putin: Lenin spoke about the birthmarks of capitalism, and so on. It cannot be said that we have lived these past 30
years in a full-fledged market economy. In fact, we are only gradually building it, and its institutions. [..]
You know, capitalism, the way you have described it, existed in a more or less pure form at the beginning of the previous century.
But everything changed after what happened in the global economy and in the United States in the 1920s and 1930s, after World
War I. We have already discussed this on a number of occasions. I do not remember if I have mentioned this at Valdai Club meetings,
but experts who know this subject better than I do and with whom I regularly communicate, they are saying obvious and well-known
things.
When everything is fine, and the macro economic indicators are stable, various funds are building up their assets, consumption
is on the rise and so on. In such times, you hear more and more that the state only stands in the way, and that a pure market
economy would be more effective. But as soon as crises and challenges arise, everyone turns to the state, calling for the reinforcement
of its supervisory functions. This goes on and on, like a sinusoidal curve. This is what happened during the preceding crises,
including the recent ones, like in 2008.
I remember very well how the key shareholders of Russia's largest corporations that are also major European and global players
came to me proposing that the state buy their assets for one dollar or one ruble. They were afraid of assuming responsibility
for their employees, pressured by margin calls, and the like. This time, our businesses have acted differently. No one is seeking
to evade responsibility. On the contrary, they are even using their own funds, and are quite generous in doing so. The responses
may differ, but overall, businesses have been really committed to social responsibility, for which I am grateful to these people,
and I want them to know this.
Therefore, at present, we cannot really find a fully planned economy, can we? Take China. Is it a purely planned economy? No.
And there is not a single purely market economy either. Nevertheless, the government's regulatory functions are certainly important.
[..]
We just need to determine for ourselves the reasonable level of the state's involvement in the economy; how quickly that involvement
needs to be reduced, if at all, and where exactly. I often hear that Russia's economy is overregulated. But during crises like
this current pandemic, when we are forced to restrict business activity, and cargo traffic shrinks, and not only cargo traffic,
but passenger traffic as well, we have to ask ourselves – what do we do with aviation now that passengers avoid flying or fly
rarely, what do we do? Well, the state is a necessary fixture, there is no way they could do without state support.
So, again, no model is pure or rigid, neither the market economy nor the command economy today, but we simply have to determine
the level of the state's involvement in the economy. What do we use as a baseline for this decision? Expediency. We need
to avoid using any templates, and so far, we have successfully avoided that.
Then comes a paragraph that shows where Russia differs from the current 'western' economic policies of negative interest rates
and deflation:
Of course, the Central Bank and the Government are among the most important state institutions. Therefore, it was in fact through
the joint efforts of the Central Bank and the Government that inflation was reduced to 4 percent, because the Government invests
substantial resources through its social programmes and national projects and has an impact on our monetary policy. It went down
to 3.9 percent, and the Governor of the Central Bank has told me that we will most likely keep it around the estimated target
of around 4 percent. This is the regulating function of the state; there is no way around it. However, stifling development through
an excessive presence of the state in the economy or through excessive regulation would be fatal as well. You know, this is a
form of art, which the Government has been applying skilfully, at least for now.
Keeping inflation up by a bit will make it easier for Russian consumers and companies to pay back their loans. It is economically
healthier than the deflationary policies of western societies.
Russia is well on its way to overtake Germany as the fifth biggest economy. Putin's pragmatic positions towards the role of the
state in the economy and his relative generous policies of social programs and large national projects have contributed to that.
The many questions and answers on foreign policy in the Valdai talk show a similar pragmatism on other issues. For those interested
in those here is again the link to the transcript
.
Posted by b on October 24, 2020 at 18:00 UTC |
Permalink
Putin was (is) an important figure in rescuing Russia from the collapse, and western carpetbagging, of the nineties but in no
way has he moved Russia towards communism or prepared the path (structurally) for a future communist state. Despite everything
that Putin has achieved, in no way has he created a system that is separate from that of the west. The external impostion of sanctions
(by the west) has had much more effect than anything Putin has done (in terms of separting from western dogma).
This talk of "overconsumption" is totally irrelevant to Russia (Russians are still largely poor and "under"-consume) as well
as much of the rest of the world. And Russia is a huge producer of the resources (oil, gas, coal), and a huge consumer of these
same resources, that we are told are destroying the world. So Putin is not really addressing Russians or the majority of the world,
and western governments are used to hearing this kind of guff (because they say the same, frequently).
So, Putin is not referring to a Communist (economic) state; he is referring to a mixed economy just like every other western
state (yes you could also say "just like every other state in the world" but what I am demonstrating is that, at best, Putin desires
to adhere to conventional western economic dogma).
Putin is 68 and the average life expectancy on Russia is 72 (only 65 for males). Putin will be gone soon enough and what he
has built is a proud independent nation that is integrated into the world economy and is well able to defend itself. But he has
not changed the fundamental economic relations that were established in Russia after the collapse of the USSR.
So, this "remarkable...anti-capitalistic statement" is either meaningless or a signal of compliance to western/world capitalist
elites who, perhaps, wish to bring the free-market to an end and entrench their position as a permanent elite - and that would
not be communism, rather it would be feudalism.
With the advent of the industrial revolution, capitalism, mass education, democracy and then the proto-communist states it
was thought impossible (and undesireable) that social structures could regress. But, has the (within technical capacities) ability
to capture data on everyone all of the time (and analyze and interpret that data in real time) and deep understandings of behavoiuralism,
human psychology and sophisticated, convincing and all pervasive propaganda resulted in a fundamental change? In short, that it
is no longer held that all humans are free, can make their own choices, and are capable of organising society for and by themselves
(even as some kind of future objective) - and that this has been replaced by a belief that humanity is best run by a "benevolent"
elite.
I'm not sure that the concept of neo-liberalism is really applicable to Russia. What happened under Yeltsin was a simple pillage
of the state, as anyone would do if they can, as he was too drunk to notice. The same thing is happening today in UK.
Putin has spent his time trying to recover from that situation to more control, as a conservative nationalist, but its not
so easy.
"... I am confident that what makes a state strong, primarily, is the confidence it's citizens have in it. That is the
strength of a state. People are the source of power, we all know that."
Yes! 'People are the source of power' is the definition of democracy.
In the U.S., since 1980, money has increasingly become the source of political power. This is dictatorship. The U.S. has
transformed itself from an imperfect democracy, into an almost perfect 'oligarchic dictatorship' where the corporations oversee
the government, rather than the government overseeing the market. This is the very definition of fascism. And under such a system,
the U.S.'s market economy has been transformed into an economy of serial monopolies.
Russia is rapidly developing; the U.S. is rapidly failing. No need to wonder why!
Depending upon who you ask
, somewhere between 33% and 70% of Russia's economy is still state controlled. You can never say "we" when talking about
directing a capitalist market economy because "The Market" will always be boss. Though Russia suffered a catastrophic capitalist
counterrevolution, it is this large share of the economy that is not entirely subservient to market forces that gives Putin the
luxury of talking in terms of "we" , despite his submissive attitude towards capitalism.
The fact is that capitalism ( "The Market" ) cannot develop Russia. This has been the case for more than a hundred years,
which is why they had a revolution in the first place and why the privatizations have been halted and are now (grudgingly) being
reversed.
Putin's strength lies not in his ideology because his strength of conviction to that ideology is that of an overcooked noodle.
This happens to work out OK though because his ideology is neoliberal capitalism. Clinging to that ideology isn't serving any
leader in the world right now, as we can see in Europe and the US. Rather, Putin's strength is in his patriotic pragmatism. He
doesn't want to build "Socialism with Russian Characteristics" , but pragmatics forces him in that direction.
Russia will be moving to a progressive income tax regime from 2021 onwards. The current personal income tax regime is a flat
13%. From next year, individuals earning 5 million rubles or more annually will be subject to a 15% tax rate. Sounds like little
but these sorts of reforms have to take time and have to be done in small increments.
It's my understanding that the bulk of Russia's tax receipts currently come from the energy sector. I'm sure way back in 1998
Putin wrote a PhD dissertation on the use of natural resources as the basis of economic development and growth, and taxation of
energy companies would be one method of using land resources to achieve this growth.
Keeping inflation up by a bit will make it easier for Russian consumers and companies to pay back their loans. It is economically
healthier than the deflationary policies of western societies.
That's a great idea, except both government and household debt in Russia are among the lowest in the world (probably the lowest
of any industrialized country). Both Putin and the foreigners who fawn over him, including myself not very long ago, are the first
to tout this fact. This way inflation in the Russian economy means consumers get to enjoy rising costs of living, and the state
and companies rising costs of raw materials, energy etc. while there's virtually no debt on the other side of the equation for
inflation to devalue. There's still a lot of corporate sector debt in Russia, but the bulk of it is still, incredibly, denominated
in dollars, euros, Swiss franc, and so on. Ruble inflation and falling exchange rates don't make this debt to cheaper to service,
but of course the opposite.
It's a great thing that the rate of home ownership (without associated mortgage debt) is so high in Russia, and it's probably
the only result of the privatization drive that was actually a good outcome. There's no reason that Russians should now be loaded
up with huge debts in order to own a house or an apartment. Access to personal credit for things like a car is difficult and expensive
in Russia, which obviously means a lot of people can't afford a car, but on the other further helps to ensure the indebtedness
of households is kept low. At the same time, like Putin (and b) does here, many in Russia apparently want to pretend that their
economy is like a Western economy, and that accordingly its households are partially relieved financially by inflation when they
actually only suffer from increased prices. It's absolutely bizarre.
The reality is that Russia's leadership has an unparalleled commitment toward, and talent for, getting the worst of all worlds
economically. Thanks to them Russia is probably the only major economy in the world with high inflation but microscopic domestic
currency debt (and correspondingly low investment in the domestic economy). This way Russia has gotten to enjoy, historically,
very high inflation but much lower growth rates than other developing economies. (The high growth rates in the 2000's came from
high raw materials prices, resulting merely in accumulation of foreign exchange reserves which the Russian government itself then
said could not be efficiently converted into rubles and invested in the Russian economy. Growth in industrial and agricultural
production, or in fixed assets like infrastructure, was accordingly much smaller, if even existent.)
There's also the continuing Wild West capitalism where oligarchs have gotten to keep their stolen assets in potash, gold mining,
coal mining etc., even in strategic industrial sectors like steelmaking, power engineering or the automotive industry, while at
the same time even Chinese investors are discouraged from investing through opaque regulation and unpredictable Russian state
intervention. In other words, stability for the oligarchs who openly tried to destroy the Russian state and turn it into a Hong
Kong-style neo-feudal hellhole, and who today just as before continue to asset strip the last residues of Soviet-era manufacturing,
but a Great Wall against the Asians who want to come in and develop petrochemicals plants, e-commerce, timber industry or whatever.
Through the entire 2000-2012 era, the Russian government came down like a hawk on ruble-denominated debt, while corporations
(both private and state-owned) could take out basically unlimited loans in foreign currency. State-owned companies like Rosneft
actually led the foreign currency indebtedness, helping enormously to ensure that Russia's only real advantage and asset in the
post-Soviet era, the trade surplus resulting from its oil and gas exports, is sent out of the country as interest payments to
American and European banks, rather than (as China has done) paying for the imports of Western machinery and technologies to help
develop domestic manufacturing.
Certainly, Russian companies are now much more restricted in the amounts of foreign currency credit they can accept, but access
to ruble credit is highly limited as well. The result is of course austerity in the economy, with anemic growth and falling living
standards.
Another important "benefit" was that the West had an easy way to put pressure on the ruble. They simply forbade Russian companies
from rolling over their debt, forcing them to come up with huge sums of foreign currency in short order. That crashed the rouble,
thereby dramatically forcing up prices (and equivalently, inflation) in the, by its own design, almost completely import-dependent
Russian economy. The crash in oil prices (again, simply limiting Russia's income in dollar terms, much of which they needed simply
to pay back Western creditors anyway) was just icing on the cake.
One could keep going like this forever. If China and South Korea had political and corporate elites with this mentality, and
with this level of commitment to neo-liberalism and globalization, but (critically!) only to its worst aspects and outcomes, these
countries would have been very lucky to be at the level of development of Thailand today. That's the reality and attacking people
who raise these criticisms as enemies of Russia, as many did to me in the last thread about thread on these topics, does nothing
to help matters. In fact, with "friends" like you, maybe Russia does not need enemies.
I've been having fun listening and reading the reactions and selected excerpts in the media to the long, very long Putin conference,
three hours with the question and answer segment, the most substantial and interesting, but five hours total considering that
he appeared two hours late, no doubt preparing until the last minute and over the speech as could be seen in the notes that he
held and that somehow the sound technicians did not filter out completely, which was a bit annoying.
Checking out the chaotic notes that I took, there is one little detail that most surely won't get any attention, his recourse
to widely used popular expressions like when he asks himself rhetorically:
what is a strong state? What are its strengths?
The Russian word for strength could be translated as power too, and any an every Russian recalls the great hero of the dark
90's, the late Serguey Bodrov in the film "The Brother 2", partly filmed in Chicago, Bodrov asks a panicked businessman: Tell
me American, where is the power? is the power in money? I think the power is in truth . a phrase that everybody knows and
feels proud of in Russia.
Vlad not only plays complex accords for foreign consumption, he plays for the home team first, just in case .
Putin, like all politicians, is more about what he says and less about what he does.
Fair enough, i challenge anyone in his position to do better... I actually admire the man, but let's not delude ourselves.
Russia stands to benefit from global warming more than any other country in spite of all the damage it will still cause it. On
the overall balance, it will average out ahead of everyone else, in relative terms, so don't look to them for answers.
As for "the State"... so what if it's his mates who benefit instead of oligarchs, what is the difference when most of the people
in Russia are broke and have no realistic prospects or chances of progressing beyond their predetermined fates? The cynic in me
ultimately thinks he just wants the oligarchs to pay their taxes to make his job easier, keep the people happy, so he can get
reelected more easily.
@ Eric | Oct 24 2020 21:10 utc | 18.. eric, i was intrigued by your ideas in the previous thread and i am again here... how do
you come by this particular vantage point?? do you have a particular background in finances, or is it just a special interest
that you have cultivated to come by the position you share in your post here? i am genuinely curious! i don't have enough knowledge
to comment and wish someone like Michael Hudson could comment on this specific topic that you seem to excel at holding a very
specific and fairly negative outlook on with regard Russia... thanks for your comments either way.. it is above my pay grade to
respond with any authority..
i continue to believe the planet is being screwed by big finance.. it seems hard to see thru the maze a way out of
this... your suggestion that russia is also caught in this maze would not surprise me... what is the way out, if i might be so
bold??
I think your post points to a fundamental worrisome feature of Russia. It's very unclear who actually has a stake in the prosperity,
power or even existence of the Russian state in 50 or 100 years' time. People can pretend that the Russian Orthodox Church plays
this role but there's very little to suggest it really does. India, I think, unfortunately struggles with the same problem, but
the destruction of India at the hands of British goes a long way to explain it in my view. In China or Iran, with all the issues
of their own that those two countries have, there's however very little ambiguity in this regard.
I'm not even sure I would place the blame on Western-style representative democracy in Russia, as the same basic problem seems
to have been there both before the October Revolution and at the very least during the post-Stalin era of the Soviet Union. The
question is if Russia, despite everything, as a Christian civilization isn't ultimately a participant in the Western world's anomie
and decline.
Yes! Absolutely capitalism is rapidly destroying the planet. Of this there is no question. Nothing can be left alone: 'undeveloped'
land must be 'developed', i.e. forests cut down and replaced by subdivisions, parking lots, McDonald's, office buildings, etc.
Capitalism is truly insidious: look at how the once mighty Amazon rainforest has been utterly wiped out by greedy cattle farmers
looking for a quick buck with the blessing of Bolsonaro. Where there were once massive old growth forests across N. America, there
are now only 'tree museums', i.e. national parks which save less than 1% of what there once was before Europeans came and destroyed
everything–in the name of profit. Capitalism not only destroys natural resources, it destroys people: slavery has been replaced
by wage slavery: and the wage slave's earnings from his 'mcjob' invariably go to his landlord, or other parasites. Your employer
is your master in capitalism: he is your god and you serve him. Any excess profit you make all goes to him, not you. If you look
at him wrong, or have a bad attitude you are replaced–and NO good reference for you! What a miserable shit system craptialism
is.
I have been strongly influenced by Michael Hudson's writings over several years now. Basically everything in that post is either
a point he already made about Russia or a direct application of his overall thinking on Russia's economy. For this reason I was
very surprised by the hostility of certain commenters, in particular karlof1, who also could be called followers of Michael Hudson.
karlof1 even suggested I should spend a couple of years researching Russian economic development, even though I've quite obviously
already done that (which doesn't mean everyone has to agree with my conclusions). I have to wonder if he and Martyanov either
never came across Hudson's criticisms of Russian economic policy (one of the actually less harsh examples
here - if you search
his site michael-hudson.com you can find others) or consider him also an ignorant anti-Russian commentator but are able to appreciate
him in spite of that.
I wrote about this part of Putin's speech back on the 22nd when he made this appraisal:
" only a viable state can act effectively in a crisis ."
I bolded the text then and I've done so again because that's one of the most important points he raised, IMO, particularly
in relation to the clearly unviable Outlaw US Empire and EU. I even turned my commentary into a short article at my VK space that
will be expanded once I digest all the Q & A.
I recently made an observation about Russia's banking and finance systems in that they're controlled by the public via the
state, not by some private entities separate from the state doing all they can to avoid any type of regulation and oversight,
which was based on this item I linked here at the
time. I later made the observation that the moral/ethical grounding of who/what's in charge of those systems matters greatly when
it comes to making an equitable society--and it will matter even more as we get into the having steady-state economies as resource
depletion mounts into the crisis it will eventually become. Putin showed that he knows and understands all that, which is well
beyond the capacity of the vast majority of those known as politicians--especially those in Neoliberal nations. Putin used the
term "balance" 7 times, imbalance once, in his speech. I suggest readers use the CTRL-F function to search the text for that term
to see what it's in reference to so they can learn a bit more about the man and his mind and the importance of seeking balance
in attaining equitability.
At the tail end of the Q & A, Putin is asked: "what you can advise and offer to Russian youth?" Putin's answer conforms completely
with his policy toward the promotion of families and urging young people to strive for their aspirations -- unlike many Western
politicos, he backs his admonitions with robust policies to make them possible, something I've long admired about him. Here's
most of Putin's reply:
"But what can we offer? We believe we will give young people more opportunities for professional growth and create more
social lifts for them. We are building up these instruments and creating conditions for people to receive a good education,
make a career, start a family and receive enough income for a young family.
"We are drafting an increasing number of measures to support young families. Let me emphasise that even during the pandemic,
most of our support measures were designed for families with children. What are these families? They are young people for the
most part.
"We will continue doing this in the hope that young people will use their best traits – their daring striving to move
ahead without looking back at formalities that probably make older generations more reserved – for positive, creative endeavours.
Eventually, the younger generation will take the baton from the older generation and continue this relay race, and make Russia
stronger."
The difference in that regard between Putin's vision and his actions when compared to the Outlaw US Empire and other Neoliberal
nations is beyond stark--it's as if they inhabit two different solar systems.
The reason Putin's hated by the West is he took an unviable Russia and made it more than viable again. IMO, he's the unequaled
Dean of what few Statesmen exist in today's world, which makes him an asset for humanity.
There used to be a regular commenter at Mark Chapman's Kremlin Stooge / The New Kremlin Stooge - I forget his KS name but he
was a physicist (and not a very good-tempered one at that, he had regular shouting matches with one other commenter Yalensis there)
-- but he was of the opinion that interest rates set by the Central Bank of Russia have been too high and have discouraged small
business investment in Russia. The head of the CBR may still be Elvira Nabiullina -- I haven't checked lately. She and others
in the government who help set monetary policies in Russia are suspected of being neoliberal and Atlanticist in their outlook.
As President, Putin is not responsible for setting domestic policies - that's Prime Minister Mishustin's job.
Putin spoke all that in a very specific environment (in a room full of rabid liberals/pro-capitalists), so we should be care about
its content.
There are some incongruousness in his speech we must correct here:
1) It is a myth the State, during the golden age of liberalism (16th-19th Centuries) was "minimal". On the contrary: there
was a ton of State intervention in the people's daily life - including the right of the State to separate whole families and use
their children in servile labor. The difference here is that the gross of that intervention was directed to the dispossessed,
i.e. the working classes. There was also a ton of regulations over slave ownership. The age of classical liberalism is considered
one of minimum State because the freedom of the powerful slave owners and industrialists was almost zero; it's the History told
from the point of view of the capitalists. That's why Putin clearly said "[capitalism] the way you have described it [...]"
2) The mixed system between what he calls "State intervention" (welfare of the people, command or planned economy) and "free
market" is the scientific definition of socialism. Marx wasn't an idealist: he was a materialist. He knew a direct transition
to communism was impossible, therefore he imagined a system of transition, where communism and capitalism would exist together.
This transition system was called socialism. That's why China, still governed by a Marxist-Leninist Party, considers itself socialist
and not capitalist, or even "mixed" for that matter;
Another observation: the Western countries didn't enter deflation/low inflation because of ZIRP/NIRP. They were already suffering
from it before those policies. The opposite is the true: precisely because they were having a too low inflation, they resorted
to ZIRP/NIRP.
Yep re my comment @ 29: Nabiullina is still CBR head according to her Wikipedia entry. Since becoming CBR head back in 2012 or
2013, she has consistently followed a policy of tackling inflation first to the extent of keeping interest rates higher than they
perhaps should be. This probably helps explain some of the issues Eric @ 18 raises about Russians' access to personal credit.
Interestingly Nabiullina's Wikipedia entry shows she worked with Alexei Kudrin in the past. Kudrin has a reputation for preferring
neoliberal economic policies. Currently he is Inspector General in the Russian govt's audit office where he can mouth off all
he likes about how he'd reform Russian economic policies if he got the chance but not actually do much damage: a case of Putin
keeping potential enemies somewhere where they can be watched.
Eric does raise the issue about how Russian oligarchs were allowed to keep their gains and not be forced to pay back taxes
they owed way back in the early 2000s, but this was on condition that they not meddle in Russian federal politics and buy influence,
and pay all their future taxes and other obligations, like paying their employees, promptly and in accordance with Russian laws.
Those who refused ended up in prison (Khodorkovsky) or fled overseas (Berezovsky). Roman Abramovich paid an unusual penalty: he
was made Governor of Chukotka in far eastern Siberia near the Bering Sea for a couple of years at least. He paid for all that
territory's infrastructure improvements. Of course the people there must love him!
So why are not all barflies writing and thinking about the role of the state in the economy within the context of current private
control of finance in the West?
What is blinding you all to not state the obvious role issue of those that own global private finance not being any "state"
of transparency?
We are in a civilization war about the fact that a current state in our world, China, has a public finance core of government
which is opposed to the Western cult of global private finance. Wake up.
Reading the entrails of the Russian economy that has been ravaged for decades by the cult of private finance and its followers
in Russia does us no service to b's question of what role the state should have in the national and world economy. Because Russia
is still having to operate with the shit show called empire they are limited in their response. I was taught 50 years ago that
a 2% inflation rate was optimal but because Russia is trying to build its population, it is spending more money supporting that
segment of the overall population and saying the inflation rate is worth the investment.
The role of the state in the economy
History has shown positive results from what are called mixed economies. The US is a mixed economy with the state, at various
levels, supporting energy, transportation, USPS, water, sewage treatment, police and fire protection, education, SSI, regulations,
etc. There are and have been attempts to privatize all those things under the canard that the service can be provided "better"
with profit as the motive other than service to others.
There is no magic mixed economy formula for any one state and it will change over time like Russia is choosing to do. But the
state has limited control of the economy if the tools of finance are privately held and not integrated into state functionality....and
it is my understanding that the Central Bank in Russia for example is not entirely a sovereign entity...what sayest our most recent
barfly, Eric?
Please join in a more reasoned contextual discussion of our world. I am tired of reading about "ism"s. More reality please.
Thank you b for continuing this conversation. The speech and Q&A were most interesting. They were consistent with what Putin has
said before, but done so this time with more confidence as even the oppression of the covid situation was dealt with in honorable
fashion - if one can honor a virus, that is. It is always, with Putin, that the people come first, and he made that statement
at the beginning.
Countries, all countries, have that obligation in their governance that it be for the people's welfare. So, to him, whatever
system a country has is only important in that respect and each country, drawing on its own history and its assets, decides for
itself what that style of governance will be.
This is different from any outside system being touted as the ideal. There isn't an ideal. It all depends on how the people
wish to be governed, based on what they feel is important to them. That is democracy in its loosest terms. He said several times
that any philosophy of government imposed by outsiders will never work.
At the same time, his support for the UN system on a world wide basis is as unconditional as his first premise.
I meant to add that casting my mind back to the last debate, the one thing being said about the people was Biden intensely eyeing
us and telling us about the empty chair at the kitchen table - nice!
.. an important task of abandoning the practice of unrestrained and unlimited consumption – overconsumption – in favour of
judicious and reasonable sufficiency, when you do not live just for today but also think about tomorrow.
We need to land somewhere between North Korea and the US on consumption. John Judge used to talk about how 30 houses on a street
need 30 lawnmowers. Why not buy one lawnmower, share it and maintain it? I ditched my lawns long ago as that is also over consumption
but I use it as an example of what type of society we have built.
"... I am confident that what makes a state strong, primarily, is the confidence it's citizens have in it. That is the strength
of a state. People are the source of power, we all know that."
It is not just confidence it is having an educated competent citizenry. Our top education institutions, especially the ivy
league, are cranking out students trained to protect the status quo hence things will not changed easily.
Moon is going to end up on the Russian disinformation agitators list.
@ Posted by: psychohistorian | Oct 25 2020 0:05 utc | 32
This "mixed economies won the Cold War" is an old story already. Eric Hobsbawn left a letter claiming just before he died,
in 2012.
The problem with the Scandinavian economies is this: who's gonna do the dirty jobs? You cannot simply make a nation of designers
and white collar workers. The social-democracies of the post-war solved this problem with the Third World countries, but now those
countries are not accepting this role anymore.
Besides, there's the objective fact even the Scandinavian economies are declining, with inequality skyrocketing since the end
of the 1990s. They, too, are susceptible to the laws of capitalism.
"Strengthening our country and looking at what is happening in the world, in other countries, I want to say to those who are still
waiting for the gradual demise of Russia: in this case, we are only worried about one thing -- how not to catch a cold at your
funeral", Putin said on Thursday at a meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club.
That's an interesting question. How are the underclass workers (construction, janitors, street sweepers) wage and social benefits
in the Nordic countries in comparison with China, S. Korea and Japan?
Those are important points. It seems to be a common pattern in neoliberal economics. The answer to "why" that I pieced together
is this: It is all about the oligarchs in combination with their immediate overseas business partners. Typically they own a considerable
portion of the foreign-jurisdiction bonds lent to their own nations. It is a straightforward money laundering arrangement.
The Russian government cannot simply remove the domestic oligarchs**, no more than a US or EU government could do the same
against equivalent local business powers. Rather, they come to a livable equilibrium. Preventing investment from China, EU etc,
is, in addition to defending national sovereignty, also a case of the government defending the domestic oligarchs from foreign
rivals -- rivals who would have greater financial resources with the backing of their own larger home regions.
However, the big difference in the case of Russia, compared to most countries victimized by the neoliberal pattern, is that
the government is powerful enough to quite reliably protect the local oligarchs from their foreign rivals, including pretty much
anything that the foreign rival's home governments can possibly throw at them (i.e. the various regime change toolbox). This protection
is a massively valuable service. For this reason, the Russian government can, if it is halfway decent and perhaps above-average
in managing the difficult internal politics, negotiate a better (i.e. more long-term sustainable) arrangement with the local oligarchs,
in terms of how the citizens are affected.
[** but with all the sanctions etc, this balance of power actually shifts]
You do realize that the Russians have three (3) vaccines, and the Chinese one (1) in late stage 3 trials, with Sputnik V due to
complete theirs next month and to go into serial production shortly. Putin's strategy is to vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate.
Mishustin is busy holding trade fairs promoting the Russian arctic. Business residency for $$RUB$$$. Ski resorts on the Kola peninsula...
While his enemies implode under the second COVID-19 wave....
Thank you Alicia for putting up that interview. I like very much the articles Orlov writes, and many of them I find translated
in French. He has humour, unlike more well known geopolitics analysts. Try this one:
That Valdai speech / Q&A was a master class in governance.
While Putin thinks and talks like a sane man, Western leaders reveal daily that they are now not sanity-capable, not logic-capable,
not sanity-capable, not shame-capable.
Putin shows a commanding grasp of his nation's people, economy, culture, history, environment, geo-strategic needs, impressively
rattling off numbers, statistics, reason, rationale, logic and pragmatic good sense. In all that, he reminds me of that other
great world-class leader, Lee Kuan Yew, whom Kissinger once called the Wise Man of Asia. Russia is fortunate to be governed by a world-class leader and his team today, but good luck to the Great Toilet Bowl Stirrers
in the West.
Putin: "But I would address it more broadly to discuss also an important task of abandoning the practice of unrestrained and unlimited
consumption – overconsumption – in favour of judicious and reasonable sufficiency, when you do not live just for today but also
think about tomorrow..... After all, it is within our power to stop being egoistical, greedy, mindless and wasteful consumers....
We just need to open our eyes, look around us and see that the land, air and water are our common inheritance from above, and
we must learn to cherish them, just as we must cherish every human life, which is precious. This is the only way forward in this
complicated and beautiful world. I do not want to see the mistakes of the past repeated."
Was Putin talking about Russians? or about Americans? Who are those exceptional 4% of the global population who demands to consume 40% of global resources?
Putin: "So, we want the voice of our citizens to be decisive and to see constructive proposals and requests from different social
forces get implemented.... what you call your political system is immaterial...."
It doesn't matter if it is a 'democratic' or 'socialist', but governments that primarily serve the people's needs (not the
elite's greed) will listen to, and DO, the people's will. Out of that, the people give their CONSENT to be governed.
Today, ALL governments use a mix of democratic and socialist tools, eg. China, Russia, UK, USA. But, unlike the West, who boast
that their system is more perfect, China and Russia serve their people primarily.
As Deng said, it does not matter if the cat is black or white.
How much of America's policy's are run out of pure jealousy of Russia and China ?
Rather than being a supper power, they have regressed into immature petulant juvenile tantrums.
Self-distruction and self-harm.
Putin is a "statesman". A few squalid pretenders in the political class here may aspire to that title, but It is not a badge you
pin on yourself, it is awarded by general acclaim. Putin has stepped into the vacuum of world leadership left by the US Idiocracy
when Trump took over with the help of his free market, anti-government cohort, the Koch's, Robert Mercer, Paul Singer, and etc.
Putin is the champion of arms control, multilateralism & cooperation, and following this address certainly, environmentalism.
All attempts to demonize Putin on the part of the neoliberal US oligarchy collapse when the diminutive Russian Mongol begins to
speak. I join in the applause. It is so refreshing to listen to a leader talking sense for a change! I don't care if he is a benevolent
authoritarian anti-democrat, I am so grateful for his intelligent leadership that I salute! And I thank b for bringing this Valdai
event to our attention. The poverty and ideological blindness of our media conglomerates is just outrageous!
"Overconsumption" , in and of itself, isn't the problem. The problem is the distortion of value that capitalist empire
introduces. If the effort required to acquire some thing accurately reflected the effort to produce that thing then consumption
would be naturally self-limiting. After all, who could every day consume products containing two days worth of effort if they
had to work two days for every day worth of their consuming? "Overconsumption" can only occur because the empire expropriates
massive amounts of produced value from its vassals and uses that robbed value to buy off its domestic population. Likewise, capitalism
over-rewards certain portions of the domestic population (typically no-skill "professionals" such as journalists and middle
managers) who act as "insulation" for the elites from the working class.
Note that you don't see "overconsumption" among factory workers in Bangladesh or Malaysia. Child slave laborers working
on African cocoa plantations for your Hershey bars could never be accused of "overconsumption" . It would even be unjust
to accuse Chinese workers, as much as their standards of living have exploded over the last couple decades, of indulging in
"overconsumption" .
When China is successful in replacing the US$ with a scientifically managed "currency basket" for international trade
and currency reserve then the problem of "overconsumption" will correct itself and the Global North will go on a diet.
I am not sure that will be possible though without some "kinetic" events between now and then.
On the role of the state on the economy...and on everything else...things not discussed at Valdai, nor at MoA for that matter,
and which contribute to promote the disintegration of states so wished by the neorreactionaires due the lose of confidence of
citizens in the state-
Making the broth to fascism, on the verge of coming "curfews" to be stablished in Spain ,and other European countries...One
wonders why the hell Thiel & associated, those owners of hedge funds and managers of our personal data on behalf of already fascist
givernment like that in the US, need to follow trying to implant their so wished feudal state where the masses are submitted into
slavery, when all that is this already here...and without complaints from our part...
(...)A recent article by Carlota García Encina, an analyst at the Elcano Royal Institute, described the coronavirus pandemic
as "an opportunity for NATO." Specifically, it stated that "the universality of the coronavirus means that NATO must defend
the 30 as if they were one, going from" one for all and all for one "to" all for all ".
In 2003, and anticipating events like the cheating poker player who anticipates his results, NATO released - it was not
secret - the Urban Operations in the Year 2020 report, a socio-economic analysis of the situation in Europe where it anticipated
a crisis unprecedented in the history of capitalism, where urban poverty "could grow significantly in the future, leading to
possible uprisings, civil unrest and threats to security that will require the intervention of local authorities".
The analysis was only a preview of the crisis that the capitalist system was forging. The United Nations evaluated in 2019,
and counting on the data as of December 31, 2018 (that is, less than a year and a half after the "coronavirus crisis"), that
26.1% of the population in Spain, and 29.5% of those under 18 years of age were in a situation of poverty. That more than 55%
had difficulties to make ends meet, and that 5.4% had severe deficiencies (access to electricity, drinking water, heating,
etc.). Official unemployment was 13.78%, more than double the EU average, and youth unemployment was 30.51% among those under
25 years of age. We insist, before the State of Alarm decreed on March 14, 2020.(...)
(...)Any investigation of an event ("coronavirus crisis") has to start from the circumstances that surround it to obtain accurate
conclusions, and not the other way around. The origin of this crisis that is impoverishing millions of people cannot be limited
to March 14, 2020, because as we have seen, the problem came from long before.
If we add to this that many of the decisions that are transforming society towards a privatist model (locked up at home)
and individualistic (normalizing the suppression of rights) were made based on the criteria of a "committee of experts" that
has not existed, we can never set off an alarm that this is not just a "fucking virus."
But the second question that we need to verify is the deterrent effect of the exercise of those rights which imply these
decisions, because even the left is accepting the official account of the events with astonishing passivity.(...)
(...)Paul Von Hindenburg, who came to power thanks to his family fortune, and with credentials manufactured by that fortune,
ended the German Weimar Constitution of 1919 by signing the Reichstag Fire Decree and ushering in something that at the time
of being approved no one called fascism. In the current context, the succession of regulations of this "new exceptionality"
grants an extraordinary delegation of functions to the police or civil guard officers.
With this empowered power, there is no place to turn back. The curfew that will be established in the next few hours may
one day be eliminated from the BOE, but the meaning of this measure is that mass psychology incorporates a disciplined attitude
towards the reality that surrounds us into its behavior.
And what surrounds us is what we already know. Faced with the question of whether or not we should comply with the restrictions
imposed by the State (confinement, isolation, no meetings, no leisure), we must ask ourselves (as we should have done before
March 14) if we are willing to accept or not that poverty and repression are part of our lives .
The stock market crash of 1987, the savings and loan debacle, the tech bubble, the Asian tigers meltdown, the world "recession"
of 2008 and today's global slump (which preceded the pandemic, a point neglected by the apologists for capitalism,) show that
capitalism doesn't work as advertised, even on its own limited terrain. All claims about how "I" (whether it's Putin, Trump, Boris
Johnson, Macron, a miscellaneous German, whoever) am smart enough to solve the minor details of finance responsible have been
proven by history to be lies. Whether born of sincerely felt megalomania or calculated perfidy doesn't matter, instability and
inequality (which is a bad thing, not a good one, no matter what secret feelings may be harbored,) *are* the normal operations
of market economies.
When you add to that the way the global capitalist system is creating a global environmental crisis, the shamelessness of the
capitalist apologists is staggering. Putin is a fool.
The fraud Proyect seems to think Xi is actively commanding the Chinese economy in such a fashion as to be personally responsible
for, well, everything, conveniently omits that Xi is to be condemned precisely for *not* taking charge the way needed, for advancing
the power of the Chinese bourgeoisie even at the expense of the future of China. But then, Proyect is anticommunist/pro imperialist,
a champion of barbarism using pious phrases.
Lastly, the notion that "overconsumption" is the problem, is basically an attack on the masses of the people. The problem is
the accumulation of capital, of money, which is not consumed, but "invested" for yet more money. There's a fake left website called
Crooked Timer where the oh-so-refined-sensibilities of a clot of academics is offended by the rabble eating meat...but they're
not offended by billionaires having more money than they can spend! This is the same thing. The pursuit of money, profit, is not
overconsumption, but that, not overconsumption, distorts the economy. Starting with vague notions like overconsumption reflects
a deep ideological disorientation...or a commitment to capitalism, imperialism and ultimately barbarism.
Things not discussed at Valdai...on the "eco-scam", how the Spanish IBEX35 giants, private great corporations on energy, transports
and clothing, claim thousands of millions from European Funds ( which come from tax payers money, not from the private bank accounts
of European officials, do not forget...) on the alibi of "energetic transition" and "sustainability"....This is the new scam after
that of rescuing big banks in 2008, for the bailing out and profit of those of always while the population impoverishes at galloping
pace and without any prospect of recovery, austerity seems to be our only prospect...
On the "pipelines war", also discussed at Valdai, of which it is part the alleged "Navalny poisoning" also briefly discussed without
naming that unimportant, at Russian and world level, person, how to explain that Germany must cut off Nord Stream 2 pipeline
development on the grounds of not linking its energetic sovereignty to Russia, and then Europe must link its energetic sovereignty
to Israel, when the EU has been an historical defender of Palestinian people´s rights and with this link Europe will be submitted
to blackmail on the part of Israel anytime it dares criticize Israel´s apartheid measures against Palestinians?
After diplomatically recognizing Israel, the UAE signed a contract through the MRLB with the Israeli company EAPC (which manages
the Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline) to transport crude oil to Europe without having to cross the Suez Canal
Very true jadan, your view on Putin, and every time I read an excerpt or a speech by him I notice he is far above our western
"leaders" with their meaningless chatter and hollow phrases. That's why you will never read the slightest alinea by Putin in der
Spiegel,le Monde ,or le Figaro.The vile venal journo's can't afford to print it and keep up their unmerited credibility at the
same time.Same for Lavrov,Assad,Xi and Khadafi.
American grocery stores - 80 pct of the items are not necessary and are likely harmful to some degree. Junk food outlets, it's
been known for decades that this stuff leads to obesity, diabetes, and who knows what else. The authorities could mandate changes
to low fat, sugar and salt contents that would apply to all of them with no real harm to their business, but it doesn't get done
because the right people get paid off.
Putin stands out like a shining light amongst what are called world leaders.
Some are just bosses of crime syndicates, follow my eyes (USA). Others are just hopeless idiot figure-heads, like Trudeau.
(I am biased, particularly dislike him. Macron is in the same bin.)
Putin's statements about the 'economy' are calculatedly 'judicious' and unassailable. Note, he only says one has to question
the role of the State in the 'economy' in the sense of control of it, with the State as a mega-regulator + law-maker wielding
authority from the top - not as negotiator, as far as I have understood Putin.
That 'State control' should be different in different conditions -- regions, epochs, etc., is a truism. Putin projects the
feel of 'reasonable control' and 'piloting' (encouraging xyz.. or the opposite..) which rejects both despotic, authoritarian stances,
often 'arbitrary' (or experienced as such), as well as, on the other side, anarchy and unbridled profiteering -> racketeering,
monopolies, cartels, fraud, violence, coercion, etc. Some call that capitalism, others gangsterism.
Russia, land + ressource rich, with a 'low' population density, with well-educated ppl (as compared to many others), its 'economy'
at least not plunging or even stagnant (GDP per capita or some such), is well positioned to put forward such 'reasonable' thoughts.
Humanity's dilemma or rather looming disaster sink-hole - see: ressource extraction, trashing the environment, irreversible
tipping points, 'peak oil' (gone out of fashion with fracking in the US), and other over-consumption (sand for ex.), destruction
(soils.. rivers.. ocean.. global warming..), over-population, global warming.. will not be reversed or in any way solved, by reasoned
Putin-type discourse. (see pnyzx at 4, vk 30, psychohistorian 32 and others..)
For sure, Putin's job is not to solve the world's problems but to protect and nurture Russia and its people and he does that
very well.
"while at the same time even Chinese investors are discouraged from investing through opaque regulation and unpredictable Russian
state intervention."
I wonder if they are becoming more open to western investors. Nordstream 2's financing is ~50% European, and this from Oilprice.com:
". . . .No wonder, then, that a number of banks have pledged a total of $9.5 billion in funding for Novatek's second LNG project,
the Arctic LNG 2. According to a Reuters report, the China Development Bank and German Euler Hermes are among the lenders that
have made pledges, and French Pbifrance is yet to decide on the funding. The China Development Bank is, unsurprisingly, the most
generous backer of the $21-billion Arctic LNG 2 project, with $5 billion.
Arctic LNG 2 will have a liquefaction capacity of $19.8 [sic] million tons of LNG annually divided among three liquefaction
trains."
PS - Good to see you posting after you were virtually assaulted last week.
Den lille Abe,
I nowadays start to read comments from the "bottom up" - in order not to fall into the traps of some trolls, some of those I know
by name, and this prevents me to read their comments. In other words, if you continue reading from top down, you don't know who's
comment you read...
Interesting transcript. Simple, no-frills English.
Judging from the English subtitles in Oliver Stone's 4-part series The Putin Interviews, Putin is no stranger to refreshingly
frank, clear and unambiguous communication, No wonder Russians love him.
Huge contrast with the mendacity of pseudo-Christian ratbags masquerading as Western Leaders on the world stage. Evidence of
the Scum Mo Government's laughably opaque and unaccountable corruption is seeping out of every crack in the facade of what passes
for 'democracy' in Oz.
China is looking at Russia like a hungry pork chop.
See Bear and the Dragon by Tom Clancy. But China has better tech and Russia *still* has
better snipers.
NachoLiebor , 36 minutes ago
Toria Nuland and Hilldawg tried to goad Russia into a war with the EU and US over the
Ukraine.
So, what's your point?
Revolution_starts_now , 32 minutes ago
operation "Jumping Jack Flash". Why should Trump not unleash some fica warrants on
Biden?
Even if he wins he is doomed before he takes office.
They did it to Trump, why not pass along the favor?
Magnum , 40 minutes ago
Highly recommended is a look at The Magnitsky Act
Specifically the role of Bill Browder, his history and involvement. Piraya Films created
this and it was banned. I believe you can still watch it. Obama admin was a complete
disaster. It is in everyone's interest to get along with Russians, who are different
culturally but mean no harm to us.
the Amish are compelled to pit Caucasian against Caucasian. The browns are easier to
control.
NachoLiebor , 44 minutes ago
Never again. Never ever again.
The people (and I use the term loosely) responsible for this fabricated Russian witch
hunt
against President Trump need to be put somewhere they can't hurt anyone ever again.
Ideology in Practice , 49 minutes ago
The crimes against Kavanaugh and Flynn were perhaps more heinous than the ones directly
carried out against Trump.
But he should seek vengeance at this point since every person they injure is a way of
injuring him too.
NachoLiebor , 17 minutes ago
Flynn was a lure and the [DS] swallowed him whole.
Xena fobe , 25 minutes ago
Republican and Trump supporter, Eric Early is challenging Adam Schiff. Early has a chance.
People are furious about rioting, covid lock downs, the homeless, etc.
Didymus , 40 minutes ago
" Authoritarian liberals "
Nimrod doesn't understand the difference between authoritarianism and totalitarianism.
Authority is good. Parents have authority. Marxist regimes are totalitarian. The USA is a
totalitarian neoliberal empire.
milo_hoffman , 13 minutes ago
It will continue and continue and continue until some very high ranking prep walks happen
or some people are put up against the wall.
Zorba's idea , 20 minutes ago
"When one chooses to decieve, what a tangled web they weave." That's as modestly as one
could explain the mountainous corruption and Tyrranical Lawlessness our constitutional
republic has been subjected too. Next comes Robespierre, I suppose. Jefferson's tree is
parched.
DonGenaro , 23 minutes ago
I've known for some 30+ years that the USG had devolved into a glorified crime
syndicate
(because nothing is beneath those that start wars for profit ).
Russiagate just made it obvious to all but the most willfully-ignorant.
bshirley1968 , 2 minutes ago
" All anybody (if they're a Democrat) has to do to escape accountability and justice for
very serious crimes is to shout "Russia!"
All anybody (if their republican) has to do to escape accountability and justice for any
crime or delinquency of responsibility is shout "Fake News!"
It's an old game......they call it the "blame game"......and it cuts both ways.
Just sayin'.
cjones1 , 16 minutes ago
The fabricated Russiagate investigation was a conspiracy used against the Trump campaign
and his administration by Obama administration officials who enga grrr ed in official
misconduct, corruption, and worse to keep a lid on investigating rampant national security
violations associated with the Clintons, Bidens, and who knows who engaged in money grubbing,
"pay to play" diplomacy.
The Obama administration's deal with the Iranians provided ample cash for Gen. Soleimani
to post bounties on U.S. personnel.
The Democratic party and their sympathizers in the MSM and Social Media have become a
clear and present danger to our 1st Amendment rights in enjoying a free press.
Good thing Trump came along because this undermining of the United States government by
the Democratic party's supporters in and outside of government is coming into clear view.
RNC's national spokesperson Liz Harrington battled CNN's Christiane Amanpour for
refusing to engage with allegations of corruption against Joe Biden and his family after years
of hyping unverified Trump-Russia allegations.
"Why don't you want to report this? This is one of the most powerful families in
Washington," she asked. "And you're okay with our interests being sold out to profit Joe Biden
and his family, while we're suffering during a pandemic from communist China?"
Russia is done with the European Union. At last week's Valdai Discussion Forum Russian
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made this quite clear with this statement.
Those people in the West who are responsible for foreign policy and do not understand the
necessity of mutually respectable conversation–well, we must simply stop for a while
communicate with them. Especially since Ursula von der Leyen states that geopolitical
partnership with current Russia's leadership is impossible. If this is the way they want it,
so be it. (H/T Andrei Martyanov)
Lavrov's statements echo a number of statements made in recent months by Russian leadership
that there is no opportunity for diplomacy possible with the United States.
We can now add the European Union to that list. Pepe
Escobar's latest piece goes over Lavrov's comments about the European Union and they are
devastating, as devastating as when he and Putin described the U.S. as " Not
Agreement Capable " a few years ago.
Lavrov reiterated this with the following comments at Valdai last week.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/zV_W3b_4G50
But as badly as the U.S. has acted in recent years in international relations, unilaterally
abrogating treaty after treaty, nominally with the goal of remaking them to be more inclusive,
Lavrov's upbraiding of the current leadership of the European Union is far worse.
Because they have gone along with, if not openly assisted, every U.S.-backed provocation
against Russia for their own advantage. From Ukraine to MH-17, to Skripal to now Belarus and
the ridiculous Navalny poisoning, the EU has proved to be worse than the U.S.
Because there can be no doubt the U.S. views Russia as an antagonist. We're quite clear
about this. But Europe plays off U.S. aggression, hiding in the U.S.'s skirts while telling
Russia, usually through German Chancellor Angela Merkel, "Be patient, we are reluctantly going
along with this." But really they're happy about it.
You do not negotiate with monkeys, you treat them nicely, you make sure that they are not
abused, but you don't negotiate with them, same as you don't negotiate with toddlers. They
want to have their Navalny as their toy–let them. I call on Russia to start wrapping
economic activity up with EU for a long time. They buy Russia's hydrocarbons and hi-tech,
fine. Other than that, any other activity should be dramatically reduced and necessity of the
Iron Curtain must not be doubted anymore.
And the truth is that Russia is dealing with monkeys in the U.S. and toddlers in the EU. And
Martanyov's right that it's time Putin et.al. simply turn their backs on the West and move
forward.
Lavrov's statements at Valdai were momentous. They sent a clear signal that if Europe wants
a future relationship with Russia they will have to change how they do business.
The problem is however, that the EU is suffused with arrogance on the eve of the U.S.
election, mistakenly thinking Joe Biden will beat Trump.
Merkel has betrayed Putin at every turn since 2013. And Germany's appalling behavior over
the Alexei Navalny poisoning was the last straw.
That what was another sabotage effort to stop the Nordstream 2 pipeline and add grist to
Trump's re-election mill was given even a cursory glance by the highest levels of the German
government was insulting enough.
That Merkel allowed her Foreign Minister Heiko Maas to run his mouth on the subject, and
then throw the decision to sanction Russia (again) over this to the EU parliament and give it
any kind of political play was truly treacherous.
Germany has taken the lead in advancing "European integration" and therefore prioritizes
Eastern European member states that push for a more aggressive stance towards Russia.
Economic connectivity with Russia is no longer an instrument for building trust and
cooperation in the pan-European space, rather it was intended to strengthen Germany's
position as the center of the EU. Moscow should work with Berlin to construct Nord Stream 2,
but not forget why Nord Stream 1 was built while South Stream was blocked.
This is a point I've been making for years. Nordstream 2 is a political tool for Germany to
reroute gas coming in from Russia which Merkel can use as a political lever over Poland and the
Visegrads.
And it is the Poles who have consistently shot themselves in the foot by not reconciling
their relationship with Russia, banding together with its Eastern European brothers and
securing an independent source of Russian gas. Putin and Gazprom would happily provide it to
them, if they would but ask.
But they don't and instead turn to the U.S. to be their protectors from both Russia and
Germany, rather than conduct themselves as a sovereign nation.
That said, I think Mr. Diesen misses the larger point here. It is true Germany under Merkel
is looking to expand its control over the EU and set itself up as a superpower for the next
century. Putin himself acknowledged
that possibility at Valdai. That may be more to dig at the U.S. and warn Europe rather than
him actually believing it.
Because under Merkel and the EU Germany is losing its dynamism. And it may even lose control
over the EU if it isn't careful. If you look at the current situation from a German perspective
you realize that Germany's mighty export business is surrounded by hostile foreign powers.
Russia -- Merkel cut off the country from Russian markets. Even though some of the trade
with Russia has returned since sanctions over Crimea went into place in 2014 she hasn't
fought the U.S.'s hyper-aggressive use of sanctions to improve Germany's position.
The U.K. -- French President Emmanuel Macron looks like he's engineered a No-Deal Brexit
with Boris Johnson which will put up major export barriers for Germany into the U.K. cutting
them off from that market.
The U.S. – Trump has all but declared Germany an enemy and when he wins a second
term will tighten the screws on Merkel even tighter.
China – They know that the incoming Great Reset, which will have its Jahr Null
event in Europe likely next year, is all about consolidating power into Europe and sucking it
away from the U.S., a process Trump is dead-set against.
However, don't think for a second that the Commies that run the EU and the World Economic
Forum are teaming up with the Commies in China. Oh no, they have bigger plans than that.
And what's been pretty clear to me is Europe's delusions that it can subjugate the world
under its rubric, forcing its rules and standards on the rest of us, including China, again
allowing the U.S. to act as its proxy while it tries to maintain its standing.
I know what you're thinking. That sounds completely ludicrous.
And you're right, it is ludicrous.
But that doesn't mean it isn't true. This is clearly the mindset we're dealing with in The
Davos Crowd. They engineered a mostly-fake pandemic to accelerate their plans to remake the
world economy by burning it down.
The multi-polar world will see the fading U.S. and U.K. band together while Russia and China
continue to stitch together Asia into a coherent economic sphere. Trump is right to pull the
U.S. out of Central Asia and has gotten nothing but grief from the U.S. establishment while
Europe, through NATO, continues trying to expand to the Russian border, now with openly backing
the attempted coup in Belarus.
This was the dominant theme at Valdai and the focus of Putin's opening remarks.
Blaming Russia seems to be today's version of the dog ate my homework.
ariadnatheo, 1 day ago
I am disappointed that Russia once again interfered in the US elections without using
Novichok.
TrishArch, 1 day ago
Always Russia's Fault. Little wonder no one listens to biden.
The_Celotajs, 1 day ago
Like Russian President Vladimir Putin once said, Russia has no need to interfere in the
United States Elections when they have the Democrats doing it to themselves.
brianeg, 15 hours ago
There was of course an obvious Russian connection and that was the $3.5 million given by the
wife of the Mayor of Moscow to Hunter. Was this a birthday present or what?
Doodle_Dandy, 1 day ago
One wonders when Masha and the Bear will get the blame?
Many of us read The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry when we were
children and remember what the main character said: "It's a question of discipline. When
you've finished washing and dressing each morning, you must tend your planet. It's very
tedious work, but very easy."
I am sure that we must keep doing this "tedious work" if we want to preserve our
common home for future generations. We must tend our planet.
The subject of environmental protection has long become a fixture on the global
agenda. But I would address it more broadly to discuss also an important task of
abandoning the practice of unrestrained and unlimited consumption – overconsumption
– in favour of judicious and reasonable sufficiency, when you do not live just for
today but also think about tomorrow.
We often say that nature is extremely vulnerable to human activity. Especially when
the use of natural resources is growing to a global dimension. However, humanity is not
safe from natural disasters, many of which are the result of anthropogenic interference.
By the way, some scientists believe that the recent outbreaks of dangerous diseases are a
response to this interference. This is why it is so important to develop harmonious
relations between Man and Nature.
No cheating please. Guess. Who said the above?
Please let us know your first guess in the comments.
Wow! What a mind blunder! Of course, it was VVP. Too much reading! Ha!! Pepe's article
has its own merits. Even more important is
this revealing editorial , "How Russophobia Wrought Death of the United States:"
"The surprise election in 2016 of Donald Trump to the White House so disturbed the
political class that it was compelled to delegitimize his presidency by alleging that it
was due to Russian interference. The relentless and irrational Russophobia to undermine
Trump by his domestic political enemies has only transpired to fatally weaken American
global power. The political squabbling and infighting has wreaked havoc on the moral
authority and legitimacy of American institutions of governance. The legislative
government, the presidency, the judiciary, the intelligence apparatus, the legacy media,
and so on. Every supposed pillar of American democracy has been eroded over the past four
years with alarming speed.
"A big part of this precipitous demise is due to Russophobia: the relentless sowing of
doubt and confusion in American institutions, primarily the presidency, with insinuations
of Russian interference. In their attempts to delegitimize Trump, his domestic enemies
among the U.S. establishment have ended up delegitimizing public esteem of American
democracy. How paradoxical! America's own worst enemy turns out to be itself ." [My
Emphasis]
I've long maintained that the enemies of the USA and its people are ALL Domestic
and have been from the outset. Lots of truth fit into that short essay!
The tone sounds like Vladimir Putin in English translation and the timing of B's post
suggests he said it during his closing speech at this year's Valdai Club meetings. Putin
has always been keen on conservation issues and often spends what free time he has in short
camping adventures. The Siberian tiger conservation program is a pet project of his.
The other possibility might be Chinese President Xi Jinping as the ideas of modest
consumption or consumption that fulfills a person's needs and of humans living in harmony
with nature appear in the speech, and these ideas have been incorporated into recent
Chinese government policies. The drive to eradicate poverty not only achieves one goal
(fulfilling people's needs) but also helps achieve the other, as impoverished communities
are often driven by forces beyond their control into marginal areas where they end up
upsetting the ecology and destroying in order to survive. Among other things his also
brings exotic pathogens in contact with humans through the disturbance of plant and animal
life (insects in particular) and the consumption of bushmeat and its trade.
Significantly in recent years much of the Earth's land surface as measured by satellites
that has become greener has been in China and India as a result of large-scale conservation
and tree-planting schemes and better use of land. This has sometimes involved relocating
entire rural communities in parts of China to areas where they can access services that
help to improve their lives. An example might be a community I read about recently that
lived on top of a small mountain or plateau where the only access to schools and markets
was through a winding series of narrow staircases cut into the mountain's sides. One child
did not start going to school until she was 11 years old because her mother was afraid that
she'd fall while using the stairs. The local authority later built a bridge connecting the
mountain to lower areas, cutting travel time from 3 hours to 1 hour. Recently the entire
community agreed to relocate and its old village on top of the mountain is to be preserved
and developed as a tourist attraction.
Note that not all the questions and answers after the speech have been transcribed
yet.
This is another of Mr.Putins masterpieces of common sense and analysis, courteously and
clearly telling truth as no global 'leader' even could let alone would.
It is an exceptionally important and wide-ranging analysis of the nature of humans, the
planet, and governance.
"... Vyacheslav Volodin, Speaker of the State Duma believes that Navalny has been too outspoken: "This guy is a competely shamless fraud." And pointing out how much was done to save his unworthy ass: From the pilots who emergency-landed the plane in Tomsk; to the doctors and nurses who fought ferociously to intubate him; to the President himself who personally gave permission to fly this recidivist to a prestigious German clinic Dante should have designed a special circle in Hell for such an ingrate, who now spits on the entire Russian nation. ..."
"... Putin's Press Secretary Peskov: "We should clarify that CIA specialists are working with Navalny, and give him various instructions. And moreover, this is not the first time, either." ..."
"... Navalny was upset by Peskov's words, he blustered back saying that Peskov is skating on very thin ice [little joke there], and said he planned to sue the man for libel: "He must prove that I actually have ties with American intelligence." Well, that's easy: Just ask Pompeo. ..."
"... Akopov himself believes that Navalny is more than just a "CIA project", he is more like a "joint venture" with all the Westie agencies. And this project also includes the Russian Neo-Liberal elite and the Westernizing section of the Oligarchy. ..."
"... Everybody who has studied Navalny and Navalniada, know what is actually going on here: Navalny and his neo-Liberal kreakle supporters represent that class of bourgeois intelligentsia who came along maybe 5 or 10 years too late to participate in the Yeltsinite plundering of the Russian people. ..."
"... They are only millionaires now, but they want to be billionaires. [yalensis: Although some evil tongues claim that Navalny has actually lost his fortune somehow and is fleeing from his creditors; hence the current crisis.] Putin stands in the way of the kreakles because he (and his caste of functionaries) have somewhat curbed the openly pirate proclivities of the Russian bourgeoisie; partially nationalized them, made them go to Church, and forced them to follow certain rules. ..."
Этот Германн, --
продолжал
Томский, -- лицо
истинно
романическое: у
него профиль
Наполеона, а
душа
Мефистофеля. Я
думаю, что на
его совести по
крайней мере
три злодейства.
Как вы
побледнели!..
"This Hermann fellow," Tomsky continued, -- "a truly romantic-era personality, the profile
of a Napoleon, and the soul of Mephistopheles. I believe that on his conscience lie at least
three crimes.
Oh my, you just turned pale!" -- Pushkin, The Queen of Spades "And that's not even counting
KirovLes!" Tomsky should have added.
Dear Readers: Today concluding my review of this piece by reporter/analyst Petr Akopov.
Where we left off, we saw that Navalny may have overstepped the line (just a tad) by
directly accusing Putin of poisoning him.
According to my blog-commenter James, Navalny is now busy on the talk-show circuit, doing a
full Ginsburg on all the imperialist propaganda media.
Describing what it feels like to be poisoned – "Ow! it hurt so much!" in full
pathos.
And Westie Navalny Goes Va Banque – burghers no doubt lapping up this farce because
it's more entertaining than the circus. –Meanwhile, back in Russia, members of the
government are not very happy with Navalny's wild improvised performance.
Vyacheslav Volodin, Speaker of the State Duma believes that Navalny has been too
outspoken: "This guy is a competely shamless fraud." And pointing out how much was done to save
his unworthy ass: From the pilots who emergency-landed the plane in Tomsk; to the doctors and
nurses who fought ferociously to intubate him; to the President himself who personally gave
permission to fly this recidivist to a prestigious German clinic Dante should have designed a
special circle in Hell for such an ingrate, who now spits on the entire Russian
nation.
For 7 long days, Navalny lay in a fake-coma does that work for the 7 card? Furthermore, in a
no-shit kind of epiphany, Volodin opines that this whole poisoning scenario was scripted by the
Westies: "In order to create tension within Russia, and to prevent Belorussia from asserting
its sovereignty." Captain Obvious concludes with: "Navalny himself clearly works with the
special services and organs of goverments of [various] Western countries."
After such a shocking utterance, the Kremlin felt the need to clarify: Uh, it's not so much
that Navalny works for the CIA; as the CIA works for him! Uh huh, that makes perfect sense. As
comedian Yakov Smirnov might say: In America, Secret Agent works for CIA. But in Russia, CIA
works for him!
Putin's Press Secretary Peskov: "We should clarify that CIA specialists are working with
Navalny, and give him various instructions. And moreover, this is not the first time,
either."
Navalny was upset by Peskov's words, he blustered back saying that Peskov is skating on
very thin ice [little joke there], and said he planned to sue the man for libel: "He must prove
that I actually have ties with American intelligence." Well, that's easy: Just ask
Pompeo.
Akopov himself believes that Navalny is more than just a "CIA project", he is more like
a "joint venture" with all the Westie agencies. And this project also includes the Russian
Neo-Liberal elite and the Westernizing section of the Oligarchy.
They are all in this together as partners. [yalensis: And these knuckle-heads couldn't come
up with anybody better than Navalny as their Leader?] Akopov would not even want to venture a
guess, which one of these "partners" holds the "controlling interest" in Mr.
Navalny's person.
Although it is plausible that shares might be redistributed during Navalny's stay in
Germany. The question du jour is whether or not Navalny will return to Russia. Gentlemen and
Countesses, you are free to place your bets on this one. Akopov believes that, yes, Navalny not
only will, but must, return to Russia. Why? To complete his Quest. What is his Quest? To change
the internal political structure and geopolitical vector of Russia.
Here is how Navalny himself describes the pathos of the current situation: "A struggle is
taking place between those who stand for Freedom, and those who wish to push us backwards. Into
the Past, into that strange Orthodox imitation of the Soviet Union, only decorated with
Capitalism and Oligarchs." "I win!" Hm I hate to admit it, but Navalny's words actually have a
ring of truth to them, which is why, if they were to come out of the mouth of a real
freedom-fighter, then they might bear some weight.
But you know what people say: If you want to sell a lie, then you have to sprinkle it with
truth.
Everybody who has studied Navalny and Navalniada, know what is actually going on here:
Navalny and his neo-Liberal kreakle supporters represent that class of bourgeois intelligentsia
who came along maybe 5 or 10 years too late to participate in the Yeltsinite plundering of the
Russian people.
They regret this, and wish for an opportunity to make their own fortunes, on the backs of
said Russian people.
They are only millionaires now, but they want to be billionaires. [yalensis: Although
some evil tongues claim that Navalny has actually lost his fortune somehow and is fleeing from
his creditors; hence the current crisis.] Putin stands in the way of the kreakles because he
(and his caste of functionaries) have somewhat curbed the openly pirate proclivities of the
Russian bourgeoisie; partially nationalized them, made them go to Church, and forced them to
follow certain rules.
This is what drives Navalny and his ilk crazy. They want it all, and they want it now!
Putin, for his part, in his endless balancing act, trying to maintain two incompatible things,
as Pushkin might have said (=capitalism and Russian patriotism) has scrambled to win the
support of the patriotic bourgeoisie and the clergy, the two pillars of the Lost Russia he
strives to re-build.
Navalny again:
"A part of society repeats Putin's rhetoric about how the country needs to follow its own
path. They are talking about restoring a kind of monarchy, based on certain spiritual values.
And against them stand such people as myself, who consider this to be a lie and hypocrisy, and
who are convinced that Russia must develop only according to the European model."
Ah, Navalny! You had me at "monarchy" but lost me at "European model" – you wretch!
"It's curtains for you, buster!"
Akopov, it goes without saying, is one of those intellectuals whom Navalny despises as
supporting the "Putinite" model of Russian development: Rely on a strong Russian state (which
Navalny mockingly calls an "imitation of the USSR"), lean on the Church, develop one's own
geo-political vector, etc.
Navalny and his crowd regard these types as complete zombies, whose proposed model is
worthless.
But the only thing that Navalny counter-punts are equally worn-out ideas of what Lenin would
call "the highest stages of capitalism" and which would, in reality, demote Russia to the level
of an American colony.
Same as the rest of Europe! Akopov concedes, however, that Navalny's "vision", if one could
call it that, of a European Russia imbued with "democratic values" does, in fact, enjoy mass
support -- among the Muscovite intelligentsia.
This kreakle mass [Akopov does not say, but there are estimates that the Navalnyite program
enjoys as much as 30% support among the residents of Moscow, not so much in the rest of the
country] believe in exactly the same things that Navalny does.
And have been "fighting" for this program (in one way or another) for the past 30 years.
This section of the Russian bourgeois intelligentsia punts against Putin's "national
project" and now awaits eagerly for the return of their poisoned, and poisonous, hero. [THE
END]
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the General Services Administration (GSA)
undermined the Trump transition team by violating a memorandum of understanding between the
Trump transition team and the GSA - when they complied with requests from the FBI and special
counsel Robert Mueller's office to provide private records on members of Trump's team ,
according to a Senate report released on Friday.
The majority staff report from both the Senate Committee on Finance and the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs claims that officials from both the FBI and
Mueller's office " secretly sought and received access to the private records of Donald J.
Trump's presidential transition team, Trump for America, Inc. "
"They did so," the report continues, "despite the terms of a memorandum of understanding
between the Trump transition team and the General Services Administration.. . -- the
executive agency responsible for providing services to both candidates' transition teams --
that those records were the transition team's private property that would not be retained at
the conclusion of the transition."
According to the report, the GSA - without notifying the White House - reached out
to the FBI following Michael Flynn's resignation as national security adviser and offered to
retain records from the Trump transition team in early 2017. The records compiled eventually
made their way into Mueller's office, according to the report.
"At bottom," continues the report, " the GSA and the FBI undermined the transition process
by preserving Trump transition team records contrary to the terms of the memorandum of
understanding, hiding that fact from the Trump transition team, and refusing to provide the
team with copies of its own records."
" These actions have called into question the GSA's role as a neutral service provider, and
those doubts have consequences ," the report reads. "Future presidential transition teams must
have confidence that their use of government resources and facilities for internal
communications and deliberations -- including key decisions such as nominations, staffing, and
significant policy changes -- will not expose them to exploitation by third parties, including
political opponents ."
1 play_arrow
911bodysnatchers322 , 4 hours ago
1) Was this illegal surveillance?
2) Was this spying before a FISA warrant was given?
3) Did this occur before the special council was incepted (ie before may 2017)?
4) Which attorneys on his team requested this information?
5) Which US employees at GSA approved the FBI's request?
6) Why did the GSA approve the request, despite the MOU from TTT?
7) Will the employees cry out for mommy or for God when they are executed for treason
(participants in seditious conspiracy against a lawful president)?
8) If they aren't executed, will president trump please give any us citizen a pre-pardon
for carrying out justice against these employees after they are fired, and the sum total of
their assets seized and divested to the us taxpayer base and they are homeless?
Thank you congressmen. Reclaiming our time
3O4jF"> Macho Latte play_arrow Mzhen , 5 hours ago
November 29, 2019 – The history of Flynn prosecutor Brandon Van Grack – from
the Special Counsel's Office to the prosecution of Flynn
It can't be repeated enough...the Weissman "investigation" and Clinton campaign were doing
exactly what President Trump was falsely accused of...using disinformation obtained from
RUSSIAN sources (the Steele Dossier) to influence an election and undermine the peaceful
transfer of power.
booboo , 4 hours ago
more specifically they knew the charge would not stick because you can't charge someone
for obstruction for calling out your prosecutor.
4whatitsworth , 3 hours ago
Mr Muller please confirm that the name of the firm that produced the Christopher Steele
dossier was Fusion GPS.. Muller hmmm Fusion GPS "I'm not familiar with that," - what a lying
peice of ****!
Metastatic Debt , 3 hours ago
Feds only solve crimes they manufacture or entrap for political gain, gain internally for
promos or externally for glory.
That agency was founded by a black mailing, cross dressing weirdo.
No wonder it's corrupt. That was Its core makeup.
UserLevel9000 , 4 hours ago
He was a frontman. He didn't even read the report. Didn't you see the interview?
Short of killing him, our government exhausted all resources in order to remove Trump.
What's the term? Ah yes, a ******* coup.
Im 44yo but I hope I live long enough for the historians to connect the dots and write the
story. Much like JFK, all involved will be dead and will never pay for their crimes against
this country and attack on one of the most important protections we have as a Republic- a
peaceful transfer of power.
Mzhen , 4 hours ago
Who, specifically, has his name on the Mueller team letter to the GSA. Brandon Van Grack.
The same prosecutor who spent years persecuting General Flynn, before being forced to
withdraw from the case. The same Brandon Van Grack who was part of a failed sting operation
against George Papadopoulos.
Totally_Disillusioned , 3 hours ago
The ENTIRE bureaucracy was against Trump and made EVERY EFFORT to sabotage, obstruct and
deny President Trump's full authority over the Executive Branch.
High Vigilante , 4 hours ago
Another scandal by globalists and Demsheviks every single day. Each worse than
Watergate.
Contagion Deleverage , 4 hours ago
The implications of Mueller having access to SECRET information pertaining to Donal Trump
is remarkable and powerful. I believe that this is the source for leaking important and
damaging information on Trump, his closest advisors, and critically, their plans and
capabilities!
Reaper , 4 hours ago
The prosecutor was the criminal.
Secret Weapon , 5 hours ago
The trash in DC really hates the average American. I guess they meant it when they called
us "deplorable".
chubbar , 3 hours ago
When you say "GSA did this" or "FBI did that", you are being lazy in your reporting. There
are actual PEOPLE who made those decisions, not some nameless entity. What has to happen is
that these actual people need to be found, charged and tried for these crimes. Otherwise,
let's just call everything legal if no laws are to be enforced and quit bringing up the
details of their treachery.
ConanTheContrarian1 , 1 hour ago
Ever read a gov't document? "It was decided....", "It seemed best....", etc. NEVER "I
decided" or "Joe and Maxine decided". Ten thousand coverups and misdirections per
department.
getsometoo , 4 hours ago
How do these bureautards get off thinking they're going dispose a duly elected President?
Seriously, don't they understand the people would never allow it. What would it take for the
people to utterly wipe out the FBI? To execute every damn one of them for treason? There's
only around 35-40,000 of them. We could hang every damn one of them in a weekend.
Sonofabitches. These people must absolutely lose their jobs. Then the guilty leadership must
hang.
Sigh. , 4 hours ago
So. GSA is Deep State. Never would've figured that.
Barrock , 4 hours ago
Even the GSA is part of the swamp! Who would've figured? The USA needs to cut the annual
budget hugely. The government needs a complete rehaul.
Walking Turtle , 3 minutes ago
Seems Mr. Trump is positioned now to do pretty much that.
His recent creation per EO of GSA "Schedule F" employment lays waste to the "non-fireable"
Senior Executive Service's stranglehold on Executive Branch administrative process. Sched F
appointees are strictly at-will, serving at the sole pleasure of the President. Failure to
serve as directed carries severe consequences, including jail time.
Moreover, a Sched F appointee can reportedly be placed above the SES wonk at the head of a
recalcitrant agency. (Currently that means ALL of them - 80+ iirc.) Puts the BRIT-LOYAL
Senior Executive Service under actual Constitution-loyal Executive Branch supervision.
Betsy and Thomas d of American Intelligence Media (.mp3 podcast @link) have plenty good
reason LOVE this, as does YT. The SES Policy Wonk Armee, otoh,
does not .
Panic in DC. Long time coming; HERE NOW. DC-region dentists are gonna' clean right UP with
all the gnashing of teeth and consequent self-inflicted damage to the dentition of those
Swamp Rats imvho. And that is all. 0{;-)o[
Bigboot , 36 minutes ago
What happened to all the expos\'es of the Hunter Laptop we were told were coming out?
Isn't it amazing, stultifying and incredibly nightmarish that we are heading into the
election and NOT ONE of the Democrat criminals has been indicted? My God, there's
something
really rotten in the state of America (cf Shakespeare, I know America is not a state).
Total corruption at all levels. God save us from the Government and all its rotten
agencies.
gcjohns1971 , 40 minutes ago
Government does not believe in Democracy or in the Republic.
They work for other masters. And they assert exclusive right to choose which ones.
Good questions to ask include:
Which ones?
On what basis is their choosing?
What is in it for the rest of us?
Why should we continue to enable a "government" on such a self-serving basis?
Leguran , 44 minutes ago
These actions have called into question the GSA's role as a neutral service provider, and
those doubts have consequences?????
No ****! Who the hell is supposed to trust government when those in top positions feel
free to do exactly what they please. That MOU was an agreement, the government's word.
Republicans in the Senate, you are all dirt bags with no values. At least the Democrats do
not claim to have values.
That court order directed him to stop claiming the "Russian troll" company, Comcord (
their ads were typical clickbait , not 'meddling') was connected to the Russian
government - because he had produced no evidence at all to substantiate that.
He also would have had access to information that casted serious doubt on the alleged
hacking.. nevermind 'collusion' - they NEVER had any evidence of a hack.
How do we know, apart from the lack of any credible evidence ever actually produced?
Well, for one, the testimony of the president of CrowdStrike which Adam Schiff
deliberately suppressed during impeachment.
is a game and tech journalist from the US. Aside from writing for RT, he hosts the podcast
Micah and The Hatman, and is an independent comic book writer. Follow Micah at @MindofMicahC
It's safe to say that Hunter Biden, the son of former vice president and current
presidential candidate Joe Biden, is having a rough time. After the contents of his laptop,
including details of his international business dealings, came into the public domain, it
transpired that the computer had been the
subject of a subpoena in a money-laundering investigation. Now, former business partners
are beginning to turn on him, and one of them has said that he's turning "
everything " over to the FBI and the Senate. Another one claimed that Biden was
consulted with regard to Hunter's foreign deals.
During the second and final presidential debate, Biden made a key mistake when it came to
addressing these issues. Instead of simply stating that he had no comment to make, he decided
to
blame Russia for the fact that Hunter's emails had been leaked from the laptop's hard
drive. Ah yes. So we're back to that old 'reliable' narrative. I'm assuming that Joe may have
missed the embarrassment that was the Mueller
investigation .
Maybe Biden doesn't like Russia. Whether he does or doesn't is inconsequential. It is a very
bad idea to blame his problems on a foreign power. In fact, it's not the proper behavior of
someone who wants to be president. Here's the truth. Hunter Biden's dealings across the pond
likely had some issues. It's hard to say exactly what these might be, because there's an
ongoing investigation. I don't think that Biden is so dumb that he doesn't realize that this
hurts his chances of the presidency. However, there is a big lack of responsibility here.
Blaming what's happening on anyone except Hunter is a bit silly. I'd even argue that it's
incredibly irresponsible.
What's even more obvious is the desperation. Biden and the Democrats in general want this
story, whatever it is, to be squashed. It's why you have seen so little coverage on
left-leaning TV networks. If Donald Trump Jr was in a similar situation it would be a story on
every single one of them, and likely the subject of a Don Lemon lecture or five.
What Biden may not realize is that when voters see something being blamed on Russia, they
tend to roll their eyes. It invokes the image of Boris and Natasha grabbing a laptop in the
hopes of finally grabbing the moose and squirrel. It's cartoonish. And what happens if the
worst-case scenario for Biden comes true and his son is indicted for something? Well, at that
point it's more than just a ' Russian disinformation campaign' . It's very real
indeed.
And this is where Biden could end up with plenty of egg on his face. If he and his son are
in trouble, then no amount of blaming another country is going to change that. And it wouldn't
surprise me if this becomes a major factor in the upcoming election. Why would you vote for
someone who can't, or won't, take responsibility for what is going on with their own
family?
What Biden needs to do at this point is come clean on what his level of involvement was, and
simply be a dad to his son instead of a politician. Then again, Biden has been a politician
longer than he's been a father, so it's hard saying which hat he plans on wearing for the next
two weeks.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
MakeAmericaFree 1 day ago The world is witness
to the blatant corruption and deceit at the highest levels of American government. Trump has
tried to clean things up and he has a lot more left to do. We should wish him well in those
efforts. I am starting to think Attorney General William Barr has capitulated though. Where are
all the indictments, Mr. Barr? Reply 14 ariadnatheo MakeAmericaFree 1 day ago Barr? The CIA
offspring? He does what he is told, not necessarily by his official boss SJMan333 1 day ago If
Joe is running against another regular Republican politician, Hunter Biden's corruption would
have been a non-issue. The US politics is a cesspool of corruption, money laundering, sex and
all forms of moral decay. Each politician is in it for self-serving purposes. Position, power,
money, etc etc. A big section of naive Americans believe their politicians are there to serve
the people's interests. Politicians from both sides of the aisle have a tacit understanding NOT
to cross a red line. They will never accuse their opponents of corruption. 'You make your
money, I make mine.' is their omerta. They put up huge shows of debating with each other in
public purportedly in defense of the people's welfare and benefits. Behind closed door, they
celebrate their loots from the nation's tax money and illegal brides from businesses in
camaraderie together. I don't like Trump. But his exposure of the alleged crimes of the Biden
family is something to be applauded, even he's doing it for self-serving purposes. DukeLeo 1
day ago Joe Biden is using Hillary's methods. Not wise. You don't use the same fraud twice.
shadow1369 DukeLeo 1 day ago Well the CIA have used the same lies for 75 years. White Elk
shadow1369 1 day ago Must be a bit worn out by now. Reply 2 shadow1369 White Elk 1 day ago You
would think so, you would also think that everybody would have seen through them by now, but
not at all. The CIA orchestrated coup in Kiev used exactly the same methods as the one they
orchestrated in Iran in 1953. The details of Operation Ajax are now publicly available, but few
bother to look into it. allan Kaplan White Elk 1 day ago Not worn out but perfected! Lois
Winters 1 day ago I am not surprised at anything Biden says after seeing his performance in
these debates. He is obviously a tired old man and relies on sheafs of notes with the same old
so called empathic statements to the citizens of America. It is a wonder that he's a
presidential candidate at all. After all the original candidates finally were eliminated, no
one but these two want this thankless job. allan Kaplan 1 day ago Now that the shameless "mind
managers" the msm propagandists are in the opens, we, the people (an old cliche) must start
making noises of holding these anti-American mouth pieces accountable. Compel to change the FCC
Rules to take away their broadcasting licensees, penalized those self proclaimed journalists of
zero integrities, jailed most of them, and never again allow such ego bloated nincompoops ever
to come near the radio and TV stations and banned them from entering any newspaper offices as
well. Other punitive measures must be enacted to deface and disregard these paid mouths of fake
news and disinformation msm Complex! I'm starting a business of manufacturing toilet bowls and
the pubic urinals with the faces impregnated into the ceramic of all those who exploited
American freedom of speech to advance their personal careers and that would certainly include
almost all the politicians and the tech giants etc. What do you think as a statement to test
the real FREE SPEECH?
The explosive claim comes from Lord Mark Sedwill, who until last month served as the most
senior adviser and head of the civil service in Johnson's cabinet. He held the same positions
under former prime minister Theresa May, during whose term the Salisbury affair unfolded.
Speaking to Times Radio, Sedwill
said Russia has "some vulnerabilities that we can exploit." So London's response to
the incident included not only publicly accusing Russia of being behind the attack and
expelling its diplomats, but also "a series of other discreet measures including tackling
some of the illicit money flows out of Russia, and covert measures as well, which obviously I
can't talk about," the former official said.
The Russians know that they had to pay a higher price than they had expected for that
operation.
Sedwill would not explain how stopping illicit money flowing out of Russia would hurt the
Russian government or why the UK didn't act sooner to crack down on those financial crimes.
Presumably, in his view, President Vladimir Putin's power relies on allowing crooked officials
and businessmen to siphon the Russian national wealth and the British government was content
with it as long as the UK was on the receiving end.
A different view is taken in Moscow, where officials have repeatedly accused the British
of harboring Russian criminals and welcoming illicitly gained cash.
The Times implied that the "covert measures" mentioned by Sedwill included the UK
using its cyber offensive capabilities against Russia.
The Salisbury poisoning happened in March 2018. Former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal
and his daughter were injured by what the British government described as a uniquely Russian
chemical weapon, but have since recovered. London identified two people from Russia as the
culprits, calling them agents of the Russian military intelligence.
Moscow denied any involvement in the poisoning and said London had stonewalled all attempts
to properly investigate what had happened.
This week's perhaps overly dramatic
announcement
Wednesday night
by the heads of multiple federal agencies - foremost among them Director of National
Intelligence John Ratcliffe - alleging new major efforts by Russia and Iran to interfere in the US presidential
election formed a key question and talking point by debate moderator Kristen Welker Thursday night.
Welker even referenced as somehow undisputed and settled "truth"
the
now debunked "Russian bounties" story
. Over a month ago the Pentagon and other intelligence heads
concluded after an exhaustive investigation that
there's
simply no evidence
to suggest Russian military intelligence paid Afghan fighters to target Americans.
Russia was certainly paying attention to the debate and was not amused. The Kremlin on Friday blasted what it said
was
"Russophobia"
at the center of the debate
.
Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov
told
journalists Friday that
"
competition
in Russophobia
has become a constant in all US electoral processes, regrettably."
"We are fully aware of this and can only express regret," he added as quoted in TASS.
"After all, probably, it is the American electorate who is the target audience of these debates, that is, common
Americans. It is up to them to decide who won the debate, not us," the spokesman said.
Indeed the American public is by and large likely growing tired of the endless Russia scapegoating too.
National security pundit and research fellow at Columbia University's Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies
Richard Hanania had this to say about just how vapid foreign policy questions have become in this election (when
they are offered at all):
Notice how the entire debate on foreign policy was about who was "nicer" to China, Russia, or some other
"enemy," not say whether we should go to war more or less often.
There's
a primitiveness and stupidity surrounding discussions of foreign policy that we don't accept elsewhere
,
he
pointed
out
.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Over the years Putin himself has increasingly mocked and laughed about the degree to which he personally gets
blamed for almost all ills of American society - from election meddling to "weaponizing" race relations to
supposedly seeking to take out the national power grid.
An early example comes from 1992 when the then- Lithuanian Defence Minister called Russia a
country "with vague prospects" while at the same time asserting that "in about two years' time
[it] will present a great danger to Europe" (FBIS 22 May 92 p 69).
Vague prospects but great danger. Given the vague demographic
prospects of his own country , it was a rather ironic assertion given that Lithuania's
future would appear to be a few nursing homes surrounded by forest. But he said it in the days
of the full EU/NATO cargo cult. In 2014 U.S. President Obama immortalised this in an
interview :
But I do think it's important to keep perspective. Russia doesn't make anything.
Immigrants aren't rushing to Moscow in search of opportunity. The life expectancy of the
Russian male is around 60 years old. The population is shrinking. And so we have to respond
with resolve in what are effectively regional challenges that Russia presents.
In the emerging post-Cold War-era Russia, no matter how poor it is in many key areas, can be
#2 in the world for many years to come. Only when China rises in the next 20 years or a new
kind of President emerges in the United States will that change. Until then Vladimir Putin can
play his games to his heart's content.
Of course all of these headscratchers assume that the exchange rate of the ruble is the true
measure of Russia's economy; which is a pretty silly and
misleading idea .
* * *
But at the same time Russia is an enormous, dangerous, existential threat functioning with
enormous effectiveness in all dimensions.
So, on the one hand Russia is a failing country, with a trivial economy, a greatly
over-rated military led by someone who is always facing a catastrophe at home. Nothing to worry
about there: presently weak and future uncertain. On the other hand, Russia has a tremendously
powerful military, an economy that does whatever its ever-young autocratic permanent ruler
wants it to. Its propaganda power is immense and unbeatable, the background determinant of the
world's action. Russophrenia.
And, out of the blue, COVID gives him another opportunity to bamboozle the helpless West and
undermine its precious Rules-Based International Order. Somehow. See if you can make sense
of this incoherence :
This should worry the West once the pandemic has passed. Not because Russia poses a
serious long-term threat to our interests; it doesn't, although Putin would prefer us to
think that his shrivelled realm does. But because Russia is not the only authoritarian state
seeking to learn lessons from the current crisis which could be used in a future
conflict.
Russophrenics are unaffected by reality. Russia's success? Forget maleficence and try
competence . Its military is designed to defend the country, not rule
the world : a less expensive and attainable aim. Its economy -- thanks to Western sanctions
-- has made it probably the only
autarky in the world . Election interference is a falsehood designed to damage Trump and
exculpate Clinton which has been picked up by Washington's puppies. But don't bother with mere
evidence; As the author of this New
Yorker piece explains :
Such externally guided operations exist, but to exaggerate their prevalence and potency
ends up eroding the idea of genuine bottom-up protest -- in a way that, ironically, is
entirely congenial to Putin's conspiratorial world view.
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Scott Adams understands the process perfectly:
Absence of evidence is evidence.
Pretty crazy isn't it? And getting crazier.
All this would be funny if it were Ruritania ranting at the Duchy of Strackenz.
But it isn't: it's the country with the most destructive military in the world and a proven
record of using it ad libitum that is sinking into this insanity. And that's not good for any
of us.
PGR88 , 7 hours ago
Russia merely wants to protect itself, its culture, and its interests from an increasingly
insane American globalist deep state.
teutonicate , 1 hour ago
Russophrenia... Or How A Collapsing Country Runs The World
Much as cabalist-run propaganda mill The Strategic Cultural Foundation would like it to be
true, Russia is not collapsing. The only thing wrong with Russia is that it is a
predominantly White Christian country that refuses to kowtow to Israel - and therefore in
cabaliist-dominated Western political circles it must be defined as the enemy - regardless of
reality.
It must really irk cabalist central bankers and globalists that Russia simply doesn't need
them. It is has a real economy that doesn't completely depend on being pumped up with an
endless supply of rapidly devaluing fiat.
Arizona Republican Rep. Paul Gosar has called for defunding National Public Radio after the
outlet officially refused to cover the Hunter Biden laptop scandal (while happily peddling
anti-Trump rumors for years) - calling it a ' waste of
time. '
"It's time to defund @NPR. This is appalling. #DefundNPR," Gosar tweeted on Thursday.
Gosar joins a growing chorus of conservative voices who are furious over the outlet's
decision to censor perhaps the biggest political bombshell in decades .
NPR public editor Kelly McBride
published an inquiry on its website Thursday from a listener who did not understand why the
outlet was ignoring the story.
"Someone please explain why NPR has apparently not reported on the Joe Biden, Hunter Biden story in the last
week or so that Joe did know about Hunter's business connections in Europe that Joe had
previously denied having knowledge?" listener Carolyn Abbott asked.
McBride responded in saying there are "many, many red flags" in an investigation carried out
by the New York Post, which last week published reports that were sourced from the alleged
laptop hard drive. NPR then went on to repeat claims that Russia is attempting to interfere in
the election.
" Even if Russia can't be positively connected to this information, the story of how Trump
associates Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani came into a copy of this computer hard drive has not
been verified and seems suspect. And if that story could be verified, the NY Post did no
forensic work to convince consumers that the emails and photos that are the basis for their
report have not been altered," McBride said, adding: "But the biggest reason you haven't heard
much on NPR about the Post story is that the assertions don't amount to much."
Her response included a statement from NPR managing editor Terence Samuel.
" We don't want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories , and we don't want
to waste the listeners' and readers' time on stories that are just pure distractions. And quite
frankly, that's where we ended up, this was a politically driven event and we decided to treat
it that way," Samuel said.
The claims that the reports are part of a Russian disinformation plot were dismissed by
Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe.
The FBI, meanwhile, did not dispute Ratcliffe's statements earlier this week.
FBI Assistant Director Jill C. Tyson sent a letter to Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of
the Senate Homeland Security Committee, in response to Johnson's request for more information
about the emails, reports around which have alleged that Hunter Biden tried to introduce a
Ukrainian businessman to his father when he served as vice president in the Obama
administration. The law enforcement agency
said it has "nothing to add at this time" to Ratcliffe's statement.
A number of conservatives and allies of President Donald Trump criticized NPR following its
decision to publish the inquiry .
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
" Wow. Foreign corruption from a major party is not considered news for taxpayer-funded
#fakenews NPR, " wrote the America First PAC on
Twitter in response.
It came as Twitter and Facebook also announced they would either block or limit the reach of
the NY Post's reports. White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany's account and a Trump
campaign account were also blocked. The Senate Judiciary Committee, as a result, voted to issue
subpoenas on Thursday to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to appear
before the committee after raising concerns about censorship and election interference.
Biden's campaign has
denied that he ever met with a Ukrainian gas company official, which was allegedly revealed
in a trove of emails that purportedly were found on a laptop hard drive belonging to his son,
Hunter, who sat on the company's board while his father was the vice president. The NY Post
also obtained a hard drive containing the emails from former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Other allegations have surfaced in recent reports over the days,
including from a former Hunter Biden associate who confirmed the legitimacy of an
email.
"The Attorney General of Delaware's office indicated that the FBI has 'ongoing
investigations regarding the veracity of this entire story.' And it would be unsurprising for
an investigation of a disinformation action involving Rudy Giuliani and those assisting him to
involve questions about money laundering, especially since there are other documented inquiries
into his dealings," the campaign said.
TheFederalistPapers , 22 minutes ago
I work way too hard to fund these ****ers. NPR is owned by the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting (CPB) and sneak a peek at their Board of Directors https://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/leadership/board
"From the onset of the pandemic in Russia, we have focused on preserving lives and
ensuring safety of our people as our key values. This was an informed choice dictated by
our culture and spiritual traditions, and our complex, sometimes dramatic, history. If we
think back to the great demographic losses we suffered in the 20th century, we had no other
choice but to fight for every person and the future of every Russian family.
"So, we did our best to preserve the health and the lives of our people, to help parents
and children, as well as senior citizens and those who lost their jobs, to maintain
employment as much as possible, to minimise damage to the economy, to support millions of
entrepreneurs who run small or family businesses.
"Perhaps, like everyone else, you are closely following daily updates on the pandemic
around the world. Unfortunately, the coronavirus has not retreated and still poses a major
threat. Probably, this unsettling background intensifies the sense, like many people feel,
that a whole new era is about to begin and that we are not just on the verge of dramatic
changes, but an era of tectonic shifts in all areas of life.
"We see the rapidly, exponential development of the processes that we have repeatedly
discussed at the Valdai Club before. Thus, six years ago, in 2014, we spoke about this
issue when we discussed the theme The World Order: New Rules or a Game Without Rules. So,
what is happening now? Regrettably, the game without rules is becoming increasingly
horrifying and sometimes seems to be a fait accompli."
This is the 17th session of the Valdai Club, and I ask: Where is there an equivalent in
the so-called democracies of the West which are allegedly the guardians of free speech and
debate, where there supposedly exists a "marketplace of ideas"?
The Q & A portion of Putin's Valdai Club Speech transcript
have been posted, and they run longer than his speech. In his first query, I completely agree
with Putin that too many people have yet to learn the fundamental lesson the pandemic ought
to have taught:
"However, the pandemic is playing into our hands when it comes to raising our awareness of
the importance of joining forces against severe global crises. Unfortunately, it has not yet
taught humanity to come together completely, as we must do in such situations."
But his answer wasn't directed at ignorant citizens. Putin's ire was directed at the
Outlaw US Empire:
"I am not referring now to all these sanctions against Russia; forget about that, we will
get over it. But many other countries that have suffered and are still suffering from the
coronavirus do not even need any help that may come from outside, they just need the
restrictions lifted, at least in the humanitarian sphere, I repeat, concerning the supply of
medicines, equipment, credit resources, and the exchange of technologies. These are
humanitarian things in their purest form. But no, they have not abolished any
restrictions, citing some considerations that have nothing to do with the humanitarian
component – but at the same time, everyone is talking about humanism .
"I would say we need to be more honest with each other and abandon double standards. I am
sure that if people hear me now on the media, they are probably finding it difficult to
disagree with what I have just said, difficult to deny it. Deep down in their hearts, in
their minds, everyone is probably thinking, 'Yes, right, of course.' However, for
political reasons, publicly, they will still say, 'No, we must keep restrictions on Iran,
Venezuela, against Assad .' What does Assad even have to do with this when it is ordinary
people who suffer? At least, give them medicines, give them technology, at least a small,
targeted loan for medicine. No." [My Emphasis]
If I could speak to Putin, I'd tell him that they have no hearts, they are soulless,
completely bereft of any sense of morality, and cannot be reasoned with whatsoever. They are
ghouls, incapable of being shamed or made to feel guilt. You look at them and see a human,
but they're not human at all; they are parasites cloaked in human form. They differ little
from the Nazis of 75+ years ago and need to be eliminated once and for all. The pandemic has
fully exposed them for what they are.
@134 Has anybody seen a comment yet from the Honorable Chrystia Freeland or the Lima Group
regarding the election result in Bolivia? Maybe they are too busy strangling Venezuela.
There is considerable evidence that the American system of government may have been
victimized by an illegal covert operation organized and executed by the U.S. intelligence and
national security community. Former Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper, former CIA
Director John Brennan and former FBI Director Jim Comey appear to have played critical
leadership roles in carrying out this conspiracy and they may not have operated on their own.
Almost certainly what they may have done would have been explicitly authorized by the former
President of the United States, Barack Obama, and his national security team.
It must have seemed a simple operation for the experienced CIA covert action operatives. To
prevent the unreliable and unpredictable political upstart Donald Trump from being nominated as
the GOP presidential candidate or even elected it would be necessary to create suspicion that
he was the tool of a resurgent Russia, acting under direct orders from Vladimir Putin to
empower Trump and damage the campaign of Hillary Clinton. Even though none of the alleged
Kremlin plotters would have expected Trump to actually beat Hillary, it was plausible to
maintain that they would have hoped that a weakened Clinton would be less able to implement the
anti-Russian agenda that she had been promoting. Many observers in both Russia and the U.S.
believed that if she had been elected armed conflict with Moscow would have been inevitable,
particularly if she moved to follow her husband's example and push to have both Georgia and
Ukraine join NATO, which Russia would have regarded as an existential threat.
Trump's surprising victory forced a pivot, with Clapper, Brennan and Comey adjusting the
narrative to make it appear that Trump the traitor may have captured the White House due to
help from the Kremlin, making him a latter-day Manchurian Candidate. The lesser allegations of
Russian meddling were quickly elevated to devastating assertions that the Republican had only
won with Putin's assistance.
No substantive evidence for the claim of serious Russian meddling has ever been produced in
spite of years of investigation, but the real objective was to plant the story that would
plausibly convince a majority of Americans that the election of Donald Trump was somehow
illegitimate.
The national security team acted to protect their candidate Hillary Clinton, who represented
America's Deep State. In spite of considerable naysaying, the Deep State is real, not just a
wild conspiracy theory. Many Americans nevertheless do not believe that the Deep State exists,
that it is a politically driven media creation much like Russiagate itself was, but if one
changes the wording a bit and describes the Deep State as the Establishment, with its political
power focused in Washington and its financial center in New York City, the argument that there
exists a cohesive group of power brokers who really run the country becomes much more
plausible.
The danger posed by the Deep State, or, if you choose, the Establishment, is that it wields
immense power but is unelected and unaccountable. It also operates through relationships that
are not transparent and as the media is part of it, there is little chance that its activity
will be exposed.
Nevertheless, some might even argue that having a Deep State is a healthy part of American
democracy, that it serves as a check or corrective element on a political system that has
largely been corrupted and which no longer serves national interests. But that assessment
surely might have been made before it became clear that many of the leaders of the nation's
intelligence and security agencies are no longer the people's honorable servants they pretend
to be. They have been heavily politicized since at least the time of Ronald Reagan and have
frequently succumbed to the lure of wealth and power while identifying with and promoting the
interests of the Deep State.
Indeed, a number of former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Directors have implicitly or
even directly admitted to the existence of a Deep State that has as one of its roles keeping
presidents like Donald Trump in check. Most recently, John McLaughlin, responding to a question
about Donald Trump's concern over Deep State involvement in the ongoing impeachment process,
said unambiguously "Well, you know, thank God for the 'deep state' With all of the people who
knew what was going on here, it took an intelligence officer to step forward and say something
about it, which was the trigger that then unleashed everything else. This is the institution
within the U.S. government is institutionally committed to objectivity and telling the truth.
It is one of the few institutions in Washington that is not in a chain of command that makes or
implements policy. Its whole job is to speak the truth -- it's engraved in marble in the
lobby."
Well, John's dedication to truth is exemplary but how does he explain his own role in
support of the lies being promoted by his boss George "slam dunk" Tenet that led to the war
against Iraq, the greatest foreign policy disaster ever experienced by the United States? Or
Tenet's sitting in the U.N. directly behind Secretary of State Colin Powell in the debate over
Iraq, providing cover and credibility for what everyone inside the system knew to be a bundle
of lies? Or his close friend and colleague Michael Morell's description of Trump
as a Russian agent , a claim that was supported by zero evidence and which was given
credibility only by Morell's boast that "I ran the CIA."
Beyond that, more details have been revealed demonstrating exactly how Deep State associates
have attempted, with considerable success, to subvert the actual functioning of American
democracy. Words are one thing, but acting to interfere in an electoral process or to undermine
a serving president is a rather more serious matter.
It is
now known that President Barack Obama's CIA Director John Brennan created a Trump Task
Force in early 2016. Rather than working against genuine foreign threats, this Task Force
played a critical role in creating and feeding the meme that Donald Trump was a tool of the
Russians and a puppet of President Vladimir Putin, a claim that still surfaces regularly to
this day. Working with James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, Brennan fabricated
the narrative that "Russia had interfered in the 2016 election." Brennan and Clapper promoted
that tale even though they knew very well that Russia and the United States have carried out a
broad array of covert actions against each other, including information operations, for the
past seventy years, but they pretended that what happened in 2016 was qualitatively and
substantively different even though the "evidence" produced to support that claim was and still
is weak to nonexistent.
The Russian "election interference" narrative went on steroids on January 6, 2017, shortly
before Trump was inaugurated, when an "Intelligence Community Assessment" (ICA) orchestrated by
Clapper and Brennan was published. The banner headline atop The New York Times, itself an
integral part of the Deep State, on the following day set the tone for what was to follow:
"Putin Led Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Says."
With the help of the Establishment media, Clapper and Brennan were able to pretend that the
ICA had been approved by "all 17 intelligence agencies" (as first claimed by Hillary Clinton).
After several months, however Clapper revealed that the preparers of the ICA were "handpicked
analysts" from only the FBI, CIA, and NSA. He explained rather
unconvincingly during an interview on May 28, 2017, that "the historical practices of the
Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor,
whatever, which is a typical Russian technique," adding later that "It's in their DNA."
Task Force Trump was kept secret within the Agency itself because the CIA is not supposed to
spy on Americans. Its staff was pulled together by invitation-only. Specific case officers
(i.e., men and women who recruit and handle spies overseas), analysts and administrative
personnel were recruited, presumably based on their political reliability. Not everyone invited
accepted the offer. But many did because it came with promises of promotion and other
rewards.
And this was not a CIA-only operation. Personnel from the FBI also were assigned to the Task
Force with the approval of then Director James Comey. Former MI-6 agent Christopher Steele's
FBI handler, Michael Gaeta, may have been one of those detailed to the Trump Task Force.
Steele, of course, prepared the notorious dossier that was surfaced shortly before Donald Trump
took office. It included considerable material intended to tie Trump to Russia, information
that was in many cases fabricated or unsourced.
So, what kind of things would this Task Force do? The case officers would work with foreign
intelligence services such as MI-6, the Italians, the Ukrainians and the Australians on
identifying intelligence collection priorities that would implicate Trump and his associates in
illegal activity. And there is evidence that John Brennan himself would contact his
counterparts in allied intelligence services to obtain their discreet cooperation, something
they would be inclined to do in collegial fashion, ignoring whatever reservations they might
have about spying on a possible American presidential candidate.
Trump Task Force members could have also tasked the National Security Agency (NSA) to do
targeted collection. They also would have the ability to engage in complicated covert actions
that would further set up and entrap Trump and his staff in questionable activity, such as the
targeting of associate George Papadopoulos. If he is ever properly interviewed, Maltese citizen
Joseph Mifsud may be able to shed light on the CIA officers who met with him, briefed him on
operational objectives regarding Papadopoulos and helped arrange monitored meetings. It is
highly likely that Azra Turk, the woman who met with George Papadopoulos, was part of the CIA
Trump Task Force.
The Task Force also could carry out other covert actions, sometimes using press or social
media placements to disseminate fabrications about Trump and his associates. Information
operations is a benign-sounding euphemism for propaganda fed through the Agency's friends in
the media, and computer network operations can be used to create false linkages and misdirect
inquiries. There has been some informed speculation that Guccifer 2.0 may have been a creation
of this Task Force.
In light of what has been learned about the alleged CIA whistleblower there should be a
serious investigation to determine if he was a part of this Task Force or, at minimum,
reporting to them secretly after he was seconded to the National Security Council. All the CIA
and FBI officers involved in the Task Force had sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution of the
United States, but nevertheless were involved in a conspiracy to first denigrate and then
possibly bring down a legally elected president. That effort continues with repeated assertions
regarding Moscow's malevolent intentions for the 2020 national elections. Some might reasonably
regard the whole Brennan affair, to include its spear carriers among the current and retired
national security state leadership, as a case of institutionalized treason, and it inevitably
leads to the question "What did Obama know?"
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that Moscow might halt dialogue with the
European Union, during the online presentation of the report of the international discussion
club "Valdai" on Tuesday.
"Those people who are responsible for foreign policy in the West and do not understand the
need for a mutually respectful conversation, perhaps we should just stop communicating with
them for a while, especially since [President of the European Commission] Ursula von der Leyen
says that with the current Russian authorities, the geopolitical partnership does not work.
So be it, if that's what they want," said the Russian Foreign Minister
m@84 the buzz about Navalny is that he and some partners were running an anti-corruption
blackmail racket getting compromising information on various enterprises and individuals and
Navalny decided to cash out without informing or consulting with his partners. Nothing to do
with the Russian government.
m@89 I got a rather detailed explanation from a Russian friend who just spent several
weeks there. Navalny started out as an anti corruption reformer but got involved with
partners that figured out how to monetize the dirt he was digging up. This is over a period
of years, not something recent. There is no conspiracy between the Russian government and the
Germans. Navalny was not a threat to governmental power in Russia - this was strictly a
business matter. See the RT article I linked to:
Which are the dumbest false flags of recent memory?
My selections are:
#1) Journalist Arkady Babchenko - he gets every prize!
He faked his death, complete with blood soaked pictures,
and then showed up the next day alive at a news conference.
They should name a drink after him, "Noah's Ark Ark Ark"- glacier water mixed
with glacier water, stirred not shaken.
#2) Saudi Intelligence Service - they air shipped printers
with incomplete bombs in them to the US and Britain from Yemen.
The Saudi agents revealed that they kept the tracking slips of the bombs!
I'll drink to that. And the Saudis played heroes by providing the tracking
numbers to the US and Britain in the nick of time. And I'll drink to that!
#3) Just this week CrowdStrike (yes, they still enjoy "credibility" in some circles)
let us know that Iranian hackers included a video with their email threats.
And that clever video:
"The video showed the hackers' computer screen as they typed in commands to purportedly hack
a voter registration system.
Investigators noticed snippets of revealing computer code, including file paths, file names
and an internet protocol (IP) address."
How does the Saudi Intelligence service say, "Skol!"?
Re: "...Thus, six years ago, in 2014, we spoke about this issue when we discussed the
theme The World Order: New Rules or a Game Without Rules. So, what is happening now?
Regrettably, the game without rules is becoming increasingly horrifying and sometimes
seems to be a fait accompli."
Putin said this virtually in the same breath directly after his previous paragraph you
excerpted where he speaks of the serious ongoing challenges of the coronavirus pandemic.
What that says to me is that he is hinting with his trademark subtlety that he thinks the
CV pandemic may not be a naturally arising event. In other words, a plandemic.
Yes, that's the ongoing rhetorical battle between the Collectivist nations who uphold the
sanctity of International Law and the Neoliberal Nations controlled by Financial Parasites
that can't survive under a functional International Law System. That distinction is
constantly becoming clearer particularly to those residing within the Neoliberal nations as
they watch their lives being destroyed. IMO, we're on the cusp of entering the most critical
decade of this century which will determine humanity's condition when 2101 is reached.
"... The sustained tosh from the good old boys at state, cia, fbi & nsa isn't worthy of comment, given that it is 100% evidence-free accusations which surprise surprise 'just happens' to align with these provenly corrupt organisations' most prioritsed foreign policy goals. ..."
Last month, national security prosecutors at the Justice Department were told to look at any
ongoing investigations involving Iran or Iranian nationals with an eye toward making them
public.
The push to announce Iran-related cases has caused internal alarm, these people said, with
some law enforcement officials fearing that senior Justice Department officials want to
reveal the cases because the Trump administration would like Congress to impose new sanctions
on Iran.
U.S. officials on Wednesday night accused Iran of targeting American voters with faked but
menacing emails and warned that both Iran and Russia had obtained voter data that could be
used to endanger the upcoming election.
The disclosure by Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe at a hastily called
news conference marked the first time this election cycle that a foreign adversary has been
accused of targeting specific voters in a bid to undermine democratic confidence -- just four
years after Russian online operations marred the 2016 presidential vote.
The claim that Iran was behind the email operation, which came into view on Tuesday as
Democrats in several states reported receiving emails demanding they vote for President
Trump, was leveled without specific evidence .
...
Metadata gathered from dozens of the emails pointed to the use of servers in Saudi Arabia,
Estonia, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates, according to numerous analysts.
The emails are under investigation, and one intelligence source said it was still unclear who
was behind them.
...
... the evidence remains inconclusive.
The claims that Iran is behind this are as stupid as the people who believe them.
I for one trust (not) those 50 former intelligence officials who say that all emails are
Russian disinformation. They are intended to 'sow discord' which is something the U.S. has
otherwise never ever had throughout its history.
More than 50 former senior intelligence officials have signed on to a letter outlining their
belief that the recent disclosure of emails ... "has all the classic earmarks of a Russian
information operation."
...
While the letter's signatories presented no new evidence, they said their national security
experience had made them "deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant
role in this case" and cited several elements of the story that suggested the Kremlin's hand
at work.
"If we are right," they added, "this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in
this election, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this."
No, this doesn't make any sense. It is not supposed to do that.
Posted by b on October 22, 2020 at 7:21 UTC | Permalink
The sustained tosh from the good old boys at state, cia, fbi & nsa isn't worthy of
comment, given that it is 100% evidence-free accusations which surprise surprise 'just
happens' to align with these provenly corrupt organisations' most prioritsed foreign policy
goals.
We know that these yarns align in syncopation with
what the amerikan empire most wants to promulgate, yet bereft of even a a cunt hair's worth
of evidence, the only truth which can be inferred from this foggy bottom tosh is the obvious
one - that is that the empire is becoming so desperate they will happily toss their
credibility with the many to the winds if they can, please sir, just convince a few of the
few.
Stuff like this is a suitable test of how the media are supposed to represent our interests
and help us in not getting fooled. You report, and afterwards you test what your readers
believe.
Independently of questionable bias issues serious newspapers will defend news like this
with formal justifications of journalistic code
- neutrality and objectivity: we just report but don't judge.
- null hypothesis of trustworthiness: official sources are to be trusted unless proven
otherwise. At least, proven otherwise by someone we consider trustworthy.
The propaganda is already embedded in the lofty ethics codes journalists will proudly adhere
to.
"Other documents that have emerged include FBI paper work that reveals the bureau's
interactions with the shop's owner, John Paul Mac Isaac, who reported the laptop's contents
to authorities. The document shows that Isaac received a subpoena to testify before the U.S.
District Court in Delaware on Dec. 9, 2019 . One page appears to show the serial
number for a MacBook Pro laptop and a hard drive that were seized by the agency."
https://www.ibtimes.sg/signed-receipt-hunter-bidens-name-delaware-laptop-repair-store-surfaces-52672
So the FBI kept Hunter Biden's bomb shell HDDs under wraps for almost a year. Enough time
to figure out they where not filled with Russian kompromat.
If you needed a leaked email to understand why it was corrupt for Hunter Biden to be getting
50k a month to be on the board of a Ukranian energy company, then you are likely already so
propagandized that you will vote for Joe Biden no matter what gets printed.
Really this propaganda is a brilliant move for those who control what is in print. They
have a clear circle of blame in Russia, Iran, or China, who are to blame for everything, and
this allows the media to limit the scope of discussion greatly by suppressing real criticisms
towards actual problems (the Bidens being corrupt across multiple generations) and deflecting
that energy into hating Russia, China, and Iran, which are the main targets for imperialism.
It is also a crude and vague lie to use anonymous sources to blame foreign entities for these
types of things, which actually makes it an elegant argument for a simpleton as it is
difficult if not impossible to disprove.
Because the media is really owned and operated by so few people who all have a hive-mind
about money and power, the messages are consistent, even though ridiculous, and they resonate
with many of the readers who really ought to know better, but have become inured to the
damaging effects of the lies they have consumed for decades. Stories like these will keep
working for a long time. If one of the sources in the article reported 'Up is Down, Left is
Right!', there would be a wave of car accidents until they issued a retraction.
The Russians ( Putin / Lavrov) say ever so politely that the US is not agreement-capable.
I add that the US ( politicians, Wall Streeters, MSM, think tanks ) are:
-- not truth-capable;
-- not ethics-capable;
-- not shame-capable;
-- not honour-capable.
What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul?
He turns into a ghoul without a soul, says I, a devil without human-ness!
How dare they call us deplorables when they are the despicables?
More than 50 former senior intelligence officials have signed on to a letter outlining
their belief that the recent disclosure of emails ... "has all the classic earmarks of a
Russian information operation."
Do American journalists actually believe it's still in Russia interest to re-elect Trump?
Washington-Kremlin relations have deteriorated rapidly under Trump.
Posted by: Et Tu | Oct 22 2020 9:35 utc | 9 -- "In America, Truth is a Foreign Agent and
World Peace is a threat to National Security."
Nice one... Meet Mr Truth, un-registered foreign agent !!! and Mr World Peace, national
security threat !!!
American leadership would not be so despicable IF they do not pretend to be "spreading
freedom / democracy" when they wreak their global malice.
They do not even care for their own people (covid19 fiasco, anyone?), but pretend to care
for the Chinese people so much they would regime-change the CCP; they pretend to care for the
Russian people so much they would sooner shoot Putin's plane from the sky; they pretend to
care for the Iranian people so much they block their access to covid19 medicines.
Here's a part of a comment I posted back in February 2020 that none of you took
seriously.
Posted by: Circe | Feb 28 2020 20:29 utc | 124:
The planet of extremely bad karma SATURN is moving into Bloomberg's sign, Aquarius, right
after mid-March and forming a square to Biden's sign, Scorpio. This is a very malefic
aspect.
People under these two signs, Aquarius and Scorpio ie Bloomberg and Biden will
experience obstacles, setbacks and challenges, create hidden enemies , and aging
will be accelerated and serious health issues could emerge.
So I was criticized for injecting astrology into that election thread, mostly by
AntiSpin.
Turns out as usual I hit the mark.
Bloomberg lost close to a BILLION dollars and failed badly in the primaries. That's what I
call a major setback. However, as of December after a 6-month retrograde into Capricorn,
Saturn is returning to Aquarius, so it ain't over for Bloomberg and things will get
complicated for Biden , for the U.S. and the rest of the world.
I also stated back then that nominating Joe Biden would be a greater risk for Dems than
nominating Bernie Sanders because Joe Biden was heading for serious astrological head winds
relating to something unseen at the time involving a serious family issue.
While I was certain that whatever the issue was would come to light and could affect him
in the Presidential campaign, I couldn't figure out the family aspect at the time, since he
appears to have a solid marriage and tragedy is in the rear view now.
Last night however it all suddenly became clear and I've come to the realization that I
was 100% right when I wrote that comment back in February 2020. Tonight I realized that the
family issue...is Hunter Biden!
I was sounding the alarm that something bad would come to light because Saturn was headed
into Aquarius, Biden's Home and Family sector squaring Biden's sign.
However, to make matters worse, it turns out that Hunter Biden is an Aquarian and Saturn
the karmic taskmaster is headed on a collision course to upend his life.
At the time I wrote the comment I obviously couldn't predict exactly what would unfold,
how or the precise timing, only that it would be bad and that's why I warned back then that
Democrats should have chosen Bernie. I believed Bernie could beat Trump and I was right,
because Trump is in total mental meltdown and self-destructing with his handling of the
pandemic.
Now even if Saturn will square Biden's Scorpio that's not to say that Biden won't still
win, but we are approaching a very bad full moon on October 31st. There is massive tension
building, subterfuge lurking and the situation is going to get ugly. A battle royal is
brewing. This is a powder keg moment.
Trump will not behave at the debate today. Must see t.v. With Obama's scorching speech
yesterday seething in Trump's brain, and his Iran stunt unravelling and ineffective at
distracting from the spotlight from Obama and the laptop bone clenched between his teeth;
he's a rabid dog fit to be tied. Give him a padded cell, already.
As for the U.S. and the world: The pandemic started with Saturn crossing Pluto's path in
Capricorn and entering full force into Aquarius in March when the world shut down.
So what will happen when karmic Saturn crosses Pluto again on it's way out of Capricorn
and enters Aquarius for the next 3 years?
Fasten your seat belts everyone...we're heading into major turbulence. There's so much
karmic tension gathering steam; it's very scary.
How much does it cost to get a trip to the moon?
I'll get back to sleazy Giuliani and his Pandora's box. There's too much to unpack there
than meets the eye. Just know that when circumstances appear too convenient-it's because they
are.
Trump's dirty play is a day late and a dollar short plus he's not playing with a full
deck. Must be one of those Covid long-term effects.
It's time...to get these scum-sucking, misery mongers out of the damn White House
already!
You know the US government is suffering from severe Alzheimer's disease when it claims that
Iran (of all nations) sent threatening emails to Democrat voters demanding that they vote for
a President who authorised the murder of a popular Iranian military general back in early
January this year.
Brian Kilmeade and morning crew run the fake Iranian emails story by former CIA station
Chief Daniel Hoffman.
Kabuki Actor Hoffman:
'[Uses opportunity to say Iranian Mantra] Iran has been attacking us for years, they have
attacked our shipping in the Gulf (???, that's a new one) blah-blah-blah.
'Iran and Russia are attacking our democracy because that is what they fear most about
America. Democracy would be the end of both regimes (Iran has no other motive to dislike the
U.S. such as us killing their top General, the Stuxnet virus, murderous sanctions, ...)'
So they hate us because of our freedoms, a classic.
Kabuki Actor Kilmeade:
'Can't we do something about this?' [note, the U.S. is the perpetual victim, never the
bully]
'Can't we pushback?' [The aggrieved victim, the U.S. is defending itself]
'Iran is doing this, Russia is sending bombers, can't we blow up an oil well?'
Kabuki Actor Kilmeade represents the entire degenerate U.S. public, unable to process
information that views another country as having rational motives or our Intel agencies of
being deceptive.
God, if you exist, You must hate this more than I do. How long?
All that rubbish is distraction. Discussing it is just playing to Borg's music.
They come up with so outlandish and jaw dropping crap that half he people thinks "it is so
outlandish it gotta be true, who would lie so much?" and other half that knows better is in
such a shock and disbelief that it needs some time to come to its senses and start tearing
apart the lie piece by piece BUT.... Time is lost, distraction worked and MSM/Borg come up
with next outrageous lie for next round. Russia, China, Navalny etc. etc.
And while marry go round Borg is doing it's deeds in dark while people is obsessing with
Trump's knickers.
Barack oblamblam held off until as long as he possibly could, a move most likely connected to
two realities, (1) not wanting to contradict what he, oblamblam said back in march "do not
underestimate Joe's ability to screw anything up" and (2) Oblamblam's desire not to be
found to be associated with sleepy joe's blatant corruption. Mud sticks n all that. Oblamblam
was much more subtle in lining up wedges to be trousered. eg. Try as people might they have
yet to uncover how a community worker turned prez found the dough to purchase a 45 acre
Martha's vineyard estate off a notorious billionaire and Oblambam is reluctant to do anything
which could prompt those questions,
Hence it wasn't until the 2020 election was mostly over that some DNC extortionists
managed to convince oblam to say a few words, or else, to the Philadelphia african american
males who chose to stay home on election day 2016.
Barack can claim 'he paid his dues' whilst keeping as much space as he can organise
between himself and crooked joe, who has already brought oblamblam's prezdency into disrepute
with the shameless & ugly ukraine rort that he and his bagman hunter had concocted.
There we mentioned the philly speech oh rabid, irrationally superstitious dembot.
Here's my prediction
Trump re-elected I fortell will mean more racist murdering thugs on the street. an guess what
they'l be In uniform and directly or indirectly trained by Israel.
And then there's the military presence on your streets -- you ain't seen nothing yet.
Wake the f up your gunna be massively oppressed by a fascist govenment ya skin couloir won't
matter, nore who you voted for. You already live in a one party dictatorship.
ie the elite. Face it your redundant as a human being replaced by a micro-chip.
Revolt I tell you revolt !!
The greater American public are about to become the next oppressed Palistinians ! oppressed
devalued and slowly distroyed. Like a frog in a heated pan.
You won't notice till it's to late will you ?
No really, will you ?
Journalism love's that high minded nonsense.
They write what they are paid to write.
Looking at the guardian wrt Assange
these clowns are beneath contempt.
Don't know if you are familiar with the box populi blog.
There a very good set of chapters from a book about journalist ethics.
i'm just surprised they haven't brought in venezuela and bolivia yet. that's supposed to be
sarcasm, but reality keeps outstripping sarcasm. i am actually worried they are ramping up
for a war in biden's first 100 days, either against iran or some serious provocation of
russia like provoking some incident in azerbaijan and blaming armenia. they're f/n batshit.
mark2 i think you're correct about more jackbooted government thugs on the street, but that's
gonna happen under either trump or crime bill joe/copmala. you're right about the israeli
training too, they trained cops in that kneeling on the throat technique. field tested on
palestinians.
Idiotic.
The united States was once a nest of excellence in nearly everything. Now it s a hub of naked
idiocy.
The Russians have nothing to fear from the US or Nato, except in the economy but they can fix
it. The Iranians have enough of what it takes to keep the Zio anglos away and at bay:
thousands of missiles to target Israel, Saudiland, a 25 year economic alliance program with
Beijing.
And clearly the time and opportunity where it was possible to still erase in a single coup
the Iranian military might is over.
"Breaking WaPo: The U.S. government has concluded that Iran is behind a series of threatening
emails arriving this week in the inboxes of Democratic voters, according to two U.S.
officials. https://washingtonpost.com/technology/202"
Posted by: librul | Oct 22 2020 12:52 utc | 22 When you hear, "Russians", just substitute in
your mind "witches", the weight of evidence is the same.
Absolutely correct. You win the thread.
Neither Iran nor Russia nor China give a rat's ass about the US election. There may be
literally thousands of private enterprise hackers who want to breach US election servers
precisely to get the Personal Identifying Information which is coin of the realm on the Dark
Web, but they couldn't care less about the election itself. It's physically impossible for
any country outside of the US to significantly influence the election in a country of 300
million people - and every country knows that. The only country that *doesn't* know that is
the US, which is why it spends scores and hundreds of millions of dollars - up to five
billion in Ukraine, allegedly - to influence foreign elections. That's the level of effort
needed to influence a foreign election more than the influence of the actual inhabitants of
that nation. But every time some private group in Russia launches an ad campaign for a couple
hundred thousand bucks tops, with zero effect on the US election, Putin gets blamed for some
plan to mastermind the overthrow of "democracy."
I rather liked Obama's speech If for no other reason than the tone was completely
different from the two candidates.
1. I'm tired of Trump's narcissism .
2. Can't stand Biden's fake 'I'm one of you'. He is corrupt, feels guilty about it, and
has to reassure us that he's Lunch Box Joe .
I've noticed this about Biden for a while, he conjures up these fake memories ...
'You know what I'm talking about because I've been on that park bench at noon when you only
have 20 minutes to eat your lunch because that whistle going to blow and you have to run
back to your Tuna canning station or lose your job and with that your health insurance,
car, and home.'
Okay this is not a literal quotation but it is a pattern and you know what I'm talking
about :-)
Pretzelatack @ 26
Yes to all you say their.
Re-reading my above comments they sound pretty harsh !
I am sorry, and do apologise !
It was part desperation and part morbid humour in the spirit of b's post.
Comparing Americans to a frog in pan may be a bit much !
I am in the U.K. we had a gen election one year ago !
I WAS THAT FROG IN A PAN.
Now I live in a pox ridden bankrupt banana republic run by a bunch of Israel bootlickers.
I don't go down well at party's.
And it's not superstition when the facts start to align with planetary motion.
How do you explain the Moon's effect on nature?
You think it's the only celestial body in the Solar System that influences life on Earth?
That cosmic order is inescapable. Astrology is thousands of years old dating back to the
Babylonians and has evolved through centuries of study and cannot, should not be dismissed as
mere superstition.
I'm not an expert at all, but I recognize order and higher authority when I see it and
believe me those planets are there for a reason and they rule everything. They're like
carrots and sticks (IMHO mostly sticks). Now who put them there and to what ultimate purpose
besides order and evolution is another matter.
I don't often bring it into a discussion, especially not to throw a discussion off topic,
except when I intuitively feel fate present in important events both personally and on a
universal scale.
This is a time of fated/karmic events, the pandemic being the most important (lesson) of
these.
I think a more appropriate title would be "Fascist Season" . . . Fascism has come of age here
in the land of the fee. The "intelligence agencies" create disinformation campaigns to
overthrow the elected President while the "justice department" et al withhold evidence and
fail to prosecute all the oligarchs and crooks who are busy censoring
information and preparing to rig and disrupt the
impending presidential election.
But technology and the "progressive" (pun intended) destruction of the US Constitution has
led the dumbed-down US masses (don't forget Canada and Australia lol) into a whole new world
of Orwellian lock-downs and wholesale economic destruction aimed at finishing off what was
left of the US middle class. Soon we will have our cash taken away and replaced with a
digital currency that can
always be taken away or tailored for limited use, subject to negative interest rates that it
cannot escape, etc. And all this is ushered in via
hyperinflation leading to a collapse of the bond and equities markets, and finally the
collapse of the US dollar (and all other Western fiat currencies).
The USA is so naive. They have been interfering in so many elections using money,
blackmail,CIA operations. There was no way for other countries with less means to do the same
to the USA. Now with social media they can, and they are absolutely right to take their
revenge for all the troubles they got into with the USA plotting to promote a pro-US
leader.
Now the battle is equal and the USA does not have the monopoly of interfering in other
countries election!
Tit for tat...
All these stories are risible. Note the struggle to clarify who these 'malign'
Régimes are attacking the US, and why.
Russia-R-R for Trump, but Iran-Ir-Ir for Trump doesn't quite hit the spot so now Iran is
trying to damage Pres. Trump (from one of the articles..) .. is Iran trying to promote the
election of Kamala Harris? What? Russia is for Trump and Iran against ?
The fall-back is a blanket, these evil leaders are trying to 'undermine democracy',
influence 'US voters', meddle in 'our freedom-loving' politics, etc.
The attempt to stir up the spectre of threatening enemies far off is a hackneyed ploy. In
the case of the USA, it is now melded with the promotion and control of planned internal
strife, with internal enemies being natives (not islamist terrorists who sneak in and are
under cover before erupting in murderous madness..) - Color Revolution Style.
-- BLM + Antifa haven't been active recently (or not in MSM top stories) as the election
is approaching. Such would be upping the Trump vote for "law-and-order."
(imho from far off..) Many in the US don't take any of this seriously, it is just
game-playing, false alarm, pretend concern.
"Oh wow, Iran is targetting Trump, did you know, real serious, did you hear, tell me is
Zoe-chick divorcing that creep Edmond, I want to know, did you have that interview with Gov.
X for the job? Is she hot? How much "
The credentialised class and the movers and shakers just roll their eyeballs, and the poor
are in any case stuck in a desperado cycle of struggle against misery, what is going on with
Putin / Iran / Xi is off the radar.
Vilification of China (hate hate hate); claimed by the media and the pundits and our
"Fearless Covid Conquering Leader" and all the good little parrots, to be the source of evil
itself... Scapegoat extraordinaire... Hacking and Cheating and Aggressing and exercising
Brutality towards its own citizens... The worst of the worst per our "intelligence" apparatus
(and blind ideologues). Existential threat numero uno.
But wait!
The US is being attacked! Attacked they say; by all of the "bad" guys simultaneously.
The forces of evil out there are broad and out to get us. They hate our (imagined)
freedoms.
Evidence (not):
Justice Department pushing Iran-connected charges in HBO hack, other cases
U.S. government concludes Iran was behind threatening emails sent to Democrats
U.S. intelligence agencies say Iran, Russia have tried to interfere in 2020 election
Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say
Invariably in all cases, The Voice of "Intelligence" (not bloody likely from ANY of this
crew) deeply intoned to impart the "certainty", neatly encapsulated in the words "highly
likely", delivered without a scrap of proof but loud, prominent, regular, mind numbing
pontification.
Trust me! We lie, We cheat, We steal; and that is just the tip of the iceberg.
The US, all on its own, engenders distrust within the population because the US and all
its political and Executive, and Legislative and Judicial and "intelligence" bureaucracies
are corrupt to the core... Worse, they make no bones about it if you pay attention. And
Partisanship is nothing but distraction because they are ALL corrupt and morally bankrupt;
without empathy, remorse, sense of guilt or shame.
It was the US itself that thought it could subjugate the world through its faux
"democratic" business practices and its claim of natural superiority... Its self declared
Rules of Order instead of adhering to and supporting consensus established International
LAW... Hegemon pompously declaring it has a RIGHT to Full Spectrum Dominance and slavish
obedience.
Not the Iranians, not the Russians, not the Chinese, not the CCP, not the North Koreans,
not the Venezuelans; none of them are disrupting, threatening or meddling in the US
elections.
If you believe what the morons are smearing across the public consciousness through every
communication medium possible you are a sucker... Totally disconnected any critical thinking
faculties that may have been present. The very definition of sheeple... baaaa! (the sound
drowns out reason and thought).
The rest of the World beyond NATO and Five Eyes isn't attacking the US or its
institutions. They have all been attacked every which way from Sunday BY the US and its
Satraps (targets of, victims of, and willing accomplices to our sophisticated excessively
funded and supported global protection racquet).
The US, our Government, always blames our designated and non-compliant, non-obeisant
existential threats for all the things we do to them.
And all this cacophony of alleged evil "attacks" from outside right now?
Look!!! Look!!! Over here!
Don't pay any attention to who and what decided to put us in the position we find
ourselves in and what we have done to vast swaths of the world's populations "over
there".
Now go vote for one of two degenerate teams, both of which are headed by supremely
unqualified psychopaths.
The CIA really needs a new playbook. The Russia/Iran thing is laughable to the rest of the
world, and to many 'Americans' as well. Unfortunately Partisans run the country, and those
folks are addicted to the Kool Aid of MAGA – just different versions.
This October is like an Advent Calendar of October Surprises with plenty of time still on
the clock for some great Golden Shower or Democratic child orgy deep fakes. Who the hell
knows at this point – the acceleration of events this year makes Future Shock look like
an Ambien commercial.
Trump is toast and good riddance. And sure Biden et al are war criminals and corrupt
creatures of the Swamp. The Establishment is a much easier target to resist vis a vis policy
than a crazy cretin without any policy but his own self-aggrandizement.
"Astrology believers tend to selectively remember predictions that turn out to be true,
and do not remember those that turn out false. Astrology has not demonstrated its
effectiveness in controlled studies and has no scientific validity.[6]:85;[11] The study,
published in Nature in 1985, found that predictions based on natal astrology were no better
than chance, and that the testing "...clearly refutes the astrological hypothesis."[10] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology
As for getting voter US state voter databases, most states allow people to purchase part of a
voter's information. Other parts like birth dates remain private. But the publicly available
list is probably enough as it identifies party affiliation, voting history as when dates they
voted (not how they voted). All the other private information is more useful to identity
thieves and Indian scam centers. And as one poster noted, those databases like gold on dark
web.
As for email addresses that implies those must be acquired through party officials and
candidates off donor lists. Off hand I do not know that an email address is required to
register to vote--I seriously doubt it. I know that Bernie famously refused to give his donor
database to Hillary. The emails imply some sort of inside job or some false flag.
Just read the story on Truthout of voters in Alaska & Florida, and possibly Pennsylvania
and Arizona receiving threatening messages if they should vote against Trump. "We know you're
a Democrat and we have access to your voting records..." Metadata indicates servers located
in the kingdoms of Israel's new friends...
Well, I just went to the Board of Elections website for my county here in Ohio and I can,
with a few clicks, generate a report from their site of a county listing of voters filtered
in over a half-dozen ways - i.e. by Party affiliation and including addresses. Comes under
the heading of "Voter and Candidate Tools."
So some concoct a tale which blames Iran, Russia, etc. for information freely available
from your State's BOE? This information has always been available, but not exploited before
in this way by US neo Nazis.
So, even though your ballot is secret, intimidation is easy to engage in based solely on
Party affiliation of record. If Trump loses, should some people expect bricks through their
windows, or perhaps fire-bombings? Trump and his supporters are certainly ratcheting up the
apocalyptic messaging, working themselves into a frenzy - that is obvious and not even
debatable.
I never read Dante; which circle of hell are we entering now?
Everyone here knows I was 100% behind Bernie Sanders for the Presidency because I felt he was
the right person for these times, but the mass is dumb and blind. I agree with the comment I
read on the previous thread I think by someone called Horseman that portrays Bernie's goal as
moving the Dem Party to the Left and not sheepdogging, but recognizing the stakes involved
superceded Left purity.
At the same time I was totally against Biden because he is much more Zionist than Bernie,
therefore more corrupt, as Zionism is counter-evolutionary being inherently supremacist,
entitled, and undemocratic.
However, Trump is exponentially worse! He is a fascist Zionist and totally depraved. There
is a choice here of monumental significance. Short term loss for greater future gain.
Biden is very flawed, but I'm inclined to view a man who suffered multiple life-altering
tragedies to reach this point and who is grappling with embracing a son, Hunter, who probably
was destroying his life, than a narcissistic less than evolved baby-man pig with a god
complex who squandered life and daddy's money on material and artificial pursuit and has no
notion of humanity, as the only sane choice.
Yes, Joe Biden should face his flaws and answer for whatever corruption exists in him, but
that laptop issue should not be a reason to stop people from getting Trump, the most corrupt
President in my lifetime next to Bush OUT. That goal is paramount. This is 2nd to the
pandemic in fated events. If people do not make the right choices and learn something from
these events then let this planet devolve into hell because that will be what is deserved!
The stakes right now are astronomical and super-fated!
Don't blow a singular opportunity to get rid of that Fascist pig Trump over a laptop
that's really a Pandora's box being used by Shmeagol Gollum Giuliani as a trap to unleash
misery for years to come.
This is clearly the Deep State and imperial establishment spouting obvious nonsense in order
to discredit themselves and therefore to help in Trump's reelection bid! Henry Kissinger told
me so! What incredibly subtle and intricate plans they have!
Or... maybe it is just a bunch of incompetent baboons in the Deep State control room
randomly flipping switches and pulling levers in the desperate hopes that something,
anything, works.
Nah! This is all part of the Great Plan! It just seems like abject stupidity because we
cannot grasp its intricate complexities.
All these new threads are defaulting to election threads. Sorry, b.
But I'll bite.
In the case of a Biden victory, which do you think will happen first?:
1) Renewed hostilities w/ Assad in Syria leading to his violent ousting and thrusting the
west into violent confrontation w/ Russia...
Or...
2) Forcible entry into the Armenian/Azerbaijan conflict and establishing a no-fly
zone...
Or...
3) a combination of both and would throw us into a direct confrontation with either Russia
or Iran or both?
It looks like the demonizing of Iran is ramping up with the mail-threats telling dims to
vote Trump or else. Dims don't like hostile, foreign powers helping the Don and swaying
elections. It's a nice tip-off as to what Biden and the dim establishment might consent to
once Obama-era sycophants and technocrats move back in to the White House.
Seems to be the year of anniversaries; another's being celebrated today but not by the Outlaw
US Empire. China
& North Korea Celebrate 70th Anniversary of China's intervention in Outlaw US Empire's
invasion of Korea , which is how it's being portrayed, "China, N. Korea stand together
'for self-protection against US hegemony' like 70 years ago" reads the headline at the link.
To mark the anniversary, China has published an official
history , explaining its decision "To resist US aggression and aid Korea, China had no
choice but to fight a war;" the 3-volume work is The War to Resist US Aggression and Aid
Korea . From China's perspective, it defeated Outlaw US Empire forces; so, it's not
"forgotten" at all. Xi's using the occasion to give a major speech, the subject of which
hasn't been disclosed.
Just 12 days to go until the refusals to abide by the outcome day arrives. If one wants to
look, there's lots of illegal foreign influence happening but from sources that go
unmentioned: Corporations that have foreign owners, which most do, who provided campaign
contributions in any form to any entity associated with the election.
HeHeHe!!! The first bits of Putin's appearance at the Valdai Club today
are being published . In a jab back at those accusing Russia of interfering in elections
and such Putin said:
"Strengthening our country and looking at what is happening in the world, in other
countries, I want to say to those who are still waiting for the gradual demise of Russia: in
this case, we are only worried about one thing -- how not to catch a cold at your
funeral."
There's more, although a transcript has yet to be published.
There's a thread right before this one on International Events. Why don't you go spew your
poisonous Trump Kool-Aid there instead of polluting with Trumpian-laced propaganda here?
I know-I know, Election threads raise the common sense factor further and that leads to
Trump's demise, so you can't help but rush in to correct that dangerous shift. Why
don't you do something equally meaningless like pounding sand down a rat hole?
After the Russiagate fiasco I thought the Americans had learned their lesson, but it seems I
was wrong.
Honestly, this may be the beginning of an irreversible process of ideological polarization
of the American Empire.
The thing is it's one thing to wage propaganda warfare against a foreign enemy to your
domestic audience: the foreign enemy will be destroyed either way, so they will never be able
to tell their version of the story, plus the domestic audience can give itself the luxury of
living the lie indefinitely as it doesn't affect their daily lives. Plus they'll directly
benefit from the conquest of a foreign enemy, e.g. cheaper gas to your car after the
destruction and conquest of Iraq; the abundance in the shelves of Walmarts after the
subjugation of China, and so on.
It's a completely different story when you wage propaganda warfare against yourself: the
Trump voter knows he/she didn't vote for Trump because of Russian influence, while the Hilary
Clinton/Joe Biden voter knows he/she didn't vote in either of them because of Chinese
influence. But each part will believe the half of the lie that benefits them against the
other, creating a vicious cycle of mistrust between the two halves.
Meanwhile, the American economy (capitalism) continues to decline. Time is running up:
It was a shock-and-awe moment when lawmakers gave the package a thumbs up. Yet in the
months since, the planned punch has not materialized.
The Treasury has allocated $195 billion to back Fed lending programs, less than half of
the allotted sum. The programs supported by that insurance have made just $20 billion in
loans, far less than the suggested trillions.
The programs have partly fallen victim to their own success: Markets calmed as the Fed
vowed to intervene, making the facilities less necessary as credit began to flow again.
So, the very announcement of the Fed it would lend indefinitely and unconditionally made
such loans unnecessary!
I didn't like it at the beginning, but the term "Late Capitalism" is growing on me.
MSM pushing the the Iran angle shows that they are more anti-Iran than anti-Trump.
What effect would Iran intend by sending fake threatening emails from right-wing guns nuts
to Democrats? I doubt it would discourage those Democrats from voting (for Biden), and I
doubt Iran would think it would. The only effect it would have is to increase the fear,
distrust, and disgust Democrats already have for those groups - which is "sowing discord",
not "meddling with elections".
The Trump regime pushes this because it makes Trump look good & makes Iran look bad
(at least the way it's been framed). MSM generally doesn't like Trump, but prints this
because hyping fear & loathing toward Iran matters more to them than dumping Trump.
Great that they are working on it, I was taking notes but kind of lousy its not easy to
listen and write at the same time. Started kind of nervous, but right now it is Putin at his
most relaxed and eloquent.
It is interesting to see how Putin is way more at ease when answering journalist's
questions than when exposing his part of the event. Right now they asked him about his image,
punk, criminal etc etc. Answer: my function is the main thing, and I do not take it
personally, now the chinese will ask.
In case the truth gets lost in your purposely misleading translation. This hare-brained
scheme was cooked up by Trump and his newly-appointed right-hand bootlicker RATcliffe, at DNI
and delivered to the American people by the latter as a desperate distraction minutes after
Obama smacked down Trump on every air wave.
It immediately gave off an offensive odor, as I stated previously, of Trump turd floating
in golden toilet.
And that's why Chris Wray looked so awkward and uneasy behind that RAT.
Three hours of serious talking about any and all world problems. I wonder how long Lunch Box
Joe could hold on his own. The orange man probably could do it, but just talking about
himself. The US need someone like VVP.
I ought to listen while also reading the Russian close-captioning so I can rebuild my
Russian language facility and catch the body language messages, but I still need to read/hear
it all in English. As for his response to questions, IMO Putin knows what to expect from
media reporters but not from other experts in the audience whose questions are usually more
complex. Then there's the need to remain tactful, although there are times when he does need
to get indignant, as with the issue of illegal sanctions that harm nations's abilities to
deal with the pandemic--the utter immorality and inhumanity of the Outlaw US Empire that
never gets the attention it deserves.
What would Iran gain by scaring lower end of the spectrum Democrats into voting for Trump,
is that desirable for Iran?
Ah ... but it was a pump fake, Iran thought that people would think that the emails were
genuine, arrest a few of the Proud Boys and this would hurt Trump by associating him with a
domestic terror group. Not only is this scenario convoluted but it is extremely risky because
it might scare a handful of impressionable Democrats into voting for Trump and any
investigation would uncover hacking of some kind.
Most likely suspect, Israel. They have the means to hack and the contacts in the U.S. to
suggest Iranian origin.
As Putin said, Russia was able to find "balance" in its reaction to COVID; and as with China
but unlike the Outlaw US Empire, it put the safety of the Russian people first and foremost.
The Empire is experiencing yet another big outbreak nationwide and has yet to put the
interests of its citizenry first.
Is Circe deranged?
I don't know but I doubt if she spends trillions of dollars each year on murdering inocent
men women and children.
Mmmmm
Perhaps to people living in a ''loony bin'' (America) people outside must seem quite strange
!
I live near Glastonbury finest bunch of people you'd ever meet. Not known for genocidel
tendency's.
Any ways Iran, Russia interfering in America's elections -- -- - pure paranoid delusion
(weaponised)
The Mighty Wurlitzer has
begun to sound more like the New York Philharmonic tuning up while riding the Empire State Express
as it crashes endlessly into Grand Central Station.
Dear Circe, each language is a world view, I wish I had the resources available today when
I was younger, I would speak as many as possible, I consider that with the means available
today speaking half a dozen would be no problem at all. You have the blessing and the curse
of speaking english, so no need for anything else, but that is your problem, you are so
relaxed about it that you're not able to spell correctly the name of one of your best known
cities, San Francisco, with a c before the s.
Again, come up with something else, the bot label is as primitive as your knowledge of your
own language and geography.
kiwiklown@14: They do not even care for their own people (covid19 fiasco, anyone?), but pretend to care
for the Chinese people so much they would regime-change the CCP; they pretend to care for the
Russian people so much they would sooner shoot Putin's plane from the sky; they pretend to
care for the Iranian people so much they block their access to covid19 medicines.
Well said, although rather sad! The last pretension reveals exactly the mentality that was
behind the genocide upon the Native American centuries ago, resorting to tactics such as
passing out smallpox infected blankets, dispensation of whisky, as well as outright
slaughters of course.
Gruffy @ 68
Maybe but she martches to a different drum beat. Not the trump drum beat of war that you
follow, and will lead you all over the cliff.
Don't get me wrong ! You'd have to squeeze my nuts pretty dam hard (tears in my eyes) before
I'd vote for Biden.
But you must know two things -- -
A. Trump is bat shit crazy and has his finger on the button whilst the Dems are money mad and
there is know profit in Armageddon.
And
B. I'm antifa my hobby is smashing the filthy fascists !!
Who's streets ? Our streets !!
Without mentioning its name, Putin in his speech pinned the tail on
the donkey regarding TrumpCo's pandemic failure:
"The values of mutual assistance, service and self-sacrifice proved to be most important.
This also applies to the responsibility, composure and honesty of the authorities, their
readiness to meet the demand of society and at the same time provide a clear-cut and
well-substantiated explanation of the logic and consistency of the adopted measures so as not
to allow fear to subdue and divide society but, on the contrary, to imbue it with confidence
that together we will overcome all trials no matter how difficult they may be.
"The struggle against the coronavirus threat has shown that only a viable state can act
effectively in a crisis ..." [My Emphasis]
Yes, it didn't begin with Trump, but he sure did accelerate the process of making the
domestic part of the Outlaw US Empire dysfunctional, which for me makes this "silly season"
even worse than usual.
I view this as shit-against-the-wall policy. You throw it up there. Sometimes it sticks,
sometimes it doesn't.
This is how lowly vermin do foreign policy nowadays.
Remember the story -- first reported as Russians, then Iranians -- paying bounty to the
Talibs to kill (as if they needed motivation) American soldiers?
Well, in that case, I guess neither story really stuck, but you see where I'm going with
this. It's all shite
And silly season continues with self-proclaimed anti-fascists who don't know what fascists
are.
Fascism doesn't necessarily have anything to do with race or religion. Is there any racial
difference between Ukropians and Russians? Fascism is simply a tool that capitalists use to
smash class consciousness. Literally any differences can be used by the capitalists to direct
the violent mobs at their victims, even differences that are completely imaginary and don't
really exist except in the group mind of the mob.
Now I wonder... who is it that will attack someone for saying "But ALL lives
matter!" ? Who is smashing class consciousness?
And this is why the USA is turning into a failed state and Russia isn't:
"Nevertheless, I am confident that what makes a state strong, primarily, is the
confidence its citizens have in it . That is the strength of a state. People are the
source of power , we all know that. And this recipe doesn't just involve going to the
polling station and voting, it implies people's willingness to delegate broad authority to
their elected government, to see the state, its bodies, civil servants, as their
representatives – those who are entrusted to make decisions, but who also bear full
responsibility for the performance of their duties .
"This kind of state can be set up any way you like. When I say 'any way,' I mean that what
you call your political system is immaterial. Each country has its own political culture,
traditions, and its own vision of their development. Trying to blindly imitate someone else's
agenda is pointless and harmful. The main thing is for the state and society to be in
harmony .
"And of course, confidence is the most solid foundation for the creative work of the
state and society. Only together will they be able to find an optimal balance of freedom and
security guarantees ." [My Emphasis]
What a brilliant collection of words emphasizing the absolute requirement for the state to
do its utmost to support and develop its human capital--its citizens--while also saying
citizens have their own duty to ensure the quality of the state, which means installing
representatives that will work for them and promote their interests first and foremost since
they are the backbone of the state. Don't feed and care for the citizenry as in the USA and
you'll have a corrupt, feeble state when it comes to keeping itself strong. And IMO the
primary difference that's making Russia stronger while the USA atrophies is that Russia
listens to its people and genuinely cares for and acts in their interests while in the USA
the demands of the citizenry have fallen on deaf ears for decades, regardless the political
party running the government.
Gruffy is trying to conflate perpetrator as opposed to the victim/ victems !
Classic -- -
US geo-politics.
Blame shifting fascist tactic.
Learned far right tactic.
Or
Psychopathic projection.
Example -- --
US attacks Iran &Russia but blames them for attacking The US.
Also Gruffy I note how you side step a point well made by
Asking a deliberately distracting question. Yawn
"Blame shifting" absolutely is part of smashing class consciousness. Shift the blame
for people's difficulties from capitalism to various parts of the working class. Those who
participate violently in this process are fascists and perpetrators. Of course, they are also
victims because they are destroying their own class consciousness. Class consciousness is
necessary if they are ever to be able to address the real issues causing them hardship.
When the question and answers segment comes online it is worth reading his opinion about
the Karabakh conflict and how it is a very difficult situation for Russia since both
countries involved, Armenia and Azerbaijan are part of a common family. The question implied
that Russia would unequivocally side with Armenia based on religion, to which Putin answered
that 15% of Russia population professes the islamic faith and that he considers Azerbaijan a
country as close to Russia as Armenia, with over two million nationals from each of the
warring countries living in Russia and as part of a very influential and productive
community.
Interesting too his take on Turkey, admitting that there are a lot of disagreements Putin
had good words for Erdogan admitting that he is independent and that he is someone able to
uphold his word, the Turk Stream project, it was agreed upon and completed, compared to the
europeans to whom he did not spare in his almost contemptuous words insinuating their lack of
sovereignty.
Gruffy error !!
In this context the 'mob'
Is trump followers.
The thugs in uniform.
The proud boys.
The US forces abroad and at home.
Gruffy 'you' ARE the mob.
I feel you watched to many cowboy films portraying native Americans as the bad guys! It
shows.
I won't be replying more. as I see your very shabby diversionary tactic. Nice try though. We
see you !! What you are and what you do.
Thanks for your reply! Even before the Q&A Putin skewers both the Empire and EU in
this paragraph:
"Genuine democracy and civil society cannot be imported.' I have said so many times. They
cannot be a product of the activities of foreign 'well-wishers,' even if they 'want the best
for us.' In theory, this is probably possible. But, frankly, I have not yet seen such a thing
and do not believe much in it. We see how such imported democracy models function. They are
nothing more than a shell or a front with nothing behind them, even a semblance of
sovereignty. People in the countries where such schemes have been implemented were never
asked for their opinion, and their respective leaders are mere vassals. As is known, the
overlord decides everything for the vassal . To reiterate, only the citizens of a
particular country can determine their public interest." [My Emphasis]
And that "particular country" is one where both the citizens and the government share
"confidence" in each other such that they work in "harmony." Thus the #1 goal of the Outlaw
US Empire to sow chaos within nations so such confidence and harmony can't be established;
and if they are, then destroyed.
No one has ever lied to American people more than the American regime and her terrorizing
intelligence community organization, Snowden is the living proof of this . Anyone still alive
and living on this planet if it ever believed a word on anything coming out of the USG not
only is a fool and a total idiot but his/her head must be seriously checked. Regardless of
their party affiliations they have no shame of lying cheating steeling those United
oligarchy' Secretary of State is the proof that.
This poster is on neither "side" . More like Putin looking in pain over Azerbaijan and
Armenia killing each other at the prompting of some third party that doesn't care about
either of them. This poster is neither faux left nor right wing; however, this poster's
grandmother was Cherokee. There is no anger directed your way for your failure to understand,
though.
If Americans had any backbone they would be on the streets protesting about this sham
election prior to the election, of false choice no choice.
You earn your democracy or you loose your democracy.
Iran, Russia bashing ! Just how low have you people sunk.
No hind sight, no insight and no foresight !
No hope. Spineless.
Totally weird! You all, please get behind re-electing Trump. He is doing such a good job of
destroying the US empire and its pretensions. If you are really a leftist, this is a GOO:-D
thing!
The alternative is to vote Independent or Green but they don't have a chance right
now.
Walking only 3 miles on Wilshire Blvd in Los Angeles , going west I have counted 47 homeless
(male,females,wht,black,Asian)asking for handouts. These lost soles are the ones who have
paid the price for the for ever wars to secure the Israel' realm,
The propose of yesterday's security show at FBI was to convince the public that all negative
comments and cretics coming their way by internet blogs, email , media etc. is not really
from disfranchised Americans public, but rather foreign countries operation that they do not
like our democracy and way of life, It was solely meant to make people not to subscribe and
believe what negativity they hear or read on US( non existing)democracy ,
This is a cheap standard operation by totalitarian regimes.
53
That money went to the ESF,what else do you think is levitating stocks and bonds ?
You assumed wrongly, but Kudlow let slip they(ESF) were broke and actually stated the money
was going to them in a presser.
I dunno why I'm bothering to do this because astrology is such a lame easily disproven
superstition that gets by because there are just so many con artists making predictions that
occasionally some must be correct - the stopped clock effect, but here goes.
The moon's effect on our planet's oceans is proven to be caused by a known phenomenon,
gravity. These stars whose positions we are told influence our human lives (just another
anthrocentric load of bulldust what about beings on other planets?) are thousands of light
years away from earth, meaning when the con-artists draw up their star charts or WTF they
call 'em, they are looking at formations that happened thousands of years ago - all different
depending on a particular star's distance from earth.
Claiming to be able to predict anything rational from such a mish mash of incorrect data is
risible, sad really and goes much to explain the house dembot's mania.
As for oblammer in Miami? I guess the dnc know where quite a few oblammer bodies are
buried.
My view is changing, Biden is so crooked that even though if he wins, the corporate media
will try hard to leave him alone, but he's just too clumsy, so that some dems are going to
side with the rethugs to impeach him and fast, however that may be what the oligarchy is
counting on, as that brings bad karmala harris to the fore, a women so unpopular with dem
rank and file she withdrew from the primary before any votes were cast, how's that for
'democracy'.
This is the real issue, both dem & rethug prez candidates are crooks through and
through, if the dems win, then the spotlight the corporate media shone on orangeutan will be
turned off. At least some of trump's worst rorts were stopped by a fear of being found out,
but if the dems win dopey joe will have no such constraint - until he does something so over
the top eg kick off nuclear war, that the media finally wakes up. too late but at least now
they're awake.
Posted by: vinnieoh | Oct 22 2020 16:04 utc | 45 If Trump loses, should some people expect
bricks through their windows, or perhaps fire-bombings?
That is the threat. If either side loses, there will be massive civil unrest - at least
it's very likely that is (part of) "the plan" - whatever the plan actually is. In any event,
plan or not, it's predictable. Most of the preppers I follow on Youtube are urging everyone
to stock up on food and water because there's a good chance that everyone will be back on
movement restrictions of some sort, if not full-on martial law, within the next couple
months. As I said before, this country is going to start looking like Turkey or Italy in the
70's when the Grey Wolves and the Red Brigades were terrorizing those countries. It may not
be "civil war", but it's likely to be uglier than what happened this summer.
There will be cries of joy in the streets and maybe some celebratory looting, all from the
urban left.
Trump's supporters might assemble peacefully in a very sparse manner, but I would bet most
would simply take the newly alotted time from the Biden-victory to prep and ready a little
more before the real fireworks begin. Violence would only erupt from the urban left attacking
those demonstrations.
Real men are lying in wait. The city is not their playground any longer.
Posted by: Debsisdead | Oct 22 2020 11:21 utc | 19 -- "Barack can claim 'he paid his dues'
whilst keeping as much space as he can organise between himself and crooked joe, who has
already brought oblamblam's prezdency into disrepute with the shameless & ugly ukraine
rort that he and his bagman hunter had concocted."
Thanks for your astute observations. Am learning much.
A compromised man never escapes blackmail: he is but a tool in the hands of his owners. It
is not IF, but WHEN he will be used / abused. Over and over again, like a banker's boot
stomping on his arrogant face.
But then, who is to say that Obanger Obummer was unaware of his VP, that Basement-Biding
Bidet Biden's 'arrangements' for wealth accretion? And more (there is always more), who is to
say that Obanging Ohumming gets NO share therefrom at some 'convenient' time?
Evil thinks himself clever to hide in the dark, yet lives in daily fear of the light.
Thusly Obanging Ohummer's calculations that you noted above, and his dark demeanour these
days. He knows he is walking on a knife edge, with a sword hanging over his head, and a
safety net (those 17 intelligence agencies?) that can turn into a fowler's snare (sorry,
mixed metaphors!)
Yet, looking at the happier demeanour (she used to scowl all through 2017/2018) on that
shallow face called Michelle Ohummer, we can guess that she thinks they have escaped clean
with their 'rewards of office'.
Christian J. Chuba @17 asked, "How long?" I ask, how does an immoral leadership ever going
to turn moral? When does America get the leadership that she deserves?
@71 karlof1 - "only a viable state can act effectively in a crisis" - Putin
What a brilliant equation from Putin. Even more penetrating and useful than the formerly
existing observation that socialist-style societies have performed best in response to the
virus. Putin's criterion cuts exactly to the essence of the thing.
What the US has demonstrated from the virus response is that it is not a viable state. The
benchmark now exists. Thanks for bringing it over.
I have a friend of Cherokee ancestry. She told me how once she was speaking with an elder
woman of the tribe, and described herself as "one-eighth Cherokee".
The old woman shook her head and said, "The Cherokee spirit cannot be diluted."
Should any here be interested, Wikipedia has aa extensive listing of governmental scandals
for the 20th and 21st century administrations. Note the number of executive, legislative and
judicial scandals for each administration. Note also the volume of scandals as
administrations go from Franklin D. Roosevelt through to D.J. Trump for both executive and
legislative branches. The political parties of the malfeasant are of interest as well -
trending can be discerned, maybe, for the observant.
I'd have more hope for Russia if the Russian ruling class weren't so obsessed with the
West and didn't send their children to Western (woke) schools, etc.
theallseeinggod , 7 hours ago
They're not doing that well, but they're not repeating many of the west's mistakes.
Normal , 5 hours ago
Now the West has rules only for poor people.
Helg Saracen , 6 hours ago
Advice to Americans (for the sake of experiment): prohibit lobbying in US and the right of
citizens with dual citizenship to hold public office in US. I assure - you will be surprised
how quickly Russians go from non-kosher to kosher for Americans and how American politicians,
the media will convince Americans of this at every intersection. :) Ha ha ha
Nayel , 5 hours ago
If the [Vichy] Left in America weren't so determined to project their own Bolshevik
leanings on to a possible great ally that their ideology now fears, Russia would be just
that: a great ally that could help America shake the Bolsheviks that have infiltrated the
American government and plan the same program their Soviet forefathers once held over
Russia...
Arising 2.0 , 1 hour ago
Western zionist controlled propaganda reminds me of Mohamed Ali- he used to talk up the
******** so much before a fight that when the time came to fight the opponent was usually
traumatised or confused. Until Ali met with Joe Frazier (Russia) who didn't fall for all the
pre-fight BS.
ThePinkHole , 39 minutes ago
Time for a pop quiz! Name the two countries below:
Country A - competency, attention to first principles, planning based on reality,
consistency of purpose, and unity of execution.
Country B - incompetency, interfering in everything everywhere, planning based on hubris
and sloppy assumptions, confusion, and disunity.
(Source: Adapted from Patrick Armstrong)
foxenburg , 3 hours ago
This one is always good for a laugh....the Daily Telegraph's Con Coughlin explaining in
2015 how Putin will fail in Syria...
We have all this talk of the 'Ruskies' when in fact it is not the ordinary Russian people
but rather a geopolitical power struggle. The ordinary US citizen or European just wants to
maintain their liberty and be able to profit from their endeavours. The rich and powerful
globalists who hide behind their military are the ones that play these games. I am no friend
of Putin but equally I am no friend of our own political establishment that have been
captured by Wall Street. I care about Main Street and as the US dollar loses its privilege
there will be real pain to share amongst our economies. The last thing we need is for the
elites of the Western alliance to profit with cold/hot wars on the backs of ourselves.
Having been behind the iron curtain as a young Merchant Navy Officer I found ordinary
citizens fine and even organized football matches with the local communist parties. People
have the same desires and aspirations and whether rich or poor we should respect each others
cultures and territories. http://www.money-liberty.com/gallery/Predictions-2021.pdf
You would be justified in thinking that the various news conferences put on by US law
enforcement and intelligence officials in which foreign actors – Russia, China and Iran
are the usual suspects – are accused of meddling in all things American are little more
than a giant practical joke, a parody of how a government should behave, instead of the damning
indictment of reality that they are.
The most recent iteration of this embarrassing spectacle took place on Wednesday evening,
during a hastily convened press conference suspiciously timed to coincide with former president
Barack Obama's inaugural stump speech in support of Democratic presidential candidate Joe
Biden.
Normally, the citation of such coincidences would relegate any subsequent analysis to the
rabbit hole of conspiracy theory. However, we do not live in normal times. The press conference
was convened by the Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, who was in turn
accompanied by the Director of the FBI, Christopher Wray.
Ratcliffe has come under fire from Congressional Democrats for his
selective declassification of documents pertaining to allegations of Russian involvement in
the 2016 US presidential campaign. Former CIA director John Brennan, who was the subject of
some of the leaked documents, accused Ratcliffe of releasing them to
"advance the political interests" of President Donald Trump ahead of the November 3
election.
The declassification caper was followed by Ratcliffe's
unsolicited intervention regarding the acquisition by the FBI of computer hard drives
allegedly belonging to Joe Biden's son, Hunter. Ratcliffe declared that the contents of the
drives were not part of a Russian disinformation campaign and thereby drew the ire of
Democrats, who view the sordid computer story as a smear campaign against the former vice
president.
The October 21 press conference followed in the path of Ratcliffe's prior interventions, and
appeared to be little more than an insufficiently sourced allegation wrapped in highly
politicized conclusions.
Ratcliffe claimed the US intelligence community had " confirmed that some voter
registration information has been obtained by Iran, and separately, by Russia ." This was
the gist of the press conference, and it added virtually nothing to the
statement released by Ratcliffe in August in which he noted that the US intelligence
community was " primarily concerned about the ongoing and potential activity by China,
Russia, and Iran ."
What made Ratcliffe's announcement even less spectacular was the fact that the data he
accused Iran and Russia of stealing was publicly available, leading some anonymous intelligence
officials to speculate that the hacking operations were little more than an effort to avoid
paying the fees associated with accessing this data. As far as crimes go, this one was
eminently forgettable.
Ratcliffe noted that the US officials " have already seen Iran sending spoofed emails
designed to intimidate voters, incite social unrest, and damage President Trump ,"
referring to a scheme alleged to have been implemented by Iran, using this information,
to
disseminate emails to potential voters claiming to be from the controversial Proud Boys
organization, that threatened physical violence unless the recipient voted for Trump in the
coming election.
The purpose of this scheme appears to be less about actually changing votes (voting is done
in secret, so the sender of the letter would have no way of confirming an outcome, thereby
negating the threat) and more about undermining confidence in the electoral process as a whole.
Both Iran and the Proud Boys have denied any involvement in the letter writing campaign.
This latest incursion by the US intelligence community into the topic of election
interference by outside powers has been loudly condemned by the Democrats, with the House
Homeland Security Committee, chaired by Mississippi Democrat Bennie Thompson, tweeting "
Ratcliffe has TOO OFTEN politicized the Intelligence Community to carry water for the
President ."
But Ratcliffe's actions only continue in the vein of a history of electioneering by the US
intelligence community during contentious presidential elections. Much of the Democrats'
current ire against Ratcliffe stems from his exposing documents that point to similar
politically motivated interventions by John Brennan and others during the 2016 election,
ostensibly for the purpose of undermining the campaign of then-candidate Trump.
The fact is, what passes for domestic US politics is virtually impossible to manipulate by
outside agencies. The effort by
Cambridge Analytica to predict voting preferences in 2016 by accessing the confidential
online data of millions of Americans has been shown to have been spectacularly ineffective, and
it exceeded by some way the sophistication and data collection activities attributed to foreign
powers such as Russia, China, and Iran.
The mind of the American voter is influenced by a wide variety of inputs that are highly
individualized and, in many instances, virtually unquantifiable. The notion that a
sophisticated data mining organization such as Cambridge Analytica, or the intelligence
services of any of those three nations, could succeed in doing over the course of months what
American political organizations have been struggling to achieve over two-plus centuries is not
only laughable, but insulting.
Yet the level of domestic political insecurity that exists today is such that both political
parties, lacking confidence in their own inherent messaging capability, have succumbed to the
psychosis of political victimhood, blaming others for their own inherent failures. By allowing
the work of the US intelligence community to be used as a foil in this self-destructive blame
game, a succession of US intelligence professionals, led by John Brennan, James Clapper, James
Comey, Richard Grenell, John Ratcliffe, and others, have turned the once respected profession
of intelligence into a politicized joke.
In this, however, it is in good company, joined by both political parties, the US media and,
frankly speaking, the US electorate. American democracy is a mirror image of the nation it
purports to serve, and, at the moment, the reflection displayed is a thoroughly tragic one.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
For all practical purposes Biden work as a well paid lobbyist for China.
Notable quotes:
"... So Navalny was "poisoned by Putin" and sent to a Berlin hospital so that conclusion could be defined ? USSR was so incompetent with bio-weapons it cannot create a lethal organophosphate poison yet US/Uk can develop VX which worked definitively on King Jong-Un's half-brother ! ..."
So Navalny was "poisoned by Putin" and sent to a Berlin hospital so that conclusion could
be defined ? USSR was so incompetent with bio-weapons it cannot create a lethal
organophosphate poison yet US/Uk can develop VX which worked definitively on King Jong-Un's
half-brother !
Then again China can develop effective bio-weapons which expose the E=West and especially
NATO armed forces as unprepared, incompetent, ineffectual and in Chinese terms "paper
tigers"
So more and more sanctions on Russia and more and more orders for PPE and other goodies
from China.
Russia is Post-Communist but China is VERY VERY Communist.
Putin apparently "interferes in US elections" but China simply buys up one of the parties
and owns the candidate and his family
The Russians ( Putin / Lavrov) say ever so politely that the US is not
agreement-capable.
I add that the US ( politicians, Wall Streeters, MSM, think tanks ) are:
not truth-capable;
not ethics-capable;
not shame-capable;
not honour-capable.
What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul? He turns into a
ghoul without a soul, says I, a devil without human-ness! How dare they call us deplorables
when they are the despicables?
"... When the matter of truth is depicted as a possible threat to those that govern a country, you no longer have a democratic state. True, not everything can be disclosed to the public in real time, but we are sitting on a mountain of classified intelligence material that goes back more than 60 years. ..."
"... From this recognition, the whole matter of declassifying material around the Russigate scandal in real time, and not highly redacted 50 years from now, is essential to addressing this festering putrefaction that has been bubbling over since the heinous assassination of President Kennedy on Nov. 22nd, 1963 and to which we are still waiting for full disclosure of classified papers 57 years later. ..."
"... These intelligence bureaus need to be reviewed for what kind of method and standard they are upholding in collecting their "intelligence," that has supposedly justified the Mueller investigation and the never-ending Flynn investigation which have provided zero conclusive evidence to back up their allegations and which have massively infringed on the elected government's ability to make the changes that they had committed to the American people. ..."
"... Just like the Iraq and Libya war that was based off of cooked British intelligence (refer here and here ), Russiagate appears to have also had its impetus from our friends over at MI6 as well. It is no surprise that Sir Richard Dearlove, who was then MI6 chief (1999-2004) and who oversaw and stood by the fraudulent intelligence on Iraq stating they bought uranium from Niger to build a nuclear weapon, is the very same Sir Richard Dearlove who promoted the Christopher Steele dossier as something "credible" to American intelligence. ..."
"... In other words, the same man who is largely responsible for encouraging the illegal invasion of Iraq, which set off the never-ending wars on "terror," that was justified with cooked British intelligence is also responsible for encouraging the Russian spook witch-hunt that has been occurring within the US for the last four years over more cooked British intelligence, and the FBI and CIA are knowingly complicit in this. ..."
"... "The Central Intelligence Agency violated its charter for 25 years until revelations of illegal wiretapping, domestic surveillance, assassination plots, and human experimentation led to official investigations and reforms in the 1970s." [emphasis added] ..."
"... On Dec. 22, 1974, The New York Times published an article by Seymour Hersh exposing illegal operations conducted by the CIA, dubbed the "family jewels". This included, covert action programs involving assassination attempts on foreign leaders and covert attempts to subvert foreign governments, which were reported for the first time. In addition, the article discussed efforts by intelligence agencies to collect information on the political activities of US citizens. ..."
"... Largely as a reaction to Hersh's findings, the creation of the Church Committee was approved on January 27, 1975, by a vote of 82 to 4 in the Senate. ..."
"... In addition, the Church Committee produced seven case studies on covert operations, but only the one on Chile was released, titled " Covert Action in Chile: 1963–1973 ". The rest were kept secret at the CIA's request. ..."
"... Among the most shocking revelation of the Church Committee was the discovery of Operation SHAMROCK , in which the major telecommunications companies shared their traffic with the NSA from 1945 to the early 1970s. The information gathered in this operation fed directly into the NSA Watch List. It was found out during the committee investigations that Senator Frank Church, who was overseeing the committee, was among the prominent names under surveillance on this NSA Watch List. ..."
"... According to Garrison's team findings, there was reason to believe that the CIA was involved in the orchestrations of President Kennedy's assassination but access to classified material (which was nearly everything concerning the case) was necessary to continue such an investigation. ..."
"... Though Garrison's team lacked direct evidence, they were able to collect an immense amount of circumstantial evidence, which should have given the justification for access to classified material for further investigation. Instead the case was thrown out of court prematurely and is now treated as if it were a circus. [Refer to Garrison's book for further details and Oliver Stone's excellently researched movie JFK ] ..."
"... On Oct. 6th, 2020, President Trump ordered the declassification of the Russia Probe documents along with the classified documents on the findings concerning the Hillary Clinton emails. The release of these documents threatens to expose the entrapment of the Trump campaign by the Clinton campaign with help of the US intelligence agencies. ..."
"... Trey Gowdy, who was Chair of the House Oversight Committee from June 13th, 2017 – Jan. 3rd, 2019, has stated in an interview on Oct. 7th, 2020 that he has never seen these documents. Devin Nunes, who was Chair of the House Intelligence Committee from Jan. 3rd, 2015 – Jan. 3rd, 2019, has also said in a recent interview that he has never seen these documents. ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation . ..."
"Treason doth never prosper; what is the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it
treason." – Sir John Harrington.
As Shakespeare would state in his play Hamlet, "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark,"
like a fish that rots from head to tail, so do corrupt government systems rot from top to
bottom.
This is a reference to the ruling system of Denmark and not just the foul murder that King
Claudius has committed against his brother, Hamlet's father. This is showcased in the play by
reference to the economy of Denmark being in a state of shambles and that the Danish people are
ready to revolt since they are on the verge of starving. King Claudius has only been king for a
couple of months, and thus this state of affairs, though he inflames, did not originate with
him.
Thus, during our time of great upheaval we should ask ourselves; what constitutes the
persisting "ruling system," of the United States, and where do the injustices in its state of
affairs truly originate from?
The tragedy of Hamlet does not just lie in the action (or lack of action) of one man, but
rather, it is contained in the choices and actions of all its main characters. Each character
fails to see the longer term consequences of their own actions, which leads not only to their
ruin but towards the ultimate collapse of Denmark. The characters are so caught up in their
antagonism against one another that they fail to foresee that their very own destruction is
intertwined with the other.
This is a reflection of a failing system.
A system that, though it believes itself to be fighting tooth and nail for its very
survival, is only digging a deeper grave. A system that is incapable of generating any real
solutions to the problems it faces.
The only way out of this is to address that very fact. The most important issue that will
decide the fate of the country is what sort of changes are going to occur in the political and
intelligence apparatus, such that a continuation of this tyrannical treason is finally stopped
in its tracks and unable to sow further discord and chaos.
When the Matter of "Truth" Becomes a Threat to "National Security"
When the matter of truth is depicted as a possible threat to those that govern a
country, you no longer have a democratic state. True, not everything can be disclosed to the
public in real time, but we are sitting on a mountain of classified intelligence material that
goes back more than 60 years.
How much time needs to elapse before the American people have the right to know the truth
behind what their government agencies have been doing within their own country and abroad in
the name of the "free" world?
From this recognition, the whole matter of declassifying material around the Russigate
scandal in real time, and not highly redacted 50 years from now, is essential to addressing
this festering putrefaction that has been bubbling over since the
heinous assassination of President Kennedy on Nov. 22nd, 1963 and to which we are still
waiting for full disclosure of classified papers 57 years later.
If the American people really want to finally see who is standing behind that curtain in Oz,
now is the time.
These intelligence bureaus need to be reviewed for what kind of method and standard they
are upholding in collecting their "intelligence," that has supposedly justified the Mueller
investigation and the never-ending Flynn investigation which have provided zero conclusive
evidence to back up their allegations and which have massively infringed on the elected
government's ability to make the changes that they had committed to the American
people.
Just like the Iraq and Libya war that was based off of cooked British intelligence
(refer here
and here ),
Russiagate appears to have also had its impetus from our friends over at MI6 as well. It is no
surprise that Sir Richard Dearlove, who was then MI6 chief (1999-2004) and who
oversaw and stood by the fraudulent intelligence on Iraq stating they bought uranium from
Niger to build a nuclear weapon, is the very same Sir Richard Dearlove who promoted the
Christopher Steele dossier as something "credible" to American intelligence.
In other words, the same man who is largely responsible for encouraging the illegal
invasion of Iraq, which set off the never-ending wars on "terror," that was justified with
cooked British intelligence is also responsible for encouraging the Russian spook witch-hunt
that has been occurring within the US for the last four years over more cooked British
intelligence, and the FBI and CIA are knowingly complicit in this.
Neither the American people, nor the world as a whole, can afford to suffer any more of the
so-called "mistaken" intelligence bumblings. It is time that these intelligence bureaus are
held accountable for at best criminal negligence, at worst, treason against their own
country.
When Great Figures of Hope Are Targeted as Threats to "National Security"
The Family Jewels
report , which was an investigation conducted by the CIA to investigate itself, was spurred
by the Watergate Scandal and the CIA's unconstitutional role in the whole affair. This
investigation by the CIA reviewed its own conduct from the 1950s to mid-1970s.
The Family Jewels report was only partially declassified in June 25, 2007 (30
years later). Along with the release of the redacted report included a six-page summary with
the following introduction:
"The Central Intelligence Agency violated its charter for 25 years until revelations of
illegal wiretapping, domestic surveillance, assassination plots, and human experimentation led
to official investigations and reforms in the 1970s." [emphasis added]
Despite this acknowledged violation of its charter for 25 years, which is pretty much since
its inception, the details of this information were kept classified for 30 years from not just
the public but major governmental bodies and it was left to the agency itself to judge how best
to "reform" its ways.
On Dec. 22, 1974, The
New York Times published an article by Seymour Hersh exposing illegal operations conducted
by the CIA, dubbed the "family jewels". This included, covert action programs involving
assassination attempts on foreign leaders and covert attempts to subvert foreign governments,
which were reported for the first time. In addition, the article discussed efforts by
intelligence agencies to collect information on the political activities of US
citizens.
Largely as a reaction to Hersh's findings, the creation of the Church Committee was
approved on January 27, 1975, by a vote of 82 to 4 in the Senate.
The Church Committee also published an interim
report titled "Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders", which investigated
alleged attempts to assassinate foreign leaders, including Patrice Lumumba of Zaire, Rafael
Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, Ngo Dinh Diem of Vietnam, Gen. René Schneider of Chile
and Fidel Castro of Cuba. President Ford attempted to withhold the report from the public, but
failed and reluctantly issued Executive
Order 11905 after pressure from the public and the Church Committee.
Executive Order 11905 is a United States Presidential Executive Order signed on February 18,
1976, by a very reluctant President Ford in an attempt to reform the United States Intelligence
Community, improve oversight on foreign intelligence activities, and ban political
assassination.
The attempt is now regarded as a failure and was largely undone by President Reagan who
issued Executive
Order 12333 , which extended the powers and responsibilities of US intelligence agencies
and directed leaders of the US federal agencies to co-operate fully with the CIA, which was the
original arrangement that CIA have full authority over clandestine operations (for more
information on this refer to my papers
here and
here ).
In addition, the Church Committee produced seven case studies on covert operations, but
only the one on Chile was released, titled " Covert Action in
Chile: 1963–1973 ". The rest were kept secret at the CIA's request.
Among the most shocking revelation of the Church Committee was the discovery of
Operation SHAMROCK ,
in which the major telecommunications companies shared their traffic with the NSA from 1945 to
the early 1970s. The information gathered in this operation fed directly into the NSA Watch
List. It was found out during the committee investigations that Senator Frank Church, who was
overseeing the committee, was among the prominent
names under surveillance on this NSA Watch List.
In 1975, the Church Committee decided to unilaterally declassify the particulars of this
operation, against the objections of President Ford's administration (refer here and
here for more information).
The Church Committee's reports constitute the most extensive review of intelligence
activities ever made available to the public. Much of the contents were classified, but over
50,000 pages were declassified under the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records
Collection Act of 1992.
President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas on Nov. 22nd, 1963. Two days before his
assassination a hate-Kennedy handbill (see picture) was circulated in Dallas accusing the
president of treasonous activities including being a communist sympathizer.
On March 1st, 1967 New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison arrested and charged Clay Shaw
with conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy, with the help of David Ferrie and others.
After a little over a one month long trial, Shaw was found not guilty on March 1st, 1969.
David Ferrie, a controller of Lee Harvey Oswald, was going to be a key witness and would
have provided the "smoking gun" evidence linking himself to Clay Shaw, was likely murdered on
Feb. 22nd, 1967, less than a week after news of Garrison's investigation broke in the
media.
According to Garrison's team findings, there was reason to believe that the CIA was
involved in the orchestrations of President Kennedy's assassination but access to classified
material (which was nearly everything concerning the case) was necessary to continue such an
investigation.
Though Garrison's team lacked direct evidence, they were able to collect an immense
amount of circumstantial evidence, which should have given the justification for access to
classified material for further investigation. Instead the case was thrown out of court
prematurely and is now treated as if it were a circus. [Refer to Garrison's book for further details and
Oliver Stone's excellently researched movie JFK ]
To date, it is the only trial to be brought forward concerning the assassination of
President Kennedy.
The Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) was created in 1994 by the Congress enacted
President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, which mandated that all
assassination-related material be housed in a single collection within the National Archives
and Records Administration. In July 1998, a staff report
released by the ARRB emphasized shortcomings in the original autopsy.
The
ARRB wrote , "One of the many tragedies of the assassination of President Kennedy has been
the incompleteness of the autopsy record and the suspicion caused by the shroud of secrecy that
has surrounded the records that do exist." [emphasis added]
Asked about the lunchroom episode [where he was overheard stating his notes of the autopsy
went missing] in a May 1996 deposition, Finck said he did not remember it. He was also vague
about how many notes he took during the autopsy but confirmed that 'after the autopsy I also
wrote notes' and that he turned over whatever notes he had to the chief autopsy physician,
James J. Humes.
It has long been known that Humes destroyed some original autopsy papers in a fireplace at
his home on Nov. 24, 1963. He told the Warren Commission that what he burned was an original
draft of his autopsy report. Under persistent questioning at a February 1996 deposition by
the Review Board, Humes said he destroyed the draft and his 'original notes.'
Shown official autopsy photographs of Kennedy from the National Archives, [Saundra K.]
Spencer [who worked in 'the White House lab'] said they were not the ones she helped process
and were printed on different paper. She said 'there was no blood or opening cavities' and
the wounds were much smaller in the pictures [than what she had] worked on
John T. Stringer, who said he was the only one to take photos during the autopsy itself,
said some of those were missing as well. He said that pictures he took of Kennedy's brain at
a 'supplementary autopsy' were different from the official set that was shown to him.
[emphasis added]
This not only shows that evidence tampering did indeed occur, as even the Warren
Commission acknowledges, but this puts into question the reliability of the entire
assassination record of John F. Kennedy and to what degree evidence tampering and forgery have
occurred in these records.
We would also do well to remember the numerous crimes that the FBI and CIA have been guilty
of committing upon the American people such as during the period of McCarthyism. That the FBI's
COINTELPRO has been implicated in covert operations against members of the civil rights
movement, including Martin Luther King Jr. during the 1960s. That FBI director J. Edgar Hoover
made no secret of his hostility towards Dr. King and his ludicrous belief that King was
influenced by communists, despite having no evidence to that effect.
King was assassinated on April 4th, 1968 and the civil rights movement took a major
blow.
In November 1975, as the Church Committee was completing its investigation, the Department
of Justice formed a Task Force to examine the FBI's program of harassment directed at Dr. King,
including the FBI's security investigations of him, his assassination and the FBI conducted
criminal investigation that followed. One aspect of the Task force study was to determine
"whether any action taken in relation to Dr. King by the FBI before the assassination had, or
might have had, an effect, direct or indirect, on that event."
In its report
, the Task Force criticized the FBI not for the opening, but for the protracted continuation
of, its security investigation of Dr. King:
"We think the security investigation which included both physical and technical
surveillance, should have been terminated in 1963. That it was intensified and augmented by a
COINTELPRO type campaign against Dr. King was unwarranted; the COINTELPRO type campaign,
moreover, was ultra vires and very probably felonious."
In 1999, King Family
v. Jowers civil suit in Memphis, Tennessee occurred, the full transcript of the trial can
be found here
. The jury found that Lloyd Jowers and unnamed others, including those in high ranking
positions within government agencies, participated in a conspiracy to assassinate Dr. King.
During the four week trial, it was pointed out that the rifle allegedly used to assassinate
King did not have a scope that was sighted, which meant you could not have hit the broad side
of a barn with that rifle, thus it could not have been the murder weapon.
This was only remarked on over 30 years after King was murdered and showed the level of
incompetence, or more likely, evidence tampering that was committed from previous
investigations conducted by the FBI.
The case of JFK and MLK are among the highest profile assassination cases in American
history, and it has been shown in both cases that evidence tampering has indeed occurred,
despite being in the center of the public eye. What are we then to expect as the standard of
investigation for all the other cases of malfeasance? What expectation can we have that justice
is ever upheld?
With a history of such blatant misconduct, it is clear that the present demand to declassify
the Russiagate papers now, and not 50 years later, needs to occur if we are to address the
level of criminality that is going on behind the scenes and which will determine the fate of
the country.
The American People Deserve to Know
Today we see the continuation of the over seven decades' long ruse, the targeting of
individuals as Russian agents without any basis, in order to remove them from the political
arena. The present effort to declassify the Russiagate papers and exonerate Michael Flynn, so
that he may freely speak of the intelligence he knows, is not a threat to national security, it
is a threat to those who have committed treason against their country.
On Oct. 6th, 2020, President Trump ordered the declassification of the Russia Probe
documents along with the classified documents on the findings concerning the Hillary Clinton
emails. The release of these documents threatens to expose the entrapment of the Trump campaign
by the Clinton campaign with help of the US intelligence agencies.
The Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe released some of these documents
recently, including former CIA Director John Brennan's handwritten notes for a meeting with former
President Obama, the notes revealing that Hillary Clinton approved a plan to "vilify Donald
Trump by stirring up scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service."
Trey Gowdy, who was Chair of the House Oversight Committee from June 13th, 2017 –
Jan. 3rd, 2019, has stated in an interview on Oct. 7th, 2020 that
he has never seen these documents. Devin Nunes, who was Chair of the House Intelligence
Committee from Jan. 3rd, 2015 – Jan. 3rd, 2019, has also said in a recent interview that
he has never seen these documents.
And yet, both the FBI and CIA were aware and had access to these documents and sat on them
for four years, withholding their release from several government-led investigations that were
looking into the Russiagate scandal and who were requesting relevant material that was in the
possession of both intelligence bureaus. Do these intelligence bureaus sound like they are
working for the "national security" of the American people?
The truth must finally be brought to light, or the country will rot from its head to
tail.
"... Perhaps the plot extended beyond those who directly participated but I don't think it was a high level operation. Navalny took a gamble that his sponsors would have no choice but to follow his lead. It now makes no practical difference as to whom planned it. ..."
Alexey Navalny: It's a banned substance. I think for Putin– why– he's using
this chemical weapon to do– do both, kill me and, you know, terrify others. It's
something really scary, where the people just drop dead without– there are no gun.
There are no shots and in a couple of hours, you– you'll be dead and without any traces
on your body. It's something terrifying. And Putin is enjoying it.
So am I. It's very intriguing, the constant plot twists – Navalny is recorded live
'moaning in anguish' but he was not in any pain! Perhaps the very thought of such an amazing
human being and exceptional leader – himself, naturally – struck down in his
prime was just so sorrowful that he could not stifle his sadness.
It's 'something really scary', is it? Why? So far nearly everyone poisoned by it has
survived with no apparent medium-to-long-term damage. The deadliest toxin in the world by a
wide margin has so far managed to kill one barbag who was also a drug addict, and completely
incidentally – she was not ever a target.
According to the Russian record of its use as a murder weapon, though, on the sole known
occasion it was so used, it killed the target in just a few hours. It also killed his
secretary, who used the same phone to call an ambulance, and the pathologist who did his
autopsy.
So whoever is copying Novichok for its terror effects is not doing a very good job. Like
Porsche, there is no substitute.
The "moaning in anguish" was likely Navalny's theatrical assumption that Novichok creates
intense pain. When he learned, after his performance, that Novichok does not create intense
pain, he changed his story on the fly.
This, and a few other things, brings up an interesting conjecture. The Navalny stunt may
have been a free-lance operation done without prior knowledge of Western intelligence
agencies. He and his posse concocted the scheme betting that the the US and Germany would be
backed into a corner and had to play along. They really had no choice as they could not
abandon this asset without the entire "fearless opposition to the tyrant Putin" collapsing
into the cesspool it was built upon.
If so, it was an audacious move that only a sociopath could do. However, it does suggest
that Navalny is finished after the last bit of propaganda value is wrung out. His future
could be either termination under a convenient pretext (i.e. Putin finally got him) or to
become a professor of BS at some US University or the like. The main point is that he is too
unreliable to conduct further operations.
I think the whole thing was a carefully-concocted operation that Lyosha was fully
briefed-in on. His howls and screams would have been necessary in any case, with or without
pain, because it was imperative that all on board be convinced that a terrible event was
taking place and that emergency actions were absolutely called for. It's hard to imagine the
same dramatic effect could have been achieved by Navalny flopping out of the toilet like a
gaffed bass, and whispering to the flight attendant, "I just have this feeling that says
body, we are done". Everyone including the flight attendant would assume he was drunk or
something that was no particular cause for alarm, and maybe even for amusement. Until they
learned that the flight was being diverted so this fuckwad could get off.
I don't know and I don't care who's cuning plan this was. It's got him all the
publicity he needs and also those in the west with their standard 'no smoke without fire'
level of foreign policy 'evidence.' I think he's actually looking to sell his life story for
a Netflix series. Nothing else makes logical sense.
Yes, maybe -- apart from the fact that one of his posse is British agent who has been
controlling FBK investigations into corruption for quite a while now and apparently was stuck
to Navalny during his last foray into the provinces like shit to an army blanket.
To Mark and ME;
The Navalny show still has an ad hoc feel to it. Perhaps the plot extended beyond those
who directly participated but I don't think it was a high level operation. Navalny took a
gamble that his sponsors would have no choice but to follow his lead. It now makes no
practical difference as to whom planned it.
Navalny has complained that Trump has not condemned what happened to him
19.10.2020 | 07:59
Blogger Aleksei Navalny has expressed the opinion that US President Donald Trump should
have also condemned what happened to him, as did European politicians, TASS reports.
"I think it is especially important that everyone, including, and perhaps first and
foremost, the US president, speak out against the use of chemical weapons in the 21st
century", Navalny said.
["Я думаю, что
особенно важно,
чтобы все,
включая и,
возможно, в
первую очередь
президента США,
выступили
против
применения
химического
оружия в XXI
веке".]
On August 20, Navalny was taken to a hospital in Omsk after he had fallen ill on an
aeroplane. Omsk doctors said that the main diagnosis was metabolic disorders. Then Navalny
was transported to Germany. He was in a coma for two weeks. German doctors announced that he
had been poisoned with substances from the Novichok group. Russia has asked Berlin for more
detailed information on the test results, but has not yet received a response.
Currently, Navalny has been discharged from the hospital and is undergoing
rehabilitation.
Big gobbed gobshite shouting his big gob off -- or did his US controllers really urge him
to make that statement? Is the CIA really using him as part of the Democrats "Russiagate"
arsenal?
Got it in one; I was going to say, until I read your last couple of lines, that this is
further suggestion that Navalny is a Democratic project. The US State Department is full of
Democratic appointees. They want to get all the mileage out of him they can before interest
fades.
Miraculously, he recovered from the poison that is so dangerous people fear to mention its
name, for fear that doing so might encourage tongue cancer, and is today fit as a flea; can't
wait to return to Russia for Round Two. If they were wise, they'd kill Lyosha themselves for
his stem cells. Then world leaders could be protected against Russian assassination
attempts.
Certainly capitalizing on his new-found fame, isn't he? Now he feels comfortable telling
the US president how he ought to behave, and chiding him for not appropriately recognizing
Navalny's importance to the world. Dear God, what a swellheaded prat.
If the Chief Bullshitter really feels so concerned for the safety of his family, he will
leave them all abroad and return to Russia alone – I mean, he's not a bit afraid for
himself, he's said as much. Go on, Lyosha – go back home and rally the great restless
throng of oppressed ordinary Russians who cry out for your leadership!!
Not on your life. He's got the sweetest gig ever going on right there, newspapers beating
a path to his door to find out what he likes to eat for breakfast and whose shirts he wears,
no worries about income or housing, hobnobbing with world leaders who listen respectfully to
his opinions, and all he has to do is rant about Putin all day long. The Americans are
finally getting their money's worth out of Lyosha. Whereas what would happen if he went
home?
It would quickly become clear that his support still comes exclusively from the same group
– a few disaffected intelligentsia such as Boris Akunin, the Atlanticist liberatsi who
endlessly predict the collapse of Putin, and the angry kiddies who feel like they are part of
some great Thunberg-like global freedom movement that will bring them a comfortable life but
absolve them of responsibility for working for it – you know; the way they live in
America!
Authoritarian liberals have unleashed a censorious syndrome peculiar to our national
character, dating to 17th century Quaker hangings in Boston.
A n inhabitant of Twitterland named "Willow Inski" took to the keyboard on Oct. 11,
asking why anyone still accepts official accounts of the crucial theft of emails from the
Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign manager John Podesta in the spring of
2016.
Excellently observed, Willow. And at just the right moment. At this point we are amid a
frenzy of what Hannah Arendt called "defactualization" in a 1971
essay she titled "Lying in Politics." Facts are fragile, Arendt astutely observed, because
they can so easily be manipulated to produce a desired image. "It is this fragility," she
wrote, "that makes deception so very easy up to a point, and so tempting."
The latest example of this phenom concerns the emails of Hunter Biden, candidate Joe's errant
son, which persuasively incriminate both in very profitable influence-peddling schemes when
Papa was Barack Obama's veep.
Nobody denies the facts as published last week in The New York Post , not even Biden
père et fils , but the facts are once again mutilated with assertions that it is
another case of the Rrrrrrussians spreading disinformation.
This is what we get after four years of the Russia collusion b.s., otherwise known as
Russiagate. Anything goes if implicating Russia solves a political problem for the Democrats
and keeps the war machine going for the Pentagon and the national security state. It defers the
moment -- at some point it will come -- when the press is exposed for its radically stupid
overinvestment in the Russiagate nonsense. The price America has already begun to pay is very
high.
Willow's expression of perplexity comes after an especially lively season of revelations as
regards what must count as the largest disinformation op in U.S. history. It is now six months
since the Russiagate hoax -- and I am fine with President Donald Trump's term for it -- began
its final crash into a pile of piffle. While it remains to be seen whether more evidence of
political chicanery is coming, what evidence we already have is more than sufficient to
identify Russiagate as the probable criminal fraud it was from the start.
I am refreshed that Willow Inski, who describes herself as an "attorney, wife, mother, proud
American," sees through this extravagant ruse. And yet, as she notes, a lot of people don't. A
lot of people are "still taking at face value" all the misinformation, disinformation, and
outright lies our newspapers, magazines, and broadcasters have purveyed incessantly for the
past four years.
Why is a very large question. All possible answers are disturbing. But here is another big
one we get to before that: When we consider together all its many consequences, has Russiagate
destroyed what remained of American democracy before illiberal liberals, spooks, law
enforcement, and the press colluded to erect the dreadful edifice?
The Damage Done
Your columnist's answer rests on the most scrupulously precise definition of Russiagate one
can manage: What we have witnessed these past four years is an attempted palace coup against a
sitting president.
Cold comfort it is that the gang that couldn't shoot straight bungled the job. It has also
created a Democratic default position: When wrongdoing by Democrats is credibly exposed,
automatically blame Russia. Among much else, that has led to unnecessary tension with a nuclear
power. This damage will long stay with us.
Russiagate's foundation stone -- baseless allegations that Moscow was responsible for the
2016 DNC email intrusions -- crumbled long ago. We've known since July 2017 that nobody hacked
the email servers in question.
This was confirmed by the Dec. 5, 2017, closed-door congressional
testimony of Shawn Henry, president of CrowdStrike, the firm the Democrats hired to examine
the DNC servers. It was made public only on May 7, 2020. Henry said under oath: "There's not
evidence that they [the emails] were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial evidence but
no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. "
The emails were most likely compromised by someone with direct access to them, probably a
DNC insider. 'Twas a leak, not a hack.
But incessant propaganda and a sloppy but effective coverup have kept the fable going
since then. All has been open game these past years, scabrous, apparent false-flag poisonings
-- the Skripals, Alexei Navalny --
baseless tales of Russian bounties on U.S. soldiers' heads. The press has reported this
sort of rubbish for years as if it were confirmed fact. Spectral evidence has reigned.
It is this coverup that has been falling
apart since last spring.
First came news that the collusion case against Michael Flynn, Trump's first national
security adviser, was bogus and that Flynn entered his two guilty pleas when prosecutors
threatened to indict his son if he refused. When the Justice Department dropped its case
against Flynn, it simultaneously forced the House Intelligence Committee to release documents
showing that no "evidence" of a Russian email hack ever existed, even as the Democrats, the
spooks, and the press missed no chance to bang on about it.
Those who got my goat at the time were people such as Adam Schiff, the Democratic
congressman from Hollywood and leader of the charge on Capitol Hill, who knew there was no
evidence of Russian involvement but repeatedly insisted they had seen it whenever they faced a
CNN camera.
You are right, Ms. Inski: Crowdstrike, the grossly corrupt firm that was supposed to have
all the evidence one could ever want, never had any. Former FBI Director James Comey admitted
in testimony that the FBI asked for but never gained possession of the DNC server, even though
this would be the "best practice." We can surmise that this was so, so that the bureau
could deny responsibility for what amounts to a psyop perpetrated against Americans. In June
2019 it was
reported that CrowdStrike also never gave the FBI a final report because none was ever
produced since the FBI never asked for one.
Among the congressional testimonies released last spring, two top Clinton campaign
operatives, Podesta and Jake Sullivan,
acknowledged that they met after Trump's election with the principals of Fusion GPS, the
infamous orchestrator of the Steele Dossier, to keep the Russiagate ball rolling. What a
difference speaking under oath makes.
Actually, what got my goat a second time was that none of this, as in none, was reported in
The New York Times or anywhere else in the mainstream media. Our once-but-no-more
newspaper of record has made an absolute dog's dinner of itself since its leadership decided to
buy into the Russiagate junk. At this point I am convinced its ties to the spooks are as dense
and corrupt as they were during the worst of the Cold War decades, when the publisher
signed a
covert agreement to cooperate with the CIA.
Clinton Approved Plan
As if any more reports were needed to deflate the Russiagate balloon, the evidence continues
to accumulate. At the end of September John Ratcliffe, director of national intelligence,
informed Senator Lindsey Graham that intelligence agencies had information "alleging that
U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal
against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians'
hacking of the Democratic National Committee." Some of us
knew this four years ago.
While Ratcliffe's letter adds that spookworld "does not know the accuracy of this
allegation," it goes on to note that the intel in question was serious enough for John Brennan,
then the CIA director, to brief President Barack Obama about it and forward it to Comey and
Peter Strzok, respectively FBI director and deputy assistant director of counterintelligence at
the time. This is the referral, of course, that Comey now claims he
cannot recall a damn thing about.
Given the Podesta and Sullivan testimonies, the Ratcliffe disclosures stitch the case: In
my view, the Clinton campaign's active role in starting and prolonging the Russiagate
propaganda operation is now open-and-shut. (It was first reported
in October 2017 by Consortium News and
predicted by me in Salon on July 26, 2016 and three days before the
2016 election by CN 's editor).
I wrote back then in Salon :
"Making lemonade out of a lemon, the Clinton campaign now goes for a twofer. Watch as
it advances the Russians-did-it thesis on the basis of nothing, then shoots the messenger,
then associates Trump with its own mess -- and, finally, gets to ignore the nature of its
transgression (which any paying-attention person must consider grave)."
Declassifications Ignored
In the matter of goats, the Ratcliffe letter seems to have gotten Trump's. A week later he
took to Twitter
calling for the declassification , without redaction, of all documents related to the
Russiagate probes.
Although Trump did not issue an official order to this effect, this amounts to a direct
challenge to what he has been all along referring to as the Deep State. (Trump first "ordered"
the declassification, and was ignored, in September 2018.) Last Thursday Ratcliffe formally
requested an investigation of the "Intelligence Community Assessment" of January 2017, a
worthless put-up job that purported to confirm Russian "meddling." The CIA's inspector general
ignored an earlier such request.
Will more come out? Will the investigation Trump ordered earlier this year by Assistant U.S.
Attorney John Durham get all the way to the bottom? This is hard to say. We've since had
credible reports that CIA Director Gina Haspel, known for authorizing post–2001
torture and destroying evidence of it, has personally blocked the release of Russiagate-related
documents from the CIA's files. And the repellent Haspel may win this one, given the record in
such matters.
The Russiagate "narrative" is at this point so preposterous that these recent disclosures
have also gone either badly reported or unreported in mainstream media. We ought not expect
more in days to come. The press has only one alternative at this point: Either black it out or
allege that Russia is using people such as Ratcliffe, just as we're now asked to believe Moscow
is manipulating The New York Post .
What an ungodly mess Russiagate has made of our splendid republic.
We have watched an attempted coup not much different from the CIA's covert ops elsewhere
over the decades, then gave the coup plotters three years to investigate the plot, and no one,
as things now appear, will be brought to justice for these travesties.
Send in the historians. One hopes they're already here.
The CIA, in breach of its charter, has now licensed itself to operate on U.S. soil in a
probably unprecedented alliance with domestic law enforcement and a major political party. And
it has told us in open defiance that it has no intention of submitting itself to executive or
congressional control. No voice is raised, we must note with astonishment.
Government Without a Press
In 1787, when he was our new nation's minister in Paris, Jefferson wrote home to a friend that "were it left to
me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a
government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." We are stuck with a
government without newspapers now, given the ties our press has consolidated its ties with
political and bureaucratic power in the course of imposing the Russiagate ruse upon us.
They only look like newspapers now. The liberal media are now bulletin boards for those
they serve -- the Democratic Party, the spooks, and all the interests these two represent. Do
they think that, once Trump leaves office, they can cavalierly reclaim the credibility they
have profligately squandered in the service of Russiagate?
I see no chance of this. And here we have a silver lining: Russiagate will prove a key
moment in the emergence of independent media (such as Consortium News ) as important
sources of accurate information and perspectives. This is already evident. At this point The
New York Times is to sound reporting what Applebee's is to a proper tavern serving good
draft beer.
The worst consequence of Russiagate, in my view, is the swoon of hysteria it has sent
many Americans into, a syndrome peculiar to our national character dating to the Quaker
hangings in Boston during the early 1660s and repeated many times since. We are divided once
again between the paranoid and the rational.
And there is an ideological distinction here that we must not miss. Willow Inski is a
conservative and appears to be a Trumper. She addressed Paul Sperry, a New York Post
reporter closely following the Russiagate debacle and also a conservative.
The paranoids, the Puritan preachers, the witch hunters, those who think censorship is a
fine thing are this time one and all authoritarian liberals apparently determined to make
everyone think as they do or else see to their banishment from the circles of the elect.
Let us debate opinions until the kingdom comes. But these people propose to debate facts
because they understand the fragility Arendt noted all those years ago. This is not on.
"Under normal circumstances the liar is defeated by reality, for which there is no
substitute," Arendt wrote. "No matter how large the tissue of falsehood that an experienced
liar has to offer, it will never be large enough, even if he enlists the help of computers, to
cover the immensity of factuality."
One hopes Arendt turns out to be right. One hopes the immensity of factuality eventually
prevails. "Defactualization" in the service of all the Russiagate rubbish has gravely
undermined numerous of our key institutions. As things now stand, this leaves us well short of
what we need to reconstruct a working democracy.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International
Herald Tribune , is a columnist, essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is
Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century (Yale). Follow him on Twitter
@thefloutist .His web site is
Patrick Lawrence . Support his
work via his Patreon site
.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
This do not have Congressmen Schiff so this version did not got traction. Yet. Because Boris
Johnson is generally very close, as his behaviour during Skripals false flag suggests. BTW why
they need to inflate "Russian threat" if their own people can be sufficient for the annihilation
of the United Kingdom. Still let's wait for the Guardian to tell us about those evil
Russians
On Monday the UK Ministry of Defence confirmed a hugely embarrassing incident involving a
security and operations lapse aboard the British nuclear submarine HMS Vigilant while it
temporarily was docked during a mission at a US naval base, specifically Naval Submarine Base
Kings Bay in Georgia.
The officer in charge of overseeing the vessel's nuclear warheads arrived to his shift
"staggering drunk" while strangely carrying a bag of barbecue chicken .
The scene immediately sparked concern that the officer, later identified as Lt. Commander
Len Louw "was not in a fit state to be in charge of nuclear weapons" as there was something
"seriously wrong" according to
UK media reports .
... ... ...
The BBC noted
that as the weapons engineering officer on the submarine he was "responsible for all weapons
and sensors on board." The sub is armed with Trident ballistic missiles and is thus subject to
stringent safety and security measures.
And more astounding, according to the Daily Mail , i
s that :
The Royal Navy officer had been preparing to start a shift during which they would offload
the 16 nuclear missiles - which each weigh 60 tons and have the combined power to kill almost
the entire population of the UK.
He reportedly clocked in for his shift after a full night of drinking aboard one of only
four submarines that make up the UK's nuclear deterrent.
A week ago the nuclear sub was in the news due to a reported COVID-19 outbreak after crew
members were caught
breaking port call rules to go to strip clubs and bars.
No doubt American military authorities at Kings Bay naval base will also have serious
questions, considering they've just witnessed a significant operations lapse aboard a foreign
allied 'top secret' nuclear submarine docked in US waters.
_arrow
No1uNo , 17 hours ago
I raced Yachts with a UK Submarine commander for over a decade, this story is so out of
sync with the character and personalities recruited into probably one of the most responsible
jobs in the world - that the narrative asks many more questions than the story.
- Either he was spiked with a narcotic behaviour cocktail or what's being asked of him is
not within his ethics code that something broke.
Freeman of the City , 17 hours ago
Well stated, Military Esprit de corps standard of officer conduct, period. No one rises to
this level of responsibility without deep long term vetting.
This 'news' story sounds more like agitprop to undermine confidence in elite UK submariner
forces. Sedition within the UK govt, from Labour or Marxists...
Propaganda Phil , 17 hours ago
It came out 6 years ago that most of everyone manning our missile silos were cheating on
testing and using drugs. 9 USAF officers fired and around 100 were caught cheating. It only
was discovered when 2 of the cheaters were caught in a drug investigation.
& Secret Service getting high and banging hookers in Colombia.
Getting guys wasted ain't new. He just got caught.
No1uNo , 17 hours ago
Missile silos are a very different thing, such people can be inspected observed or called
out as needed. Subs are gone for months at a time and decisions made on own recognisance. As
Freeman says the vetting process is lengthy and those who get through it are precise
thoughtful engineering types and committed team players. Aside of that Subs are frequently
used to pick up and drop off espionage packages in locations that would create international
incidents if caught. The recruitment process is very very careful, whatever one's views on
Nuclear subs or nation states. I feel he was 'got at'
No1uNo , 16 hours ago
I still find this story incredible, these guys are not that well paid, most take it v.
carefully before going to richer defence sector for a few years before retirement. The hammer
can drop on them when they realise who they were fighting as 'enemies' were really desperate
people pushed to the edge by geopolitical designs and greed acquisitions of Military
Industrial Intelligence Complex. More will come out: honey trap, interrogation and drugging
or possibly as Propaganda Phil says - he lost it - perhaps from a drunken epiphany that
caused him to doubt belief in what he was doing?
Doctor Faustus , 15 hours ago
Maybe there was a family connection somewhere that allowed this officer in. Remember
Hunter Biden? Got kicked out of the Navy for cocaine. Only way he got in was through his dad,
Joe Biden.
Propaganda Phil , 14 hours ago
Like wrongway McCain the disaster of a pilot and admiral's son.
indus creed , 14 hours ago
Didn't McCain cause some major damage on the deck with some deaths? The affair was all
hushed up. He reportedly was escorted away by Navy police, as the sailors onboard wanted to
kill him.
Arrow4Truth , 13 hours ago
"who they were fighting as 'enemies' were really desperate people pushed to the edge by
geopolitical designs and greed acquisitions of Military Industrial Intelligence Complex."
Well said. It's never, ever delivered in that package, but instead called "National defence"
as Freeman put it. When one determines that the scenario you described is true it blows the
national defense theory all to hell... but most never make that jump because the repetitive
indoctrination has been soooo effective. Any argument that they must be alert to the
possibility that the "nation" could be under attack at any moment loses all it's luster when
one realizes that the "national interest" is the cause.
Ex-Oligarch , 14 hours ago
Upvoted, not because this behavior is unthinkable for military officers, but because of
the idea that the officer may have been drugged, or intentionally removing himself from his
command position.
Something about this story stinks.
Let's start with this: why was a British submarine offloading its nuclear missiles in a US
port?
U4 eee aaa , 13 hours ago
Just blame Putin. They do it everywhere else.
tyberious , 17 hours ago
Damn Russians!
Helg Saracen , 17 hours ago
Was it Novichok? :)
Eyes Opened , 9 hours ago
Yeah ... he slept it off ... like the other "victims" ... 😷
aaronvta , 16 hours ago
It was later verified that he had been drinking vodka. Authorities are looking into the
possibility of Russian influence.
Peterus , 17 hours ago
Oh well, that's an unfortunate lapse. But the more important thing for continuous safety
and prosperity of UK is that army hit diversity quotas for 2022 in sex, sexual orientation
and bame categories.
land_of_the_few , 16 hours ago
Their army can have tr@nny parties with spin the bottle to decide who gets the clinic pass
to have their t1ts sliced off -to make them a small, tubby boy! for real, yeah! - and who
gets the testosterone syringe for their butt cheeks so they can be proper Barnum & Bailey
sideshow exhibits.
Maybe UK needs soldiers that are already used to elective mutilation and self-inflicted
degradation?
Dr. Bendover , 17 hours ago
Now maybe Hunter Biden has a place to look for a real job.
Eyes Opened , 9 hours ago
I bet he curses like a sailor.. and he has a pipe... sure he's halfway qualified already
!! 🧐
trysophistry , 17 hours ago
Coming to a theater near you, The Hunt for a Molson Blue October.
Westsail32 , 15 hours ago
The Royal Navy officer had been preparing to start a shift during which they would
offload the 16 nuclear missiles - which each weigh 60 tons and have the combined power to
kill almost the entire population of the UK.
Definitely a missed opportunity.
Alice-the-dog , 16 hours ago
So what? The Democratic Party is hoping you elect a senile old criminal who doesn't
remember where he is and has trouble forming a comprehensible sentence to be in charge of the
entirety of US nuclear weapons.
thunderchief , 17 hours ago
"His condition was as fitting and useful and also as waistful and reckless, at the same
time, as the UK's need for a nuclear armed submarine fleet."
My own comment.
koan , 15 hours ago
U.S.S Hunter Biden
Svastic , 16 hours ago
I am surprised he didn't turn up in full drag. It's in keeping with the British character.
Furthermore, officers are often picked for their political correctness and old-boy
connections. Many are ho-mos.
Yamaoka Tesshu , 17 hours ago
Love how the "Daily Mail" hams up the fake nuke fear by telling us each missile can kill
everyone in the UK. In truth the Vigilant can deliver less destructive power than a single
B-52. But it's far more effective at looting the taxpayer while at the same time holding him
hostage to the threat of annihilation.
Anyone seeing through the scamdemic can analyze that template and discover it fits nicely
over the nuclear weapons con job.
This is the only conspiracy theory that cheers people up. But they downvote anyway. Just
like telling gays AIDS is fake. They get mad when they should be relieved.
Mad Muppet , 8 hours ago
Let me guess: he was drinking Vodka. Russian Vodka!!!!
I just knew it was Putin's fault.
Herodotus , 15 hours ago
The Russians drugged him. DNA samples taken from the barbecue chicken places its origin in
or around the Duchy of Muscovy.
10LBS_SHIT_5LB_BAG , 15 hours ago
They also laced the BBQ bag with Novichocken.
Helg Saracen , 15 hours ago
Oy vey! :)
Smiddywesson , 13 hours ago
Drunk while returning to the ship is one thing, drunk on duty is another, a career ending
incident.
Genoves , 13 hours ago
I prefer officials drunks that officials killing people.
TheRecluse , 13 hours ago
So whats wrong with Barbecue chicken? It goes down great after getting drunk.
Captain Archer , 13 hours ago
"Big Bo" Can't be beat.
seryanhoj , 12 hours ago
He could reheat it real quick in the reactor.
oracle_man , 14 hours ago
Yo Ho Ho And A Bottle Of Rum Fifteen men on a dead man's chest Yo ho ho and a bottle of
rum Drink and the devil be done for the rest Yo ho ho and a bottle of Rum!
Is this 50 former Intel officials or 50 former national security parasites? Real Intel
officials should keep quite after retirement. National security parasites go to politics and
lobbying. One telling sign that a particular parson is a "national security parasite" is his
desire to play "Russian card"
From comments: "Did the 50 former intelligence officials find the Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction yet?"
Hours before Politico
reported the existence of a letter signed by '50 former senior intelligence officials' who say
the Hunter Biden laptop scandal "has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information
operation" - providing "no new evidence," while they remain "deeply suspicious that the Russian
government played a significant role in this case," Tucker Carlson obliterated their (literal)
conspiracy theory .
According to the Fox News host, he's seen 'nonpublic information that proves it was Hunter's
laptop ,' adding " No one but Hunter could've known about or replicated this information ."
" This is not a Russian hoax. We are not speculating ."
TUCKER: "This afternoon, we received nonpublic information that proves it was Hunter's
laptop. No one but Hunter could've known about or replicated this information. This is not a
Russian hoax. We are not speculating." pic.twitter.com/cl2ktdmdVc
Meanwhile, the Delaware computer repair shop owner who believes Hunter dropped off three
MacBook Pros for data recovery has a signed work order bearing Hunter's signature . When
compared to the signature on a document in his paternity suit, while one looks more formal than
the other, they are a match.
Going back to the '50 former senior intelligence officials' and their latest Russia
fixation, one has to wonder - do they think Putin was able to compromise Biden's
former business associate , Bevan Cooney, who gave investigative journalist Peter Schweizer
his gmail password - revealing that Hunter and his partners were engaged in an
influence-peddling operation for rich Chinese who wanted access to the Obama
administration?
Did Putin further hack Joe Biden in 2011 to make him take a meeting with a Chinese
delegation with ties to the CCP - arranged by Hunter's group, two years they secured a massive
investment of Chinese money?
The implications boggle the mind.
Here's the clarifying sentences from the '50 former senior intelligence officials' that
exposes the utter farce of it all:
While the letter's signatories presented no new evidence , they said their national
security experience had made them "deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a
significant role in this case" and cited several elements of the story that suggested the
Kremlin's hand at work.
"If we are right," they added, "this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in
this election, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this."
"Hunter Biden's laptop is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign."
And then there's the fact that no one from the Biden campaign has yet to deny any of the
'facts' in the emails. lay_arrow jin187 , 2 hours ago
Totally ridiculous. This ******** beating around the bush for both sides pisses me off.
Dump all the laptop contents on Wikileaks if it's real. Let the people sort it out. If you
say it's not real, prove it. If Biden wants me to believe it's not real, then stand behind a
podium, and say clear as day into a pile of cameras that's it's all a forgery, and that
you've done nothing wrong.
Instead we have Giuliani swearing he has a smoking gun, but as far as I can tell he's just
pointing his finger underneath his shirt. Biden on the other hand, keep using weasel words to
imply it's fake, but never denies it outright. It's almost like he's trying to hedge his bet
that no one will manage to prove it's real before he gets into office, and makes it
disappear.
Roacheforque , 7 hours ago
To play the "Russian Card" yet again should be beyond embarrassing. An insult to the
intelligence of anyone with an IQ over 80. And so it's harmful to the left wingnut
derangeables. Like Assad's chemical weapons and Saddam's WMDs, it is now code for pure
********. Not even code, just more like a signal.
A signal that say's "guilty as charged - we got nothin' but lies and BS over here".
East Indian , 4 hours ago
An insult to the intelligence of anyone with an IQ over 80.
They know their supporters wont find this insulting.
Kayman , 4 hours ago
@vulvishka.
538 ? North Korea has better propaganda.
Don't forget to go all in, like you did with Hillary.
Antedeluvian , 2 hours ago
Unfortunately, some very bright people are sucked into the conspiracy theory. I know one.
Very bright lawyer. She says, "I still think there is substantive evidence of Russian
collusion." I can point to a sky criss-crossed with chemtrails (when you see these
"contrails" crossing at the same altitude, this is one sure clue these are not from regular
passenger jet traffic) and she refuses to look up. She KNOWS I am an idiot (a PhD scientist
idiot at that) because I get news and analysis on the web from sites that just want to sell
me tee shirts and coffee mugs (well, she is partly right there!) whereas she gets her news
from MSNBC, a venerable and trustworthy news source.
4DegreesOfSeparation , 6 hours ago
More Than 50 Former Intel Officials Say Hunter Biden Smear Smells Like Russia
"If we are right," the group wrote in a letter, "this is Russia trying to influence how
Americans vote."
DescendantofthePatriots , 7 hours ago
That ****, James Clapper, signed his name at the top of this list.
Known liar, saboteur, and sneak.
The cognitive dissonance in our country is astounding. The fact that they would take these
people's opinion over hard fact is astounding.
No wonder why we're sliding down the steep, slippery slope.
strych10 , 8 hours ago
So... let me get this straight.
50, that's 10 times five, fifty former intelligence officials are going with a convoluted
narrative about a ludicrously complicated Russian Intelligence disinformation campaign
involving planted laptops and at least half a dozen patsies when the two words "crack
cocaine" explain the entire thing?
I'm not sure what's more terrifying; That these people think everyone else is dumb enough
to believe this or that they're actually retired intelligence officials
.
Who the actual **** is running this ****show? The bastard child of Barney Fife and
Inspector Clouseau?
Seriously, "Pink Panther Disinformation Operation" is more believable at this point.
Someone Else , 9 hours ago
This needs to get out, because a FAVORITE method of the Deep State, Democrats and the
media (but I repeat myself) is to parade some sort of a stupid letter with a bunch of
signature hoping to look impressive but that really don't mean a damn thing.
Notre Dame graduates against the Supreme Court nominee, Intelligence agents alleging
collusion, former State Department operatives against Trump. Its grandstanding that has been
overdone.
moneybots , 8 hours ago
The letter by 50 former intelligence officials is itself, disinformation.
otschelnik , 8 hours ago
Remember when Weiner's attorney turned over Huma's home laptop to SDNY/FBI with all of
Shillary's emails, and the FBI sat on it for a month and then Comey deep sixed them without
even looking at them?
So now the FBI subpeona'd Hunter's laptop and burried it? Deja vu all over again.
enough of this , 8 hours ago
The FBI and DOJ constantly hide behind self-serving excuses to refuse the release of
documents and, when forced to do so, they release heavily redacted files. They offer up the
usual pretexts to fend off public disclosure such as: the information you seek cannot be
disclosed because it involves an ongoing investigation, or the information you seek involves
national security, or our methods and sources will be jeopardized if the information you seek
is divulged to the public. But it seems the ones who would be most harmed by public
disclosure are the corrupt FBI and DOJ officials themselves
Cobra Commander , 7 hours ago
A short 4 years ago the FBI and CIA were all concerned about "Kompromat" the Ruskies might
have on Candidate Trump; concerned enough to spy on his campaign and open a
counter-intelligence operation.
There are troves of Kompromat material, actual emails and video, on Joe, Hunter, and the
whole Biden family; not made-up DNC-funded dossiers claiming a Russian consulate in
Miami.
Now when it's Candidate Biden, everyone be all like, "Meh."
Cobra!
The Fonz...before shark jump , 5 hours ago
we gotta listen to the 50 former intelligence agents...you know the ones that had lone
superpower status in the early 90s and then pissed it all away with 9/11 and infinity wars in
middle east hahahahah ok buddy lol... histories D students....
Occams_Razor_Trader_Part_Deux , 7 hours ago
Signed by James Clapper and John Brennan;
You mean, the 2 Bozos who under the threat of perjury said there was NO evidence of
Russian Collusion and the Trump campaign................. and 2 hours later called Trump
'Putin's puppet' on CNN.............
The current electoral campaign differs from that of 2016 in that the media, both
conventional and online, has realized its power and has been openly playing a major role in
what might well prove to be a victory across the board for the Democratic Party. At least that
is the expectation, bolstered by a flood of possibly suspect opinion polls that appear to make
the triumph of Joe Biden and company inevitable while at the same time denigrating President
Donald Trump and covering up for Democratic Party missteps.
Most Americans no longer trust what is being reported in the mainstream media but when they
look for "real" information they frequently turn to online resources that they believe to be
more politically objective. That has never been true, however, and what most newshounds are
actually seeking is commentary that reflects their own views. In reality, the news provided is
almost always either spun or distorted and sometimes completely blocked, note particularly the
resistance to reporting the tale of the shenanigans of Hunter Biden.
The New York Post
is claiming that a trove of emails from a laptop reveals that "Hunter Biden introduced his
father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than
a year before the elder Biden pressured
government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the
company."
The emails include a message of appreciation that Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to the board
of Burisma, allegedly sent Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015, about a year after Hunter joined the
oil company Burisma's board at a reported salary of up to $50,000 a month. "Dear Hunter, thank
you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some
time together. It's realty [sic] an honor and pleasure," the email reads. An earlier email from
May 2014 also shows Pozharskyi, reportedly Burisma's No. 3 exec, asking Hunter for "advice on
how you could use your influence" on the company's behalf.
The correspondence, if authentic, disproves Joe Biden's claim that he's "
never spoken to his son about his overseas business dealings ." One would think that the
story would be a real blockbuster, welcomed by self-respecting journalists but the reality has
been that the mainstream media is doing its best to kill it. Facebook and Twitter
have both blocked it though Twitter has since relented, and much of the rest of the liberal
media is regarding it as a hoax .
Facebook has in fact become something of a leader in reversing its self-promotion as a site
for free exchange of ideas. It has removed large numbers of users and alleged suspect sites and
has blocked any
"denial or distortion" of the so-called holocaust in response to what it regards as a surge
in anti-Semitism. It has hired a former Israeli
government official to lead the censorship effort on the site.
As Facebook and Twitter are private companies, they can legally do whatever they want to set
the rules for the use of their sites, but when the two most powerful social media companies
choose to censor a major newspaper's story about a presidential candidate's possibly corrupt
son less than three weeks before the election it suggests a more sinister agenda. They are
quite likely banking on a Democratic victory and will expect to be rewarded afterwards.
Indeed, it should be assumed that Facebook and the other social media giants are
reconfiguring themselves for the post-electoral environment in expectation that they will be
more than ever politically and economically indispensable to aspiring politicians. This
willingness to engage with politically powerful forces has led to increased involvement in the
various mostly left-wing movements that have shaken the United States over the past five
months. Television and radio stations as well as corporations and local businesses have rushed
to endorse and even fund black lives matter without considering the damage that the group has
been doing to property and persons that have had the misfortune to cross its path, not to
mention some of the group's long-term more radical objectives. Individuals identified as blm
leaders have demanded mandatory training to reprogram whites as well as punitive reparations,
to include "white people"
turning over their homes to blacks.
Some of the developments are quite dangerous, most notably the compiling of lists of
organizations and individuals that are considered to be "enemies" of the new social justice
order that intends to take over the United States. One has noted the desire for revenge
permeating many of the comments on sites like Facebook (which claims to delete "threats" from
its commentary), to include some material in recent weeks that has called for the "elimination"
of Americans who do not go along with the new normal.
One of the most invidious steps taken by any of the corporate social media is
a recent decision by Yelp to allow Antifa to compile the raw material on so-called "fascist
businesses" that will be included on a list of "Businesses Accused of Racist Behavior Alerts."
The list itself was set up to appease demands coming from the blm movement.
Yelp is a review site that provides grades and commentary on a broad range of goods and
services, to include many businesses that cater to the public. The potential for abuse is
enormous as Yelp is an information site that has no capability to investigate whether
complaints of "racism" are true or not and Antifa, which is recognized as being at least in
part behind the devastating Portland riots, is far from an objective observer. In fact, this is
what Antifa has tweeted
about its new role , which will allow group members to submit names of "non-friendly"
businesses, defined as "also known as (AKA) any company that's hanging blue lives garbage in
their store or anything else that's anti the BLM movement."
The Antifa intention is clearly to put unfriendly shops and restaurants out of business, so
it will not exactly be interested in engaging in constructive criticism or changing behavior
through negotiation. Using the intimidation provided by the "Alerts" list and direct threats of
violence from Antifa and blm, businesses will be coerced into supporting radical groups lest
they be targeted. It is somewhat reminiscent of the old Mafia protection rackets, and who can
doubt that demands for money will follow on to the verbal threats?
The rise of the internet oligarchs might indeed do more serious damage to the freedoms that
still survive in the United States than will victory by either Biden or Trump. What Americans
are allowed to think and how they perceive themselves and the world have taken a serious hit
over the past twenty years and it can only get worse.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is[email protected] .
"It went on to target broadcasters, a ski resort, Olympic officials and sponsors of the
games in 2018. The GRU deployed data-deletion malware against the Winter Games IT systems and
targeted devices across the Republic of Korea using VPNFilter."
The Russian hackers' alleged attempt to cover their tracks included using certain
snippets of code and techniques to try to confuse investigators into think they were from
China and North Korea.
The UK's National Cyber Security Centre, a branch of GCHQ, believe Russia's aim was to
sabotage the running of the games, the Foreign Office said .
####
So as usual, nothing but the Foreign Orifice's word and they wouldn't make stuff up,
especially on order when the government is under heavy domestic pressure? No. Never.
I wonder if Tokyo has been asked for comment or given 'evidence?' Again, absence of
information gives it away.
Other outlets are putting out this FO press release with little comment, as usual.
"The Russian hackers' alleged attempt to cover their tracks included using certain
snippets of code and techniques to try to confuse investigators into think they were from
China and North Korea."
Just by the most marvelous coincidence, other bogus source codes in the Marble Framework
tickle trunk are those of China, North Korea and Iran.
If this is the caliber of the workforce that currently inhabits our intel agencies, someone
explain to me why they still deserve to exist.
Apparently, 50 former intel agents have run to Politico to sign a letter, a favorite tactic
during the Trump era to push non-authoritative nonsense as authoritative, claiming that the
Hunter Biden email scandal is actually Russian misinformation.
... ... ..
Oh, it has all the classic earmarks? Well, that settles it, right? I mean, who needs actual
evidence of to push a wild, partisan conspiracy theory when you are trying to counter a myriad
of evidence to the contrary, including an actual receipt that shows the laptop was dropped off
at the repair shop by Hunter Biden.
"... "The whole point of the Intelligence Community since the end of World War II was that whatever propaganda the CIA produces, whatever disinformation campaigns they engaged were never supposed to be directed domestically," he said. "That was the point of the NSA, the CIA, and all those intelligence communities." ..."
"... "What we have seen since 2016 going back to the 2016 campaign is incessant involvement in U.S. domestic politics. Working with journalists to disseminate purely for partisan ends. If you want to talk about things like violating norms, and dangers to democracy, what's more dangerous than allowing the CIA constantly to be manipulating our politics by making cover for the Biden campaign by claiming anonymously that the Russians are behind the story and therefore you disregard it. Even if the Russians why does that alleviate the responsibility of journalists to evaluate the emails and to examine whether or not Joe Biden actually engaged in misconduct?" Greenwald asked. ..."
Glenn Greenwald appeared on Tucker Carlson's FOX News show Monday night to criticize
the media for its lack of response to the Hunter Biden laptop story. Greenwald also criticized
intel community activity in domestic elections and posed the question that even if Russians are
behind the story it just requires journalistic investigation in case Biden is compromised.
"Adam Schiff is seriously the most pathological liar in all of American politics that I've seen in all of my time covering
politics and journalism," Greenwald said on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight.' "He just fabricates accusations at the drop of the hat at
the other people change underwear. He's simply lying when he just asserts over and over that the Russians or the Kremlin are
behind the story. He has no idea whether or not that is true. There is no evidence to support it."
"And what makes it so much worse is that the reason that the Bidens aren't answering basic
questions about the story," Greenwald said. "Basic questions like did Hunter Biden drop that
laptop off of the repair shop? Are the emails authentic? Do you know denied that they are. Do
you claim that any have been altered or are any of them fabricated? Did you in fact meet with
Barisma executives? The reason they don't answer the questions is because the media has
signaled that they don't have to. That journalists will be attacked and vilified simply for
asking."
Victor Davis Hanson: Will Our Next Revolution Be French, Russian, Maoist, Or
American?
Glenn Greenwald: Media and Intel Community Working Together To Manipulate The American
People
Trump Rips Coronavirus Coverage: "People Aren't Buying It CNN, You Dumb Bastards"
"The whole point of the Intelligence Community since the end of World War II was that
whatever propaganda the CIA produces, whatever disinformation campaigns they engaged were never
supposed to be directed domestically," he said. "That was the point of the NSA, the CIA, and
all those intelligence communities."
"What we have seen since 2016 going back to the 2016 campaign is incessant involvement
in U.S. domestic politics. Working with journalists to disseminate purely for partisan ends. If
you want to talk about things like violating norms, and dangers to democracy, what's more
dangerous than allowing the CIA constantly to be manipulating our politics by making cover for
the Biden campaign by claiming anonymously that the Russians are behind the story and therefore
you disregard it. Even if the Russians why does that alleviate the responsibility of
journalists to evaluate the emails and to examine whether or not Joe Biden actually engaged in
misconduct?" Greenwald asked.
"The much bigger point is the way that the information is being disseminated," he said. "It
is a union of journalists who have decided that their only goal is to defend Joe Biden and
election him president of the United States working with the FBI, CIA, NSA not to manipulate
our adversaries or foreign governments, but to manipulate the American people for their own
ends. It's been going on for four straight years now and there's no sign of it stopping anytime
soon." Related Videos
Update (1930ET) : In yet another death blow to Adam Schiff and the '50 former senior
intelligence officers' "Russia, Russia, Russia" claims, the FBI and DOJ have told a Fox News
producer that they do not believe that Hunter Biden's laptop and its contents are part of a
Russian disinformation campaign , confirming that the 'current' intelligence community agrees
with DNI Ratcliffe's comments yesterday.
We look forward to the reporting from other mainstream media news agencies now that federal
law enforcement has confirmed this is not a 'hoax' and we assume that the NYPost will once
again be allowed to tweet since this is now as 'factual' as anything thrown at Trump for the
last five years.
y_arrow Fizzy Head , 9 hours ago
Excuse me, but Who cares what these "former" senior officials think? I want names and
party affiliations, that will tell the tale.
and furthermore, if these former guys can muster up a letter why can't the real officials
muster up something, anything? They've known for months!! This is growing more ridiculous as
time goes by.
Han Cholo , 8 hours ago
"former" -- Meaning they are mostly looking from the outside in and have no clue.
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov dropped a bombshell on Tuesday,
warning that Russia might halt all dialogue with the European Union. Mr. Lavrov offered no
explanation for what was probably the most severe public statement on the EU of his career.
Perhaps he was reacting to extended talks he recently held with EU Foreign Minister Josep
Borrell -- talks that, by all appearances, did not go well.
Naturally, the EU will respond to his statement with great displeasure and indignation, but
Lavrov's comment was actually rooted in a process that began long before the current crisis,
all the way back to when Russian-EU relations looked positively upbeat and promising.
Common, but shaky ground
The modern Russian state and the EU came into existence at practically the same time -- the
former in late December 1991 and the latter in February 1992 -- and they soon laid the
groundwork for their mutual relations. The two parties signed a Partnership and Cooperation
Agreement in 1994 -- and ratified it in 1997 -- that made their relations so close as to be
considered "strategic" at one point.
This differs significantly from the slogan of a "Europe stretching from Lisbon to
Vladivostok" that former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev coined in 1989 to connote a common
European homeland that, in reality, had no document or agreement to back it up.
By contrast, the Russian-EU partnership was based firmly on the idea of integration. While
Brussels never offered Russia full EU membership, it offered general, though indefinite
assurances that its eastern neighbor would play a suitably substantial role in the "Greater
Europe" that was then being built.
At the core of this "Greater Europe," as it was then envisioned, was a rapidly expanding
European Union that wound up more than doubling in size from 1992 to 2007 -- and which, it was
expected, would eventually include Russia as well as other Soviet republics. A sort of
pan-European space was created, although Russia's status in that new entity was never described
or even discussed. Both sides simply assumed that Russia would be part of Europe. NEWS
EU Sanctions FSB Chief, Senior Kremlin Officials Over Navalny Poisoning READ
MORE
In hindsight, it seems that Russia and the EU understood that partnership differently.
However, they agreed at the time that everything from the structure of the state to economic
regulation should be based on the legal and regulatory framework of the EU -- which they both
considered clearly superior. Ideally, every country that was included in that European space
would have adopted European rules and regulations, after which they would either become EU
members -- some, strictly due to their size -- or else, as in the case of Russia and Ukraine,
associate members. Every newcomer was expected to bring its laws and regulations into line with
the European standard.
And in this regard, it differed fundamentally from Gorbachev's idea of a "Europe stretching
from Lisbon to Vladivostok." Although the Soviet leader did not offer any details regarding the
pan-European homeland, he clearly anticipated a partnership of equals.
The Soviet leader looked to a coming convergence, a mutual rapprochement in which each
player -- the Soviet Union, the European Community and the West as a whole -- would contribute
their strongest qualities, each somehow coming together in a whole that was more than the sum
of its parts. In was, in a word, utopia, but not a tenable plan.
Significantly, it was not former President Boris Yeltsin in the 1990s who made the greatest
efforts to achieve Russia's integration into the European space based on European principles,
but President Vladimir Putin during his first term in the early 2000s.
Yeltsin had to overcome Russia's internal crisis before there could be any talk of
integrating with Europe. By the 2000s, when the state and its apparatus had stabilized and oil
revenues filled government coffers, Putin searched diligently for an opportunity to implement
the partnership with the EU and to further rapprochement. This continued from 2001 until as
late as 2006.
The honeymoon had ended
Russia's potential had grown significantly by that time, as had its expectations for the
role it would play in a partnership with the EU.
Russia rejected as illegitimate the expectation that it comply unquestionably with European
norms and felt that any partnership must be based, if not on strictly equal terms, then at
least on special conditions. However, the EU never even considered Russia a special case,
arguing that any reconsideration of its rules violated the very principles of European
integration.
For this reason, the very idea of a strategic and integration partnership between Russia and
the EU began eroding around the mid-2000s. This erosion occurred very gradually, not only
because Russia's domestic and foreign policy had begun to change significantly, but also
because the EU unexpectedly faced a crisis, one that reached full force in the early 2010s.
By that time, although the partnership agreement first drawn up in the early 1990s remained
unchanged -- as it does today -- the reality of Russia's relationship with Europe increasingly
diverged from its original configuration. Both sides' objectives and, more importantly, their
self-perceptions, grew further and further apart. NEWS EU's Navalny
Sanctions Miss the Mark READ MORE
The most striking illustration of this was the obvious disconnect between the words spoken
at the final Russia-EU Summit, held in Brussels in late January 2014, and the reality on the
ground.
The Maidan protests were raging in Kiev, only three weeks remained before Ukrainian
President Viktor Yanukovych would flee and new authorities would come to power, and relations
between Russia and the EU -- that stood on opposite sides of those barricades in Kiev -- could
not have been worse.
While President Putin and EU Commission President Manuel Barroso stood before the cameras
and repeated the very same mantras they had been uttering for years, even decades, about
partnership, a common space, road maps and so on, their faces betrayed what they were really
thinking -- namely, that nothing of the sort was going to happen.
But they had no other options on the table. Pure inertia from the process begun in the early
1990s compelled them to repeat the same tired calls for a close future partnership.
Then came the game-changing events in Ukraine, and much more besides. The long-standing
framework for Russian-EU relations turned into an anachronism overnight, giving way to heated
antagonism and competitiveness. Nevertheless, both sides continued paying lip service to
partnership, dialogue and, in general, a state of affairs that had last existed 25 years
earlier.
Fast forward to the present, and we have Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov indirectly
acknowledging how bad things have actually become. In effect, he has simply stated what
everyone already knew -- namely, that the old framework for Russian-EU relations no longer
exists.
This does not mean an end to all relations, only an end to relations as they were.
The same, only different
A new framework is needed now, but it will probably be a long time in coming. And the
framework Russia might want for its relations with Europe will not materialize for the very
reasons mentioned above: present circumstances are simply too unfavorable.
Of course, no new Iron Curtain between Russia and the EU will fall from the sky. Their
mutual humanitarian and economic relations remain very strong, despite some damage from
sanctions, and cultural and even political ties remain intact. However, these are strictly
utilitarian relations, without any pretense of common goals, and they take a backseat to
Moscow's bilateral relations with individual European countries. Russia and Europe are
devolving into coolly polite neighbors that have no real interest in each other, but who are
forced to interact simply because they live next door to each other.
In fact, Russia must now focus more on its main neighbor, China. Although Russia's quarrel
with the West plays some role in this pivot eastward, it is the enormously long Russian-Chinese
border and the fact that China is rapidly becoming, if not a world hegemon, then at least one
of the two pillars of the new world order that compels Moscow to devote far more attention to
this neighbor than it is accustomed to.
More importantly, and what will cause fundamental change to Russia's relations with Europe,
is the fact that, for better or worse, the global balance is shifting towards Asia. As a
result, the focus that Russia has had on Europe and West for the past 300 years no longer
corresponds to the global reality. Russia cannot afford to treat Asia as a secondary priority,
although it often still does. If Moscow continues in this way, Russia could find itself facing
a creeping expansionism from the east.
In any case, Russia's former model of relations with the European Union has clearly ceased
to function, and one way or another, the two sides have started to acknowledge this openly.
Article 275 of the Criminal Code "High treason" certainly applies as regards the
actions of Lyosha Navalny , as does article 128.1 of the Russian Criminal Code on
"Slander"
But as I have already said more than once, if Alyosha is issued with a foreign passport
by the Presidential Administration of the Russian Federation, and Alyosha himself repeatedly
violates laws and remains free whilst concurrently serving two suspended sentences, this
means that someone needs him -- so much so that even these mountains of shit, which thanks to
his diligence have been poured on Russia in recent months, also do not count.
There is such a term "protest sewerage". It was born of German politicians in the '50s
of the last century as a tool to counter protests against social injustice and
militarization. And it proved to be surprisingly effective. Roughly speaking, individual
cadres were allowed a lot in exchange for their discrediting protest movements. In Russia,
Navalny has long been playing this role, whilst feathering his own nest here and there. And
as time passed, a big problem for Lyosha's curators was his close work with the CIA. And the
threat through Navalny to such a global project as Nord Stream 2 makes not only Navalny
himself, but also these very "curators" traitors to the Motherland.
Not aimed at the Russian audience, definitely not.
It serves as a pretext for more sanctions for those looking for any excuse and to force
public officials to "condemn" Russia. I am 100% sure Trump is on to the game so his decision
will be solely based on political expediency. If he believes he can win the election, he is
likely thinking that he can not jump on the bandwagon thus will not join the Putin bashing
party.
Easy to say, but I'm pretty sure if you were accused of something heinous and knew you
were not guilty, that ample evidence was available to prove it but that it was being kept
from you while the accusations went on and on that establishing your innocence would be a
priority for you. Even when your attempts fell on deaf ears. Because perhaps the hardest
thing, for a group or individual accused of something, is to know you did not do it, but keep
silent and allow your accusers a free hand.
I imagine Washington would love to declare Navalny the 'legitimate President of the
Russian Federation", and its musing on what a wonderful world it would be if Joe Biden was
President of the United States and Navalny was President of Russia might well b e a tentative
trial balloon to see what public opinion makes of it. But it is not a very realistic
possibility, for a couple of reasons. One, Washington already has a pair of
governments-in-waiting that it is supporting, to little or no effect, and adding another
risks introducing too many balls for the juggler to keep in the air, plus the resulting loss
of confidence in Washington as a game-changer that makes its own rules. Two, whatever blabber
the media generates, the real power-brokers know Navalny has no significant support at home,
and that trying to foist him on the Russian people over their clear preference for the
present leader has no hope of succeeding.
They will have to continue with the make-believe for yet awhile, and hope for an
opportunity.
These guys flying jet packs that require use of hands to point the auxiliary jets for a
modicum of control will be more vulnerable than clay pigeons. The noise alone will alert any
vessels within a few miles that they are coming.
I suppose that they could board a very large vessel at night that has been commandeered by
a few pirates without certainty of being shot down.
A far more useful application would be as part of a rescue team to bring aboard a small
vessel in distress urgently needed supplies or a trained EMT. Seems like a drone could do the
same.
Wow. You can fly in still or light airs from a carrier vessel that is right alongside
– I wonder what prospective boarding candidate is going to permit that? Added to the
criticism you have already pointed out that the 'iron man' is already quite busy controlling
his direction and altitude, and is essentially defenseless. A speed of 200 mph or less is
like an engraved invitation to a Gatling-gun style air defense system like Phalanx or
Goalkeeper, and you would not have to hit a man in a rubber suit very often with a 20mm round
to make him lose interest – Goalkeeper is a 30mm system if I remember correctly, and
consequently would be even less encouraging. For purposes of comparison, a .50 cal round that
would lift you right out of your shoes is a .127mm.
There's no denying it is interesting technology that should stimulate discussion and
ideas, but a clever new system which will revolutionize opposed boarding it is not, not yet.
There might be rescue applications as you suggested, but it does not look like the system has
enough lift to carry the operator plus average deadweight.
The Iron Man flyboys work well in sunny weather with little wind but I wonder how well
they will fare in heavier weather when visibility will be poor and landing platforms may not
be stable. Shouldn't these Iron Man pilots also have better face and eye protection against
the elements?
The US Army is developing a new cannon it claims will have a range of more than 1,000
miles, writes Popular Mechanics.
The Strategic Long Range Cannon (SLRC) is touted as potentially being able to strike targets
at up to 1,150 miles (1,850 km) away and fire 50 times farther than existing guns.
Earlier, the outlet had published leaked photos of the SLRC, touted as able to bring
about a revolutionary breakthrough in artillery warfare.
Super duper long range artillery has been tried in the past:
A 1,000 mile range would require a trajectory that would peak at hundreds of miles. The
shell must use rocket assist and include various electronics for guidance. It would required
heat shielding to resist high temperatures during reentry into the atmosphere. The shell may
leave the muzzle at a few thousand mph but need to accelerate to a much high velocity using a
rocket. If the shell weighs, say, 200 pounds, then warhead certainly could not weigh more
than 50 pounds with the balance being the rocket, heat shield, fins and actuators for
steering and guidance electronics.
You'd think they would have learned their lessons from the Zumwalt destroyer long range
gun debacle:
The CIA's domestic propaganda campaign has been massively successful over the past four
years. There are tens of millions who literally believe that Trump is a Russian agent. They
believe that everyone should wear masks on their faces, forever, and they believe there are
Nazis everywhere. They believe there were no riots this summer, that thousands of blacks are
murdered every year by police, and that Christians are trying to establish a theocracy in the
US. They believe that little children should be able to have their genitals surgically
removed. They believe that the 2016 election was stolen, but that the one coming up cannot
be, even if ballots without postmarks show up on trucks ten days after November 3rd.
These are just a few of their insane beliefs that have been put into their heads through
social media and television.
Trump never had any power to stop this. Both the Democrats and Republicans are completely
in thrall to the intelligence and police agencies. It's all an act. There's no democracy left
in this country and there is no chance of reforming this system, ever. It has to collapse or
be seized and turned mercilessly against those who are perpetrating this horror show.
Dragonlord , 59 minutes ago
FBI and CIA betraying the country is no longer surprising, what surprising is how fast
tech giants jump onto the scum train even though some only exist less than 20 years. This
reveal why quickly the globalists can turn anyone into scumbags.
Finally, depths of Biden corruption proves our hypothesis that the so called ruling class
like Nancy, Obama, Clinton, etc, are not at the top echelon, there is a group or class of
people higher than them. They are probably the overlord class of the globalists.
philmannwright , 56 minutes ago
The FBI has always been a tool. Recall J Edgar.
Big Tech has enabled all of this. NSA/Data collection - Big brother goodbye freedom. seems
like a natural progression.
Gold Pedant , 1 hour ago
Hahaha, William Colby is the third man in the newspaper clipping above, but he isn't even
mentioned. Well after he retired from the CIA, he was assassinated to send a message. Look up
"WHO MURDERED THE CIA CHIEF?" It's a good quick read.
"Colby was fired on Nov. 2, 1975, as head of the CIA after being accused of talking too
much. He was said to have been too candid in testimony to congressional investigators; he had
long ago aroused the ire of the agency's old guard for trying to channel more effort into the
gathering, evaluation and analysis of information and less into covert operation."
And Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe, Weissman, Sally Yates, Bruce And Nellie Ord, James Baker,
Comey, Rosenstein, the entire brench of the FISA Court, and about 500 Senators and
Congressmen out of 535. It's a start.
Eastern Whale , 1 hour ago
"National Security" in the US is the get out of free card for politicians and the rich
with clout. paedophile, corruption, murder you name it.
PigmanExecutioner , 23 minutes ago
Anytime I hear "Russia" or "Democracy" these days, I have to ponder for the fate of
mankind. Imagine being that infantile in one's worldview and devoid of the ability to
critically analyze information? "National Security" is a made up term to excuse criminal
actions that somehow leaked out through unauthorized channels.
philmannwright , 1 hour ago
So, we have all been educated on how when the Democrats accuse, they are most likely
projecting upon their target their own behavior. Over and over again we see the blatant and
obvious hypocrisy in almost everything we hear from the likes of Hillary, Pelosi, Schumer,
Shiff, Obama, and on and on.
It stands to reason then, that what is going on now is no different and involves all of
them, including the left wing media - they are actually and in reality agents of the
Kremlin/China/the communist world order, aligned in agenda, and working toward tipping the
largest Domino, and I believe they have the U.S. teetering on the ropes.
It seems like it's either 1) the left is a national security risk or 2) Trumpers, welcome
to reeducation camp.
kudocast , 46 minutes ago
Yes we agree that JFK and MLK were assassinated by a group including the CIA, NSA, FBI,
Mafia, Nixon, LBJ, Bush and more.
But to suggest that Trump is in a similar situation as JFK and MLK, and on their moral,
intellectual, and visionary level is ludicrous.
Trump's a criminal, looting, lying, incompetent idiot. Why would the CIA, NSA, FBI, and
others waste their time trying to destroy Trump? Fat Orange Man accomplishes that all by
himself, no assistance required.
PigmanExecutioner , 31 minutes ago
Imagine thinking that the US was any different than the Soviet Union all these decades?
They just hid the tyranny better due to all the material distractions.
KGB, CIA.............All the same demons.
Automatic Choke , 23 minutes ago
my aha moment came when i started subscribing to John Williams "Shadow Govt Statistics" to
track the markets.....way back nearly 20 years ago. it quickly became clear that our trusted
government financial agencies were no more trustworthy than the old soviet "5 year plans"
that we all (in the US) used to laugh at. a mirror is a painful thing.
turkey george palmer , 54 minutes ago
empire looks pretty shaky. suppose a lot will go wrong. at least we have bill and melinda
talking about basic human rights are a threat to the population and only those who are
billionaires can decide what goes in your body. ok sure.
they say there will be a trade your debt for ubi. give up personal property. live where
and how by state dictate. unplanned breeding a crime. isolation camps for non compliance.
wonder where all the property will end up. I know there's only one type of person they all
say are the bad ones just one color. mein
A grand jury in Pennsylvania indicted the six men for "conspiracy, computer hacking,
wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and false registration of a domain name," the DOJ
announced on Monday, describing them as officers in Unit 74455 of the Russian Main
Intelligence Directorate, or GRU.
The indictment identifies them as Yuriy Sergeyevich Andrienko, Sergey Vladimirovich
Detistov, Pavel Valeryevich Frolov, Anatoliy Sergeyevich Kovalev, Artem Valeryevich
Ochichenko and Petr Nikolayevich Pliskin.
According to the charges, they used malware like KillDisk, Industroyer, NotPetya and
Olympic Destroyer to attack everything from networks in Ukraine and Georgia to the Olympics
held in PyeongChang two years ago – in which Russian athletes were not allowed to
participate under their national flag, due to doping allegations made by a disgruntled
doctor.
The six are also accused of undermining "efforts to hold Russia accountable for its use
of a weapons-grade nerve agent, Novichok, on foreign soil" – referring to the March
2018 claims by the British government that Russia "highly likely" used the toxin
against a former spy and his daughter, an accusation Moscow repeatedly denied.
Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers has
claimed that "No country has weaponized its cyber capabilities as maliciously or
irresponsibly as Russia, wantonly causing unprecedented damage to pursue small tactical
advantages and to satisfy fits of spite."
Monday's indictment is hardly a surprise, considering that NATO and US officials have
blamed the 2017 NotPetya outbreak on Moscow for years, even though the malware struck
numerous Russian companies – from the central bank to the oil giant Rosneft and
metal-maker Evraz – as well.
The October 2019 Georgia attack was "in line with Russian tactics,"declared
CrowdStrike, the same security company that was tasked with dealing with the 2016
"hack" of the Democratic National Committee. CrowdStrike's president had secretly
admitted to Congress that they had no actual evidence of the hack itself.
The indictment also accuses the "GRU officers" of trying to breach the Organisation
for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). The international body faced a scandal after
whistleblowers revealed that a report blaming chemical attacks in Syria on the country's
government omitted details that did not fall in line with the narrative pushed by the US and
the UK.
In announcing the indictment, the DOJ thanked the authorities in Ukraine, Georgia, New
Zealand, South Korea, and UK "intelligence services" – as well as Google,
Facebook and Twitter – for "significant cooperation and assistance" with the
investigation.
The same "GRU unit" and Kovalev specifically were previously indicted by Special
Counsel Robert Mueller for alleged "meddling" in 2016 US elections. As with Mueller's
indictments, Monday's charges have largely symbolic value; the accused are not likely to ever
see the inside of a US courtroom. The only indictment that was actually contested in court
– against the so-called IRA troll farm – was dropped by the DOJ in
March, due to lack of evidence.
Russia's military intelligence has not gone by the name of GRU since 2010.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
And that's by design. False flags like Scripal Novichok saga are just a smoke screen over UK
problems, the ciursi of neoliberalism in the country, delegitimization of neoliberal elites and
its subservience to the USA global neoliberal empire, which wants to devour Russia like it
plundered the USSR in the past.
But why outgoing MI6 chief decided to tell us the truth? This is not in the traditions of the
agency.
After years of focusing on combating terrorism, US Special Forces are preparing to turn
their attention to the possibility of future conflict with adversaries Russia and China. The
outgoing head of MI6, the UK's clandestine intelligence service, says that the perceived threat
posed by Russia and China against the UK is overstated and distract from addressing the UK's
domestic problems. Meanwhile, his replacement insists that the threat posed by Russia and China
is real and is growing in complexity. Rick Sanchez explains. Then former US diplomat Jim Jatras
and "Going Underground" host Afshin Rattansi share their insights.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is meeting for a for a final day of deliberations before the
confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump's controversial pick for the US
Supreme Court. RT America's Faran Fronczak reports. RT America's Trinity Chavez reports on the
skyrocketing poverty across the US as coronavirus relief funds dry up and the White House
stalls on additional stimulus. RT America's John Huddy reports on the backlash against Facebook
and Twitter for their suppression of an incendiary new report about Democratic nominee Joe
Biden's son Hunter Biden and his foreign entanglements.
Fight it all you want, but there's nothing you can do. "The emails are Russian" is going to
be the official dominant narrative in mainstream political discourse, and there's nothing you
can do to stop it. Resistance is futile.
Like the Russian hacking narrative, the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, the Russian
bounties in Afghanistan narrative, and any other evidence-free framing of events that
simultaneously advances pre-planned cold war agendas, is politically convenient for the
Democratic party and generates clicks and ratings, the narrative that the New York Post
publication of Hunter Biden's emails is a Russian operation is going to be hammered and
hammered and hammered until it becomes the mainstream consensus. This will happen regardless of
facts and evidence, up to and including rock solid evidence that Hunter Biden's emails were not
published as a result of a Russian operation.
This is happening. It's following the same formula all the other fact-free Russia hysteria
narratives have followed. The same media tour by pundits and political operatives saying with
no evidence but very assertive voices that Russia is most certainly behind this occurrence and
we should all be very upset about it.
"To me, this is just classic textbook Soviet Russian tradecraft at work," Russiagate founder
and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is heard assuring CNN's audience .
"Joe Biden – and all of us – SHOULD be furious that media outlets are spreading
what is very likely Russian propaganda," begins and eight-part thread by Democratic Senator
Chris Murphy, who claims the emails are "Kremlin constructed anti-Biden propaganda."
"It's not really surprising at all, this was always the play, but still kind of
head-spinning to watch all the players from 2016 run exactly the same hack-leak-smear op in
2020. Even with everyone knowing exactly what's happening this time," tweets MSNBC's Chris
Hayes.
"How are you all circling the wagons instead of being embarrassed for peddling Russian ops
18 days before the election. It's not enough that you all haven't learned from your atrocious
handling of 2016 -- you are doubling down," Democratic Party think tanker Neera Tanden
tweeted in admonishment of
journalists who dare to report on or ask questions about the emails.
Virtually the entirety of the Democratic Party-aligned political/media class has streamlined
this narrative of Russian influence into the American consciousness with very little inertia,
despite the fact that neither Joe nor Hunter Biden has disputed the authenticity of the emails
and despite a complete absence of evidence for Russian involvement in their publication.
This is surely the first time, at least in recent memory, that we have ever seen such a
broad consensus within the mass media that it is the civic duty of news reporters to try and
influence the outcome of a presidential general election by withholding negative news coverage
for one candidate. There was a lot of fascinated hatred for Trump in 2016, but people still
reported on Hillary Clinton's various scandals and didn't attack one another for doing so. In
2020 that has changed, and mainstream news reporters have now largely coalesced along the
doctrine that they must avoid any reporting which might be detrimental to the Biden
campaign.
"Dem Party hacks (and many of their media allies) genuinely believe it's immoral to report
on or even discuss stories that reflect poorly on Biden. In reality, it's the responsibility of
journalists to ignore their vapid whining and ask about newsworthy stories, even about Biden,"
tweeted The Intercept 's Glenn
Greenwald recently.
"You don't even have to think the Hunter Biden materials constitute some kind of
earth-shattering story to be absolutely repulsed at the authoritarian propaganda offensive
being waged to discredit them -- primarily by journalists who behave like compliant little
trained robots ," tweeted journalist Michael
Tracey.
Last month The Spectator 's Stephen L Miller described how the consensus
formed among the mainstream press since Clinton's 2016 loss that it is their moral duty to
be uncritical of Trump's opponent.
"For almost four years now, journalists have shamed their colleagues and themselves over
what I will call the 'but her emails' dilemma," Miller writes. "Those who reported dutifully on
the ill-timed federal investigation into Hillary Clinton's private server and spillage of
classified information have been cast out and shunted away from the journalist cool kids'
table. Focusing so much on what was, at the time, a considerable scandal, has been written off
by many in the media as a blunder. They believe their friends and colleagues helped put Trump
in the White House by focusing on a nothing-burger of a Clinton scandal when they should have
been highlighting Trump's foibles. It's an error no journalist wants to repeat."
So "the emails are Russian" narrative serves the interests of political convenience,
partisan media ratings, and the national security state's pre-planned agenda to continue
escalating against Russia as part of its
slow motion third world war against nations which refuse to bow to US dictates, and you've
got essentially no critical mainstream news coverage putting the brakes on any of it. This
means this narrative is going to become mainstream orthodoxy and treated as an established
fact, despite the fact that there is no actual, tangible evidence for it.
Joe Biden could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and the mainstream
press would crucify any journalist who so much as tweeted about it. Very
little journalism is going into vetting and challenging him, and a great deal of the energy
that would normally be doing so is going into ensuring that he slides right into the White
House.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
If the mainstream news really existed to tell you the truth about what's going on, everyone
would know about every questionable decision that Joe Biden has ever made, Russiagate would
never have happened, we'd all be acutely aware of the fact that powerful forces are pushing us
into increasingly aggressive confrontations with two nuclear-armed nations, and Trump would be
grilled about
Yemen in every press conference.
But the mainstream news does not exist to tell you the truth about the world. The mainstream
news exists to advance the interests of its wealthy owners and the status quo upon which they
have built their kingdoms. That's why it's
so very, very important that we find ways to break away from it and share information with
each other that isn't tainted by corrupt and powerful interests.
* * *
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see
the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack , which will get you an email
notification for everything I publish. My work is
entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around,
liking me on Facebook
, following my antics on Twitter ,
throwing some money into my tip jar on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise ,
buying my books Rogue Nation:
Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone and
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and
what I'm trying to do with this platform,
click here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded,
has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else
I've written) in any way they like free of charge.
Debunking 'fattest lie in modern political history' (Full show) 14 Oct, 2020 23:31 16
Follow RT on
Newly declassified documents continue to demolish "Russiagate," the discredited conspiracy
theory that US President Trump "colluded" with Russia to win the 2016 election. The documents
show how circular reporting, unverified gossip and conflicts of interest all worked to create
the years-long "Russiagate" frenzy. RT America's Alex Mihailovich has the details. Then former
UK MP George Galloway joins Rick Sanchez to share his analysis.
US Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett faces her final day of questions before US
senators on Wednesday. RT America's Faran Fronczak has the details. Twitter has unveiled a new
set of policies to try to stem misinformation from spreading on its platform during the 2020 US
presidential election. RT America's John Huddy has the details. The legal and media analyst
Lionel of Lionel Media and conservative commentator Steve Malzberg weigh in. Plus, RT America's
Natasha Sweatte reports on NASA's search for "super-habitable" planets outside the Solar
System.
It appears the "Russia, Russia, Russia" cries from Adam Schiff and his dutiful media peons
is dead (we can only hope) as Director of National Intel John Ratcliffe just confirmed to Foxx
Business' Maria Bartiromo that:
"Hunter Biden's laptop is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign."
As Politico's Quint Forgey details
(@QuintForgey) , DNI Ratcliffe is asked directly whether accusations leveled against the
Bidens in recent days are part of a Russian disinformation effort.
He says no:
"Let me be clear. The intelligence community doesn't believe that because there is no
intelligence that supports that."
" We have shared no intelligence with Chairman Schiff or any other member of Congress that
Hunter Biden's laptop is part of some Russian disinformation campaign. It's simply not true.
"
"And this is exactly what I said would I stop when I became the director of national
intelligence, and that's people using the intelligence community to leverage some political
narrative."
"And in this case, apparently Chairman Schiff wants anything against his preferred
political candidate to be deemed as not real and as using the intelligence community or
attempting to use the intelligence community to say there's nothing to see here."
"Don't drag the intelligence community into this. Hunter Biden's laptop is not part of
some Russian disinformation campaign. And I think it's clear that the American people know
that."
So "the emails are Russian" narrative serves the interests of political convenience,
partisan media ratings, and the national security state's pre-planned agenda to continue
escalating against Russia as part of its
slow motion third world war against nations which refuse to bow to US dictates, and
you've got essentially no critical mainstream news coverage putting the brakes on any of it.
This means this narrative is going to become mainstream orthodoxy and treated as an
established fact, despite the fact that there is no actual, tangible evidence for it.
Joe Biden could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and the mainstream
press would crucify any journalist who so much as tweeted about it. Very
little journalism is going into vetting and challenging him, and a great deal of the
energy that would normally be doing so is going into ensuring that he slides right into the
White House.
If the mainstream news really existed to tell you the truth about what's going on,
everyone would know about every questionable decision that Joe Biden has ever made,
Russiagate would never have happened, we'd all be acutely aware of the fact that powerful
forces are pushing us into increasingly aggressive confrontations with two nuclear-armed
nations, and Trump would be grilled about
Yemen in every press conference.
But the mainstream news does not exist to tell you the truth about the world. The
mainstream news exists to advance the interests of its wealthy owners and the status quo upon
which they have built their kingdoms. That's why it's
so very, very important that we find ways to break away from it and share information
with each other that isn't tainted by corrupt and powerful interests.
As we detailed previously, as the Hunter Biden laptop scandal threatens to throw the 2020
election into chaos with what appears to be solid, undisputed evidence of high-level corruption
by former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, the same crowd which peddled the
Trump-Russia hoax is now suggesting that Russia is behind it all .
To wit, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who swore on National television
that he had evidence Trump was colluding with Russia - now says that President Trump is handing
the Kremlin a "propaganda coup from Vladimir Putin."
Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) has gone full tin-foil , suggesting that Giuliani was a 'key
target' of 'Kremlin constructed anti-Biden propaganda.'
2/ Russia knew it had to play a different game than 2016. So it built an operation to cull
virulently pro-Trump Americans as pseudo-assets, so blind in their allegiance to Trump that
they'll willingly launder Kremlin constructed anti-Biden propaganda.
Yet, if one looks at the actual facts of the case - in particular, that Hunter Biden appears
to have dropped his own laptops off at a computer repair shop, signed a service ticket , and
the shop owner approached the FBI first and Rudy Giuliani last after Biden failed to pick them
up, the left's latest Russia conspiracy theory is quickly debunked .
This is the story of an American patriot, an honorable man, John Paul Mac Issac, who tried
to do the right thing and is now being unfairly and maliciously slandered as an agent of
foreign intelligence, specifically Russia. He is not an agent or spy for anyone. He is his own
man. How do I know? I have known his dad for more than 20 years. I've known John Paul's dad as
Mac. Mac is a decorated Vietnam Veteran, who flew gunships in Vietnam. And he continued his
military service with an impeccable record until he retired as an Air Force Colonel. The crews
of those gunships have an annual reunion and Mac usually takes John Paul along, who volunteers
his computer and video skills to record and compile the stories of those brave men who served
their country in a difficult war.
This story is very simple – Hunter Biden dropped off three computers with liquid
damage at a repair shop in Wilmington, Delaware on April 12, 2019. The owner, John Mac Issac,
examined the three and determined that one was beyond recovery, one was okay and the data on
the harddrive of the third could be recovered. Hunter signed the service ticket and John Paul
Mac Issac repaired the hard drive and down loaded the data . During this process he saw some
disturbing images and a number of emails that concerned Ukraine, Burisma, China and other
issues . With the work completed, Mr. Mac Issac prepared an invoice, sent it to Hunter Biden
and notified him that the computer was ready to be retrieved. H unter did not respond . In the
ensuing four months (May, June, July and August), Mr. Mac Issac made repeated efforts to
contact Hunter Biden. Biden never answered and never responded. More importantly, Biden stiffed
John Paul Mac Issac–i.e., he did not pay the bill.
When the manufactured Ukraine crisis surfaced in August 2019, John Paul realized he was
sitting on radioactive material that might be relevant to the investigation. After conferring
with his father, Mac and John Paul decided that Mac would take the information to the FBI
office in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Mac walked into the Albuquerque FBI office and spoke with an
agent who refused to give his name. Mac explained the material he had, but was rebuffed by the
FBI. He was told basically, get lost . This was mid-September 2019.
Two months passed and then, out of the blue, the FBI contacted John Paul Mac Issac. Two FBI
agents from the Wilmington FBI office–Joshua Williams and Mike Dzielak–came to John
Paul's business . He offered immediately to give them the hard drive, no strings attached.
Agents Williams and Dzielak declined to take the device .
Two weeks later, the intrepid agents called and asked to come and image the hard drive. John
Paul agreed but, instead of taking the hard drive or imaging the drive, they gave him a
subpoena. It was part of a grand jury proceeding but neither agent said anything about the
purpose of the grand jury. John Paul complied with the subpoena and turned over the hard drive
and the computer.
In the ensuing months, starting with the impeachment trial of President Trump, he heard
nothing from the FBI and knew that none of the evidence from the hard drive had been shared
with President Trump's defense team.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The lack of action and communication with the FBI led John Paul to make the fateful decision
to contact Rudy Giuliani's office and offer a copy of the drive to the former mayor. We now
know that Rudy accepted John Paul's offer and that Rudy's team shared the information with the
New York Post.
John Paul Mac Issac is not responsible for the emails, images and videos recovered from
Hunter Biden's computer. He was hired to do a job, he did the job and submitted an invoice for
the work. Hunter Biden, for some unexplained reason, never responded and never asked for the
computer. But that changed last Tuesday, October 13, 2020. A person claiming to be Hunter
Biden's lawyer called John Paul Mac Issac and asked for the computer to be returned. Too late.
That horse had left the barn and was with the FBI.
John Paul, acting under Delaware law, understood that Hunter's computer became the property
of his business 90 days after it had been abandoned.
At no time did John Paul approach any media outlet or tabloid offering to sell salacious
material . A person of lesser character might have tried to profit. But that is not the essence
of John Paul Mac Issac. He had information in his possession that he learned, thanks to events
subsequent to receiving the computer for a repair job, was relevant to the security of our
nation. He did what any clear thinking American would do–he, through his father,
contacted the FBI. When the FBI finally responded to his call for help, John cooperated fully
and turned over all material requested .
The failure here is not John Paul's . He did his job. The FBI dropped the ball and, by
extension, the Department of Justice. Sadly, this is becoming a disturbing, repeating
theme–the FBI through incompetence or malfeasance is not doing its job.
Any news outlet that is publishing the damnable lie that John Paul is part of some
subversive effort to interfere in the United States Presidential election is on notice. That is
slander and defamation. Fortunately, the evidence from Hunter Biden's computer is in the hands
of the FBI and Rudy Giuliani and, I suspect, the U.S. Senate. Those with the power to do
something must act. John Paul Mac Issac's honor is intact. We cannot say the same for those
government officials who have a duty to deal with this information.
"... The neocon/NATO aggressive expansionism has many purposes, but one is surely domestic repression: to gaslight and cause fear-the-foreign-bogeyman trauma among the American and British people as a whole and make most of them become docile and lose their critical thinking skills and their ability to analyze their own societies. ..."
"... One of the best ways to lobotomize the publics of the US and UK is to very gradually impose martial law in the name of protecting national security and ensuring peace and harmony at home. ..."
The neocon/NATO aggressive expansionism has many purposes, but one is surely domestic
repression: to gaslight and cause fear-the-foreign-bogeyman trauma among the American and
British people as a whole and make most of them become docile and lose their critical
thinking skills and their ability to analyze their own societies.
One of the best ways to lobotomize the publics of the US and UK is to very gradually
impose martial law in the name of protecting national security and ensuring peace and harmony
at home.
After several color revolutions succeeded, the Russiagate/Spygate op was carried out in
the US, with British assistance. This op has been largely successful, though there has been
limited resistance against its whole fake edifice as well as with the logic of Cold War2.0.
Nevertheless, Spygate has shocked many tens of millions of Dems into a stupor, while millions
more are dazed and manipulated by the Chinese bogeyman being manufactured by Trump.
The most dangerous result of the martial law lite mentality caused by Spygate and its MSM
purveyors is the growing support for censorship of free speech coming mostly from the Dems,
such as Schiff and Warner. The danger inherent in this trend became very clear when FaceBook
and Twitter engaged in massive and unprecedented arbitrary censorship of the New York Post
and of various Trump-related accounts.
This is the kind of thing you do during Stage 1 of a coup. Surely it was at least in part
an experiment to see how various power points in the US would respond. Even though Twitter
ended the censorship later, it was probably a successful experiment designed to gauge
reactions and areas of resistance.
In November, there could be further, more serious experiments/ops. If so, the current
expansionist movements being made and planned by the US and NATO may well be integral parts
of a new non-democratic model of "American-style democracy" -- not constitution-based but
"rules-based."
"As this is so obvious one must ask what the real reason for the anti-Russian pressure
campaign is. What do those who argue for it foresee as its endpoint?"
I ask myself this question seemingly every day. Could U.S bureaucrats be so short sighted
where they cannot see the culture they are creating? Any sane follower of international
relations understands that poking a nuclear power with a stick is the work of fools. My
nightmare, that I have feared since I was a child, is a nuclear confrontation that would
result in the end of the human race.
Does rationality and common sense ever win out in Washington? I fear that our "endgame"
will result in a mushroom cloud....
Not sure who this Andrei Martyanov is, but underlying all the comments is the proposition
that Putin-managed capitalism works great, will work great forever, will not have a crisis
ever and will make Russia totally independent in all ways. Stated so forthrightly, no doubt
it sounds too stupid to admit to. Nonetheless this is the claim. I say capitalist restoration
did not improve the Russian economy in the way implied by Martyanov. Putin is still a
Yeltsinite, even if he is sober enough to pass for competent.
I take the opposite view: Looking from today, Russia is lucky that the USSR collapsed in
1991. It shed its debt, its currency passed through hyperinflation, and their economy
collapsed and rebuilt. The US and most Western countries still have that coming for them, and
soon.
Plus beyond that the strict Communist/Marxist atheism over 70+ years lead to a rebirth of
Christian values in Russia, their biggest advantage in this cultural war. And they practice
science, not scientism.
Note: Russia and China are more capitalist than the US, for quite some time now. (12+
years)
@110 Abe as far as I understand it, the economic argument goes like this: take the number of
rubles generated/spent/whatever in Russian economic activity, then use the current conversion
rate to convert that into an "equivalent" amount of US dollars.
Then see what you can buy with that many US dollars.
If you went shopping in the USA, the answer would be that this many US dollars doesn't buy
you much, ergo, Russian economic activity is pathetically low.
An example: the Russian government might budget xxx (fill in the figure) rubles to buy new
T-90 tanks. In Washington they would convert that into US dollars, and then declare that this
is chicken-feed. Hardly enough to buy less than 10 Abrams tanks.
Only the Russians aren't buying Abrams tanks from the USA, and are not spending dollars.
They are buying T-90 tanks, and for the amount of rubles spent they'll get 50 tanks.
Every metric the US analyst are using tells them that the USA is vastly, vastly
outspending the Russians on military equipment, to the point where it is obvious that the
Russian military must be destitute and decrepit.
But if they every took the time to look they'll see 50 brand-spanking new T-90 main battle
tanks. Weapons that their assumptions say that the Russians can't afford, and would wonder
"Huh? Where'd they come from?"
@ Posted by: Andrei Martyanov | Oct 18 2020 4:11 utc | 96
I agree that comparing Russia's economy with the likes of Italy and Spain is ridiculous,
but it's not that simple. Capitalism is not what is appears to be.
If a (capitalist) nation wants to get something from another (capitalist) nation, it needs
to export something. There's no free lunch in international trade: if you want to import, you
have to export or issue sovereign debt bonds (treasury bonds).
In this scenario, either Russia produces everything it needs in its own territory or it
will have to export in order to import the technology it needs to do whatever it needs to do.
Remember: the Russian Federation is a capitalist nation-state, it has to follow the laws of
motion of capitalism, which take precedence over whatever Putin wants. To ignore that
economic laws exist is to deny any kind of theory of collapse; nation-states would then be
eternal, natural entities with no entropy.
Even if Russia produces everything it needs in its own territory, it is still capitalist.
It would need, in order to "substitute imports", to super-exploit its own labor force
(working class) in order to extract surpluses for its industrialization efforts. That's what
the USSR did during Stalin.
If Russia is doing the imports substitution in the classical way (the way Latin America
did during the liberal dictatorships of the 1950s-1980s), then it is trying to sell
commodities to industrialized countries in order to import technology and machinery necessary
to industrialize its own territory. That is probably the case here.
Assuming this more probable case, then I'm sorry to tell you it won't work. It may work in
the short or even medium term, but it will ultimately fail in the long term. The thing is
that, in a system of capitalist exchange between an agrarian and an industrial nation-state,
the industrial nation-state will always have the advantage (i.e. have a trade surplus).
That's because of Marx's labor theory of value: industrialized commodities ("manufactured
goods") have more intrinsic value than agrarian/raw material commodities - just think about
how many kilos of bananas Brazil would have to export to the USA in order to import one
single unit of an iPhone 12, to use an contemporary example. As a social result,
industrialized countries have a higher organic composition of capital (OCC) than agrarian
countries, as they need more value to just keep themselves afloat (as a metaphor: it's more
expensive to keep a big mansion than a little flat in a stationary state). Value (wealth)
then tends to flow from lower OCC to the higher OCC, this is the material base that divides
the First and Third World countries until today.
To make things even worse, raw materials/agricultural products have an inelastic demand,
which means their prices fall when production rises, and their prices rise when production
falls, relative to overall demand. You will pay whatever the water company will charge you
for the cubic meter of water - but you won't consume more or less water because of its price,
hence the term "inelastic": demand tends to be more or less constant on a macroeconomic
level. The same problem suffers the commodity exporter nations: there will come a stage where
their exports' overall value will collapse vis-a-vis the machinery and technology they need
to import.
As a result, the commodity exporter nations will have to get more debt overseas, by
issuing more T-bonds, just to keep the trade balance afloat. What was the quest for progress
becomes a vicious battle for mere survival. A debt crisis is brewed.
And that's exactly what happened to the Latin American countries in the 1980s-1990s: their
debt exploded and they were put to their knees by the USA (the country that issues the
universal fiat currency). The USA then charged their debt, which triggered a wave of
privatizations of everything those countries had built over decades. This is what will happen
to Russia if it falls for the lure of imports substitution.
That's why I urge the Russians to review their concepts and try to get back to the Soviet
times. It doesn't need to be exactly how it was before: you can make the due reforms and
adopt a more or less Chinese model of socialism. That's the only way out, if the Russian
people doesn't want to be enslaved by the liberals (capitalists).
@vk from what i'm reading (stephen cohen: soviet fates and lost alternatives) the chinese
adopted something like bukharin's nep policies, which stalin did his best to wipe out in the
ussr. i've got some problems with cohen's last book, "war with russia?" but he has a lot of
good information on the history of the ussr.
@ Posted by: pretzelattack | Oct 18 2020 15:14 utc | 118
On the surface, yes: the comparison between Reform and Opening Up and NEP are
irresistible. But it is not precise: the only merit it has is in the fact that it is fairer
than simply classifying Deng Xiaoping's reforms as neoliberalism (Trotskysts, Austrian
School) or capitalism (liberals).
The key here is the difference of the nature of the Chinese peasant class and the Russian
peasant class. The Chinese peasant class, besides suffering a lot (millions of dead by
famine) in the hands of a liberal government for decades (Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist
Government) (while the Russian equivalent - the "February Revolution" - only lasted a few
months, engulfed by their insistence on continuing with the meat-grinder of WWI), had a
different historical subtract.
Chinese late feudalism was much more developed, much more manufactured-centered than
Russian late feudalism. As a result, the Chinese peasant was much more proletarian-minded
than the feudal Russian peasant. Also, the Chinese didn't have the kulak problem (peasant
petite-bourgeoisie) - instead, they had regional warlords who self-destructed during the
chaotic republican period (1911-1949). When the warlords were gone, what was left was a much
more proletarian-minded, egalitarian-minded, small peasantry. This peasantry didn't bother to
migrate to the cities to work in the industry or to start their own factories in the
countryside itself. That's why Deng Xiaoping's Reform and Opening Up was successful - not
because of his genius, but because he was backed up by a capable people.
The Chinese peasantry, for example, didn't hoard or directed their grain surplus to
exports in order to starve the proletariat to death in the cities - they sold it to the
Chinese market. The Chinese peasantry also trusted their central government (CCP) and saw
itself as part of the project - in complete opposition to the feudal-minded Russian kulak,
who saw his piece of land as essentially an independent and self-sufficient
cell/ecosystem.
That's why the Reform and Opening Up was successful (it survives until the present times)
and the NEP soon failed - following the good harvest of 1924, came the awful harvest of 1926,
which triggered a shit show where the peasantry hoarded the grain and almost starved the USSR
to extinction, and which led to Stalin's ascension and the dekulakization process (forced
collectivization).
i should add that i know little about the actual history of communism, but capitalism is
revealing itself as a monstrous failure, and not all the propaganda in the world is
succeeding at covering that up.
I know how economic reasoning comes to that conclusion, but IRL comparing such different
countries only by GDP metric is insane and beyond stupid.
Eg. Russia has GDP similar to California!
Yes, in US centric GDP metrics that favors and cheats US itself (surprise!).
But. One of those countries sent man in space, produces everything, has vast resources and
is self sufficient nuclear superpower.
Other one cant even feed and provider water to its population without outside help.
GDP means nothing when sh*t hits the fan. What will "richer" country do if it goes to war
with "poorer"? Throw money at them while they launch nukes at it?
@ Posted by: pretzelattack | Oct 18 2020 16:11 utc | 122
There certainly are similarities between the NEP and the Reform and Opening Up. It's very
possible Deng Xiaoping took Lenin as inspiration.
Forgot to mention the Scissors Crisis, which erupted in 1923, and triggered the NEP. That
crisis is one more evidence that shows manufactured products are inherently more valuable
than raw materials/agrarian products.
Again, for products of Western "education" basic logic and ability for a basic
extrapolation seem beyond the grasp: there are no issues for Russia to produce anything,
other than time and some money. Country which produces best hi-tech weapons in the world,
dominates world's nuclear energy market (this is not your iPhone "hi tech") and has a full
enclosed cycle for aerospace industry, among many other things, will have little trouble in
substituting pretty much anything. I remember a bunch of morons, who pass for "analysts",
from either WSJ or WaPo declaring 6 years ago that sanctions will deny Russia access to
Western extraction technologies. Sure, for a country whose space program alone will crush
whole economies of UK or Germany should they ever try to recreate it, will have "problems"
producing compressor or drill equipment with the level of Russia's metallurgy and material
science. Generally speaking, West's present pathetic state is a direct result of utter
incompetence across the board in a number of key fields of human activity and your post, most
likely based on some BS by Western media, is a good demonstration of this state of the
affairs.
Per immigration policy, you can easily find a a truck load of resources, especially on the
web-sites of Russian diplomatic missions (Embassies, Consulates etc.), easily available. Per
cats--Russian love for cats is boundless and intense. You may say that Russia is a
cat-obsessed country;)
vk@120 posits a mystical cultural difference in Russian and Chinese peasants, which
unfortunately has pretty much the same content as the hypothesis of a racial difference. That
the morally superior race is supposed to be Chinese doesn't really help. As often, some
strange assertions of facts that aren't so accompany such bizarre thinking. The rich peasants
in China (what would be kulaks in Russian history,) were notorious for moneylending. As ever,
the inevitable arrears ended in the moneylender's family taking the land. Collectivization
came early in China, well along the way by 1956. And a key aspect of it was the struggle
against the Chinese equivalent of the kulak class. As for the insistence that private farming
is superior, the growth of inequality in land drove millions, a hundred million or more, into
the cities. Without residence permits this floating proletariat was effectively
superexploited by the new capitalist elements, as Deng meant them to do. Nor did the warlords
discredit themselves, not as a group. If anything the young warlord who forced Chiang to
reject active war against the Communists, in order to fight the Japanese invaders, was the
one who kept the GMD (KMT in Wade-Giles,) from discrediting itself. [Xian incident] And what
warlords had to do with the Chinese rich peasantry *after* the Revolution is a complete
mystery.
Socially, the deliberate uneven development promoted by Deng and his successors, is
eroding the social fabric of the larger countryside. This, in addition to the neocolonial
concessions, the growing links to the Chinese bourgeoisie of the diaspora suggest that as
Dengists may go even back/forward to a new form of warlordism. The thing about comparing
Bukharism/NEP to Dengism/the "Opening" is that Bukharin's program failed spectacularly. But
modern China is not next door to Nazi Germany. Even more to the point, Stalin's victory over
Hitler has provided a kind of moral shield for China, even under Deng, inspiring fear of
losing a general war. If Bukharin had beaten Stalin, we can be as sure as any hypothetical
can be, the USSR would have been defeated, not victorious. In modern China, the Bukharin won.
There is an excellent chance the national government of today's China will be defeated.
That article describes a 110 MW turbine that has now finally been put into production
(while Siemens, General Electric etc. produce utility-class gas turbines up to about 600 MW,
with far higher efficiency and most likely reliability). The article further describes 40 GW
of thermal electrical production to be "modernized" until 2031 (11 years from now), and
apparently a microscopic 2 GW of new capacity from "domestic and localized" 65 MW turbines to
be commissioned 2026-2028. (I don't understand Russian so I had to rely on Yandex's machine
translation.) That's admittedly some kind of progress, but is simply not going to cut it.
Nowhere close.
Imagine if China set the ambition to build its own semiconductors and its own turbofans
for its stealth fighters sometime around 2040. Imagine if China was still producing a third
of the amount of electricity of the United States instead of about double, etc., and
considered this to be adequate. It would be akin to abandoning its ambitions for
technological and industrial independence from the West, and that is exactly what Russia is
doing in the realm of gas turbines. There is apparently no capability and no seriousness
going into translating Russia's world-class research and science into actual large-scale,
modern industrial production, and everything points to this continuing, while you can blather
on all you want about people with "Western education" simply not getting anything.
That's admittedly some kind of progress, but is simply not going to cut it. Nowhere close.
That's admittedly you switching on "I am dense" mode and trying to up the ante with 600
MW, which are a unique product, while you somehow miss the point that 110 MWt MGT-110 of
fully Russian production has completed a full cycle of industrial tests and operations (an
equivalent of military IOC--Initial Operational Capability) and is in a serial production.
But instead of studying the issue (even if through Yandex translate) with Siemens which when
learning about MGT-110 offered Russia 100% localization with technology transfer, Russians
declined, you go into generalizations without having even minimal set of facts and
situational awareness. In fact 110 MWt turbines are most in demand product for a variety of
applications. Get acquainted with this.
I am not going to waste my time explaining to you (you will play dense again) what IOC
means and how it relates to serial production, I am sure you will find a bunch of unrealted
"argumentation".
Imagine if China
I don't need to imagine anything, as well as draw irrelevant parallels with China.
There is apparently no capability and no seriousness going into translating Russia's
world-class research and science into actual large-scale, modern industrial production, and
everything points to this continuing, while you can blather on all you want about people
with "Western education" simply not getting anything.
This is exactly what I am talking about. Hollow declarations by people who can not even
develop basic factual base.
It's great to see you here with your excellent facts and perspectives on Russia. I'm sorry
you have to deal with people whose minds are too small to grasp the immense scale of Russia -
scale in physical size, civilizational depth and importance to the balance of power in the
world.
Russia alone stopped the creeping gray hegemony from the west that had looked like it
would just ooze over the whole world and suffocate it in bullshit and tribute payments. And
then China joined in the fun. The world has a future now, when a decade ago this didn't seem
possible, at least from my view in the US. Geopolitically, Russia gave us this future, and
China has come to show us how much fun it's going to be.
@ Posted by: steven t johnson | Oct 18 2020 20:05 utc | 127
There's no mysticism here because we know how the kulaks emerged in Russia: they were the
result of the catastrophic capitalist reforms of the 1860s, which completely warped the old
feudal relations of the Russian Empire.
The reforms of the 1860s were catastrophic for two reasons:
1) it freed the peasants slowly. The State serfs - the last who gained their freedom -
were left with no land. A complex partition system of the land, based on each administrative
region, created a distorted division of land, where very few peasants got huge chunks of land
(the future kulaks) and most received almost nothing (as Lenin demonstrated, see his first
book of his Complete Works, below the rate of subsistence);
2) it tried to preserve the old feudal privileges and powers of the absolutist
monarchy.
As a result, the Russian Empire had a bizarre economic system, a mixed economy with the
worst of the two words: the inequality and absolute misery of capitalism and the backwardness
and lack of social mobility of feudalism.
But yes, you're right when you state Mao's era was not an economic failure. His early era
really saw an attempt by the CCP to make an alliance with the "national bourgeoisie", and
this alliance was indeed a failure. This certainly led to a more radical approach by the CCP,
still in the Mao era (collectivization). Life quality in China greatly increased after 1949,
until the recession of the Great Leap Forward (which was not a famine, but threw back some
socioeconomic indicators temporarily back to the WWII era). When the Great Leap Forward was
abandoned, China continued to improve afterwards.
All of this doesn't change the fact that China's "NEP" was a success, while the original
NEP wasn't. Of course, there are many factors that explain this, but it is wrong to call late
Qing China as even similar to the late Romanov Russia.
I'm not saying Stalin's reform were a failure. Without them, they wouldn't be able to
quickly import the Fordist (Taylorist) method they needed to industrialize. The USSR became a
superpower in just 19 years - a world record. The first Five-Year Plan was a huge morale
boost and success for the Soviet people - specially because it happened at the same time as
the capitalist meltdown of 1929.
--//--
@ Posted by: Eric | Oct 18 2020 20:53 utc | 128
The thing with semiconductors (and other very advanced technologies) is that it is an
industry that only makes sense for a given nation to dominate if they're going to mass
produce it. That usually means said production must be export oriented, which means competing
against already well-established competitors.
China doesn't want to drain the State's coffers to fund an industry that won't at least
pay for itself. It has to change the wheels with the car moving. That's why it is still
negotiating the Huawei contracts in the West first, why it still is trying to keep the
Taiwanese product flowing first, only to then gradually start the heavy investment needed to
dominate the semiconductor technology and production process.
They learned with the Soviets in this sense. When computers became a thing in the West,
the USSR immediately poured resources to build them. They were able to dominate the main
frame technology, and they were successfully implemented in their economy. Then came the
personal computers, and, this time, the Soviets weren't able to make it integrate in their
economy. The problem wasn't that the Soviets didn't know how to build a personal computer
(they did), but that every new technology is born for a reason, and only makes sense in a
given social context. You can't just blindly copy your enemy's technology and hope for the
best.
The world has a future now, when a decade ago this didn't seem possible, at least from my
view in the US. Geopolitically, Russia gave us this future, and China has come to show us
how much fun it's going to be. Many thanks to you and your people.
Thank you for your kind words. As my personal experience (my third book is coming out
soon)shows--explaining economic reality to people who have been "educated" (that is confused,
ripped off for huge tuition and given worthless piece of paper with MBA or some "economics"
Bachelor of "Science" on it) in Western pseudo-economic "theory" that this "global"
"rules-based order" is over, is pretty much an exercise in futility. And if a catastrophe of
Boeing is any indication (I will omit here NATO's military-industrial complex)--dividends,
stocks and "capitalization" is a figment of imagination of people who never left their office
and infantile state of development and swallowed BS economic narrative hook, line and sinker
without even trying to look out of the window. They still buy this BS of US having "largest
GDP in the world" (in reality it is much smaller than that of China), the
de-industrialization of the United States is catastrophic (they never bothered to look at
2018 Inter-agency Report to POTUS specifically about that)and its industrial base is
shrinking with a lighting speed, same goes to Germany which for now retains some residual
industrial capability and competences but:
This is before COVID-19, after it Germany's economy shrank worst among Western nations,
worse even than the US. It is a long story, but as Michael Hudson stated not for once in his
books and interviews, what is "taught" as economics in the West is basically a
pseudo-science. Well, it is. Or, as same Hudson stated earlier this year:"The gunboats don't
appear in your economics textbooks. I bet your price theory didn't have gun boats in them, or
the crime sector. And probably they didn't have debt in it either." And then they wonder in
Germany (or EU)how come that EU structures are filled with pedophiles, "Green" fanatics and
multiculturalists. Well, because Germany (and EU) are occupied territories who made their
choice. And this is just the start. What many do not understand here is that overwhelming
majority of Russians do not want to deal with Europe and calls for new Iron Curtain are
louder and louder and the process has started. Of course, there is a lot of both contempt and
schadenfreude on Russian part. As Napoleon stated, the nation which doesn't want to feed own
army, will feed someone else's. Very true. Modern West worked hard for it, let it "enjoy"
now.
It's good to see you commenting here as barflies seem more inclined to listen to you than
me. Did you watch Russian documentary on
The Wall , which I learned about from Lavrov's meeting with those doing business
within Russia on 5 Oct? I asked The Saker if his translation team would take on the task of
providing English subtitles or a voice over but never got a reply one way or the other. IMO,
for Russia to avoid the West's fate it must change its banking and financial system from the
private to the public realm as Hudson advocates most recently in this podcast . As for Mr.
Lavrov, he surprised the radio station interviewers by citing Semyon Slepakov's song "America
Doesn't Like Us," of which barfly Paco thankfully provided a translation of the
lyrics.С наилучшими
пожеланиями
крепкого
здоровья и
долгих лет
жизни!
I think you an Grieved misunderstand somewhat where I am coming from here. Michael Hudson
would be (and has been) the first to describe how Russia's elites (and to a large extent it
seems also the people) bought into a bogus neoliberal ideology teaching that somehow Russia
needs to earn the money it needs to build its own economy in the form of foreign currency
through export revenues. Apparently these economists and politicians in Russia never bothered
to look how Western economies actually operate (as opposed to what they preach to countries
they want to destroy), or for that matter how China has developed its economy (in all of
these countries, the necessary credit is created on a keyboard.) The export revenues that
Russia earns in the form of dollars and euros are sold to the central bank for the roubles
that Russia's government needs to function. Bizarrely, this creates just as much inflation as
it would if the central bank had just created the roubles without "backing" foreign currency.
In fact, there is more inflation created, because in times of high oil prices, corresponding
amounts of roubles are suddenly thrown into a domestic market that is underdeveloped, for
example in its infrastructure and its food processing. There are reasons why China can expand
its money supply by much greater proportions each year and still suffer far less inflation
than Russia.
Unlike China, Russia had already attained much of the technological expertise for the
equipment that it later decided it was unable to produce inside the country. A good example
of this are the turboexpanders whose design was perfected (though the basic idea was a bit
older) by Pyotr Kapisa in the 1930's in the USSR. This same technology went into the
turbopumps of the rocket engines in the Energia boosters. These engines are still to this
day, 30 years after the Soviet collapse, imported by the United States. As these rocket
engines including the turbopumps are still produced in Russia, the know-how to manufacture
was obviously not lost.
I read just the other day that as part of its import substitution program, Russia is
considering to produce the turboexpanders for processing natural gas (separating methane from
ethane) inside the country. Russia, with the world's largest natural gas reserves and
production, and as I described already possessing the expertise to produce the turboexpanders
needed for cryogenic separation, chose to hand over possibly billions of dollars to the West
to import this machinery over the years, only to be helpless when the West introduced
technological sanctions against its oil and gas sector. Very likely, in a couple of years we
will receive the announcement that the drive to produce them domestically has been abandoned,
after it was realized that their production will require new factories and new machinery,
which do not fall out of the sky in Russia as they apparently do in the West and in China.
Putin will announce that great business awaits whichever Western investor ready to provide
the funds. (Spoiler: They won't! The West is not very interested in investing into building
up Russia's industrial capabilities, preferring instead to loot its natural resources and to
suck out its skilled worked and scientists.)
While Russia sits and waits for higher oil prices or foreign dollar credit on the one
hand, and with unemployed skilled labor and rotting industrial infrastructure on the other
hand, China spends the equivalent of trillions of dollars (in yuan, obviously) into fixed
capital (not least infrastructure) each year. The funds for this are all created by
keystrokes by the PBOC and provide employment for the domestic workforce. You don't have to
ponder long on which model has been hugely successful, and which has been an unmitigated
disaster.
I can't find the exact figures right now, but Russia produces something like 300,000 STEM
graduates every year, more than the United States. (I may very well have read this originally
on your blog, by the way.) Many of them will still be forced to emigrate to find gainful
employment, even 20 years after the 1990's ended and Putin became President. These graduates
remain even in post-Soviet times of a very high quality, and undergraduate students in Russia
are trained at a higher level in mathematics and physics than in particular Americans are
even as post-graduates. By refusing to invest in its own scientific infrastructure and
industry the way China has done and does, Russia gives away all the education and training
that were provided to these students, especially to the same Western countries that are
seeking to destroy Russia. This is completely unforgivable.
I should add that I myself study physics in Germany. I have great appreciation for the
Russian methods of teaching mathematics and physics, as many do here. I have learned,
preferentially, mathematical analysis from Zorich, mechanics, electrodynamics etc. from
Landau-Lifschitz, much about Fourier series from Tolstov, and so on, and have very often been
awestruck and inspired in a mystical fashion by these works. I am not somehow unaware of the
unparalleled quality (in particular after the destruction of Germany in WWII) of the USSR's
and Russia's math/physics education or unfamiliar with the achievements of the USSR in
science and engineering. It's precisely because I am familar with them that it
frustrates me immensely how Russia's potential is needlessly wasted.
What many do not understand here is that overwhelming majority of Russians do not want to
deal with Europe and calls for new Iron Curtain are louder and louder and the process has
started. Of course, there is a lot of both contempt and schadenfreude on Russian part.
Andrei (132), do you have a link to an opinion poll that supports this? Thanks
in advance.
@ Digby | Oct 19 2020 0:28 utc | 136.. if you haven't already listened to the lavrov
interview that b linked to in his main post - it is a question and answer thing - you would
benefit from doing so and it would help answer you question some too.. see b's post at this
spot -"In a wide ranging interview with Russian radio stations" and hit that link
@ james (137)
Well, I looked into the interview. While it is informative in its own right (at some point it
briefly touches on Russo-Japanese relations), and some of the interviewers do show some
concerns, I'm still not sure how it helps answer my question (maybe I missed something?). My
initial impression was that Mr. Martyanov was referring to Russian civilians - not just radio
interviewers.
Thanks anyway for the heads up.
@ 138 digby... my impression was the radio interviewers questions were a reflection of the
general sentiment of the public.. i could be wrong, but it seems to me they have completely
given up on the west based on what they ask and say in their questions to lavrov...
on another note, you might enjoy engaging andrei more directly on his website which i will
share here...
The moment the New York Post reported on some of the sleazy, corrupt details contained on
Hunter Biden's hard drive, Twitter and Facebook, the social media giants most closely connected
to the way Americans exchange political information, went into overdrive to suppress the
information and protect Joe Biden. In the case of Facebook, though, perhaps one of those
protectors was, in fact, protecting herself.
The person currently in charge of Facebook's election integrity program is Anna Makanju .
That name probably doesn't mean a lot to you, but it should mean a lot – and in a
comforting way -- to Joe Biden.
Before ending up at Facebook, Makanju was a nonresident Senior Fellow at the Atlantic
Council. The Atlantic Council is an ostensibly non-partisan think tank that deals with
international affairs. In fact, it's a decidedly partisan organization.
In 2009, James L. Jones, the Atlantic Council's chairman left the organization to be
President Obama's National Security Advisor. Susan Rice, Richard Holbrooke, Eric Shinseki,
Anne-Marie Slaughter, Chuck Hagel, and Brent Scowcroft also were all affiliated with the Atlantic Council
before they ended up in the Obama administration.
The Atlantic Council has received massive amounts of foreign funding over the years. Here's
one that should interest everyone: Burisma Holdings donated $300,000
dollars to the Atlantic Council, over the course of three consecutive years, beginning in
2016. The information below may explain why it began paying that money to the Council.
Not only was the Atlantic Council sending people into the Obama-Biden administration, but it
was also serving as an outside advisor. And that gets us back to Anna Makanju, the person
heading Facebook's misleadingly titled "election integrity program."
Makanju also worked at the Atlantic Council. The following is the relevant part of Makanju's
professional bio from her page at the Atlantic Council
(emphasis mine):
Anna Makanju is a nonresident senior fellow with the Transatlantic Security Initiative.
She is a public policy and legal expert working at Facebook, where she leads efforts to
ensure election integrity on the platform. Previously, she was the special policy adviser for
Europe and Eurasia to former US Vice President Joe Biden , senior policy adviser to
Ambassador Samantha Power at the United States Mission to the United Nations, director for
Russia at the National Security Council, and the chief of staff for European and NATO Policy
in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. She has also taught at the Woodrow Wilson School
at Princeton University and worked as a consultant to a leading company focused on space
technologies.
Makanju was a player in the faux Ukraine impeachment. Early in December 2019, when the
Democrats were gearing up for the impeachment, Glenn Kessler
mentioned her in an article assuring Washington Post readers that, contrary to the Trump
administration's claims, there was nothing corrupt about Biden's dealings with Ukraine. He made
the point then that Biden now raises as a defense: Biden didn't pressure Ukraine to fire
prosecutor Viktor Shokin to protect Burisma; he did it because Shokin wasn't doing his job when
it came to investigating corruption.
Kessler writes that, on the same day in February 2016 that then-Ukrainian President
Poroshenko announced that Shokin had offered his resignation, Biden spoke to both Poroshenko
and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. The White House version is that Biden gave both men pep
talks about reforming the government and fighting corruption. And that's where Makanju comes
in:
Anna Makanju, Biden's senior policy adviser for Ukraine at the time, also listened to the
calls and said release of the transcripts would only strengthen Biden's case that he acted
properly. She helped Biden prepare for the conversations and said they operated at a high
level, with Biden using language such as Poroshenko's government being "nation builders for a
transformation of Ukraine."
A reference to a private company such as Burisma would be "too fine a level of
granularity" for a call between Biden and the president of another country, Makanju told The
Fact Checker. Instead, she said, the conversation focused on reforms demanded by the
International Monetary Fund, methods to tackle corruption and military assistance. An
investigation of "Burisma was just not significant enough" to mention, she said.
Let me remind you, in case you forgot, that Burisma started paying the Atlantic Council a
lot of money in 2016, right when Makanju was advising Biden regarding getting rid of
Shokin.
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
That's right folks, the Facebook executive currently blocking all of the negative evidence
of Hunter and Joe Biden's corrupt activity in Ukraine is the same person who was coordinating
the corrupt activity between the Biden family payoffs and Ukraine.
You just cannot make this stuff up folks.
The incestuous networking between Democrats in the White House, Congress, the Deep State,
the media, and Big Tech never ends. That's why the American people wanted and still want Trump,
the true outsider, to head the government. They know that Democrats have turned American
politics into one giant Augean Stable and that Trump is
the Hercules who (we hope) can clean it out.
"... Russia is militarily secure and the 'west' knows that. It is one reason for the anti-Russian frenzy. Russia does not need to bother with the unprecedented hostility coming from Brussels and Washington. It can ignore it while taking care of its interests. ..."
"... As this is so obvious one must ask what the real reason for the anti-Russian pressure campaign is. What do those who argue for it foresee as its endpoint? ..."
"... The nightmare scenario for the Anglo-Americans is a Germany-Russia-China triangle. If that happens it is game over! ..."
"... They don't want an actual war. They just ratchet up the tensions to keep Europe subdued and obedient and Russia off balance and thereby prevent any rapprochement between the two. ..."
"... The strong hatred and hostility coming from the US and the EU are due to the understanding that they don't have much time, and they must act now, or tomorrow it will be too late. ..."
"... Years ago Barack Obama gave speech to West Point graduates, proclaiming US moral and racial superiority (because they mix'n's*it) over whole world, Goebbels would be proud. Germany has long history of hating all those Slavs, and Israel... Lets not go there with how they threat those inferior brown people. ..."
"... Of course that end-point is money for military contractors and power for the FP elite in government and think-tanks which also means money. Yes, there are true-believers who see a mighty struggle between "good" (the USA) an "evil" (Russia/China) but they are incompetent. As for the American people they will believe whatever the NY Times says since they are militantly ignorant of history, geography, foreign affairs in general, and, above all, political science. ..."
"... The USA is lucky the USSR collapsed in 1991. If it managed to somehow survive for mere 17 years more, it would catch the 2008 capitalist meltdown ..."
"... It looks like the USA imported the Irish and imported their luck, too. ..."
"... This loathing was made blatantly manifest during WWII, of course, but it didn't die out because that generation and more likely their children remain with us. Ditto the generational Anglo-American hatred of Russians (yes, for the UK, and their haute bourgeoisie, it has deeper historical roots than the 20thC) and the USSR even more... ..."
"... "Maas added that Germany takes decisions related to its energy policy and energy supply 'here in Europe', saying that Berlin accepts ' the fact that the US had more than doubled its oil imports from Russia last year and is now the world's second largest importer of Russian heavy oil .'" [My Emphasis] ..."
"... The neocon/NATO aggressive expansionism has many purposes, but one is surely domestic repression: to gaslight and cause fear-the-foreign-bogeyman trauma among the American and British people as a whole and make most of them become docile and lose their critical thinking skills and their ability to analyze their own societies. ..."
"... One of the best ways to lobotomize the publics of the US and UK is to very gradually impose martial law in the name of protecting national security and ensuring peace and harmony at home. ..."
"... At the time, I thought it was just Trump and his followers freaking out, now I think it's the NatSec people, who have finally seen the truth of their situation. As one can see in the Atlantic Council piece B posted, they are still trying to keep the old narrative patched together too. ..."
"... As I've said numerous times -- Fuck the US Empire and it's minion bitches. Jesse Ventura commented this past week that EVERY US Incumbent politician should be voted out of office this election. 99% of them are scum. ..."
"... That was the whole point of the first Cold War. It is the whole point of creating a Cold War 2.0. Absolutely nothing has changed. ..."
"... If the Russian Federation really has an ongoing imports substitution program, then this explains everything. Germany is an exports-oriented economy. It wants to integrate with the Russian economy in the sense to keep it as an agrarian-extrativist economy to feed it with cheap commodities to feed their industry. Germany's ideal Russia is Brazil. ..."
"... A Russia that also exports high-value commodities (manufactured commodities) is a direct threat to Germany, as it competes with it directly in the international market. That's the reason Germany doesn't want the BRI to come to Europe, as Merkel once said: Europe must not become China's peninsula. China is Germany's main competitor, as it is also a big manufacturing exporter. ..."
"... Perhaps the US only has one script in the playbook: to balkanise, disrupt and foster 5th columns until their opponent becomes a dysfunctional or failed state. ..."
"... The US and EU attempts to break Russia's independent foreign policy are just stepping stones to the eventual goal of a breakup Russia itself, never forget Albright's comments in the 90s about how Siberia shouldn't belong to Russia alone. ..."
"... We may yet see a Cuban missile crisis scenario but it looks more likely to be caused by arms sales to Taiwan than conflict in the Caucasus. ..."
"... I also think its naive to see these as "fires burning at Russia's borders" instead of as deliberately set bear traps . Azerbaijan is in a strategic location between Russia and Iran and the conflict with Armenia comes just before Russia is about to sell advanced weapons to Iran. ..."
Over the last years the U.S. and its EU puppies have ratcheted up their pressure on Russia.
They seem to believe that they can compel Russia to follow their diktat. They can't. But the
illusion that Russia will finally snap, if only a few more sanctions ar applied or a few more
houses in Russia's neighborhood are set on fire, never goes away.
The fires burning at Russia's borders in the Caucasus are an add-on to the disorder and
conflict on its Western border in neighboring Belarus, where fuel is poured on daily by
pyromaniacs at the head of the European Union acting surely in concert with Washington.
Yesterday we learned of the decision of the European Council to impose sanctions on
President Lukashenko, a nearly unprecedented action when directed against the head of state
of a sovereign nation.
...
It is easy enough to see that the real intent of the sanctions is to put pressure on the
Kremlin, which is Lukashenko's guarantor in power, to compound the several other measures
being implemented simultaneously in the hope that Putin and his entourage will finally crack
and submit to American global hegemony as Europe did long ago.
...
The anti-Russia full tilt ahead policy outlined above is going on against a background of the
U.S. presidential electoral campaigns. The Democrats continue to try to depict Donald Trump
as "Putin's puppy," as if the President has been kindly to his fellow autocrat while in
office. Of course, under the dictates of the Democrat-controlled House and with the
complicity of the anti-Russian staff in the State Department, in the Pentagon, American
policy towards Russia over the entire period of Trump's presidency has been one of never
ending ratcheting up of military, informational, economic and other pressures in the hope
that Vladimir Putin or his entourage would crack. Were it not for the nerves of steel of Mr.
Putin and his close advisers , the irresponsible pressure policies outlined above could
result in aggressive behavior and risk taking by Russia that would make the Cuban missile
crisis look like child's play.
The U.S. arms industry lobby, in form of the Atlantic Council, confirms
the 'western' strategy Doctorow describes. It calls for 'ramping up on Russia' with even more
sanctions:
Key to raising the costs to Russia is a more proactive transatlantic strategy for sanctions
against the Russian economy and Putin's power base, together with other steps to reduce
Russian energy leverage and export revenue. A new NATO Russia policy should be pursued in
tandem with the European Union (EU), which sets European sanctions policy and faces the same
threats from Russian cyberattacks and disinformation. At a minimum, EU sanctions resulting
from hostilities in Ukraine should be extended, like the Crimea sanctions, for one year
rather than every six months. Better yet, allies and EU members should tighten sanctions
further and extend them on an indefinite basis until Russia ends its aggression and takes
concrete steps toward de-escalation.
It also wants Europe to pay for weapons in the Ukraine and Georgia:
A more dynamic NATO strategy for Russia should go hand in hand with a more proactive policy
toward Ukraine and Georgia in the framework of an enhanced Black Sea strategy. The goal
should be to boost both partners' deterrence capacity and reduce Moscow's ability to
undermine their sovereignty even as NATO membership remains on the back burner for the time
being.
As part of this expanded effort, European allies should do more to bolster Ukraine and
Georgia's ground, air, and naval capabilities, complementing the United States' and Canada's
efforts that began in 2014.
The purpose of the whole campaign against Russia, explains the Atlantic Council author, is
to subordinate it to U.S. demands:
Relations between the West and Moscow had begun to deteriorate even before Russia's watershed
invasion of Ukraine, driven principally by Moscow's fear of the encroachment of Western
values and their potential to undermine the Putin regime. With the possibility of a further
sixteen years of Putin's rule, most experts believe relations are likely to remain
confrontational for years to come. They argue that the best the United States and its allies
can do is manage this competition and discourage aggressive actions from Moscow. However, by
pushing back against Russia more forcefully in the near and medium term, allies are more
likely to eventually convince Moscow to return to compliance with the rules of the liberal
international order and to mutually beneficial cooperation as envisaged under the 1997
NATO-Russia Founding Act.
The 'rules of the liberal international order' are of course whatever the U.S. claims they
are. They may change at any moment and without notice to whatever new rules are the most
convenient for U.S. foreign policy.
But as Doctorow said above, Putin and his advisors stay calm and ignore such trash despite
all the hostility expressed against them.
One of Putin's close advisors is of course Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. In a
wide
ranging interview with Russian radio stations he recently touched on many of the issues
Doctorow also mentions. With regards to U.S. strategy towards Russia Lavrov diagnoses
:
Sergey Lavrov : [...] You mentioned in one of your previous questions that no matter what we
do, the West will try to hobble and restrain us, and undermine our efforts in the economy,
politics, and technology. These are all elements of one approach.
Question : Their national security strategy states that they will do so.
Sergey Lavrov : Of course it does, but it is articulated in a way that decent people can
still let go unnoticed, but it is being implemented in a manner that is nothing short of
outrageous.
Question : You, too, can articulate things in a way that is different from what you would
really like to say, correct?
Sergey Lavrov : It's the other way round. I can use the language I'm not usually using to
get the point across. However, they clearly want to throw us off balance , and not only by
direct attacks on Russia in all possible and conceivable spheres by way of unscrupulous
competition, illegitimate sanctions and the like, but also by unbalancing the situation near
our borders, thus preventing us from focusing on creative activities. Nevertheless,
regardless of the human instincts and the temptations to respond in the same vein, I'm
convinced that we must abide by international law.
Russia does not accept the fidgety 'rules of the liberal international order'. Russia
sticks to the law which is, in my view, a much stronger position. Yes, international law often
gets broken. But as Lavrov
said elsewhere , one does not abandon traffic rules only because of road accidents.
Russia stays calm, no matter what outrageous nonsense the U.S. and EU come up with. It can
do that because it knows that it not only has moral superiority by sticking to the law but it
also has the capability to win a fight. At one point the interviewer even jokes
about that :
Question : As we say, if you don't listen to Lavrov, you will listen to [Defense Minister]
Shoigu.
Sergey Lavrov : I did see a T-shirt with that on it. Yes, it's about that.
Yes, it's about that. Russia is militarily secure and the 'west' knows that. It is one
reason for the anti-Russian frenzy. Russia does not need to bother with the unprecedented
hostility coming from Brussels and Washington. It can ignore it while taking care of its
interests.
As this is so obvious one must ask what the real reason for the anti-Russian pressure
campaign is. What do those who argue for it foresee as its endpoint?
Posted by b on October 17, 2020 at 16:31 UTC | Permalink
thanks b.... that lavrov interview that karlof1 linked to previously is
worth its weight in gold...
it gives a clear understanding of how russia sees what is
happening here on the world stage... as you note cheap talk from the atlantic council 'rules
of the liberal international order' is no substitute for 'international law' which is what
russia stands on.... as for the usa campaign to tar russia and claim trump is putins puppet..
apparently this stupidity really sells in the usa.. in fact, i have a close friend here in
canada from the usa with family in the usa has bought this hook, line and sinker as well..
and he is ordinarily a bright guy!
as for the endpoint - the usa and the people of the usa don't mind themselves about
endpoints... it is all about being in the moment, living a hollywood fantasy off the ongoing
party of wall st... the thought this circus will end, is not something many of them
contemplate.. that is what it looks like to me.. maga, lol...
Belarus - this is happenstance, not long term planning. Like Venezuela - indeed neither
original Presidential candidate nor his wife had a Wikipedia entry a week or so before being
announced as candidate (much like Guaido 2 weeks before Trump "made" him President.
Yes the Western media make the most of it, and yes there are many in place in and besides the
media whose job it is to maximise any noise. But little is happening in Belarus. Sanctioning
is all anyone can do now. (Sanctions = punishment therefore proof of guilt without trial or
evidence).
US pressure is based on the Dem vs Rep "I am tougher on Russia than you" game spurred on
by the MIC.
European pressure is based on the Euro Defence force concept and a low key but real desire to
rid itself of Nato. So again we have Nato saying "without US/us Europe would be soft on
Russia" and Europe saying we are tough on Russia whatever.
What do those who argue for it foresee as its endpoint?
It is about driving a wedge between Europe and Russia. The nightmare scenario for the
Anglo-Americans is a Germany-Russia-China triangle. If that happens it is game
over!
They don't want an actual war. They just ratchet up the tensions to keep Europe subdued
and obedient and Russia off balance and thereby prevent any rapprochement between the
two.
Putin has repeatedly stated he wants a Lisbon to Vladivostok free trade area.
The Anglo-Americans will never permit that. That Europe is committed to a course that is
against their own best interest shows just how subservient they are to the
Anglo-Americans.
I think it was the first head of NATO that said the purpose of the organization is to
"keep the Russians out, the Germans down and the US in"
There is no endpoint. Those who argue for it, the Western think-tank industry and security
and intelligence industry, are recipients of huge sums of money. It is bread and butter for
large numbers of people. And the acceptance of the conclusions and advice of the immense
stacks of papers thus produced mean money towards the defense industry and the cyber warfare
industry. In the end, all this is driven by elites' fear of their own populations. Sowing FUD
(Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) makes these populations docile. Rinse and repeat.
>>As this is so obvious one must ask what the real reason for the anti-Russian pressure
campaign is.
The reason was probably the new Russian Constitution, which is basically a declaration of
independence from the West. This has caused serious triggerings in western elites, although
their reaction took some time to crystalise due to the Covid Pandemic.
>>What do those who argue for it foresee as its endpoint?
The endpoint is - EU and NATO move into Ukraine, Moldova, Serbia, Georgia, Belarus,
Armenia.
A puppet government of someone like Navalny is installed Russia. That government further
gives up Crimea, Kaliningrad and Northen Caucasus. In the long run, a soft partition of Russia into 3 parts follows (as per the Grand
Chessboard 1997).
The possibility for that happening is overall negative, as the West is on a long term
decline, that is, it will be weaker in 2030, and even weaker in 2040 or 2050.
OECD economies were 66 % of the world economy in 2010 but that share is estimated to drop
to 38 % of the world economy in 2050 (with further drops after that).
The strong hatred and hostility coming from the US and the EU are due to the understanding
that they don't have much time, and they must act now, or tomorrow it will be too
late.
Well, the hostility in "western" "elite" (rulers) towards Russia is on much more primal level
than money and power IMO. It is pure racial hatred combined with Übermensch God complex.
Main controllers in modern "west" are US, Israel and Germany.
Years ago Barack Obama gave speech to West Point graduates, proclaiming US moral and
racial superiority (because they mix'n's*it) over whole world, Goebbels would be proud.
Germany has long history of hating all those Slavs, and Israel... Lets not go there with how
they threat those inferior brown people.
"What do those who argue for it foresee as its endpoint?"
Of course that end-point is money for military contractors and power for the FP elite in
government and think-tanks which also means money. Yes, there are true-believers who see a
mighty struggle between "good" (the USA) an "evil" (Russia/China) but they are incompetent.
As for the American people they will believe whatever the NY Times says since they are
militantly ignorant of history, geography, foreign affairs in general, and, above all,
political science.
The problem as I see it is Europe generally, and Germany in particular. Why do they follow
Washington diktats?
Well let's see, the USA is $30 trillion in debt and counting, faces an upcoming economic
depression to rival the 'great' one, with a citizenry on the brink of civil war and a
political system that makes a 'banana republic' look like ancient Greece. Desperate is as
desperate does.
As this is so obvious one must ask what the real reason for the anti-Russian pressure
campaign is. What do those who argue for it foresee as its endpoint?
For a very simple reason: there's no other option. Capitalism can only work in one way. There's a limit to how much capitalism can reform
within itself without self-destructing.
The West is also suffering from the "Whale in a Swimming Pool" dilemma: it has grown so
hegemonic, so big and so gloated that its strategic options have narrowed sharply. It has not
much more room for maneuver left, its bluffs become less and less effective. As a result, its
strategies have become increasingly linear, extremely predictable. The "whale in a pool
dilemma" is not a problem when your inner workings (domestic economy) is flourishing; but it
becomes one when the economy begins to stagnate and, ultimately, decline (albeit slowly).
On a side note, it's incredible how History is non-linear, full of surprises. The Russian
Federation is inferior to the Soviet Union in every aspect imaginable. Except for one factor:
it now has an ascendant China on its side in a time where the West is declining. (Historical)
context is everything.
The USA is lucky the USSR collapsed in 1991. If it managed to somehow survive for mere 17
years more, it would catch the 2008 capitalist meltdown and have an opportunity to gain the
upper hand over capitalism (plus have a strong China on its side). Socialism/communism
wouldn't have been demoralized the way it was in the 1990s, opening a huge flank for
revolutions in the Western Hemisphere (specially Latin America). NATO would be much weaker.
Since the USSR was closed to capitalism, the USA wouldn't be able to enforce as crippling
economic sanctions on China and the USSR. The USSR would be able to "reform and open up" in a
much safer environment (by copying China, instead of Yeltsin's neoliberalism), thus gaining
the opportunity to make a Perestroika that could actually work.
But it didn't happen. Well, what can I say? It looks like the USA imported the Irish and imported their luck,
too.
Abe @7 - I would agree and have raised somewhere (old age?) that part of what we are seeing
in this latest western-NATO cooked up charade re Navalny is, in part at least, a deep
historical supremacist loathing of the Slavs an in general and the Russians in particular by
the haute bourgeois Germans. This loathing was made blatantly manifest during WWII, of
course, but it didn't die out because that generation and more likely their children remain
with us. Ditto the generational Anglo-American hatred of Russians (yes, for the UK, and their
haute bourgeoisie, it has deeper historical roots than the 20thC) and the USSR even more...
The pressure on Russia is enormous and I would enlarge on the economic sanctions aspect
(siege warfare): Belarus, Armenia-Azerbaijan (Erdogan once again playing his role for the
US/NATO - in this business, Iran is also a target), Kyrgyzstan - all on or very close to
Russia's borders and thus dividing and draining (intention) Russia's focus and $$$$ (the
Brzezinski game) in order to open it up to the western corporate-capitalist bloodsuckers. And
I suspect that as the US (and UK) economies drain away, so these border country "revolts,"
"protests" etc. will grow...
Russia really needs to join with China in full comity. Bugger the west - they do not
respect the rights of either country to their own culture, societal structures, mores,
perspectives...nor apparently even those countries' rights to their own coastal waters, air
space...
One wonders how the USA would react to Chinese and/or Russian warships in the Gulf or
traversing (lengthwise) the Atlantic or Pacific????
"Maas added that Germany takes decisions related to its energy policy and energy supply 'here in Europe', saying
that Berlin accepts ' the fact that the US had more than doubled its oil imports from Russia last year and is now the
world's second largest importer of Russian heavy oil .'" [My Emphasis]
Now isn't that the interesting bit of news!! The greatest fracking nation on the planet needs to import heavy oil (likely
Iranian, unlikely Venezuelan) from its #1 adversary. As for the end game, I've written many times what I see as the goal and
don't see any need to add more.
"The Russians are coming' is a long standing fear built the American psyche almost from the
very start.
Russian colonization of the California Territory outnumbered the US population.
The Monroe Doctrine was all about that,not S.America at all. The Brits ruled S.America by
mercantile means until
WWI cut the sea lanes, then and only then did it fall into the sphere of Yankee control.
Then there is Alaska. The Sewards Folly documents are almost certainly fakes, the verified
Russian copy says a 100year LEASE,not a sale. The National Archives refuses examination by any
but its own experts. Unless they are forgeries and they know it there can be no real reason for
their stance.
There is much more background to the antipathy than many are aware.
@bjd (4) You nailed it, my friend. Cold wars are immensely profitable for certain sectors of
the economy and the parasites who run them. The supreme imperative is always to have
enemies--really big, bad, dangerous enemies--whether real or imagined. I will be voting for
Biden, but I don't have much hope for positive change in American foreign policy. Russia,
China, Iran, Venezuela, etc. will continue to be vilified as nations to be feared and hated.
The neocon/NATO aggressive expansionism has many purposes, but one is surely domestic
repression: to gaslight and cause fear-the-foreign-bogeyman trauma among the American and
British people as a whole and make most of them become docile and lose their critical
thinking skills and their ability to analyze their own societies.
One of the best ways to
lobotomize the publics of the US and UK is to very gradually impose martial law in the name
of protecting national security and ensuring peace and harmony at home.
After several color
revolutions succeeded, the Russiagate/Spygate op was carried out in the US, with British
assistance. This op has been largely successful, though there has been limited resistance
against its whole fake edifice as well as with the logic of Cold War2.0. Nevertheless,
Spygate has shocked many tens of millions of Dems into a stupor, while millions more are
dazed and manipulated by the Chinese bogeyman being manufactured by Trump. The most dangerous
result of the martial law lite mentality caused by Spygate and its MSM purveyors is the
growing support for censorship of free speech coming mostly from the Dems, such as Schiff and
Warner. The danger inherent in this trend became very clear when FaceBook and Twitter engaged
in massive and unprecedented arbitrary censorship of the New York Post and of various
Trump-related accounts. This is the kind of thing you do during Stage 1 of a coup. Surely it
was at least in part an experiment to see how various power points in the US would respond.
Even though Twitter ended the censorship later, it was probably a successful experiment
designed to gauge reactions and areas of resistance. In November, there could be further,
more serious experiments/ops. If so, the current expansionist movements being made and
planned by the US and NATO may well be integral parts of a new non-democratic model of
"American-style democracy" -- not constitution-based but "rules-based."
"As this is so obvious one must ask what the real reason for the anti-Russian pressure
campaign is. What do those who argue for it foresee as its endpoint?"
I think the answer is clear. The US economy is collapsing and likewise those wedded to the US
dollar system. The USA spent 90% more than it received last year.
They are desperate to have access to Russia's largely untapped resources and it doesn't want
any competition for its position as world hegemon. Thus Russia and China are in the
crosshairs.
Fortunately the corruption in the USA has resulted in a weaker military capability over time
and they are reduced to behaving in clandestine and terroristic ways to try and achieve this.
The turmoil enveloping the USA is scape goated on Trump and Covid19 but is ultimately due to
their faltering economy and a big helping of financial corruption. Talk about your chickens
coming home to roost
Sounds like thunder, all those chickens. I appeared to me that whomever is in charge here, they started pulling all the levers they
could lay a hand on a couple weeks back in terms of stirring up trouble. Throwing sand in the
eyes of ones enemy.
At the time, I thought it was just Trump and his followers freaking out, now I think it's
the NatSec people, who have finally seen the truth of their situation. As one can see in the
Atlantic Council piece B posted, they are still trying to keep the old narrative patched
together too.
Politfiction, or what could have happened if is an entertaining but futile exercise.
Everybody agrees, there was no need for the USSR to dissolve, it was like a big jackpot for
an amazed rival that rushed to declare himself the winner. The price has been high, on both
sides of the fence but of course with a lot more victims and destruction on the other side of
the fallen wall. Gorbachov a tragic figure and Yelstyn a sinister one, in spite of his being
a clown, a tragic one at that, bombing his parliament and laughing at the world together with
the degenerate Clinton, the 90's were somber indeed. The west paid its price, a self declared
victory that did not bring any benefit, the peace dividend never was, to the contrary,
military budgets never stopped growing year after year. The end of history was proclaimed, no
need to match or better the rival ideology, there is none, so proles you better stop
complaining, or else and that's where we are.
Just to repeat the obvious, for the US actually to go to war is out of the question these
days -- the US public would not tolerate the casualties. Therefore other methods have to be
found to achieve the same objectives -- the maintenance of an eternal enemy in 1984 style, to
keep up military budgets and world hegemony, neither of which are the elite ready to abandon.
Economic sanctions have been the weapon of choice in the age of Trump, but there isn't really
any other. Sometimes they are better aimed and sometimes not.
In any case I am not sure I agree that the EU is really submissive to the US in this
respect. They don't want to offend the US, and some leaders have genuinely swallowed the
Kool-Aid, but others haven't, and the continuation of Nordstream 2 is where they haven't.
Doctorow wrote "Of course, under the dictates of the Democrat-controlled House and with the
complicity of the anti-Russian staff in the State Department, in the Pentagon, American
policy towards Russia over the entire period of Trump's presidency..."
The Senate is more
important for foreign affairs and has been Republican for Trump's entire term. The House was
also Republican for half of Trump's term. Lastly the "staff" is not really able to run things
in the presence of a minimally competent administrator, at the head of the State Department,
acting under leadership of a competent, energetic president. There is no sign Doctorow is
particularly intelligent or insightful.
I have long ago lost track of where the bar's consensus on Turkey is, whether the failing
US means Erdogan must become the follower of the skilled, brave and indefatigable Putin...or
whether his sultanship is suicidally persisting in thinking Russia cannot actually deliver
anything his sultanship really needs and wants. At any rate it is entirely unclear what
"international law" Lavrov thinks supports Russia.
As to the China Russia "alliance," the difficulty is that Putin has so very little to
offer.
I can hazard a guess to answer your final question. I think corruption is probably the main
reason. Those involved in this are mostly interested in self-enrichment through the
gullibility of their societies. I don't think the stenographers and the hot-heads neo liberals
pushing for a show-down with Russia are intent on committing suicide by igniting a hot war
with Russia, but they hope that Moscow could be intimidated and surrender eventually. As you
rightly said, it is a pipe dream of course, but they get paid heavily for the hot air they
emit.
'As this is so obvious one must ask what the real reason for the anti-Russian pressure
campaign is. What do those who argue for it foresee as its endpoint?'
The endpoint is quite clear: 'Global Governance, by Global Institutions under control of
the 'Globalists' (i.e. the Davos crowd).' For this, the 'Globalists' must subdue Russia.
Russia is not only blocking the 'Globalist's' plans in its own right, but, since 2013, it
has been protecting other nations from falling prey to 'Globalist' colonization (Syria,
Eastern Ukraine, Iran, Venezuela, Libya, Belarus, etc.). And Russia is the lynch-pin to
enable the 'Globalists' to corner China.
In addition, together with China, Russia is offering the world an alternative to
'Globalism', a 'Multi-Polar World Order' that is much more attractive than becoming a
'Globalist' vassal.
For the 'Globalists' time has become critical. They are facing revolts in their home
countries (Trump, Brexit, Gilets-Jaunes, etc.). The main source of their geo-political power,
(since they can no longer challenge Russia and China militarily) the U.S. dollar, is on the
verge of collapse as the World's reserve currency. And the economic growth of China means
that China has become the most important trading partner for most of the World's nations.
The window of opportunity for the 'Globalists' to create their 'Global Governance' system
may have already closed. But, as usual, the losers of any war are usually the last to know.
The desperation with which the 'Globalists' are fighting their last battles, against Trump,
against Russia, against Brexit, is testimony to the fact that for the 'Globalists' losing
this war means their extinction as a ruling elite.
c'mon steve.... what is the usa offering
turkey here?? they could give a rats ass about turkey, or any other country in the middle
east, excluding their 24/7 darling israel... the usa presence on the world stage is meant to
sabotage any and all who don't bow down to the exceptional nations philosophy of 'might makes
right'... the obvious benefits of russia-china synergy are apparent to both countries and
they continue to capitalize on this, in spite of what you read in the usa msm.. russia as a
lot to offer china... the fact that the nation apparently masquerading as a gas station has
so much to offer is also the reason that all the pillage of the 90's hasn't turned out the
way the harvard boys had envisioned... that you can't see the vast wealth and value of russia
has nothing to do with the reality on the ground... keep the blinders on, lol...
The EU's attitude to the US is much like its attitude to Britain and Brexit. They don't want
to split with the US, because, after all, there might be war, and NATO would be needed, but
it's becoming increasingly less likely. In the same way, they would have preferred to stay in
good relations with Britain, until Britain insisted on a hostile Brexit. Basic interests come
first, and that will also be the case in the future with the US.
Russia and China are already de-facto alliance. Militarily they cooperate at every level
and will soon extend shared anti ballistic shield over China too. It is clear to any outside
enemy (except for most retarded ones) that nuclear attack on one will be treated as attack on
both of them. Not having formal alliance is somewhat an advantage (eg. limited attack on one
of them by enemy that can be easily handled will not complicate situation) as it controls
escalation. Lack of escalation control led to WW1 so...
Apart for military, Russia is one of rare fully self sufficient countries in the world.
Having vast natural resources and territory, knowledge and industrial capacity to built
EVERYTHING they need, they can afford to be sanctioned by whole world and close borders
completely if needed. Having 100% secure land borders with China and already huge (and
increasing) trade, including oil & gas, only make Russia's self sufficiency even more
stable. It also strategically benefits China, as its main weakness is lack of those same
resources Russia has in abundance and is willing to share.
So, if sh*t hits the fan, and Russia and China say f*ck it and close borders to rest of
the world (even though China trade profits wouldn't be happy), both countries form self
sufficient symbiosis that can carry on for centuries.
Which brings me to all those little fires US is starting in Russia's neighborhood. They
don't matter. Unlike USSR, Russia's mission is self preservation only, not changing whole
world into communist utopia (even though @VK here repeatedly fails to acknowledge it). And
survive it will. All it needs is to wait few generations.
Unlike Russia, collective west is going down the drain. Soon enough, all those Slav hating
in Bundestag, UK parlament and elsewhere will have more urgent problem of Islamic head
choppers that became majority in their countries, while US will have problem to recruit
enough men,women and "others" from pool of rainbow colored too-fat and unfit, godless faggot
from broken family snowflakes.
As China has been mentioned, I think it is worth saying that although I have full confidence
that Putin will maintain his usual good sense in international conflicts, I have more doubts
about the Chinese regime. I don't really understand their policy, which is becoming more
nationalistic and edgy. I don't see why. They have great economic success; they should be
more relaxed, but they aren't. The first signs came with their attitude towards the Muslims
in China. One, the concentration camps in Xinjiang - in that case the Uyghur jihadists in Syria
must have provoked anxiety in Beijing. But also increasing pressure on the Hui Muslims in
central China (who are native Han) to become more "national". Some years ago they weren't
bothered. Now they are.
This suggests that the question of Taiwan could blow up, apart from HongKong. They are
less tolerant in Beijing.
It is about driving a wedge between Europe and Russia. The nightmare scenario for the
Anglo-Americans is a Germany-Russia-China triangle. If that happens it is game
over!
It is a tired and false concept. There cannot be a "triangle" which includes Germany, due
to Germany's increasingly diminishing status. Moreover, Russians do not view Europe as a
viable part of Russia's future--the cultural gap is gigantic and continues to grow--the only
place of Europe in general, and Germany in particular, in Russian plans is that of a market
for Russia's hydrocarbons and other exports. A rather successful program of
export-substitution in Russia in the last 6 years dropped technological importance of Germany
for Russia dramatically. In some fields, such as high-power turbines made Germany irrelevant,
as Siemens learned the hard way recently.
"U.S. and its EU puppies have ratcheted up their pressure...
The 'rules of the liberal international order' are of course whatever the U.S. claims they
are. They may change at any moment and without notice to whatever new rules are the most
convenient for U.S. foreign policy."
Outstanding assessment and thank you for addressing it.
As I've said numerous times -- Fuck the US Empire and it's minion bitches. Jesse Ventura
commented this past week that EVERY US Incumbent politician should be voted out of office
this election. 99% of them are scum.
Every politician, corporate CEO Banker and Media whore, Judge, CIA filth should have a
pitchfork held to their throat and be tried for treason and war crimes. MIC/Pentagon should
be destroyed. Majority of Americans are propagandized dumbfucks. Sounds a bit like an
American Cultural Revolution is exactly the medicine.
There will come a day for reckoning and true justice, hopefully it is sooner than later.
There should be no mercy. For those committing their treasonous crimes, they know better but
have chosen poorly, they should be broken.
Russia, Putin and Lavrov have remained the adults in the room while the Empire Brats
tantrum themselves.
Anyone else notice that the Anti-Russia rhetoric increased after Snowden was trapped in
Russia?
I agree with Ike and others who think the US money situation is the problem. But I also
think that the underlying endpoint is hyperinflation, not just the loss of the dollars'
"reserve status." Hyperinflation is when so much "money" has been produced that it no longer
has any value and the Central Bank cannot control what comes next.
There is a point at which people want to get rid of dollars and panic buy or "invest" in
assets, or anything solid or simply anything (Gold, land etc. bread) At which time the money
they want to get rid of looses value continuously, as others don't want it either. A Rush for
the exits happens.
Who has the MOST money - the Rich and the sovereign Nations? (Althought the latter may
also be in the same situation as the US.) Russia has more or less got rid of all it's US
holdings. The Chinese must be alarmed by the thought of the Fed issuing ONLY new-digicoins,
and then the US simply refusing to pay debts to the Chinese at some future point. They might
want out now. Not so much dumping everything but a steady reduction of US denominated
"assets" or reserves.
Most of this becomes self-sustaining panic, as happened in the Weimar Rep. What can be
considered "assets" to grab? ie Russia, minerals and it's Gold, China and its Gold. Then the
choice might be to invest in the US military and use it while there is a residue of belief in
the Dollar.
The only thing about a panic exit is that it happens very quickly. About a month or two
between when the first bright sparks try to get out and when everyone else tries to grab part
of a rapidly restricted choice of things to buy with an unending pile of "empty" dollars.
Germany should've been conquered by the Soviet Union entirely as it was won with Soviet,
largely Russian, blood. Germany is increasingly irrelevant to Russia's needs now as Martyanov
points out above. Germany's existence today should be that of a Russian oblast, same with
Eastern Ukraine from Kharkiv to Mariupol and Belarus.
Ask yourself what Germany produces that Russia can't produce for itself with import
substitution schemes or similar schemes within a 10 year period. Russia's GDP by PPP is the
size of Germany's already and depending on how it deals with the impact of COVID, may
continue an upward year-on-year growth trend (People's Republic of China is the only major
economy forecast to expand in fiscal quarter this year). The fact of the matter is that
Russia's population is much larger, its industrial base, at least in heavy industry, is
nearly self sufficient (not much light industry to speak of) and Germany depends on Russian
oil and gas to keep its lights on. Russia can carry on without Germany just fine. There may
be a noticeable impact now if Russia were cornered into doing that, but it's nothing that
can't be overcome in short order.
Thank you, b, and before reading comments, I will give my take on your last question:
As this is so obvious one must ask what the real reason for the anti-Russian pressure
campaign is. What do those who argue for it foresee as its endpoint?
The whole 'rules based order' became very clear when the Trans Pacific Partnership, TPP,
was being debated,and what happened then is what many have noted, the 'rules' were all to
advantage the US. So, you might say that was the beginning of the end for the oligarchy. And
the partnership reformed after it had taken out that problem, to be fair to all participants.
All the oligarchy can do is keep on keeping on until it can't. This is really about survival
for that class of individuals who intend to keep on being in charge here in the US and
wherever its tentacles have reached. The only endpoint they see is their continuance. And I
suppose their fear is that it is simply not possible for that to be the case.
Hopefully there will just come a point where, as in Plato's Republic, the dialogue simply
moves on. There, it begins in the home of the ancient one, Cephalus, with a polite
discussion, and the old man says his piece, to which Socrates responds:
"What you say is very fine indeed, Cephalus...but as to this very thing, justice, shall
we so simply assert that it is the truth and giving back what a man has taken from another,
or is to do these very things sometimes just and sometimes unjust? Take this case as an
example of what I mean: everyone would surely say that if a man takes weapons from a friend
when the latter is of sound mind, and the friend demands them back when he is mad, one
shouldn't give back such things, and the man who gives them back would not be just, and
moreover, one should not be willing to tell someone in this state the whole truth."
"What you say is right," he said.
[Allan Bloom translation]
In the dialogue, the old man leaves to 'look after the sacrifices', handing down the
argument to his heir, Polymarchus. To me, Socrates has adroitly caused this to come about in
much the fashion that Lavrov answers his press questioners in the link b provides. That is,
he has done so with diplomacy, and a lesson to his younger companions which perhaps Cephalus
is no longer able to understand. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Yet in your disparaging comments of Europe and Germany in particular you proceed to show
how successful the Anglo-Americans have been in creating a wedge between Europe and Russia
actually validating my original point.
"Keep the Russians out, the Germans down and the US in"
That was the whole point of the first Cold War. It is the whole point of creating a Cold War 2.0. Absolutely nothing has changed.
By whom exactly? US & several euro puppets? Typical racist thinking that Europe and
its former colonies are somehow "the world" or "the international community".
Meanwhile opinion of Russia is positive in India (1,3 billion people, more than the whole
West combined) and China (1,4 billion, more than the whole West combined).
Those who don't spend for their own weapons, spend for their master's weapons (like
europuppets).
Btw your master (US) spends on weapons too. What are you going to do about it?
As was rightly pointed out in that discussion, British foreign policy towards Europe was
to ensure that no single power was to be allowed to achieve hegemony over Europe. The famous
"balance of power"
@ Posted by: Andrei Martyanov | Oct 17 2020 19:41 utc | 36
If the Russian Federation really has an ongoing imports substitution program, then this
explains everything. Germany is an exports-oriented economy. It wants to integrate with the Russian economy in
the sense to keep it as an agrarian-extrativist economy to feed it with cheap commodities to
feed their industry. Germany's ideal Russia is Brazil.
A Russia that also exports high-value commodities (manufactured commodities) is a direct
threat to Germany, as it competes with it directly in the international market. That's the
reason Germany doesn't want the BRI to come to Europe, as Merkel once said: Europe must not
become China's peninsula. China is Germany's main competitor, as it is also a big
manufacturing exporter.
Unlike China, Russia lacks the weight of population and reliance on the globalist capitalist
system to throw around, China will not shut itself up for Russia when it can trade with EU
& Turkey instead.
Russia is increasingly put into weak position, where Russian troops are sent to do the
dying, while the Chinese business whoop in afterwards to get all the juicy business deals. In
other words, Russia does the dying while China enriches itself.
Russia only hope is that it becomes friendly with the EU, otherwise, it is going to be
crushed between two superpowers, the EU and China.
I think the point of the sanctions and all the pressure on Russia is an appeal to Russian
elite, Just a reminder that they are isolated from the rest of the elite and hope that it
would help them throw Russian nationalists from power. I think this might succeed as Putin
did no really take on the new Russian capitalist class, and that will probably be his
undoing.
@vk 36 That's the reason Germany doesn't want the BRI to come to Europe
BRI in Europe - 16 countries:
Austria*, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Italy,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Ukraine
* shaky
SCMP - Aug 17, 2020:
China's rail shipments to Europe set records as demand surges for Chinese goods amid
coronavirus
> July saw 1,232 cargo trains travel from Chinese cities to European destinations –
the most ever in a single month > Once regarded as merely ornamental, freight service along belt and road trade routes has
become increasingly important as exporters turn to railway transport. . .
here
Lavrov, Shoigu and Putin are calm, but the domestic economic situation is not.
While I have noted before that Russia is better positioned to survive low oil prices than
Saudi Arabia - it doesn't mean this is fun.
Couple that with COVID-19 economic losses, and stresses on the domestic Russian economy are
enormous.
Among other signs: after bouncing around in the 60s for some time, the ruble just hit 80 to
the USD. Anecdotally, I am hearing a lot of direct personal accounts of businesses not being
able to pay their people because their own customers aren't paying.
Russia has done relatively little extra to assist with COVID-19 related economic harms, so
this isn't great either.
@ laguerre -- The interview with Pepe Escobar deals with the whole range of issues in the
hybrid war against China, but the information you're looking for Regarding the suppression
and re-education of Muslim terrorists starts just past the 1-hour point.
the Chinese regime. I don't really understand their policy, which is becoming more
nationalistic and edgy.
No, it's become more multi-national and sensible. Take the BRI: Launched in 2013, it was
initially planned to revive ancient Silk Road trade routes between Eurasia and China, but the
scope of the BRI (Belt & Road Initiative) has since extended to cover 138 countries,
including 38 in sub-Saharan Africa and 18 in Latin America and the Caribbean.
they should be more relaxed
China has been an open target for the US, which doesn't even mention China any more (Pompeo)
but dumps on the "CCP" (Chinese Communist Party). China (like Russia) has not responded in
kind.
their attitude towards the Muslims in China
The US State Dept slash CIA has been fomenting terrorism in Xinjiang for years and China has
had to contend with it.
the question of Taiwan could blow up
Taiwan like some other places in the world, including Hong Kong, has been another place where
the US has fomented instability. This has increased recently with Taiwan "president" Tsai
declaring that Taiwan (January this year, BBC interview) is a separate country, which it
isn't. China is being pushed to do his Abe Lincoln thing and save the union.
They are less tolerant in Beijing
Chinese by nature are tolerant, and Beijing has been tolerant in the face of US naval fleets
and bomber visits in their near seas, plus political attacks, sanctions and tariffs.
66 watch what they do and have done and not what they.
Construction started four years ago on enlarging and modernization of the railway marshaling
yards in Duisburg.
The volume of Chinese freight trains arriving daily is already quite amazing and planned to
increase to one every hour next month 24/7.They are not returning empty. The oil and gas
pipeline corridors also had ten plus railway tracks built alongside .Germany is already at the
center of the BRI expansion into Germany and it started four years ago.
@ Posted by: H.Schmatz | Oct 17 2020 21:40 utc | 60
That's why Germany is not full anti-China.
--//--
@ Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 17 2020 22:12 utc | 66
Just because Germany doesn't want it, it doesn't mean it's not getting.
--//--
@ Posted by: c1ue | Oct 17 2020 22:18 utc | 67
I agree. Capitalism is a dead end for Russia. It's all about when Putin dies. After he dies, it will be a coin flip for Russia: it could
continue its course or it could get another Yeltsin.
Germany being against BRI is news to me. Any proof? And it is very unlikely that China will be able to fool the europeans lile the
american. The EU has regulations and aren't purely about profit.
Perhaps the US only has one script in the playbook: to balkanise, disrupt and foster 5th
columns until their opponent becomes a dysfunctional or failed state. Then send in the
acronyms (IMF etc), establish a provisional administration under trusted local elites but
commandeer resource-rich areas under direct provincial command. That's US imperialism and it
won't stop until they encounter opposition effective enough to resist it. That's why they'll
never forgive Putin for Syria. In the end they want to finish doing to Russia (by other
means...) what the Germans began in '41; and not just Russia, but anywhere their markets are
prevented from calling the shots.
thank you, @72. the chinese learned much from their century of humiliation & clearly one
of the important lessons was trade both ways, rather than take their silver, sell them tea,
silks & porcelain & need nothing they offered.
That's an excellent observation, and a concept I had not encountered before. Thank you.
How consciously China holds that narrative, if at all, I couldn't say.
But it's a great dynamic - kind of like keeping your enemies close. And if the German
increase in reciprocal railroad trade with China is as it was stated up-thread, it would seem
to be working.
@78, thank you, grieved...i've long admired you. in times such as these it can be a challenge
to keep sight of the positive but as china prospers & wishes her trading partners to as
well, & so long as russia continues to strive toward the high road rather than descend to
the barroom floor perhaps we can also learn to rise...i'm reminded of a sufi saying: 'rise in
love do not fall'. may we all.
Do they even think about an endpoint? Is it really on their radar?
Or is this all being done because they are spoilt, and are throwing a tantrum because they
aren't getting their way?
I assume that there are sober heads in the Pentagon that wargame possible "endpoints". If
not sober at the beginning then sober when the results play out to their bitter end.
Or... maybe not. Post-retirement board seats are at stake, dammit! Full steam ahead and
damn the torpedoes!
I'm truly astonished that you don't know the truth of Xinjaing - in sum, that the
concentration camps are a huge lie that can be revealed as such by any satellite, and that
China has developed a progressive and worthy solution to the foreign-provoked terrorism
within its border.
Fortunately, Qiao Collective, a great expert source on China, has recently compiled a
treasure trove of links to know the truth:
Based on a handful of think tank reports and witness testimonies, Western governments
have levied false allegations of genocide and slavery in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.
A closer look makes clear that the politicization of China's anti-terrorism policies in
Xinjiang is another front of the U.S.-led hybrid war on China.
This resource compilation provides a starting point for critical inquiry into the
historical context and international response to China's policies in Xinjiang, providing a
counter-perspective to misinformation that abounds in mainstream coverage of the autonomous
region.
Posted by: Andrei Martyanov | Oct 17 2020 19:41 utc | 36
Andrei
A good justification on Russian German transitional relation, and we hope Russia is not
fooled again, by hopes. Those of us who hope for containing and reducing western dominance
over the world affairs, politics and economy, hope that Russians have learned from their
experience of the 90's joining G7, seat at NATO, joining western sanctions on smaller powers,
etc. all those efforts were the carrots thrown at Russia to tame the bear, one would think up
to Georgian war, it worked, that war perhaps woke the bear. Russians felt they are part of
Europe,part of western community of privileged nations (first world) but all that was a decoy
to move the NATO to Russian borders. I hope Russians once for all have learned, as long as
they have a big modern military and plenty of energy resources that is not under the western
(you read US) control they will never be accepted as a "western" country, Ironically, Russia
is the largest European country.
As a strategist you know better than most to circumvent western power and to bring back
the rule of international law, it would be impossible without having the Russian defensive
political and military power (as in Syria) on the side of resistance. We just hope you are
right Russia, will not be bought out again. IMO as you say, is just impossible for Germany,
or even France to decouple from the US grip on europe.
Seems to me its been terribly effective.
Russian economy pretty weak heavily reliant on raw materials, fracturing at the periphery.
China and Russia seem less than alies.
Seems US has Germany, France by the short hairs.
US had to bail them out in 2009.
Europe is having some problems with solvency and cohesion - whats a bureaucrat to do?
Its not really about the sovereigns, that's only for appearances.
@ 77
The Century of Humiliation from 1842 to 1949 and the contemporary discourse around it are a
driving narrative of contemporary Chinese history, foreign policy, and militarization of its
surrounding regions like the South China Sea. The expansion of the Chinese navy in numbers,
mission, and aggression is directly fueled by China's previous weakness and exploitation at
the hands of western nations. . . .
here
The US economy is definitely in trouble, but the US has spent roughly $2 trillion this year
to help its economy = a bit under 10% of 2019 GDP.
The difference is structural. The US economy is a service one - and lockdowns are literally
the best way to damage it.
The Russian economy is still heavily dependent on natural gas and oil sales. Despite the
initial devaluation, ongoing low oil prices plus increasing competition in natural gas (for
example, Azerbaijan is now selling natural gas to Italy) is hurting its economy.
Nor has Russia spent much to compensate for COVID-19 losses beyond its existing health and
social safety nets - the Russian plan was $73B / 5 trillion rubles = 4.3% of 2019 GDP.
I am anti-war and I am an anti-war crimes liberal (examples of war crimes: ethnic cleansing,
proof of genocide, torture, collective punishment via deprivation and occupation of
dispossessed land). Yet, I am also a non-interventionist except in extreme circumstances but
I am against regime change for the sake of neutralizing competing powers or converting them
religiously or politically.
All this implies exercising the highest integrity and blocking out all external influence
and pressure if one is a true liberal, and relying solely on conscience and wisdom.
Therefore, I don't like the term liberal sullied and usurped by fake liberals,
neoliberals and Zionist liberals, and I also take offense to the way liberal as a
general term is denigrated in this article.
Germany is an exports-oriented economy. It wants to integrate with the
Russian economy in the sense to keep it as an agrarian-extrativist economy to feed it with
cheap commodities to feed their industry. Germany's ideal Russia is Brazil.
True, it was about 10 years ago. Economic reality, of course, is such that Germany already
beat the record by consecutive 20 months of real economy shrinkage. In general, Germany's
energy policy is suicidal and Russia is increasingly independent from imports.
A lot to be
done in the future yet, of course, but as the whole comedy with high-power turbines and
Siemens demonstrated, Russia can do it on her own, plus General Electric is always there,
sanctions or no sanctions. It is a complicated matter, but it is Germany which increasingly
becomes irrelevant for Russia as an old image of technologically-advanced Germans getting
their hands on Russia's resources and ruling the world--this image is utterly obsolete,
completely false and doesn't correspond to the reality "on the ground".
It is really a simple
thing which many Westerners cannot wrap their brains around, that the country which has a
space program which operates ISS and second fully operational global satellite navigation
constellation, or which produces hypersonic weapons and whose shipbuilding dwarfs that of
Germany will have relatively little troubles in developing other crucial industries and
removing Western interests from those. Simple as that.
@90 Very true. Every time I read someone proclaiming that the Russian economy is no bigger
than Italy's, or Spain's, or ..... (fill in the blanks) I simply think to myself: "This word,
I do not think it means what you think it means".
Because it should be obvious to everyone that Italy can not produce all the things that
Russia produces.
Equally, Spain can not produce all the things that Russia produces.
So if someone has measured "economy" in such a way that the numbers for Russia are the
same as the number for Italy - or Spain - is simply admitting that their economic models are
flawed.
The US and EU attempts to break Russia's independent foreign policy are just stepping stones
to the eventual goal of a breakup Russia itself, never forget Albright's comments in the 90s
about how Siberia shouldn't belong to Russia alone.
Ultimately, though the US and EU nation
states are nothing more than tools of the globalist elite whose dream of a fully economically
integrated world where the power of labour is completely crushed by the power of capital to
move instantly across the planet is already falling apart. The economic elite have already
pillaged all of the minor nations in the world and the two grand prizes, Russia and China are
too powerful to attack directly now. unable to control their unbridled greed they've begone
the process of auto-self cannibalism, destroying their own states (or killing their hosts as
Michael Huddson would say) in order to completely centralize all capital within the 0.1%.
This will make them very rich, however hundreds of millions of Americans, Australians,
Canadians, Japanese and Europeans will be impoverished in order to do this. When this is
eventually realized by the majority of the people in these states, the economic elite will be
lucky if they "just" lose everything but their lives in mass nationalization campaigns. I see
very little evidence that the Russian or Chinese states would be willing to offer safe harbour for the criminal oligarchs of the West, like London has offered to criminal Oligarchs
fleeing justice in Russia
Before posting here monetarist propaganda BS form Western "economic" sources learn to
distinguish monetary expression of product and actual product in terms of quantity and
quality.
Just to demonstrate to you: for $100,000 in a desirable place in the US you will be
able to buy a roach-infested shack in a community known for meth-labs and high crime, for
exactly the same money in Russia you will buy a superb brand-new house in a desirable
location.
To demonstrate even more, for a price of a single Columbia-class SSBN ($8 billion+)
which does not exist other than on paper yet, Russia financed and produced her 8-hulls state
of the strategic missile submarines.
UK economy is dwarfed by Russia even in accordance by
IMF and World Bank, in fact, it is, once one excludes still relevant RR and few other
manufacturers, is down right third world economy. I am not going to post here all data from
IMF, but even this can explain why you posted a BS. Anyone "counting" real economic sector in
USD and Nominal GDP has to have head examined and is probably dumbed down through "economics"
programs in Western madrasas, aka universities.
In related news, learn what Composite Index of National Capability (CINC) is and check
energy consumption and production of Germany and Russia, just for shits and giggles.
And of course, Martyanov @96 is absolutely correct - the relative values of currencies are
proved to be nothing more than the entries of bookkeepers and bankers, all "sound and fury,
signifying nothing." What matters is what the home unit of currency will buy at home.
A better question is as Andrei suggests, what does it cost for Russia to produce something
that works, as opposed to what it costs the US to produce something that doesn't work because
of theft and cost inflation in the delivery chain?
The ultimate - MAD - question that the US should ask itself is this: How much does it
cost Russia to destroy the US, compared with the cost involved for the US to destroy
Russia?
~~
The cost of living is higher in the US. The cost of doing anything is higher. But none of
that means the quality of the result is greater - I certainly don't hear anyone lately saying
the living is good, compared to what people pay for it.
Were it not for the nerves of steel of Mr. Putin and his close advisers, the
irresponsible pressure policies outlined above could result in aggressive behavior and risk
taking by Russia that would make the Cuban missile crisis look like child's play.
We may yet see a Cuban missile crisis scenario but it looks more likely to be caused by arms
sales to Taiwan than conflict in the Caucasus.
I also think its naive to see these as "fires burning at Russia's borders" instead of as
deliberately set bear traps . Azerbaijan is in a strategic location between Russia and
Iran and the conflict with Armenia comes just before Russia is about to sell advanced weapons
to Iran.
Much of importance is emanating from Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs via Lavrov and
Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova. As reported by TASS :
"The statement made by German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, in which he said that the
situation around Russian opposition figure Alexey Navalny does not form part of
Russian-Germany bilateral agenda is a ploy to hide Berlin's course to destroy relations with
Moscow, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said during Thursday's
briefing.
"'We consider such statements as some tactical ploy that serves to hide Germany's course
for destruction of bilateral ties. I would like to remind you that it was Berlin that used
this situation to put forward unfounded accusations, ultimatums and threats against our
country, openly disregarding its own international legal obligations on providing practical
aid to Russia in the investigation of the incident with the Russian citizen. Once again, it
is acting as the locomotive of new anti-Russian sanctions within the EU and other
multilateral structures,' Zakharova pointed out."
That followed on the heels of yesterday's activities involving FM Lavrov. I previously
linked to Lavrov's interview with several Russian radio stations, and to that I add
the joint presser following his session with Italy's FM:
"Question: In response to the European sanctions, which I believe will follow in the wake
of the 'Navalny case,' you said yesterday that Russia will have to suspend its contacts with
European foreign ministers. Does this mean that today's meeting with Luigi Di Maio may be the
last with an EU foreign minister?
"Sergey Lavrov: The EU is increasingly replacing the art of diplomacy with sanctions.
Clearly, the bad example of the United States is contagious. We see this not just as a bad
example by the Americans, but also as a result of direct US pressure on its European allies
and colleagues. Indeed, what we are saying now is that we want to understand what the EU is
trying to accomplish. But this EU policy will not remain without consequences....
"With this EU approach in mind, where it completely ignores the real state of affairs
regarding the implementation of the Minsk agreements and the fact that they have been blocked
by official Kiev, we cannot disregard the statements coming from Brussels. In particular,
President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen said that Russia has adopted a
position that openly undermines EU interests, and that restoring the strategic partnership
between Russia and the EU is out of the question before Russia changes its behaviour. I have
already covered the Ukraine crisis, which is one of the key crises now, as it unfolds, and
who precisely is blocking the implementation of the peace agreements.
"We are seeing similarly unfounded accusations in the case of Mr Navalny, which you
mentioned. We hear our partners say that establishing the facts is of paramount importance.
The trouble is that the facts concerning Mr Navalny's time in Russia, on a Russian plane and
in the Omsk hospital are well known and have been established by us inasmuch as we could,
since several people involved in this incident have fled to Great Britain and Germany, and we
do not know of their whereabouts. We are asking to be granted access to these people, but no
constructive response is coming our way. We do not have the necessary facts. The West has
them, but we are denied access to them. Yesterday, during a conversation with EU High
Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell, and today during talks
with Luigi Di Maio, we heard a reiteration of the need to establish the facts. First off, the
other side has no facts. Second, as we know, during a Monday meeting of the EU Foreign
Affairs Council, the participants discussed the need for imposing sanctions, but Mr
Borrell assured me that before such a decision can be made, it is imperative to study the
facts that Germany and France promised to provide as part of a certain technical group that
is now being created . We very much hope that these facts will be presented not only to a
narrow group of European countries, but also directly to the party that is being, without
proof, accused of all conceivable sins and crimes." [My Emphasis]
Today sanctions were applied without the promised examination of the facts. As reported by TASS , a partial
response was made by Zakharova:
"'We call on the German foreign minister to refrain from interfering in domestic affairs
of our union nation, either in word or in deed. We are convinced that the Belarusians need no
instructions either from Berlin or any other capital city to reach accord on socially
important matters they are concerned about,' she said. 'Aggressive interventions of the
collective West in the internal political processes in third countries only entail the
emergence of more crisis foci on the global map.'"
Thanks for posting russian official reactions to recent geopolitical issues with the EU,
so that people can understand what is happening. And what is happening is that the EU has
defined itself as enemy of Russia. Something many people could not believe it is
happening.
In connection with that, i will repost a discussion of mine from another place.
Me: "Anyone who was talking about "independent EU", or "russian-german alliance", "EU
rebellion against US", "Europe joining Russia and China", "European Army independent from
NATO" has shit for brains and does not understand politics at all, no matter what his name or
education or job was."
Commenter: "By this token, does it mean Patrick Lawrence has "sh*t for brains" for writing
this piece? (About Europe allegedly moving closer to Russia in recent days)
Me: "I actually saw that article of him before several days and i wondered whether to make
a comment on that too, as an example of an "analyst" who does not understand at all what is
happening.
Point 1: Nord Stream 2. He fails to understand that this is not a divorce with the US,
rather an old german policy to buy russian energy. For example Germany approved pipelines
from the USSR over Reagan's objections in the 80s. Did that mean that Germany was not hostile
to the Soviet Union? Was not part of the Western block? No. It was a part of NATO containment
strategies against the USSR and hoped to take over Eastern Europe after the USSR loses the
Cold War.
Not to mention that there is talk that the pipeline will only be used at half
capacity.
The fact that someone (Europe) likes money does not mean that that same someone does not
secretly hate you, and will not stab you in the back as soon as it is safe to do so.
Point 2: more and more evidence emerges that Germany organised the Novichok incident with
Navalny (see John Helmer on that).
Point 3 - failed to understand that it was Germany who pushed for sanctions on Russia
after the Ukraine affair. Not to mention that Germany was involved in the anti-russian coup
in Ukraine, as part of its old strategy of "drang nach osten" - "pressure to the east" - to
take over Eastern Europe and its labor pool and use it the way the US uses Latin America.
Point 4 - failed to understand that the biggest force behind the colour revolution in
Belarus was the EU, playing far bigger role than the US. Now, who tries to take over a
russian populated country, near Moscow, histrorically part of the Russian Empire, where
millions of russians died to stop the german invasion, a situation that will also seriously
imperil the Kaliningrad enclave? Only someone who is hostile to Russia. This is a strategic
act of hostility towards Russia.
Point 5 - failed to notice that France and Sweden recently put sanctions on aviation and
industrial equipment for Russia.
Point 6 - is not aware that anti-chinese hatred in Europe has increased to all time highs,
according to recent surveys.
Point 7 - mentions several empty statements from Merkel and Macron as a sign of
"rebellion" without mentioning many other statements countering that - such as France and
Germany saying that Russia should not be allowed back in G-7, or that Borrell (EU foreign
policy chief) called Russia an old enemy of Europe, or that the french EU minister recently
called on Europe to unite against Russia, or that the EU comission chief called for Europe to
stand up to Russia, or that the European Parliament called the russian constitution "illegal"
and called for the "democratisation of Russia" (aka colour revolution), or Germany stating
recently that no european army independent from NATO is possible or will be supported by
Germany, or the 5 german parties that begged the US not to withdraw troops from Germany.
Point 8 - has no idea of recent official russian statements on the EU, meaning that he
lives in an alternate Universe.
"France and Germany are now leading the anti-russian block within Europe".
"There will be no more business as usual between Russia and France and Germany".
"Russia will not follow EU and US rules".
"Russia will no longer be dependent on the EU".
"Europeans have delusions of grandeur".
"Those people in the West who are responsible for foreign policy and do not understand the
necessity of mutually respectable conversation--well, we must simply stop for a while
communicate with them. Especially since Ursula von der Leyen states that geopolitical
partnership with current Russia's leadership is impossible. If this is the way they want it,
so be it. "
These are all statements by Lavrov and Zacharova.
So Lawrence does not even understand that there is a decoupling between Russia and EU
taking place, and worsening of relations, instead of them getting closer, as he dreams in the
daylight.
Analysts who understood the hostility of the EU towards Russia are M. K. Bhadrakumar and
Alastair Crooke, and they wrote plenty on that recently."
One part is particularly worth keeping in mind and that is the physical condition of
Navalny before leaving for Germany is known to the Russians. Note the alchohol and the
massive internal formation of acetone in the body
Acute metabolic disorder....
- - - -
(repeat of my post on the last open thread. No. 333)
In the meantime in Omsk, where two days of blood, urine and other biomarkers were recorded
for Navalny, Alexander Sabaev issued a report on Navalny's prior medical conditions and his
biomarkers after the alleged poisoning. Sabaev is head of the acute poisoning department of
the Omsk Emergency Hospital No. 1, chief toxicologist of the Omsk region and of the Siberian
Federal District.
According to Sabaev, Navalny's blood levels were "six times higher than the norm for
amylase, sugar and serum lactate; twice the normal level of leukocytosis, and the maximum
level of acetonuria. In addition, alcohol (0.2 ppm) was found in the urine ...These are the
metabolites, the substances which have been produced. These substances in large quantities
cause pathological changes." According to Sabaev, "Navalny did not suffer from diabetes, so
the tests showed that he had an acute metabolic disorder. 'An increase in the level of
lactate and lactic acid, its excessive formation makes acidification of the blood. It should
not be in such a quantity. There should be an indicator, let's say of 2; but we had an
indicator of 12, that is six times more,' he said. According to the doctor, the level of
internal acetone in Navalny's body was at maximum... Normally, acetone should be negative;
that is, it should be excreted from the body, the specialist added. 'In this case, the
carbohydrate metabolism suffered and completely different scenarios of development occurred.
The body began to destroy itself from the inside."
_________
The Germans are being trained to transport US nukes in the newest NATO exercise called
"steadfast moon". I wonder what is really going on and if the total lockdown is in
expectation to the programmed start to a False-flag.
(Striking Syria because of the upcoming White helmets chlorine FF, or somewhere else?)
Alex Gibney's new, four-hour documentary on election meddling does little to seek the facts,
and descends into conspiracy. Vladimir Putin meddles in the 2016 election.
(By Willrow Hood/Shutterstock)
With the U.S. presidential election only several weeks away, the specter of Russian election
interference has again become a mainstay media topic. Four years removed from the 2016
election, researchers and politicians are still trying to make sense of what happened: what
exactly did the Russians do, and what lessons are we to draw from it? Filmmaker Alex Gibney --
who is enjoying a rising profile with his hotly anticipated COVID-19 documentary Totally
Under Control -- has applied himself to these questions with a freshly released deepdive
into Russian election meddling.
Agents of Chaos is an epic-length documentary, spanning four hours across two
episodes, released last month on HBO. The first episode opens with a prelude of sorts. To
explain the roots of Russian information warfare, Gibney walks us through the 2014 Euromaidan
Revolution in Ukraine, Russia's subsequent annexation of Crimea, and the outbreak of the
ongoing Donbass War. The Ukrainian conflict, claims Gibney, was the stomping ground for a
nascent industry of Russian internet trolls looking to smear the new government in Kiev as
'fascists' and 'neo-nazis.'
The Ukraine tie-in is thought-provoking, but altogether unsatisfying in its execution. For
one, the strategic circumstances are not at all the same. The film is anchored around the idea
that Russia wants to sow chaos, but the Kremlin's approach to Ukraine was guided by concrete
policy goals that involved supporting specific politicians and parties. It is also comically
shortsighted to claim that Russian internet trolls sought to "drive a wedge" between eastern
and western Ukraine, when the country's two halves are already separated by centuries of
Imperial
history and the bitter legacy of two world wars. To the
extent that Russian trolls were "targeting" eastern Ukrainians, they were already speaking to
an overwhelmingly pro-Russian and anti-Maidan audience. None of this bears any resemblance to
the trolls' activities in America. Without so much as an attempt to square these circles, the
Ukraine analogy feels contrived.
Drawing on the help of cybersecurity researcher Camille François and several Russians
with first-hand knowledge, Gibney proceeds to outline the Russian internet trolling operation.
Almost all of the work was done from the Internet Research Agency (IRA), a chaste office on the
outskirts of St. Petersburg. The film tells us little that we don't already know from the
Mueller investigation and Senate intelligence committee report: there was a concerted effort by
certain Russian nationals to impersonate American activists, political groups, and media
outlets for the purpose of undermining "Americans' trust in democratic institutions." The goal
was not necessarily to elect Donald Trump, but to strain the American political system by
facilitating conflict between polarized factions.
But how much did the Kremlin know of, and to what extent did they endorse, the IRA's
activities? Agents of Chaos provides no substantive answers. The film's only evidence of
a link between the IRA and the Kremlin is that the former received funding from Yevgeny
Prigozhin, a major Russian businessman with ties to Vladimir Putin. Not only is there no proof
that the IRA coordinated directly with any Russian government agency, but it's not even clear
to what extent Prigozhin himself oversaw the IRA's agenda. Gibney admits as much, but claims
it's all part of a plausible deniability ploy: Putin shields himself by delegating unsavory,
extra-legal tasks to private cronies who technically don't work for him. This is probably true
in a general sense, but it doesn't get us any closer to understanding the level on which
specific decisions to interfere in U.S. politics were made.
A similar problem emerges in Gibney's discussion of Fancy Bear, a Russian cyber espionage
group. Gibney proceeds on the assumption that Fancy Bear is the hacking arm of Russian military
intelligence (GRU), which itself has not been conclusively established with publicly verifiable
information. Gibney posits that Fancy Bear's American activities were conducted with blessing
from the Kremlin, an even more flimsy assumption. A responsible analysis of Russian election
interference has to grapple with countless nuances: were the actual hacks conducted by GRU
personnel, or contractors? Was there an order to target the DNC, or did an overeager operator
make a unilateral decision? If the former, on what level was the order given? Who set Fancy
Bear's agenda, and how closely did they stick to said agenda? Was the Kremlin truly interested
in destroying American institutions, or was it perhaps driven by the more pragmatic goal of
signaling its cyber capabilities to Washington as a deterrent against future American meddling
in Russian politics?
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.416.2_en.html#goog_605011991 J.d. Vance
Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker, Pro-family Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019 00:00 /
01:00 00:00 Loading Ad
To truly understand what the Russians did, we have to understand how and by whom the orders
were given, how they trickled down the chain of command, and how closely they were followed by
field operators. You have to understand institutional forces, like the longstanding rivalry
between the GRU and SVR that could lead the former to take unsanctioned risks. You also have to
consider that, as with any Caesarist system,
Putin's many subordinates sometimes take the initiative in doing things to please him that he
himself would never have approved of.
Gibney jettisons all these complexities, instead resigning himself to a convenient
abstraction: the "Russians" did it. And who are the "Russians?" Well, it all boils down to the
guy in charge. This conceit of an omnipresent leader is simply not a realistic view of how any
political system, let alone Putin's Russia, operates, but it is all too often used by
journalists and politicians as a substitute for serious Russia analysis.
The rest of the film is a fairly linear exploration of the major milestones in the Russian
meddling saga: the Assange-DNC imbroglio, the FBI counterintelligence investigation into the
Trump campaign, and a précis of Trump's questionable contacts with Russians. It is here
that the film's editorial stance is fully laid bare: the Obama administration and U.S.
intelligence community are portrayed as patriots doing their best to foil a foreign plot on
American soil -- their only mistake is not going far enough in prosecuting the Trump campaign
(and, in Comey's case, having the gall to announce an investigation into Hillary's use of
private email servers).
Trump and the Trump campaign, meanwhile, are de facto -- if not de de jure -- traitors who
colluded with a foreign government to win the election. Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew
McCabe was given a sympathetic platform to dismiss serious objections to the FBI's behavior,
especially concerning the FISA warrant to surveil Trump campaign associate Carter Page. McCabe
was not asked to comment on FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who pleaded
guilty to submitting falsified documents to renew a surveillance warrant against Page.
Page, meanwhile, was maligned as an eccentric stooge too "unsophisticated" to realize that he
was being used by his "Russian spy handlers" to establish a backchannel with the Trump
campaign.
The film offers an uncritical platform to some of the more outrageous Trump-Russia
conspiracies that even the mainstream news networks were reluctant to publish, including the
notion that the Kremlin wanted to use Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort as an intermediary to
secure a deal with a potential Trump administration for the partition of Ukraine.
Gibney proceeds to recount all the stations of the cross of the Russiagate narrative; these
include the Trump Tower meeting, Trump's infamous request for Russians to hack Hillary Clinton,
alleged Russian efforts to suppress the black vote, and alleged coordination between wikileaks
and the Trump campaign. That part of the film feels less like a critical-minded documentary and
more like a heartfelt homage to the old 'stab in the back' theory of the 2016 election --
namely, the idea that Clinton never really lost, but was instead betrayed by fellow Americans
who conspired against her with a hostile foreign power.
Agents of Chaos was branded as a fresh look at Russian election interference, cutting
past the fog surrounding intelligence work to uncover the truth of what really happened in
2016. What we got instead was a summa of Russiagate's greatest hits, packaged and
presented with all the slick polish that can be expected from an award-winning filmmaker.
"National security," concludes Gibney in his closing narration, "isn't just about our
enemies. It's also about us. National security starts at home, with our own resilience, our own
politics, and the honor of our leaders." I commend these words without reserve. Nevertheless,
there is room for a nuanced discussion about Russian interference in 2016 and what can be done
to deter foreign meddling in the future. Whether or not Agents of Chaos adds anything of
value to that discussion is a rather different matter.
If the film offers any unique strain of thinking, it lies in Gibney's poignant observation
that Russian interference only worked to the extent that it did because we are needlessly
vulnerable to such incursions. Any foreign agent working to destabilize American society would
find no shortage of socio-political faultlines to exploit, of bitter resentments to manipulate.
The Russians didn't do that -- we did that to ourselves. Mending our torn social fabric is, in
this sense, one of the foremost national security challenges of our time.
Mark Episkopos writes on defense and international relations issues. He is also a PhD
student in History at American University .
What we , the general public know , is that Manafort would not disclose all of what he
did with the Russians. We know that he was deeply indebted to them. That he was fearful for
the safety of his family. And ultimately fell on his sword, rather than come clean.
He did not do it to save Trump. Trump did not understand That Manafort was more evil
than he was. Stone got to Trump to hire Manafort. Manafort was the best source for the
interference. He got deep into the politics of the Russians and others.
Trump was just a stooge. Carter,et al were wannabes. Flynn was corrupt, but wanted to be
a powerful player on the national scene. He like everyone else in Trump's orbit , played
Trump. The Russian thing got out of control because of Session's misstatements. If he had
conducted the investigation, the whole Russia gate would have been buried.
The interference was simply the clever use of social media.. and the gullibility of too
many ordinary citizens. Who wanted to think that they knew the secret. Never minding that
there were no secrets.
Just ordinary politicians, their handlers, the misfits and a few savvy operatives that
took advantage of the simpleton in the oval office. How we could have elected Trump is the
disgrace of the matter. We did this because the citizenry hated Clinton more than we
understood. Pretty simple.
Facebook pages are easy to monetize when large enough. IRA was a profitable company
using that business model, mostly on Russian social network VK.
"... IRA's Facebook spending between 2015 and 2017 at just $73,711.
Russian-linked accounts spent $4,700 on [Google] platforms in 2016"
Far from proving the Russian threat, it proves the hard work of American domestic
agencies and the media on their own propaganda operation.
I would add that this sort of highly effective professional gaslighting beats any
Stalinist system of propaganda and censorship. I don't know if America can still consider
itself a free country with such top-effort malicious missinformation
The 2016 election debacle is a self-inflicted wound, but the democrats and deep states
elites can't bear to look in the mirror at their own corrupt natures, so they concoct a
Russia straw-man to bear the blame.
The average Joe Shmuck in the street is too stupid to realize he has been conned, so the
elites get away with their appalling conduct.
Careers were made on the basis of this dis-information imbroglio called, Russian
interference. The victors in this information war waged upon the American people by the
stalwart "liberal press," have inflicted damage on the American psyche which is
incalculable.
Sounds like it's an apologia for US intervention in the Ukraine fomenting a coup in
2014. News for Gibney: the coup installed government in the Ukraine was in fact heavily
supported by extreme neo-Nazi Ukrainian nationalist factions. That's not Russia-bot
dis-info. I have better things to do with 4 hours of my life.
I know people who fought and died on both sides of the war in Ukraine. Many of those who
fought for the US-backed junta were actual live neonazis. By contrast, my friends who
fought for Donbass are the best people that I know.
Now I have learned that this is all Russian propaganda. Whom should I believe? Alex
Gibney or my own lying eyes and ears?
It could only be treason that caused Hilary Clinton not to be acclaimed as Madame
Presidente. Russian mind control rays created the zombie Deplorables who thwarted her
assured victory. Hell Hath No Fury like a Clinton scorned.
This is a simple story. The American empire took advantage of the end of the Cold War by
marching eastward and adding nations to its collection of vassal states. It wanted Ukraine,
but its democratically elected President refused. The Obama team organized coup that led to
much violence, so Russia was blamed. The people of Crimea disliked the turmoil so 94% voted
to rejoin Russia. Russia reannexed Crimea as requested. Russian troops did not invade, they
were already there for a century. More here:
Indeed. Russia built the Crimea. It was an Ottoman backwater before Catherine the Great
and Potemkin began building new cities and ports, and it was only an accident of internal
USSR border manipulations in the '50s that caused it to be part of the Ukraine instead of
Russia after 1991. Russia in 2014 just reclaiming what is rightfully its territory.
"But how much did the Kremlin know of, and to what extent did they endorse, the IRA's
activities?"
You have got to be joking. Every intelligence agency in the world knows that the IRA is
an FSB front organization. Most do not even consider this to be a secret. I conclude that
the author is either willfully blind or himself in Russian pay.
I thought Taxi to the Darkside, by Alex Gibney, was pretty good. From this overview at
any rate, his Russia-gate film sounds very poorly researched -- at best. For goodness
sakes, all you have to do is look at the electoral choices of Ukrainians since their
independence in 1991 to see the stark geographic division in that country, something every
competent political scientist has known since forever. And yet, for Gibney, that stark
east-west division was a fiction created by Russian bots?
"ABC's George Stephanopoulos Fails to Ask Joe Biden About Hunter Biden Emails"
Why do the Republicans go on moaning about media bias?? Are they pathologically naive??
The media are an ideological movement - who run the Democrat party as their political wing.
They don't hide it. They are totally open about it. [Since 2016, they don't even bother with
"polite formalities".]
The Republicans need to adjust themselves to reality...
More than a dozen young visiting scholars from China had their visas abruptly terminated in
a
letter from administration of the University of North Texas (UNT), Denton, on August 26, in
a letter dated August 26! The letter informed the students that they could return to campus
from their lodgings to pick up belongings, but all other access was closed to them. The
students and fellows were
given no explanation . They were left with no legal basis to be in the U.S. and began
scrambling for the very few and very expensive flights back to China.
At first the UNT administration simply stated that all those funded by the Chinese
Scholarship Council (CSC) were terminated. According to Wikipedia , the CSC is the main
Chinese agency for funding Chinese students abroad (currently 65,000 with 26,000 of them in the
US) and an equal number of foreign students in China, some from the US. (Americans interested
in CSC scholarships to study in China can easily find information here . There is nothing secret or nefarious about CSC; the
US has agencies that offer similar aid to scholars.)
The University at last offered an explanation of sorts in a statement by its spokesperson,
the Vice President for Brand Strategy and Communication (VP for BS and C) as
reported on September 10 by the North Texas Daily: "UNT took this action based upon
specific and credible information following detailed briefings from federal and local law
enforcement." The VP for BS and C was "unable" to provide more details. Local police later
denied any role in such briefings. It was the feds who provoked the discharges.
If these young students were doing something illegal or in violation of University rules,
then they should be told what it is and presented with evidence so they could answer such
charges. That is what we in the U.S. claim to believe in. If their crime is simply soaking up
ideas, that is what education is all about and most assuredly that is what science is all
about. If certain areas of research are classified, then scholars working in those areas should
be screened and get classifications. And if the US does not want CSC-sponsored students here,
then reasons should be given and no more visas allowed. None of that has been done. The
students were found guilty of something, they know not what, and dismissed!
Although UNT may not be well known nationally, it is rated
as an
"R1" or top tier research university , one of about 130 institutions falling into that top
category and receiving federal research funding. It is troubling that such action by an
institution in this category and the beneficiary of federal largesse has not drawn more
condemnation for its action. And it is even more troubling that this occurs in an atmosphere of
anti-Chinese hostility in the wake of Covid-19, marked by physical attacks on Chinese
Americans.
Have we forgotten the racism directed against Chinese and codified into federal law the
Chinese Exclusion
act of 1882 , the only U.S. law ever enacted to prevent all members of a specific
ethnic or national group from immigrating to the U.S.? Other such legislation followed, such as
the Immigration Act of 1924 which effectively barred all immigration from Asia, including of
course Chinese. The rationale given by the politicians for all such heinous legislation was
that Chinese were stealing "our jobs". Sound familiar? Notoriously the Chinese Exclusion Act of
1882 gave rise to the "Driving Out" period where Chinese were physically attacked to the point
of brutal massacres designed to drive Chinese out of unwelcoming communities, the most infamous
being the Rock Springs and Hells Canyon Massacres.
The anti-Chinese and anti-Asian sentiment has continued down the years in one form or
another but it has had a resurgence recently with the meme that China's prosperity has been at
the expense of Americans. This narrative does not remind us that U.S. corporations and
investors offshore jobs for greater "returns," but claims that Chinese are pilfering our
technology.
Up to 2008,
Chinese were 17% of the total defendants charged under the EEA; from 2009-2015 under Obama this
percentage tripled to 52%. 21% of Chinese were never convicted of espionage, twice the
rate for non-Asians. In roughly half the cases involving Chinese the alleged beneficiary of the
espionage was an American entity; roughly one third had an alleged Chinese beneficiary.
In sum a much higher rate of indictment for Chinese but a lower rate of convictions. So the
additional "attention" given Chinese was not warranted. It seems that something changed after
2009. What was it? This time was the period when Obama's Asian Pivot was put into play. The
Pivot targeted China both militarily by moving 60% of US Naval forces to the Western Pacific
and economically with the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) designed to isolate China from its
neighbors. Is the increased harassment of Chinese under the EEA another aspect of the strategy
expressed openly in the Pivot?
This legal attack on Chinese has continued under the present administration, but the NTU
case adds a new wrinkle. Here there was no legal action, but an action apparently taken by the
University. However, hidden pressure to oust the students came from a federal agency or
agencies. This should be no surprise since it fits in with FBI Director Christopher Wray's
"Whole of Society" approach to confronting China unveiled last February and
reiterated din July when he said, "We're also working more closely than ever with partner
agencies here in the U.S. and our partners abroad. We can't do it on our own; we need a
whole-of-society response. That's why we in the intelligence and law enforcement communities
are working harder than ever to give companies, universities , and the American people
themselves the information they need to make their own informed decisions and protect their
most valuable assets." (Emphasis, jw) It looks like the FBI and or its "partner agencies" gave
UNT officials "the information they needed" to throw out the Chinese students without any
reason given or charge made.
Consider the position of those UNT officials when they found themselves visited by federal
"authorities" and "asked' to cooperate. When the FBI "asks" for cooperation, it is making an
offer that is perilous to refuse. It would take considerable courage to say "no". But that is
precisely what the UNT administrators should have done if they were to live up to the presumed
values and ideals of our society and universities. The question also arises as to how many
other universities have been approached to take similar steps. It seems unlikely that UNT is
alone. But it is very likely that other Universities, wealthier and with a bevy of VP's for BS
and C, might have handled the whole matter in a discrete way and in a way that makes it appear
that such suspensions are not a wholesale matter. Perhaps other more "polished" university
authorities would not own up to the dirty deeds but keep them as secret as possible.
Let us take it a step further. What if you were approached by one of these federal agents
and "requested" to keep an eye on a Chinese colleague, friend, neighbor or co-worker. Would you
have the courage to refuse? And as the confrontation with China heats up, a peace movement is
arising to counter it. In fact, anti-interventionists are popping up across the spectrum on
left and right to oppose policies that take us on the road to war with China. Will the peace
advocates be targeted in the same way, on the sly as well as within a "legal" framework by the
FBI and other federal agencies? And will the precedent established in cases like the UNT case
make such federal actions more acceptable? Will those working for peace be labeled as puppets
of Xi?
"First they came for the Chinese," it might be said. And in the future, under the "Whole of
Society" approach, they may come for anyone who chooses to work for peace with China rather
than take a path to war. Anti-Chinese racism, repugnant in and of itself, is also one part of
setting the stage for a new and more dangerous McCarthyism. It is time to stop the madness
before it devours us all.
C-SPAN has suspended anti-Trump debate moderator Steve Scully indefinitely after he admitted
to lying about his Twitter feed being hacked following an awkward incident in which he appeared
to accidentally tweet an intended private message to former Trump aide Anthony Scaramucci.
According to
AP , Scully's suspension comes on the day he was set to moderate the now-canceled second
presidential debate , which was to be 'a career highlight for the 30-year C-SPAN veteran' (and
former Biden staffer).
After Scully tweeted "@Scaramucci should I respond to Trump," Frank Fahrenkopf, co-chairman
for the Commission on Presidential Debates relayed Scully's lie that his Twitter account was
hacked . C-SPAN similarly issued a statement , confidently claiming "Steve Scully did not
originate the tweet and believes his account has been hacked."
Shortly after
Scully's 'hack' lie was peddled across the MSM by prominent voices, former Hillary Clinton
staffer Yashar Ali noted that the C-SPAN veteran had previously blamed hacks twice before .
Scully said that when he saw his tweet had created a controversy, " I falsely claimed that
my Twitter account had been hacked. "
He had been frustrated by Trump's comments and several weeks of criticism on social media
and conservative news outlets about his role as moderator, including attacks directed at his
family, he said.
" These were both errors in judgement for which I am totally responsible for," Scully
said. "I apologize. "
Scully acknowledged that he let his C-SPAN colleagues down, along with fellow news
professionals and the debate commission.
"I ask for their forgiveness as I try to move forward in a moment of reflection and
disappointment in myself," he added.
https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-5&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1316829454182887426&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fc-span-suspends-anti-trump-debate-moderator-steve-scully-lying-about-twitter-hack&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=550px
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
C-SPAN, meanwhile, said: "He understands that he made a serious mistake," adding "We were
very saddened by this news and do not condone his actions."
In any event, who on the Trump team let this happen in the first place? Scully's anti-Trump
bias has been known for some time.
I'll join the chorus calling New York Times columnist Bret Stephens "brave" for last week's
takedown of his
newspaper's "1619 Project." But I'd also like to ask him: What took you so long?
The 100-page collection of 18 articles that infamously claimed America's "true founding"
date is not 1776, but 1619 – the year enslaved Africans were first brought to these
shores – has received withering criticism since it was published
in August 2019 .
Ten months ago some of the nation's leading historians – including Pulitzer
Prize winners Gordon Wood and James McPherson –
wrote the Times to challenge a wide array of its claims, which the newspaper and its
partner, The Pulitzer Center, were disseminating free of charge
in the nation's classrooms . The historians were especially troubled by its assertion that
the Revolutionary War was fought to preserve slavery and the project's near total erasure of
the contributions of whites to dismantling slavery and working for freedom. Their letter
described these failings as "a displacement of historical understanding by ideology."
Their criticisms were
echoed and extended by others including
Leslie M. Harris, an African American professor of history at Northwestern University, who said
she "vigorously disputed" some central claims of the project when she helped fact-check it
before publication. "Despite my advice," she
wrote in Politico seven months ago , "the Times published the incorrect statement about the
American Revolution anyway."
Stephens' sharply written broadside breaks no new ground. What it does provide is a skillful
synthesis and endorsement of these voluminous critiques in the Times – by a Timesman.
That is significant. But his decision to write the essay so long after the project's mistruths
have been laid bare – and months after it was honored with a George Polk Award and a
Pulitzer Prize – suggests more rot at the Gray Lady and in American journalism.
As Stephens (pictured) himself suggests, the precipitating event was Phillip W. Magness'
Sept. 19 article in
Quillette , which revealed that the Times has "taken to quietly altering the published text
of the project itself after one of its claims came under intense criticism." Most significant,
the paper had scrubbed the claim that 1619 was "our true founding" from the online text without
acknowledgment.
This is not mere editing, but stealthy expurgation intended to cover up the paper's
journalistic malpractice.
This sketchy conduct, presumably approved by New York Times Magazine Editor Jake Silverstein
and others, warrants far more than a column. It demands a published response from the paper's
executive editor, Dean Baquet, that acknowledges the misdeed and states whether Baquet knew of
and/or approved the secret changes. Baquet must also detail the paper's response and explain
why the Times still stands by the project, given the need for such major corrections.
In this context, a column by someone with no authority at the Times beyond his opinion seems
part of a strategy to acknowledge a problem without fixing it. For all his bravery in writing
this piece, Stephens is the perfect foil for the Times, one that creates an escape hatch for
1619 acolytes.
It is relevant that Stephens – a conservative who came to the Times after a Pulitzer
Prize-winning stint at the Wall Street Journal – is the columnist whom so many liberal
Times subscribers love to hate. One of the few scribes at the paper who does not incessantly
preach to its woke choir, he has generated strong pushback from colleagues and readers for his
opinions on
climate change and the
Middle East . This may explain why the
New York Times Guild initially felt comfortable sending a now deleted Tweet criticizing the
editors for running Stephens' 1619 piece, which, it said, "reeks."
Stephens' standing makes it easier for many Times readers to dismiss or ignore his
devastating critique. Imagine the impact a similar piece might have had if it been written by
David Brooks or Nicholas Kristof.
Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger appears to be unconcerned by the allegations. The man who
forced editorial page editor James Bennet to resign because he ran a
controversial op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton , issued a brief statement
Sunday that ignored the journalistic and factual issues raised by Stephens and others, and
instead insisted that the 1619 Project was "a journalistic triumph" whose publication is "the
proudest accomplishment of my tenure as publisher."
[ Baquet echoed Sulzberger's
comments in a note to his staff on Oct. 13, when this column was posted. Without directly
addressing the ethical and factual issues raised, he asserted that "the project fell fully
within our standards as a news organization" and that it "fill(s) me with pride."]
The deeper issue raised by Stephens' column is that the 1619 Project is just one example of
the degree to which the Times and other mainstream news outlets have displaced traditional
journalistic practice with ideology. Informed by the tenets of social justice and
critical race theory that have long dominated the humanities departments at leading
universities, journalists have abandoned a commitment to the elusive ideal of objectivity for a
naked embrace of results-oriented activism masquerading as reportage. In this regard,
journalism is a symptom, rather than cause, of the deep-seated cultural relativism that
pervades American culture.
The essence of the 1619 Project is the idea that America is a permanently racist nation
whose founding ideals were lies. This is the capital T truth it seeks to advance. It dismisses
facts that undermine that narrative, distorting the historical record because they are seen as
roadblocks in the arc that bends toward justice. This approach relies on one of the most
dangerous engines of dishonesty in human history: the notion that the means justify the
ends.
That the Pulitzer board would bestow its prize for commentary to the lead writer of the 1619
Project, Nikole Hannah-Jones, despite damning scholarly critiques, suggests how deeply this
activist approach has infected journalism.
This impulse now drives much of the coverage in the Times, the Washington Post, the New
Yorker, NPR, and other prestigious news organizations. The clearest example is reporting on
Donald Trump, whom the left sees as an existential threat. This is the capital T truth they
advance through stories that insistently eschew nuance to portray the president as a
monster.
From climate change to identity politics, examples of their tendentious coverage are legion.
But none is more thoroughgoing and dishonest than the years-long coverage claiming Trump
colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election.
My RealClearInvestigations colleagues are among those
who followed the leads and dug up the facts mainstream outlets refused to and, so, got the
story right. Tom Kuntz, a former Times editor who leads RCI,
detailed how the Times and the Post relied on untrustworthy anonymous sources, unfair
innuendo and cherry-picked facts to advance this narrative in a series of stories that won both
papers a Pulitzer Prize in 2018.
This effort to distort the truth continues unbowed and unabated. Last week,
New Yorker writer Dexter Filkins wrote that Christopher Steele's dossier – opposition
research paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign that claimed the Russians had been
cultivating Trump as an asset for decades – "has been neither proved nor
disproved."
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
In fact, much of it has been debunked and the key parts of it that haven't been probably
never will because you can't prove a negative – one can't ever prove that there is no
videotape showing Trump paid Russian prostitutes to pee on a Moscow hotel bed the Obamas had
slept in.
Shane Harris of the Washington Post encapsulated the ongoing dishonesty in an article last
week acknowledging, after a fashion, damning new intelligence tying the Clinton campaign to
Russiagate. In a single paragraph he both denied overwhelming evidence that the Clinton
campaign helped generate that now debunked scandal while also insisting that the conspiracy
theory was legitimate. Harris wrote:
"Trump allies have seized on the intelligence as evidence that Clinton was in some way
involved in ginning up an investigation of Trump to tie his campaign to Russia. The president
has consistently denied the charge as a 'hoax,' even though multiple investigations have
documented numerous instances in which his campaign sought Russian assistance in damaging
Clinton."
There is hardly any evidence that the Trump campaign "sought" such assistance. The most that
can be said is that it was receptive to offers of dirt on Clinton at the infamous
June 2016 Trump Tower meeting . Her campaign, by contrast, used people like Steele to
actively seek compromising material on Trump, which appears to have included Russian
disinformation.
Such reporting is so brazen that it suggests a far deeper problem than any one story.
Indeed, the deeply misleading Trump/Russia coverage and the 1619 Project are not deviations
from the norm. They are the new standard at prestigious outlets that are committed to pursuing
their notion of the capital T truth – inconvenient facts be damned.
The problem with American imperialism that like tiger it can't change its spots. In this
sense Trump vs Biden is false dilemma. "Bothe aare worse" as Stalin quipped on the other
occasion. Both still profess "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine at the expense of the standard of
living of the USA people (outside of top 10 or 20%)
The problem with Putin statement is that both candidates are marionette of more powerful
forces. Trump is a hostage of Izreal lobby, which in the USA are mostly consist of rabid
Russophobes (look art Schiff, Schumer and other members of this gang). Biden is a classic
neoliberal warmonger, much like Hillary was, who voted for Iraq war, contributed to color
revolution in Ukraine, and was instrumental in the conversion of Dems into the second war party.
So there is zero choice in the coming election unless you want to punish Trump for the betrayal
of his electorate, which probably is the oonly valid reason to vote for Biden in key states;
otherwise you san safely ignore the elections as youn; influence anythng. In a deep sense this is
a simply legitimization procedure for the role of the "Deep State", not so much real elections as
both cadidates were already vetted by neoliberal establishment
The key problem with voting for Bide is that this way you essentially legitimizing Obama
administration RussiaGate false flag operation. But as Putin said, chances for extending the
Start treaty might worse this self-betrayal.
Like much of the American public, the Russian public is no doubt weary of the prior couple
years of non-stop 'Russiagate' headlines and wild accusations out of Western press, which all
are now pretty much in complete agreement came to absolutely nothing. This is also why the
whole issue has been conspicuously dropped by the Biden campaign and as a talking point among
the Democrats, though in some corners there's been meek attempts to revive it, especially
related to claims of "expected" Kremlin interference in the impending presidential
election.
Apparently seeing in this an opportunity for some epic trolling, Russian President Vladimir
Putin in an interview with Rossiya 1 TV days ago said it was actually the Democratic Party and
the Communist Party which have most in common.
Putin was speaking in terms of historic Soviet communism in the recent interview (Wednesday)
detailed in Newsweek. "The Democratic Party is traditionally closer to the so-called liberal
values, closer to social democratic ideas," Putin began. "And it was from the social democratic
environment that the Communist Party evolved."
"After all, I was a member of the Soviet Communist Party for nearly 20 years" Putin added.
"I was a rank-and-file member, but it can be said that I believed in the party's ideas. I
still like many of these left-wing values. Equality and fraternity. What is bad about them?
In fact, they are akin to Christian values."
"Yes, they are difficult to implement, but they are very attractive, nevertheless. In
other words, this can be seen as an ideological basis for developing contacts with the
Democratic representative."
The Russian president also invoked that historically Russian communists in the Soviet era
would have been fully on board the Black Lives Matter movement and other civil rights related
causes. "So, this is something that can be seen, to a degree, as common values, if not a
unifying agent for us," the Russian president said. "People of my generation remember a time
when huge portraits of Angela Davis, a member of the U.S. Communist Party and an ardent fighter
for the rights of African Americans, were on view around the Soviet Union."
So there it is: Putin is saying his own personal ideological past could be a basis of
"shared values" with a Biden presidency, again, it what appears to be a sophisticated bit of
trolling that he knows Biden won't welcome one bit. Or let's call it a 'Russian endorsement
Putin style'. The Associated Press and others described it as Putin "hedging his bets",
however.
Another interesting part of the interview is where the Russian TV presenter asked Putin the
following question:
"The entire world is watching the final stage of the US presidential race. Much has
happened there, including things we could never imagine happening before but the one constant
in recent years is that your name is mentioned all the time," Zarubin said. "Moreover, during
the latest debates, which have provoked a public outcry, presidential candidate Biden called
candidate Trump 'Putin's puppy.'"
"Since they keep talking about you, I would like to ask a question which you probably will
not want to answer," the interviewer continued. "Nevertheless, here it is: Whose position in
this race, Trump's or Biden's, appeals to you more?"
And here's Putin's response:
"Everything that is happening in the United States is the result of the country's internal
political processes and problems," Putin said. "By the way, when anyone tries to humiliate or
insult the incumbent head of state, in this case in the context you have mentioned, this
actually enhances our prestige, because they are talking about our incredible influence and
power. In a way, it could be said that they are playing into our hands, as the saying
goes."
But on a more serious note Putin pointed out that contrary to the notion some level of
sympathy between the Trump administration and the Kremlin, much less the charge of "collusion",
it remains that US-Russia relations have reached a low-point in recent history under Trump. The
record bears this out.
Putin underscored that "the greatest number of various kinds of restrictions and sanctions
were introduced [against Russia] during the Trump presidency."
"Decisions on imposing new sanctions or expanding previous ones were made 46 times. The
incumbent's administration withdrew from the INF treaty. That was a very drastic step. After
2002, when the Bush administration withdrew from the ABM treaty, that was the second major
step. And I believe it is a big danger to international stability and security," Putin
explained.
"Now the US has announced the beginning of the procedure for withdrawing from the Open
Skies Treaty. We have good reason to be concerned about that, too. A number of our joint
projects, modest, but viable, have not been implemented – the business council project,
expert council, and so on," he concluded.
But then on Biden specifically Putin said that despite "rather sharp anti-Russian rhetoric"
from the Democratic nominee, it remains "Candidate Biden has said openly that he was ready to
extend the New START or to sign a new strategic offensive reductions treaty."
"This is already a very significant element of our potential future cooperation," Putin
added of a potential Biden presidency.
Before the first Trump-Biden debate, moderator Chris Wallace listed the six subjects that
would be covered:
The Trump and Biden records, the Supreme Court, COVID-19, the economy, race and violence in
our cities, and the integrity of the election.
According to a recent Gallup survey, Wallace's topics tracked the public's concerns -- the
top seven of which were the coronavirus, government leadership, race relations, the economy,
crime and violence, the judicial system, morality and family decline.
As an issue, national security did not even break Gallup's Top 10. It ranked below education
and homelessness, just above climate change.
Which raises a question?
Can a nation as divided as we are and as distracted as we are by the most lethal pandemic in
100 years, the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and the worst racial crisis
since the 1960s, conduct a global policy to contain the ambitions of two rival great powers on
the other side of the world and to create a U.S.-led democratic world order?
Can we build, lead and sustain alliances of dozens of nations to contain Vladimir Putin's
Russia and Xi Jinping's China as we did the Soviet Union during more than 40 years of the Cold
War?
Are we still up to it? And must we Americans do it?
Or should we let the internal problems and pressures on these two nations do the primary
work of containing their external ambitions?
Case in point: Vladimir Putin's Russia. While our Beltway elites are obsessed with Russia
and Putin, seeing in them a mortal threat to our democracy, close observers are seeing
something else.
"Putin, Long the Sower of Instability, Is Now Surrounded by It," runs a headline in
Thursday's New York Times. The theme also appears in The Financial Times in a story headlined,
"Putin Watches as Flames Engulf Neighborhood."
Consider the situation today in Russia's "near abroad," the former republics of the USSR
that broke from Moscow's rule between 1989 and 1991.
The Baltic States -- Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia -- are already in the U.S.-led NATO
alliance. Georgia in the Central Caucasus, the birthplace of Stalin, fought a war against its
Russian neighbor in 2008 and is now a friend and de facto ally of the United States.
Ukraine, the most populous of the 14 republics to break away from Moscow, is now the most
hostile to Moscow, having watched its Crimean Peninsula in the Black Sea be amputated by Putin
in 2014.
Now, Belarus, Russia's closest neighbor to the west, is in a political crisis with weekly
demonstrations demanding the ouster of Putin's ally, longtime autocrat Alexander Lukashenko,
after a fraudulent election.
Putin could be forced to do what he has no desire to do -- forcefully intervene to put down
a popular uprising that could cause Belarus to follow Ukraine into the Western camp.
Now, in the South Caucasus, two former republics of the USSR, Azerbaijan and Armenia, are
again in an open war over Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian enclave wholly within Azerbaijan.
While Armenia, an ally of Russia, is pleading for intervention by Moscow to halt the war,
Turkey is aiding the Azeris militarily, and they seem to be gaining the upper hand.
Four thousand miles away, in Russia's Far East, in the city of Khabarovsk, which is as close
to China as Dulles Airport is to D.C., anti-Putin rallies have become a constant feature of
politics.
Last summer, Putin's political rival Alexei Navalny was poisoned with Novichok, a nerve
agent developed in Soviet laboratories. Navalny has now become a live martyr and more potent
adversary as the Kremlin has failed to come up with a satisfactory explanation for what appears
to have been an attempted assassination. New German and French sanctions on Russian officials
could be forthcoming.
Russians are tiring of Putin's 20-year rule. His popularity, though high by European
standards, is near its nadir. And Russians have suffered mightily from the coronavirus and what
it has done to their economy.
Now, the pro-Putin regime in Kyrgyzstan on the Chinese border appears to have been
overthrown after another fraudulent election, and Beijing is telling everyone to stay out.
And how have Putin's imperial adventures gone?
While his intervention in Syria saved the regime of Bashar Assad and Russia's sole naval
base in the Mediterranean, the war continues to bleed Mother Russia.
Putin's intervention on the side of the rebels in Libya, however, has not gone well. Last
year's rebel drive to capture the capital of Tripoli failed, and the rebel forces have been
forced to retreat back to the east.
Meanwhile, Russia's economy remains only one-tenth the size of China's economy, and its
population is also only one-tenth that of China.
Perhaps time is on America's side in the rivalry with Russia, and war avoidance remains as
wise a policy as it was during the Cold War.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and
Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
I couldn't finish this article. The notion that Russia has any "expansionist aims" is so
far-fetched that I wonder what the weather is like on "Planet Pat." Pat, to summarize, has no
real problems with a drive for American hegemony, but just thinks that it ought to be
achieved for less.
Pat was right and I was wrong back in the 1990s when he saw the threat of outsourcing. Now
he's wrong about Russia and Vladimir Putin. I saw a recent press conference in which Putin
did an on-the-spot translation of a question asked by a German journalist (in German) into
Russian for his Russian audience. Can anyone imagine the clowns that we've see on our screens
in these "debates" doing anything like that? Russia is governed by serious men who are doing
their best, although they make mistakes like everyone else. The United States is governed by
freaks that should be in a circus sideshow.
Though Buchanan has had a great career as a sceptic of yankee imperialism, some times his
views are infected by the remnants of a belief in it he has been unable to fully shake.
He cultivates a reputation for "non-interventionism," but Mr. Buchanan has been
fundamentally faithful to the Establishment, always careful to leave Russia and China cast as
enemies.
It's been a while since he has taken a break from carnival barking the next Most Important
Election Ever with an Exceptional!, RussiaBadChinaToo column like this one. The propaganda
pronouns, personalization of the autocratic bad guys, and cliché buzzwords are
many , and it's important to pull back a bit to examine how "Mr. Paleoconservative"
wraps them in his faux dissidence:
Can a nation as divided as we are and as distracted as we are by the most
lethal pandemic in 100 years, the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and the
worst racial crisis since the 1960s, conduct a global policy to contain the
ambitions of two rival great powers on the other side of the world and to
create a U.S.-led democratic world order ?
Can we build, lead and sustain alliances of dozens of nations to
contain Vladimir Putin's Russia and Xi Jinping's China as we
did the Soviet Union during more than 40 years of the Cold War?
Are we still up to it? And must we Americans do it?
Or should we let the internal problems and pressures on these two nations do the
primary work of containing their external ambitions?
See how it works? Uncle Sam's ( our ) prophylactic goodness goes unquestioned, the
evil "ambitions" of others presumed. By suggesting that maybe "we" can't afford to protect
the rest of the world so much these days, Mr. Buchanan endorses the narrative.
It's telling that Mr. Buchanan remains on record endorsing the bipartisan Beltway premise
that (July 7, 2017) "Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election
of 2016." (That bit's omitted in today's column, what with the more immediate need to herd
enough GOP sheep back to the polls to legitimatize the system.) The columns and comment
threads of July 20 and 24, 2018, and May 31, 2019 -- where I first asked Mr. Buchanan's fans
why he seemed willfully ignorant of the observations of people like William Binney -- are
further evidence.
His fans rationalize that he's doing what he can without losing his platform, but Mr.
Buchanan effectively serves Washington. Look around and think critically for yourself and
you'll see that when it comes to electoral politics he's Stagehand Right in the puppet show,
and in discussions of US imperialism the Right sash of the Overton window.
Russia is not threatening or bothering anyone, the USA is threatening and bothering pretty
well everyone. the people of Crimea overwhelmingly wanted and voted to leave Ukraine, Russia
did not TAKE it. Get over it children.
Pat Buchanan is correct: "war avoidance remains as wise a policy as it was during the Cold
War."
But it is a difficult policy when neither Washington nor Moscow has the control they had
during the Cold War, especially with the hegemonic rise of China. Chaos is producing the
conditions where any nation will have to go to war: existential threat. Ordering the world
can avert our destruction – in theory – but only by accepting some harsh
realities. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
I've always had a soft spot for Pat Buchanan. But lately (the last few years) his articles
appear more and more workmanlike. In other words just going through the motioms.
In this article he seems to have accepted the official narrative on almost everything.
"Last summer, Putin's political rival Alexei Navalny was poisoned with Novichok,"
Novichok appears to be the most inefficient lethal poiaon in existence with around 75%
survival rate, yet Buchanan accepts the narrative without question. Pat Buchanan up to the
90's would have laughed at this.
There is a liberal democratic strain in Russia with some power that wants what the west
has, celebrations for homosexuals, radical feminism and maybe women with penises too. I have
met a few young Russians that don't like Putin. We will see. If by some miracle the US can
continue to run an economy not thru work but by having the Federal Reserve creating money and
distributing it, then maybe Russia will lose Putin and start looking more like a multi-culti
western country too. But more likely, the US will suffer a major economic fall and then
perhaps Russia will think twice before turning Russian beauties into western style women
telling men to stop "mansplaining".
What Putin has to do if he hopes to keep Russia from turning into a Cultural Marxist
cesspool is find someone that believes in and can continue his policies but if he's like
Trump and is surrounded by people that want to be far left, Russia will become a western
style country too after Putin leaves office. If Russia wants to stay Russian and Europe has
any hope of turning the tide against its destruction, a new international movement has to be
popularized that values European / Western traditions and values the different peoples and
cultures of the world. The western European countries will first need to develop some self
respect so they have a reason to preserve their peoples and traditions.
This article is surprising in its comprehensive lack of factuality.
1. A gallop poll (not referenced) tells us what we already know: The American public does
not think like the elite tell them to think. How rude. Well, our government might be 'of, by,
and for' somebody, but it ain't 'The people.'
2. Contain Russia? And the Soviet Union and China did not serve to contain the US?
3. Are we still up to it? Up to what? American exceptionalism? The rest of the world is
starting to take issue with that. A century of 'Yankee Go Home' has grown teeth.
4. The Baltic states are as much use to Russia as they were to Sweden. Don't overestimate
their importance as anything other than a springboard for another group that does not
represent its populace: NATO.
5. Georgia 'fought a war against Russia ' and lost.
6. Ukraine suffered a violet coup. Crimea 'self-amputated' via legal referendum.
7. Belarus. Well, now. Belarus is like Ukraine pre-Maidan. The fog of diplomacy is much too
thick and oily to really see who is pulling whose strings there.
8. Putin could be forced to do anything. Time will tell what he and Mr. Lavrov have in mind.
Let's not limit his set of options and condemn him for something he hasn't done yet. That's
political TINA.
9. Azerbaijan and Armenia are suddenly at war. Again, at whose instigation? Why now? Is this
a resurrection of the Crusades since it is a Muslim country fighting a Christian country? Old
bigotry drug out of history's spare room and repurposed? Again, do either the Azerbaijanis or
the Armenians personally want any of this? Maybe Gallup can take a poll.
10. Khabarovsk is in an uprising? Again, who says? Why now? And aren't the same things going
on in American cities? You keep talking about sudden unprovoked uprisings as if they are
popular revolutions. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
11. Navalny does Novichok. Really? The dissident with less than five percent popularity in
Russia? The political court jester with Western style health issues taken down by the deadly
poison genetically modified to miss its target? This is a joke, right?
12. You've got a point about Russians being tired of Putin. I was there for three weeks in
2018 on a trip across Siberia on the Trans Siberian Railroad and spoke to people in places
like Ulan Ude (as close to Mongolia as Dulles is the D.C.) and Khabarovsk (ditto.) I found
that how people perceive Putin depends on which side of the 'Crazy Nineties' they sit. People
who remembered the Soviet era and reconstruction were more likely to support Putin
unconditionally, including a school teacher I spoke with who remembered trading lessons for
lunch, whereas younger people acknowledged what he did for Russia but just wanted a change of
face in the Kremlin. One man admitted that there are no alternatives worth considering.
Hardly a stinging repudiation. By the way, I was also in Vladivostok, as close to North Korea
as Dulles is to , well, you know. Not much dissent there. Yes, it's a military town but is as
secular as any western jarhead city.
13. Russia 'remains' one tenth the size of China? How imprudent.
14. Putin's imperial adventures are 'failing' and 'bleeding' Mother Russia? And how have ours
been doing lately?
15. Time is on America's side? Time is a fickle ally and has a habit of switching sides in
the long run.
This article contains significant spin with little or no analysis. Did you have someone do
your homework for you?
Exactly. The Pat Buchanan of the 1990's or even the 00's would rather have asked:
"Is it in America's interest to have either Russia or China so unstable and backed into
a corner by NATO expansion or other U.S. policy that they and their large nuclear arsenals
might come under the command and control of more desperate and unstable men than their
current leaders?"
As a previous commenter notes above, it's as is someone else is writing these columns
under Pat's byline now.
Russia has many nukes but it won't do them any good. All the forces in WW II had extensive
supplies for gas warfare. All had masks and elaborate tactics ready. No one used gas attacks
because they knew about the gas horrors from WW I. Even facing destruction of an army or city
no one wanted to release that genie from the bottle. Russia could let loose a nuclear barrage
then quickly witness the end of Russia. The Chinese are sensible as they refrain from wasting
money for a massive nuclear arsenal.
Can we build, lead and sustain alliances of dozens of nations to contain Vladimir
Putin's Russia and Xi Jinping's China
Russia is not expanding. Rather, as pointed out, it's the US/NATO that has expanded all
the way up to the Russian border, a threatening move. China is a competitor, not a militarily
expansionist country. With their economy they can wheel and deal better than the US but whose
fault is that?
forcefully intervene to put down a popular uprising that could cause Belarus to follow
Ukraine into the Western camp.
Just another made in the US color revolution, not popular at all. Ukraine is hardly an
example to follow. Much of the rest is about how Russia is collapsing, people rising up
against Putin, etc etc. All stuff that's been said for the past hundred years. Before it was
because they were communist. Now it's because what?
Perhaps time is on America's side
No. Demographics, Mr Buchanan, demographics. The US has turned itself into a semi-Brazil
where a good third of the population is non-white and getting larger. The greatest resource
of any country is it's people and in this regard the US has diversified itself into chaos and
a downward spiral.
Seldom have so many commentators agreed in their criticism of a post. Seldom has a post on
UR been so inept, so unfit for publication. Maybe the truth is quite banal: aging
commentators who once used to be intellectual powerhouses have simply succumbed to senile
infantilism. In addition to Pat Buchanan, another obvious example is Michel Chossudovsky.
Paul Craig Roberts is also not doing well. Like great athletes, they simply don't know when
to quit.
I don't see any deviation in Buchanan's argument (since he turned "paleo right wing") that
the USA should mind its own business and stay out of foreign entanglements.
Biden will surely win the US presidency over the dopey Trump. Biden is the perfect tool of
the "deep state," elements of which arranged for his winning of the Democrat's nomination.
Expect a hot war with Iran, the revival of the "Trans Pacific Partnership," mass amnesty,
continued loss of industry, curtailment of constitutional rights and much more money thrown
at the educational establishment to train up the population for the "jobs of tomorrow" etc
etc.
@No Friend Of
The Devil
href="https://russia-insider.com/en/new-constitution-means-russias-political-stability-strong-while-west-sinks/ri30819">
https://russia-insider.com/en/new-constitution-means-russias-political-stability-strong-while-west-sinks/ri30819
@Petermx
left" (the Russian far left would rather send all trannies to the Gulag), but the "liberals",
which in Russia is what they call the deregulation-obsessed corporate right wing.
A "liberal" means someone larping as a local Tory, in the sense of wanting to privatize
everything, sell it off, and then let in all of Central Asia as cheap workers. These days
they are also the ones who will accept child trannies in exchange for offshore perks. Not the
far left. The Russian far left would hang the Western far left on lamp posts, and send their
families to fell wood in Siberia.
Putin's political rival Alexei Navalny was poisoned with Novichok, a nerve agent
developed in Soviet laboratories. Navalny has now become a live martyr and more potent
adversary as the Kremlin has failed to come up with a satisfactory explanation for
what appears to have been an attempted assassination.
Just as they've failed to "come up with a satisfactory explanation" for the Skripal
obvious lies and idiocy.
Ditto the MH17 lies and idiocy
or the 'Russian hacking' lies and idiocy
or the 'Russian aggression in Ukraine' lies and idiocy..
Is that the way it works now Pat, you simply parrot the puerile piles of puke put out by
the ((narrative machine)) as if it was all God's truth?
When we all know it's the opposite.
Perhaps time is on America's side in the rivalry with Russia,
You're not Pat Buchannan.
Buchannan simply could not have uttered such an egregiously grotesque gargantuan infamy of
perfidious, pusillanimous palaver- even if he tried.
He'd choke on such words, (I'd hope ; )
"America's side"
If this is America's side, then God speed to Vlad Putin!
@TGD s a
comeuppance for 'four hundred years of slavery, genocide and a systemic racism that has had
the White man's knee on POC's necks for four hundred years and counting..
All of that ends in January, 2021.
A packed SC will end the Second Amendment, and it will be all she wrote.
So why does Buchannan allow an article full of horseshit about Putin and Russia to get
published in his name? When the reason for the 'most important election ever', is wokeness',
and the war on Iran (and possibly Russia) that will come when ((wokeness) is firmly in power
again?
@Patricus re
MAD.
• further, the US refused to denounce "first use of nuclear weapons" with a no first
use policy. This indicated(s) their intention. Russia still has a no first use policy with
caveats. US is the aggressor here.
• if you understand the above, then all other US plays come into focus. Why they killed
the INF treaty in order to move into Europe nuclear missiles of that prohibited range, why
they have started to try and reduce nuclear payload so that they can use nuclear weapons
without triggering the nuclear threshold of nuclear retaliation by pleading low yield etc.
I thought I was the only one who cringed when Paul Roberts mixed in his obviously
misguided opinions in with obvious facts. Seems Giraldi is the last man standing. We need new
authorities on truth.
I have been a fan of Pat Buchanan's most of my life. But since the Trump phenomenon began
I can't for the life of me understand what has happened to him. It's as if he has drunk the
Qanon Kool-Aid.
Not sure if Pat is writing his own articles these days but this sure qualifies as
establishment drivel. It's America that has troops in Poland near Russia's border as well as
trying to topple leaders in the region that are friendly to Putin and Russia. If Putin moved
troops and missile batteries near the Rio Grande the American establishment would literally
have a coronary.
Pat writes as if Putin is on a worldwide offensive against America and its interests but
it's been thankfully stymied. Most of what Putin and Russia have done and are doing has been
a reaction and in response to the unrest and instability that American actions have helped
bring to certain countries and regions.
What with the proven sterling safety record that Novichok has demonstrated in recent
assassination attempts, I understand it is now in Phase #3 trials as a treatment for
covid.
Yes! Well said, Rurik! I haven't read such great alliteration since Spiro Agnew's
"nattering nabobs of negativity" when referring to the Nixon hating press. (Speech written by
William Safire).
Why have you become an Old Cold Warrior again, Pat?
One is reminded – that pretty much all of the problems that Russia faces in its
'near abroad' – Ukraine, Belorussia, etc. – have been deliberately created by the
west. Given that Russia could still obliterate the west if it really felt that it had been
backed into a corner, is that wise?
What with the proven sterling safety record that Novichok has demonstrated in recent
assassination attempts, I understand it is now in Phase #3 trials as a treatment for
covid.
@Patricus
much as I think it does, they'd be willing to launch if we foolishly backed them into a
corner. It was seriously discussed in the Kremlin in the 1980's.
China's smaller arsenal is not a matter of the supposed uselessness of nukes. China has
advantages over Russia in population, wealth and production, sea routes, and a number of
other factors which make nukes less of a necessity, and they're also building on their own
past legacy as a poor nation, while Putin's Russia is hanging on to the arsenal of a
superpower whose infrastructure was laid down when the USSR had more resources and manpower
to call on than Russia does today. Apple-Orange.
This actually sounds like someone telling the truth for once about Russia and the Putin
regime!
Unfortunately there's been far to much blather about Putin over the years,oh and all his
hyperbole about super weapons
The Russian economy is not just one tenth of china its also not particularly
competitive,languishing in 30 th position in terms of global business rating
Its demographics are terrible without any chance of recovery
And to cap it all China will soon try and claim parts of eastern Russia as Chinese
Buchanan is 82 years old next month. For several years now, the input of his "assistants"
has been more and more noticeable. This article, however, appears to have been entirely ghost
written by one or more of them. It sounds entirely out of character with what Buchanan was
writing even last year.
Buchanan must retire immediately. If he does not, more ghost written articles like this will
irremediably taint his legacy.
I have held Mr Buchanan in high regard ever since I became aware of him in the 1990s. Sadly,
I will not read any new articles "written" by him.
I am pretty ignorant about poisons, and I'm a bit allergic to conspiracy theories, but on
this Novichok business I can't help wondering, If the stuff is really so toxic as is claimed,
then why is it that more than one supposed victim has survived?
To the contrary, Patrick hit a home run with this post. Putin still uses his KGB tactics
and allies to do his dirty work for him, especially poisoning political opponents and
cracking down on the media. Putin has enriched himself and his oligarch pals under the guise
of muscular Orthodoxism. Putin has always put into play policies designed to expand "Mother
Russia".
You are just too damn stubborn to admit these facts.
Russia and the Putin regime have set themselves against the USA,therefore why should
Buchanan agree with a regime who have people pushing for the destruction of America and the
US led international order????
Wouldn't that simply make Buchanan a traitor by supporting a foreign regime ?
I would have loved to see the faces of John McCain and "F the EU" Nuland if Putin had done
so. The Russian forces would have mopped up the coup leaders in a week, and Obama/Biden could
have done nothing but complain to the UN. It's very likely that many Ukrainian lives would
have been saved.
Buchanan's incredible statement that Putin "amputated" the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine,
when the vast majority of those who lived there voted to return to Mother Russia, is patently
ridiculous. C'mon Pat, return to your senses or it's time to retire.
Speaking of ghost writers, the Tom Parsons (1984) act here is a little too much for the
real Corvinus. The "home run" and "damn" are out of character, too.
Next time, aim more for that Unitarian Sunday School teacher voice.
"Speaking of ghost writers, the Tom Parsons (1984) act here is a little too much for the
real Corvinus. The "home run" and "damn" are out of character, too."
Right on cue is the Russian bot. I guess your programming does not tire in trying to
denigrate your social betters.
"Next time, aim more for that Unitarian Sunday School teacher voice."
As to Russian aggressiveness, you have to admit they did have the temerity to expand right
up to their own borders, thereby surrounding us on all sides: our NATO in the west, our
Ukraine and Georgia in the south, our arctic in the north, and our Japan and South Korea in
the east.
Fester suggests USA should take preemptive action and drain the USA nuclear stockpile for
the sake of South Chicago–the pinnacle of USA freedom -- democracy and societal values.
Then when global cooling returns to USA -- re-open the coal mines and build gas guzzlers.
Powerful nations tend to expand. I guess Pat is saying Russia is weak to make major
expansions. They did destroy Syria and annexed Crimea, that is it for now. His assessment of
Russia's weakness is ok. I doubt though Putin poisoned the opposition leader, not because he
cannot be mean. But because it seems amateurish. Russia failing to poison and kill an
individual? I don't know.
ABOUT THE PROJECT
The Insider is an online publication specializing in investigative journalism, fact-checking
and political analytics.
The Insider has received numerous international awards, including the Council of Europe
Innovation Award (2018), The European Press Prize (2019), Free Media Award (2019) and many
others.
An important source of funding for The Insider is regular donations, so we encourage
everyone who wants to support our publication to subscribe to regular donations.
"The Insider" is a Russian online publication. Founded in November 2013 by a member of
the movement
"Solidarity", a journalist and political activist of liberal-democratic
orientation
Roman Dobrokhotov, who is the editor-in-chief of the publication.
Dobrokhotov. As I live and breathe -- a "kreakl"!!!!
In September 2018, in collaboration with "Bellingcat" Eliot Higgins, "The Insider"
conducted an investigation, allegedly publishing copies of official documents of the Russian
Federal migration service for passport application in the name of Alexander Petrov, one of
the suspects of the British authorities in the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, which
may indicate his connection with the Russian special services.
In February 2020, "The Insider", jointly with "Bellingcat"and "Der Spiegel", conducted
an investigation and stated that the murder of Zelimkhan khangoshvili in Berlin in August
2019 was organized by the special unit of the FSB "Vimpel". They said that the FSB special
assignment Centre was preparing a repeat killer, Vadim Krasikov, for this murder, and they
also gave some details of Krasikov's movements around Europe.
On November 10, 2017, "The Insider" received from"The World Forum for Democracy"an award for innovation in democracy with the following wording:
"'The Insider' is an investigative publication that seeks to provide its readers with
information about the current political, economic and social situation in Russia, while
promoting democratic values and highlighting issues related to human rights and civil
society. In addition, 'The Insider' carries out the project 'Antifake', the task of which is
to systematically expose false news in the Russian media, which helps its audience to
distinguish real information from false news and propaganda".
In 2019, "The Insider" and "Bellingcat" received the European Press Prize for
establishing the identity of the two men allegedly responsible for the poisoning of Sergei
and Yulia Skripal .
How drole! "The insider" likes to shout out "Fake!" yet seems to work closely with
"Bellingcat".
By the way, further to the Pevchikh saga, another twist to the tale has turned up
in the Russian media concerning those allegedly "Novichok" contaminated bottles that she
dutifully retrieved from Navalny's hotel room in Tomsk as soon she heard that his Moscow
bound flight was making an unplanned landing at Omsk.
She couldn't fly directly to Omsk from Tomsk, so she claims she drove from Tomsk to
Novosibirsk, whence she flew to Omsk, where she boarded the aircraft kindly provided by the
Germans and which took Navalny and her and the bottles to Berlin.
Small problem: the investigations that have been taking place concerning her claims
reveal that she had no bottles with her, either on her person or in her baggage, at the
Novosibirsk and at Omsk airports when she went through security there. And there is video
evidence of her baggage being opened and searched there. No bottles. But she handed over
these bottles, she says, to the German authorities, which bottles were then sent to the
Bundeswehr labs in Munich, allegedly.
And get this: Navalny and Pevchikh claim there was a bomb scare at Omsk airport that was
intended to prevent the aircraft on board which the US agent was howling and screaming.
though he wasn't in pain, he says,
This planting of a bomb at Omsk airport, according to the bullshitter, was done so that
he would not be hospitalized in Omsk and would therefore die on board the aircraft.
It now turns out, according to the cops, that there had been a call claiming that a
bomb had been planted at Omsk airport. And the call originated in Berlin. Nothing in the
Western media about this, of course, though plenty in the Russian media.
I'd provide links but I can't be arsed because I'm writing this in bed on my iPhone.
Well. Those certainly are interesting developments. Not that it would make any difference
in the mainstream media, where the narrative die is already cast – just more of
Russia's 'pathetic evasions' as it tries to twist out from under the weight of accumulated
evidence against it.
08 October 2020 16:21 Transport police: "Navalny's bottles" were not in the luggage, the airport was "mined"
from Germany
[the Russian term for placing a bomb somewhere. e.g. as a terrorist act, is "to mine" a
place -- ME]
The office of the Siberian Transport Prosecutor has questions for an employee of the
Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK) Maria Pevchikh to answer as regards the case of the
hospitalization of Aleksei Navalny. However, she evaded giving evidence and flew from Omsk to
Germany. Despite a summons and communication with her lawyer, Pevchikh has not appeared at
the preliminary investigation.
Maria Pevchikh has not replied to the investigator's questions about how the items
allegedly taken from Navalny's room in a Tomsk hotel were removed. The transport police have
reconstructed the Pevchikh route and got together all their videos concerning this, Interfax
reports. And then the surprises begin, which do not fit in with the version that Maria
Pevchikh took from Tomsk to Berlin a bottle, on which traces of a neuroparalytic poisonous
substance from the Novichok group were later allegedly found .
Firstly, after Navalny's hospitalization, Maria Pevchikh travelled from Tomsk to
Novosibirsk by car together with Georgy Alburov [Alburov is the one who, allegedly, was
an FBK front man, posing as head of the investigatory section of Navalny's "fund", but
Pevchik, it seems, was really the investigation boss, very likely directing investigations
into corruption in "Putin's Mafia State" under the guidance of MI6, though nobody had ever
heard of her at FBK until questions started being asked about her role after she had flown to
Germany from Omsk with the Bullshitter -- ME] , and then flew to Omsk.
Secondly, at Novosibirsk Tolmachevo airport , during pre-flight checks, there were no
containers and bottles of more than 100 milliliters in Maria Pevchikh's suitcase and
rucksack. She did buy, however, a half-litre bottle of "Svyatoy Istochnik" ["Holy Spring"
NOT "Saint Spring"! -- ME] water in the sterile zone [namely after having passed
through baggage and security checks and before boarding her flight -- ME], with which she
flew to Omsk.
Earlier, Anton Timofeev had said that after Navalny had been hospitalized, the people
accompanying him seized three bottles of water from his room, which were given to Georgy
Alburov. Alburov then flew from Novosibirsk to Omsk together with the Pevchikh. But there
were no bottles in his luggage either. The moment of the acquisition of a bottle of "Holy
Spring" water by Pevchikh, as well as images from the X-ray scanner installation at the
airport, prove this.
In addition, Sergey Potapov, deputy head of the transport investigation department of
the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Siberian Federal District, announced that
on the day of Navalny's hospitalization, an anonymous message had been received about the
mining of Omsk airport. It was sent via a free e-mail service whose servers are located in
Germany. On this issue, Russia then addressed Germany in order to establish the identity of
the person who sent the message. The police believe that the message about the
pseudo-mining [i.e. a bomb scare -- ME] of the airport came in order to prevent the
aircraft with Navalny on board from urgently landing at Omsk. Aleksei Navalny himself thanked
the pilots who landed the aircraft at Omsk, although the airport had been "mined". And here
is another inconsistency: information about the "mining" of the Omsk airport was closed and
was not disclosed to anyone.
[Shooting his big gob off again, see! -- ME]
The police have also to check how Aleksei Navalny, who was in a coma at the Berlin
Charité clinic, got hold of this information about the "mining" of Omsk airport, at a
time when he had already lost consciousness whilst on board an aircraft on August 20 and was
subsequently unconscious until September 7.
180 visitors and 58 employees were evacuated from the [Omsk] airport building,
excluding flight safety services. In the e-mail that arrived at an e-mail address in the
district of the Omsk Leninsky District Court, there was information about the mining of the
buildings of the district court, the railway station, banks, the post office and the airport.
After that, a criminal case was initiated under Part 2 of Article 207 of the Criminal Code of
Russia ("Knowingly falsely reporting of an act of terrorism").
The German government has said that Aleksei Navalny was poisoned with a chemical
warfare agent from the Novichok group. Allegedly, in addition to the Bundeswehr laboratory,
traces of Novichok were found in his analyses by military chemists in Sweden and France.
Berlin sent the data of these tests to the OPCW, but ignored all Russian requests for
cooperation in investigating the incident with the blogger [i.e. Navalny -- M E] . And
on September 22, Aleksei Navalny was discharged from the hospital after his so-called
"poisoning" with a "military grade poison". Navalny has estimated that his treatment at the
Berlin hospital will cost 70 thousand euros. [Rattling his collection box already! -- ME]. He
is still in Berlin as a special guest of the German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Moscow,
meanwhile, has invited OPCW experts to familiarize themselves with the samples that were
taken from Aleksei Navalny before leaving for Germany. It is curious that the doctors of the
Berlin clinic also did not find traces of toxic substances in the analyses of their
patient.
[A point often omitted in the free Western press: it was the Bundeswehr that stated
that the Bullshitter had been poisoned by a Novichok type agent, as did the Swedish and
French military -- ME.]
The above article is biased, of course, because it refers to the gobshite Navalny as a
"blogger" and not as a "politician" or "leader of the opposition" etc.
But here's a source that can in no way be described as being biased against "Putin's
fiercest critic": "Radio Freedom" no less!
08 October 2020 Interior Ministry: there was no water bottle in the luggage of Navalny's colleague Maria
Pevchikh
The Department of Transport of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the
Siberian Federal District, which is conducting a pre-investigation check into the
circumstances of the hospitalization of the head of the Anti-Corruption Fund, Aleksei
Navalny, in the Omsk hospital on August 20, published on Thursday a report on the work that
has been done. According to the department, an e-mail with a message about the mining of Omsk
airport, from which Navalny was taken to the hospital, was sent from a free postal service,
whose server is located in Germany.
The department claims that it had addressed the law enforcement agencies of Germany
with a request to provide legal assistance and to determine the owner of the email address,
but had not received an answer. "We do not understand and do not accept the inaction of our
foreign colleagues", the Interior Ministry said in a report.
Earlier, Navalny's associates suggested that the false mining of the Omsk airport had
been carried out in order to delay the hospitalization of the oppositionist, who was on the
verge of life and death -- the aircraft with Navalny on board made an emergency landing in
Omsk after a sudden sharp deterioration in his condition. It is known that on August 20, in
connection with an anonymous report about the bomb, the police evacuated all visitors and
employees from the airport building. RBC, in turn, notes that on the morning of August 20,
false reports of mining were received not only in Omsk, but also in the cities of the the
Novosibirsk region, the Perm and Krasnoyarsk territories, as well as the Volga region: one of
the bombs, in particular, was allegedly planted on the territory of the Samara International
airport "Kurumoch".
In addition to information related to false mining, the report of the Ministry of
Internal Affairs claims that in the luggage of Navalny's colleagues Maria Pevchikh (in the
original version of the message she was named Marina) and Georgy Alburov, who, after reports
of the hospitalization of the head of the FBK, examined his hotel room in Tomsk and
confiscated from there several objects, and then flew to Omsk themselves, no liquids with a
volume of more than 100 milliliters hd been found.
As is now known, Pevchikh subsequently transported a bottle of water to Berlin, from
which Navalny had drunk in a Tomsk hotel, and on which traces of a chemical warfare agent had
allegedly been later found. In a report by the Ministry of Internal Affairs about Pevchikh,
it is said that "for the investigation, communication with this citizen is of great
interest", but she has not been responding to our summons.
Earlier, Navalny's companions, talking about the things they collected from Navalny's
room, said that they were taken to Omsk to be sent to Germany in different ways (according to
Maria Pevchikh, "they were strategically packaged in different places"), that is, by no means
necessary, that it was Pevchikh who carried the bottle from Tomsk to Omsk.
And now, the same story from "The Insider", which most definitely is biased against the
"Putin regime" and those dastardly Orcs, albeit written by an Orc, it seems:
Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation fake: Maria Pevchikh did not
take out of Russia a bottle from which Navalny had drunk
8 October 2020
[Right in your face it shouts FAKE! -- ME]
Russian media outlets are retelling a statement made by the Transport Directorate of
the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Siberian Federal District under the
heading "Investigation in connection with Navalny's hospitalization continues", which
says:
According to information published in the media, there has been carried out on the
territory of Germany a toxicological study of a bottle of water that had been handed over for
investigation by Maria Pevchikh and on which the presence of a nerve agent has been allegedly
found.
Also in the media there was information about the transportation of these items by car
and aeroplane from Tomsk to Germany. At the same time, the investigating authorities have
objectively established that Maria Pevchikh together with Georgy Alburov, after Navalny's
hospitalization, proceeded from the city of Tomsk to the city of Novosibirsk by road, and
then by air to the city of Omsk. During the pre-flight inspection of Maria Pevchikh at
Tolmachevo airport (Novosibirsk), there were no containers with a volume of more than 100 ml
in her suitcase and rucksack, and no bottle of water. After having passed through pre-flight
checks, whilst in the airport transit zone Maria Pevchikh then bought from a vending machine
a 500 ml bottle of "Holy Spring" water, with which she flew to the city of Omsk.
According to a video posted on the Internet, after Navalny had been hospitalized,
persons who had accompanied him seized from the hotel room where he had bben staying three
bottles of water. In accordance with the explanation of one of the indicated persons –
Anton Timofeev – he handed the seized items to Georgy Alburov, who flew with Maria
Pevchikh from Tolmachevo airport (Novosibirsk) to the city of Omsk. During the inspection of
Alburov's belongings at the airport, bottles with a volume of more than 100 ml were also not
found.
This is confirmed by photographs from the airport security cameras, which captured the
moment Maria Pevchikh bought a bottle of water, as well as from the X-ray scanner
installation at the airport, where Pevchikh and Alburov went through baggage
inspection.
It is worth noting the wording about "containers with a volume of more than 100 ml".
There are rules restricting the carriage of liquids on aeroplanes: they can only be
transported in hand luggage in containers of no more than 100 ml. Therefore, hand luggage is
inspected for the presence of prohibited containers, but not luggage in which liquids can be
carried freely. The bottles taken from Navalny's room in the Tomsk hotel were most likely
carried by Maria Pevchikh in her luggage, which could have been taken away during the
inspection of her hand luggage.
Baggage at an airport is screened using an X-ray scanner. Of course, people don't pay
attention to water bottles. There is a technical ability to save images from the scanner, but
there is no information about its use in practice: the luggage is scanned and examined in
real time, and when suspicious objects are found, they are immediately opened. It makes no
sense to store a huge amount of X-ray images of every piece of baggage passing through an
airport.
The CCTV footage of Maria Pevchikh buying a bottle of water from a vending machine
proves practically nothing.
Thirsty MI6 operative Pevchikh at Omsk airport -- ME
Firstly, it is not clear what kind of drink she is buying. It is unlikely that a Coca
Cola vending machine exclusively sells "Holy Spring". If the Ministry of Internal Affairs has
not provided footage allowing it to be established exactly what Pevchikh bought, then most
likely it does not have such information at all and the statement about the 500 ml bottle of
"Holy Spring" is not based on anything -- except for the fact that it is on such a bottle
that traces of "Novichok" were found. Even the statement that Pevchikh brought a bottle she
bought at the Novosibirsk airport to Omsk cannot be called reliable: it is likely that she,
after having drunk the water, left the bottle on the aeroplane.
Secondly, FBK employees took away not one, but three bottles from Tomsk, which the
Ministry of Internal Affairs also admits. If the Ministry of Internal Affairs had footage
proving that Pevchikh and Alburov had purchased three bottles, it would hardly conceal
them.
The certainty with which the Ministry of Internal Affairs makes statements that cannot
be substantiated raises doubts about its message as a whole.
Sort of like the certainty with which Navalny makes statements that cannot be
substantiated as regards Putin trying to murder him with "Novichok" or the statements made by
the German authorities about his having also been poisoned by "Novichok" without their
providing any substantiation?
Should these statements also raise doubts in an enquiring mind, I wonder.
I thought 2020 can't get any crazier – – but this tweet from CIA John Brennan
. is right up there
https://twitter.com/JohnBrennan/status/1314587438568833025?s=20
John O. Brennan (@JohnBrennan) Tweeted: Imagine prospects for world peace, prosperity, &
security if Joe Biden were President of the United States & Alexei Navalny the President
of Russia. We'll soon be halfway there.
"Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You, you may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one"
Hmmm So Navalny is indeed a CIA asset as those lying Russians claimed.
And this impartial government official, source of unbiased intelligence, is endorsing
Biden? If the above tweet is authentic, this country has reached maximum discord, betrayal
and treason.
Ministry of Internal Affairs: the "bottle from Navalny's room" was bought by Pevchikh
at the airport
The Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for Transport in the Siberian
Federal District has stated that Aleksey Navalny's associate Maria Pevchikh had not taken
away bottles of water from his hotel room in Tomsk. These bottles, as reported earlier, the
German authorities had handed over for investigation, which had found traces of
poison.
The police said in a statement that Pevchikh had no bottles in her luggage during the
security check at Tolmachevo airport. After having gone through the security check, she
bought "a 0.5 litre bottle of water from a vending machine whilst in transit at the airport"
and with which bottle she flew to the city of Omsk".
And here is the very bottle (only its top is visible) that Maria Pevchikh was
secretly carrying.
The "deadly poison" was lying amongst cosmetics, laptops and underwear (it does not
seem that the bottle was considered to be "deadly dangerous").. According to the data that we
have available, there were no other bottles, neither with Pevchikh's nor Navalny's things.
This is an X-ray of the only suitcase in which a bottle can be seen.
Earlier, the German government had stated that, amongst other things, traces of
"Novichok" had been found on a bottle of water out of which Navalny had drunk.
15:17, 8 October 2020 During a search of Navalny's colleague, the alleged bottle with "Novichok" was not
found
During a search at Novosibirsk airport, Alexei Navalny's comrade-in-arms Maria Pevchikh
was not found to have a bottle, which, allegedly, had traces of poison from the Novichok
group. This has been stated by Sergei Potapov, deputy head of the Investigation Department of
the Transport Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Siberian
Federal District, TASS reports.
8 October 2020 15:45 The alleged bottle with "Novichok" was not found on Maria Pevchikh during a security
check
The bottle with which she flew to Omsk had been bought in the transit zone
Oh shit!
I suppose this story is now being reported in the USA, UK, French, German, Polish,
Lithuanian, Estonian, Latvian press etc., etc.
By the way, if you "Google" the following: "Pevchikh -- bottles -- airport" or similar, at
the top of the list of links presented is one to "The Insider" article that screams out
FAKE.
Only by scrolling down the list do you find Russian media articles on the Ministry of the
Interior (Siberia) statement concerning Pevchikh and the bottles and the uncanny way the
Bullshitter knew about the "mining" of Omsk airport even though the email from Germany
warning that bombs had been planted there was closed information and when it was sent, the
"Oppositionsführer" was in a state of a medically induced coma.
It time to make him accountable at the election box. Not that it matter much as Biden is yet another neocon and Zionist, but
stil...
American people are tied of sliding standard of living, permanent wars and jingoism. Trump might share Hillary fate in 2020,
because any illusion that he is for common fold, who voted for him in 2016 now disappeared. So he is not better then neocon Biden and Biden is new bastard. So why vote for the old bastard if we have new, who might be
slightly better in the long run
This is a very expensive foreign policy, that doesn't benefit the USA. It has potential to
raise the price of oil significantly.
Notable quotes:
"... Behind the move was pressure from the Zionist lobby. President Trump is in need of campaign funds and the lobby provides those. ..."
"... I can also see this green lighting Israeli or joint American-Israeli strikes on alleged Iranian nuclear weapons development sites and other military and petro-state assets. ..."
"... It's disgusting to watch the people of the US/UK/EU go along with this. Western elites are fat, lazy, vicious, and cruel. ..."
"... Paul wrote: "Perhaps a Biden administration would be just as much a Zionist captive as the Trump administration." Yes at least as much or more zionist. Nothing about Harris or Biden (or the DNC) says they won't be. ..."
"... I nominate president Eisenhower as slightly less zionist on one occasion: during the Anglo,French, Zionist Suez invasion of 1956 Eisenhower remarked after numerous UN resolutions condemning the bandit state's aggression ' Should a nation which attacks and occupies foreign territory in the face of United Nations disapproval be allowed to impose conditions on its withdrawal?' ..."
"... "The EU is trying to prop up the US Empire in response to its decline, instead of trying to free itself. " ..."
"... Donald Trump talked up his Iran policy in a profanity-laden tirade on Friday, telling conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh that Tehran knows the consequences of undermining the United States. ..."
"... "Iran knows that, and they've been put on notice: if you fuck around with us, if you do something bad to us, we are going to do things to you that have never been done before." ..."
The U.S. has imposed
new sanctions on Iran which will make ANY trade with the country very difficult:
[T]he Trump administration has decided to impose yet further sanctions on the country ,
this time targeting the entirety of the Iranian financial sector. These new measures carry
biting secondary sanctions effects that cut off third parties' access to the U.S. financial
sector if they engage with Iran's financial sector.
Since the idea was first floated publicly , many have argued that sanctioning Iran's
financial sector would eviscerate what humanitarian trade has survived the heavy hand of
existing U.S. sanctions.
Behind the move was pressure from the Zionist lobby. President Trump is in need of
campaign funds and the lobby provides those. The move is also designed to preempt any
attempts by a potentially new administration to revive the nuclear agreement with Iran:
This idea appears to have first been introduced into public discourse in an
Aug. 25, 2020, Wall Street Journal article by Mark Dubowitz and Richard Goldberg urging
the Trump administration to "[b]uild an Iranian [s]anctions [w]all" to prevent any future
Biden administration from returning to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the
nuclear accord between Iran and the world's major powers on which President Donald Trump
reneged in May 2018.
The new sanctions will stop all trade between the 'western' countries and Iran.
The Foreign Minister of Iran responded with defiance:
Amid Covid19 pandemic, U.S. regime wants to blow up our remaining channels to pay for food
& medicine.
Iranians WILL survive this latest of cruelties.
But conspiring to starve a population is a crime against humanity. Culprits & enablers
-- who block our money -- WILL face justice.
In response Iran will continue its turn to the east. Russia, China and probably India will
keep payment channels with Iran open or will make barter deals.
The Europeans, who so far have not dared to counter U.S. sanctions on Iran, are likely to be
again shown as the feckless U.S. ass kissers they have always been. They will thereby lose out
in a market with 85 million people that has the resources to pay for their high value products.
If they stop trade of humanitarian goods with Iran they will also show that their much vaunted
'values' mean nothing.
The European Union claims that it wants to be an independent actor on the world stage. If
that is to be taken seriously this would be the moment to demonstrate it.
Posted by b on October 9, 2020 at 16:37 UTC | Permalink
Unconscionable but what is new with pompass and his ghouls; treasury dept responsible for
cranking up the sanctions program was formerly headed by a dual citizen woman who resigned
suddenly after being exposed as an Israeli citizen-not hard to understand that sentiment in
that dept has not changed.
The other aspect here is the FDD as key supporter of these severe sanctions; very virulent
anti-Iranian vipers nest of ziocons with money bags from zionist oligarch funders.
Ho-hum. As I wrote earlier, just the daily breaking of laws meaning business as usual. As
noted, Russia has really upped the diplomatic heat on EU and France/Germany in particular,
and that heat will be further merited if the response is as b predicts from their past,
deplorable, behavior.
Much talk/writing recently about our current crisis being similar in
many ways to those that led to WW1, but with the Outlaw US Empire taking Britain's role. I
expect Iran's Iraqi proxies to escalate their attacks aimed at driving out the occupiers.
IMO, we ought to contemplate the message within this Strategic Culture editorial when it comes to the hegemonic relationship between
the Outlaw US Empire and the EU/NATO and the aims of both. The EU decided not to continue
fighting against the completion of Nord Stream, but that IMO will be its last friendly act
until it severs its relations with the Outlaw US Empire. With the Wall moved to Russia's
Western borders, the Cold War will resume. That will also affect Iran.
thanks b... it is interesting what a pivotal role israel plays in all of this... and why
would there be concern that biden would be any different then trump in revoking the jcpoa? to
my way of thinking, it is just pouring more cement and sealing the fate of the usa either
way, as an empire in real decline and resorting to more of the same financial sanctions as a
possible precursor to war.. frankly i can't see a war with iran, as the usa would have to
contend with russia and china at this point... russia and china must surely know the game
plan is exactly the same for them here as well.. as for europe, canada, australia and the
other poodles - they are all hopeless on this front as i see it... lets all bow down to the
great zionist plan, lol...
Yeah but at least Trump didn't start any new wars. /s
The Eurotools in Brussels are absolutely disgusting. A weaker bunch of feckless,
milquetoast satraps is difficult to imagine. The EU perfectly embodies the 21st century
liberal ethic: spout virtue signaling nonsense about peace, freedom, human rights and the
"rules based international order" while licking the boots of Uncle Scam and the Ziofascists
and going along with their war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Russia and China need to step up their game and boldly circumvent the collective
punishment sanctions that are choking the life out of Iran, Syria and Venezuela. They still
let the rogue states of the west get away with far too much.
The Teheran men will not surrender to the yankee herds and hordes. And less so the
telavivian.
It s easy to see that in the medium run this cruelly extended crime plays in chinese, russian
and shia hands.
And they must start immediately a backlash handing hundreds of special forces and weapons
opver to the Houthi hands.
Of course there is a war on, and it has been gathering force for some time.
Iran is but one more skirmish or battle. However, Xi and Putin are using what I call the
"Papou yes". You must always say "yes" as this way you avoid direct conflict, but then you
go and do exactly what you were going to do in the first place . The person who does the
demanding - having had his/her demands "met" has nothing further to add and will go away. (I
have seen this effective technique in action).
At the moment it appears that the aim of the subversive (military/CIA/NGO) wings of the
Empire are to start as many conflicts as possible. To isolate and overextend Russia, leading
to it's collapse. (As they claim to have done before.)
The "Alternative axis" is just carrying on with it's own plan to overextend and eventually
let the US dissolve into its own morasss. The opposition are trying to follow their own plan
without giving an opening for the US/NATO to use its numerical military advantage, by not
taking the bait.
The ultimate battle is for financial control of the worlds currency, or in the case of the
US, to halt the loss of it's financial power. To avoid that The next step could be the
introduction of a Fed. owned controlled and issued "digi-dollar", When all outstanding
"dollar assets" are re-denominated into virtual misty-money which is created exclusively by
the Fed. Banks become unnecessary as the Fed becomes the only "lender" available, Congress
redundant, debts no longer matter and so on. Who cares about the reserves held by China and
overseas "investors" if their use or even existence can be dictated by the Fed?
They have already published a "trial balloon" about introducing a digi-dollar.
Iran? the US is throwing ALL its cards into what looks like it's final battle to preserve
the dollars supremacy. Why cut ALL the Iranian financial system out of their sphere of
influence? Because it (thinks) it can and by doing so cower the wavering into obeying.
Thanks 'b', very well timed. I was actually heading to the open thread with this article
until I saw your piece. This Asia Times
article focuses on three key points:
- Iran has replaced the dollar with the Yuan as its main foreign currency
"This may become the east wind for the renminbi (yuan) and provide a new oil currency option
for traders in oil-producing countries, including Iran," an editorial on qq.com said. "
- Several large banks in Iran are developing a gold encrypted digital currency called
PayMon and had issued more than 1,000 crypto-currency mining licenses, which could promote
the development of crude oil. Domestic traders use cryptocurrency to import goods and bypass
American banks.
- The Iranian-Swiss Joint Chamber of Commerce
"Switzerland had received a special exemption from US supervisory authorities to allow the
SHTA operations."
It remains to be seen how effective the Swiss Humanitarian Trade Agreement actually is.
Some say it is nothing but a US propaganda stunt. Hopefully, that is not the case.
What does Iran need that they cannot get from China and Russia? The USA has cheap corn, and
the EU has... what, cheese? Other than that I don't see why Iran needs to trade with the
empire and its more servile vassals anyway.
Strange, that ther is a jewish or Israeki ´ animosity agains Iran (or agains tthe
Medtans -- as thy are all named in all Greek records(H, that theer is a jewish animosity
against, that ther is a jewish anikisit agains Iran (or the Medtans -- as thy are old ptt in
all Greek Strenge(Hellemistic) tales, Cyrur+s the Great is reported to have liberatet the
Jews of Babilon end sent them back to Jerusalem . So, "PRIMO SON VENETANO, SECUNDO SON
CHRISTANO" -- STILL A COMMONLY ACCEPTED SAYING INVENEZIA WHEB I VISITED ABD AKED IT IN THE
THE YEAR OF 1´2917! Iran (or the Medtans -- as thy are old ptt in all Greek
Strenge(Hellemistic) tales, Cyrur+s the Great is reorted to have liberatet te´he Jews
of Babilon end sent them back to Jerusalem . So, "PRIMO SON VENETANO, SECUNDO SON CHRISTANO"
-- STILL A COMMONLY ACCEPTED SAYING INVENEZIA WHEB I VISITED ABD AKED IT IN THE THE YEAR OF
1´2917! ellenistic) tales, Cyrur+s the Great is reorted to have liberatet te´he
Jews of Babylon end sent them back to Jerusalem . So, "PRIMO SON VENETANO, SECUNDO SON
CHRISTANO" -- STILL A COMMONLY ACCEPTED SAYING INVENEZIA WHEB I VISITED ABD AKED IT IN THE
THE YEAR OF 2017
Quite impressed with all the theories about Europe and its behavior. The answer is very
simple, Europe is occupied by a foreign power, it is a colony. And all the qualifiers are
quaint.
I disagree. What did the EU did on Iran, compared to Russia and China? It stopped most trade with Iran, including the purchase of iranian oil, and it stopped all
investment projects. INSTEX is a joke. Meanwhile Germany recently banned Hezbollah.
Yes, they did vote for the JCPOA in the UN. I look at actions rather than words though,
and EU has imposed de facto sanctions on Iran.
Moreover, German FM Maas told Israel recently that efforts are underway to keep the Iran
arms embargo. (He is also a big "Russia fan" - sarc off)
In other words, we "support" the JCPOA, but in practice with arms and trade embargoes on
Iran continuing.
Yeah right.
Posted by: powerandpeople | Oct 9 2020 20:15 utc | 24
No, its not so simple, unless you claim that european russophobia started with the US and
did not exist before it. Guy Mettan has a good book on it. It is a thousand years old issue,
involving Catholicism, France, Germany, Sweden, Britain, and others.
Yes, the US wants to divide the EU and Russia. But the EU itself is rotten from
within.
Politics are more important than the economy, German Chancellor Merkel said in relation to
Russia.
"Drang nach Osten" - "Drive to the East".
Germany dreams of capturing Eastern Europe and using is as some sort of colonised labor
pool similar to what Latin America is for the US.
And this is why the EU, without any prodding, eagerly took the lead in the attempt of
colour revolution in Belarus, where it played far bigger role than the US.
Signing and adhearing to the JCPOA turned Europe and Iran from opponents into partners.
This is a great diplomatic achievement. However, no part of the JCPOA made the two allies or
obliged the European side to wage an economic war with the USA on behalf of Iran. On the
contrary, the Iranians would be the first to say they are no friends of Europa. They have
been complaining about "Western meddling" in their region for years. (Note that they don`t
differentiate but always speak collectively of "the West").
So that`s their chance to show the world how much of a sovereign nation they are and that
they can handle their problems without the "meddling" of the "despicable" Europeans. There is
no obligation - neither legal nor moral - for Europe to take the side of Iran in the US-Iran
conflict.
And actually it is both sides - both Iran and the USA - who are unhappy with the current
European neutrality.
Thanks to MoA for being one of the only honest brokers of news on Iran in the English
language. As an American citizen living abroad (in EU) I have a more jaded and at the same
time worried feeling about this.
Along with all the other stuff, including the current threat to close the U.S. embassy in
the Iraqi "Green Zone" and the accompanying military maneuvers, which would spark war in the
region, I see this hardening and expansion of sanctions as yet the next clue that the U.S.
and Donald Trump's regime are looking toward re-election and a hot war with/on Iran. Rattling
the cage ever more and backing Iran into the corner with brutal, all-encompassing sanctions
is already an act of war, usually the first prior to bombs falling. I can also see this green lighting Israeli or joint American-Israeli strikes on alleged Iranian nuclear weapons
development sites and other military and petro-state assets.
I hope I'm wrong but we've all seen this before and it never ends well. If the EU shows a
spine, or more likely Russia and/or China step in directly, perhaps the long desired
neocon/neolib/Zionist hot war against Iran can be avoided.
I think it is very important for the US to kill another 500,000 children via sanctions, in
order to demonstrate the importance of freedom and democracy and observing international law.
While reading this post I was thinking what MoA wrote in the last two paragraphs. And also
that Iran will just continue to turn to China, Russia, and others in the East.
It's disgusting to watch the people of the US/UK/EU go along with this. Western elites are
fat, lazy, vicious, and cruel.
"Europeans can not be helped. Ironically, it is their own rejection of their WW2 past that
causes them to reject the multipolar world and sovereignty as "primitive things from the
past"
plus, as you point out elsewhere, there are longer histories at play: the Crusades against
the Slavs, the Moors and the Turks (and the Arabs, in fact), the invention of "western
civilization" in the 19th century (Arians vs Semites, Europe vs Asia, ecc) ...
plus, there is the persisting aspiration for world domination, partly frustrated by WW1
and the upheavals of the XXth century, which transformed the UK and the whole of Europe (with
Japan, Australia, etc) in a junior partner of the new US Empire
(that's the other lesson learned from WW2: no single european power could dominate the
continent and the world, but they could dominate as junior partners under the new young
leader of the wolf pack, the US)
plus, there are is a class war that can be better fought, by national oligarchies, within
globalist rethoric and rules
plus, there are the US deep state instruments of domination over european national
states
but Europeans (and Usaians) do understand the language of force, and they have - at the
moment - encountered a wall in their attempts at expansion, in Iran, China, Russia,
Venezuela, ecc; an alternative multipolar alliance is taking shape
so they might attempt to win a nuclear war by 20 million deaths to 2 (or 200 to 20, who
cares), but they might also decide to tune down their ambitions and return to reality;
maybe
@m (#35)
EU promised to uphold JCPOA. They can't because of the US and they are doing next to nothing
to change that. EU isn't neutral. They are stooges. Iran is right to complain about it, the
US isn't.
Trump is a man of peace, he hasn't started any new wars - whatever that means, lol.
As far as
I know economic blocade is tantamount to war. If he wins reelection expect renewed kinetic
attacks on venezuela and Iran. He's already lined up his zionist coalition with arabic
satraps to launch his Iran quagmire. Trump is a deal maker, he understands the economy and
will bring back manufacturing jobs to Murikkka, lol. I'm sure Boeing execs in deep trouble
would love to sell plane to the Iranians but Mr. MIGA just made that impossible. Nothing to
worry about, there's always the next socialist bailout for Boeing funded by taxpayers -
suckers as Trump would call them. So much for winning, can't fix deplorable and stupid...
Btw b, Trump's opposition to the Iran deal has nothing to do with money or the zionist
lobby. Stable genius opposed JCPOA in 2015 even before announcing his run for the presidency.
It's not about the mula but all about the mollah's, lol: The Donald in his own words at a tea
party event in 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIDNonMDSo8
Ever since the Iranian revolution of 1979 multiple US regimes in DC have been totally
successful in making majority Iranian people everywhere in the world, understand that the US
is their chronic strategic enemy for decades to come. At same time, these US regimes have
equally been as successful in making American people believe Iran is their enemy.
The difference between this two side's belief is, that, Iranian people by experiencing US
regime' conducts have come to their belief, but the American people' belief was made by their
own regime' propaganda machinery. For this reason, just like the people to people relation
between the US and Russian people, Before and after the fall of USSR the relation between US
and Iran in next few generations will not come to or even develop to anything substantial or
meaningful. One can see this same trajectory in US Chinese relations, or US Cuban. Noticeably
all these countries relation with US become terminally irreparable after their revolutions,
regardless of the maturity or termination of the revolution. As much as US loves color
revolutions, US hates real revolutions. The animosity no longer is just strategic it has
become people to people, and the reason and blame goes to Americans since they never were
ready to accept the revolutions that made nations self-servient to their interests. The
bottom line truth is the US / and her poodles in europe know, ever since the revolution Iran
no longer will be subservient to US interests.
This is leverage to bargain away the oil pipeline to germany. That is what is behind it. You
scratch my back, the US is saying to the EU, in particular, Germany....
It's an
Economy based on Plunder! , so that's why sanctions here, there and everywhere!! But the
real problem is we aren't participating in the Plunder!! Sometimes you gotta use extreme
sarcasm to explain the truth of a situation, and that's what Max and Stacey do in their show
at the link. 13 minutes of honest reporting about the fraudulent world in which we live. As
for Jerome Powell, current Fed Chair, he's complicit in the ongoing criminal activity just as
much as the high ranking politicos. Bastiat laid it out 180 years ago, but we're living what
he described now. And that's all part of what I wrote @40 above. The moral breakdown occurred
long ago but took time to perfect.
I think it is crazy that EU allows US to manage SWIFT to the point they invent new entities
to sidestep SWIFT and US sanctions (which are weak and ineffective, but that is the
trajectory of their weak attempts at independence). Force SWIFT to equally service all legal
transactions according to EU law, and let US cut itself off from all international financial
transfers if it doesn't like using EU's SWIFT. US corps won't allow that to happen, it's just
that EU refuses to call US bluff. Of course they are now praying for Biden presidency, but if
they can't assert themselves it is all ultimately the same thing.
These 'foreign policy experts' think the trade war with China has been a mistake. But they
think Trump is too soft on Russia and he hasn't been tough enough on NK, Iran and Venezuela.
It has become a standard trick for outgoing US administrations to saddle the incoming
administration with set in stone policies and judicial appointments.
"Behind the move was pressure from the Zionist lobby. President Trump is in need of
campaign funds and the lobby provides those. The move is also designed to preempt any
attempts by a potentially new administration to revive the nuclear agreement with Iran."
Perhaps a Biden administration would be just as much a Zionist captive as the Trump
administration.
The danger for the world is the Trump administration may go even further than additional
sanctions. So I refer to the previous post, US policy remains the same whatever bunch are the
frontmen.
When that attempt failed they worked on convincing the Sultan of Turkey to give them
someone else's homeland. The Zionist Zealot Mr Kalvariski became the administrator of the
Palestine Jewish Colonization Association with the aim of establishing a jewish suprematist
ghetto. Following that flop the Zionists turned to the hapless British and were rewarded by
Balfour with his notorious British government double cross of the Arabs. Now it's the turn of
the US and assorted captive nations to uphold and support tyranny and Talmudic
violence.
I am SLOWLY coming to the conclusion that DaTrumpster understands DaDeepState better than any
of us armchair pundits. His patient - and yes, perhaps faulty strategy - he's still standing
after ALL DaCrap that's been thrown at him.
All the 'EXPURTS' - including MoA - can only see part of DaPicture at best.
I've been as hard on DaTrumpster as anyone on DaConservative side - but I am SLOWLY coming to
understand WTF just might be going on.
Point - don't be too sure of your immediate inclinations - we ALL see through DaGlass DARKLY!
SWIFT is only a messaging system – SWIFT does not hold any funds or securities, nor
does it manage client accounts. Behind most international money and security transfers is the
Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT) system. SWIFT is a vast
messaging network used by banks and other financial institutions to quickly, accurately, and
securely send and receive information, such as money transfer instructions.
Paul wrote:
"Perhaps a Biden administration would be just as much a Zionist captive as the Trump
administration." Yes at least as much or more zionist. Nothing about Harris or Biden (or the DNC) says they won't be.
And hasn't it always been that way from one president to the the next? Was there ever one
that was less zionist than the predecessor? (Maybe they're all so close this is an impossible
question to answer, that too could be the case).
The sitting executive branch gives the favors right now and anyone incoming gives the
favors after they win and thus each election becomes a double windfall for the lobby
group?
A zionist double dip . Maybe most US voters could grasp it like that.
I can't back this up (much like my previous comment in this thread) but it's my
impression. It would probably take a lot of work to make sure it's right; one would have to
scrutinize so much over so many decades.
I nominate president Eisenhower as slightly less zionist on one occasion: during the
Anglo,French, Zionist Suez invasion of 1956 Eisenhower remarked after numerous UN resolutions
condemning the bandit state's aggression ' Should a nation which attacks and occupies foreign
territory in the face of United Nations disapproval be allowed to impose conditions on its
withdrawal?'
This could be a useful quote for todays world.
Later, in 1964, Eisenhower approved his hand picked emissary's US $150 million so called
Johnston Plan to steal the waters of the Jordan River and further marginalize the Palestine
Arabs and surrounding Arab states.
Sanctions aren't the story. Once all the players have left the JCPOA, either Israel or the US
can claim Iranians are at the point of producing a nuclear weapon. Without the JCPOA and
inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities it will be impossible to prove or deny the
allegations. Thus giving either the US or Israel justification it wants to conduct military
strikes against Iran. The only things stopping this from happening is if the EU stays in the
JCPOA...
Exactly the aim. I said so in an earlier post. This is all part of the program to create a
false justification to conduct military strikes inside Iran. At this point, I'm really
surprised that the U.S. even tries to construct these narratives after Obama's Syria and
Libya operations didn't even really bother, save for a few probably fake "chemical weapons"
attack they alleged Assad committed. Libya I don't remember hearing anything. The embassy
maybe? After the Soleimani strike and the shootdown of the U.S. drone, not to mention the
alleged Iranian attacks on ARAMCO's oil facilities, I'm really quite surprised something more
serious (not to minimize the awful acts of war which the sanctions definitely are) hasn't
already happened. It will soon, especially if Trump gets re-elected. Wonder what all of his
"no new wars" supporters will say then?
Everybody reading knows what SWIFT is. That's a nice attempt to circumscribe the overall
sanctions regime and paint it as "no big deal."
Crush Limpbro - Checked out your site. You've got a long way to go before you can
criticize MoA. Hope that comment draws a few clicks to keep you going, but I would caution
other barflies to use a proxy; could be a honey trap to collect IP addresses.
This United States imposed and Zionist inspired siege on Iran and its people will only
further strengthen the political and economic bonds with Russia and China. Meanwhile, the US
collapses from its internal social limitations and its abandonment of public healthcare
responses to the Corvid 19 pandemic. Europe it close behind the US in this respect.
What exactly is this 'Justification'.. . 'to conduct military strikes against Iran' that
you refer to hasbara boy? Failure to obey foreign imposed zionist diktats?
Would this 'justification' apply to the bandit state if it refused to abide by the NNPT
for example?
No double standards pass the test here.
Yet another proof that "Western values" and their "rules based international order" mean
exactly nothing.
In the past, the West at least kept up some pretense that it was wrong to target unarmed
civilians (still, they flattened Driesden; Hiroshima; North Korea, Vietnam, Laos). Today,
they do not care to be seen openly, cruelly, brutally, sadistically killing civvies. These
American bastards say, "... it is not killing if the victims drop dead later, like, not right
now. " Or, "... it became necessary to destroy Iran in order to save Iran."
Iran is perfectly correct to call this a crime against humanity for the West to starve a
population of food and medicine. This will boomerang just as the opium-pushing in China will
boomerang on the West.
Meanwhile, just as those drug-pushing English bastards earned themselves lordships and
knighthoods; just as presidential bastards retire to their Martha Vineyard mansions; so the
current crop of bastards in American leadership will retire to yet more mansions, leaving the
next couple generations to meet Persian wrath. The American way is to "win" until they are
tired of winning, no?
But in truth, in objective reality, only those who have lost their human-ness are capable
of crimes against humanity.
The US is cruising for a bruising in the middle east fucking with Iran like this. Not that the US hasn't deserved a good knockout punch the past 19 years since invading and
destroying Afghanistan and Iraq, etc, etc. Regardless of their rhetoric, how the European rogues and rascals (France, Germany and the
UK) can sleep at night is beyond me.
Yes Psychochistorian @ 1, At the nation state level, EU support for blockade terror and
sanction torture (BT&ST), against reluctant nation states and non compliant individuals
within those nation states, logically suggests EU nation states are not independent sovereign
countries <=EU nation states exist in name only? Maybe its just like in the USA, these
private monopoly powered Oligarcks (PMPO), own everything (privately owned copyrights,
patents, and property) made possible by rules nation states turn into law. The citizens of
those privately owned EU nation states are victims <=in condition=exploitable. Maybe PMPOs
use nation states <=as profit support weapons, to be directed against <=any and all
<=competition, whereever and however <=competition appears.
The hidden suspects <=capital market linked crowds through out the world..
Media is 92% owned by six private individuals, of the seven typical nation state layers of
authority and power: 5 are private and two are public. Additionally, few in the international
organizations have allegiance to historic cultures of the nation state governed masses. It is
as if, the named nation states are <=threatened by knee breaking thugs, but maybe its not
threat, its actual PMPO ownership.
If one accepts PMPO <=to be in control of all of USA and all of allied nation state,
one can explain <=current BT&ST events. But private Oligarch scenarios <=raise
obvious questions, why have not the PMPO challenged East eliminated <=Israel, MSM
propaganda repeatedly blames or points to Israel <=to excuse the USA leaders for their
BT&ST policies. Seems the PMPO are <=using the nation states, they own <=to
eliminate non complying competition.
What is holding the East back? Russia and China each have sufficient oil, gas and
technology to keep things functional, so why has not the competition in the East taken Israel
out, if Israel is directing the USA to apply BT&ST against its competitors? Why is the
white House so sure, its BT&ST policies will not end up destroying Israel? Maybe because
Israel has no real interest <=in the BT&ST policy <=Israel is deceptions:fall guy?
The world needs to pin the tail on the party driving USA application of BT&ST because no
visible net gain to Governed Americans seems possible from BT&ST policies?
I think Passer @ 17 has hit the nail on its head. "The EU is trying to prop up the US
Empire in response to its decline, instead of trying to free itself. "
Sanctions aren't the story. Once all the players have left the JCPOA, either Israel or the
US can claim Iranians are at the point of producing a nuclear weapon.
So you put that forward as a justification for attacking Iran militarily, but that means
according to your logic you also have justification for attacking Israel or the US
militarily. The rules are the same for all, right?
Economic warfare is certainly effective. However, time is running out for these weapons as
America's lock on the world economy grows weaker. With a rapidly approaching expiry date, the
word out may be to use em or lose em.
In a zero-sum great game, it makes sense to deploy such weapons now insofar as an
opponent's loss is always a gain for oneself.
Donald Trump talked up his Iran policy in a profanity-laden tirade on Friday, telling
conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh that Tehran knows the consequences of undermining the
United States.
"Iran knows that, and they've been put on notice: if you fuck around with us, if you do
something bad to us, we are going to do things to you that have never been done
before."
What a shit show we are seeing. What is the next phase of this civilization war that is not
a war because there are not enough dead bodies for some I guess?...but it sure looks like
war to me.
Well for the first time in history Iran's symbolic "Red Flag" is still flying above the
popular Jamkaran Mosque Holy dome. Perhaps the USA and its running dogs body count has risen
in Iraq and Afghanistan? How would we know. These things are disguised from the fearless
press in those countries ;)
Perhaps the dead and mangled are many but we do know that the US chief killer in
Afghanistan was reduced to ashes immediately following General Shahid Qassem Suleimanis
murder by the USA whilst on a diplomatic mission in Iraq.
In respect of b's observation above, the illegal occupier of Palestine is more likely
tipping millions into the Harris Presidency as well as the possible Trump Presidency. I doubt
either Harris or the biden bait and switch stooge would restore the JCPOA. Besides they would
not be invited to sit at the table any time soon IMO. They would likely refuse to any
conditions of reversing the sanctions and then carry on about all that 'unreasonable demands
by a terrorist state' stuff etc etc.
No, Iran will be getting on with its future in a multilateral world where the United
Nations has been reduced to pile of chicken dung by the USA while most other nations go along
with global lunacy.
You know what's telling about the bootlickers who hem and haw about U.S. policy with the T
Administration, but never mention Trump as the real source of it even when profuse Zionist
shit spills from his mouth on Limbaugh's show proving he's a Ziofascist pig?
What's telling is that these usual suspects jumped all over ARI @64 for zeroing in on
Trump's precise intentions with Iran but they gave a pass to the real HASBARIST in the room,
Crush Limbraw @60, exposing himself, putting his HARD-ON FOR TRUMP on full display.
@60 we ALL see through DaGlass DARKLY!
Speak for yourself- you Zionist MORON!
Ahhhhhh, you can always count on the DUPLICITY of MOA'S weathervane james and friends. Me,
I ain't here to win a popularity contest like weathervane; I'm here to kick ass when I
witness duplicity in action. My friend here is the truth that I'll defend to the grave.
********
Noooo, dum-dums Putin will not come to Iran's rescue when he's warm in bed with his
Zionist Oligarchs and Russian squatters whom he pays homage to from time to time when he
visits Ziolandia thanking them for choosing the stolen West Bank over Russia.
Iran knows that, and they've been put on notice. That's Trump blowhard
driving the drumbeat.
Just rescue me from my self-destructive self for 4 more years, oh kings of Zion and
Wall Street, and I'll give you WAR!!! all in CAPS with three exclamation points. The GREATEST
war you've ever seen.
When I read the Great Reset article on the World Economic Forum website it seems to me that
the western Globalists, in concert align the US and EU. That accounts for the basic vassal
arrangements that predominate but allow for some nonalignments on certain issues.
That is precisely what the Belarusian authorities announced when Tikhanovskaya left Minsk,
that she was helped in her way out, but we know how the MSM acts, they stick to their own
script, just like a Hollywood movie.
The Belarusians must be watching with great attention what is happening in Kirguizia,
riots and complete chaos, and thinking how lucky they were to avoid the color rev that was in
the menu for them, which the same methods, discredit the oncoming election, claim fraud after
it, use similar symbols like the clenched fist and the heart, new flag, start transliterating
family and geographical names to a mythical and spoken by a very small minority language and
then nobody knows if to spell Tikhanovskaya, Tsikhanouskaya or like the politically incorrect
but street wise Luka called her, Guaidikha. And that is Kirguizia, how about a shooting war
in Armenia and Azerbaijan, all those conflicts were unimaginable when the USSR existed, but
the empire even on his way down is insatiable.
There is over a million jews of Russian origin living in Israel, 20% of the population,
with deep roots in Russia, language, culture and relatives. Do not let partisanship for the
Dems blind you, a true successful leader is someone that defends his country's interests
while at the same time tries to have good relations with everybody else, obviously that
balance is not easy to achieve in a world full of conflicting interests, but so far Putin
seems to be balancing his act while not loosing sight of the main thing, Russia.
Putin will not come to Iran's rescue when he's warm in bed with his Zionist
Oligarchs
If Putin is so close to Zionists, then why does Russia block the Zionist regime-change in
Syria? Why has Russia denied Israel and USA entreaties to allow them to bomb Iran?
Not as strange as a mythological demigoddess that turned sailors into swain and that now
enjoys to plunge into the mud with her creatures. A bot, what an easy label, it has lost any
meaning.
special beings who was born with two extra eyes...in the back of my head.
Alaska yellow fin sole, not bad, from Bristol Bay, but the Melva -a tunafish species with
more oil in its meat- I cooked for lunch, just caught, has a lot more fish oil with its rich
contents of vitamin D, add sunny Mediterranean weather and that is my pill for today, trying
to keep the bug at bay.
Circe, why don't you do what your namesake would have done and whip yourself up some meds to
calm down? You're starting to lapse into excessive use of upper case, italics, exclamation
points, bolding, profanity, and of course, insults.
This may help. It looks like the orange man is in fact going down, so you will soon have
Joe and Kamal empowered to dismantle the evil Putin-Netanyahu-Trump axis, and put the US back
on the path to truth and justice.
The unilateral and illegal-under-JCPOA sanctions mean it's time for EU to either confront the
extraterritorial US policy it has clearly rejected in principle, or (more likely) acknowlege
that it remains in practice just a collection of 'client states'. A sad moment for me, but
useful for clarity.
Hard to understand but you guys are incapable of spelling the name of a once great US
city, San Francisco. I heard it has changed a lot, got to see long time ago, before the
digital craze.
This is a brief but subtle post by b, with quiet but telling headline. Perhaps, just
guessing, a new take on the post he was having difficulty with earlier? The question of the
EU is an interesting one - not to be considered as virulent as the former Soviet Union, but
somehow as tugged at by the components thereof...
Sanctions on Iran? We do know what Iran is capable of; surely we have not forgotten?
Indeed, by pressing these sanctions at this late date, the Trump administration surely has
not forgotten either the effect sanctions had on Russia. They were postive to that country's
independent survival, though the immediate effect was demonstrably harsh. So now, sanctions
on Iran? One doesn't have to be a world leader to suppose similar cause, similar effect.
Ah, Paco has a wonderful meal of a beneficial fish called the Melva! Bravo, Paco; all is
not lost! But you have hooked the sea-serpent as well -- take care! That one - carefully
remove the hook and set it free ;)
<B>Text</B> → Text
<I>Text</I> → Text
<U>Text</U> → Text
<BLOCKQUOTE>Text</BLOCKQUOTE>
<A HREF="http://www.aclu.org/">Headline (not the URL)</A> → Headline (not the URL)
<B>Text</B> → Text
<I>Text</I> → Text
<U>Text</U> → Text
<BLOCKQUOTE>Text</BLOCKQUOTE>
<A HREF="http://www.aclu.org/">Headline (not the URL)</A> → Headline (not the URL)
"... The myth that Donald Trump is Vladimir Putin's puppet just won't die, even though ample evidence demonstrates that the president's policy toward Russia has actually been surprisingly hardline and confrontational. Such pervasive paranoia has led to a rebirth of McCarthyism in the United States and is preventing a badly needed reassessment of U.S. foreign policy. In short, threat inflation with respect to Russia and an obsession with the phantom danger of presidential treason continues to poison our discourse. ..."
The consequences of the last McCarthy era were steep and lasted a generation; we can't afford a repeat.
The myth that Donald Trump is Vladimir Putin's puppet just won't die, even though ample evidence demonstrates that the president's
policy toward Russia has actually been
surprisingly hardline and confrontational. Such pervasive paranoia has led to a rebirth of McCarthyism in the United States and
is preventing a badly needed reassessment of U.S. foreign policy. In short, threat inflation with respect to Russia and an obsession
with the phantom danger of presidential treason continues to poison our discourse.
The end of the exhaustive FBI and Mueller commission investigations into "Russia collusion" was never going to put the treason
innuendoes to rest. Subsequent developments, such as
unsupported charges that Moscow paid financial bounties to the Taliban to kill U.S. troops in Afghanistan, served to keep the
narrative alive. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi epitomized the ongoing efforts to make imputations of disloyalty stick. "With [Trump],
all roads lead to Putin,"
Pelosi said in late June 2020. "I don't know what the Russians have on the president, politically, personally, or financially."
In a September 21 Washington Postop-ed ,
former New York Times correspondent Tim Weiner echoed Pelosi's perspective. He asserted that
despite the investigation by former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, despite the work of congressional intelligence committees
and inspectors general -- and despite impeachment -- we still don't know why the president kowtows to Vladimir Putin, broadcasts
Russian disinformation, bends foreign policy to suit the Kremlin and brushes off reports of Russians bounty-hunting American soldiers.
We still don't know whether Putin has something on him. And we need to know the answers -- urgently. Knowing could be devastating.
Not knowing is far worse. Not knowing is a threat to a functioning democracy.
Only visceral hatred of Donald Trump combined with equally unreasoning suspicions about Russia, much of it inherited from the
days of the Cold War, could account for the persistence of such an implausible argument. Yet an impressive array of media and political
heavyweights have adopted that perspective.
As during the McCarthy era in the 1950s, challenging the dominant narrative entails the risk of severe damage to reputation and
career. In September 2020, TheIntercept 's Glenn Greenwald disclosed in an interview with Megyn Kelly that
he had been blacklisted at MSNBC, primarily because he'd disputed the network's unbridled credulity about Russia's alleged menace
and President Trump's collusion with it. When Kelly asked him how he knew he was banned, Greenwald responded: "I have tons of friends
there. I used to go on all the time. I have producers who tried to book me and they get told, 'No. He's on the no-book list.'"
Although an MSNBC spokesperson denied that there was any official ban, the last time Greenwald had appeared on a network program
regarding any issue was in December 2016, just as the Russia collusion scandal was gaining traction. The timing was a striking coincidence.
Greenwald insisted that he was told about being on the no-book list by two different producers, and he charged that his situation
was not unique: "[I]t's not just me but several liberal-left journalists -- including Matt Taibbi and Jeremy Scahill -- who used
to regularly appear there and stopped once they expressed criticism of MSNBC's Russiagate coverage and skepticism generally about
the narrative."
It would be bad enough if blows to careers were the extent of the damage that paranoia about Russia and Trump had caused. But
that mentality is inhibiting any effort to improve relations with a significant international geostrategic player that possesses
several thousand nuclear weapons.
The opposition to any conciliatory moves toward Russia has reached absurd and toxic levels. Critics even condemned the Trump administration's
April 2020 decision to issue a joint declaration with the Kremlin to mark the date when Soviet and U.S. forces linked up at the Elbe
River during World War II, thereby cutting Nazi Germany into two segments. The larger purpose of the declaration was to highlight
"nations overcoming their differences in pursuit of a greater cause." The U.S. and Russian governments stressed that a similar standard
should apply to efforts to combat the coronavirus. It should have been noncontroversial, but some
condemned it as "playing into Putin's hands."
That theme has been even more prominent since Trump's decision to move some U.S. troops out of Germany. Even some members of the
president's own party seem susceptible to the argument. During recent House Armed Services Committee hearings, Congressman Bradley
Byrne invoked Russia. "From a layperson's point of view, it looks like we've reduced our troop presence in Europe at a time that
Russia is actually becoming more of a threat,"
Byrne said
. "It looks like we're pulling back, and I think that bothers a lot of us." Such arguments have been surprisingly common since the
administration announced its plans in late spring. Allegations that Trump is "doing Putin's bidding" continue to flow, even though
some of the troops withdrawn from Germany are going to be redeployed farther east
in Poland -- a step the Kremlin will hardly regard as friendly.
George Beebe, vice president and director of programs at the Center for the National Interest, aptly
describes the potential
negative consequences of fomenting public fear of and hatred toward Russia. He points out that
the safe space in our public discourse for dissenting from American orthodoxy on Russia has grown microscopically thin. When
the U.S. government will open a counterintelligence investigation on the presidential nominee of a major American political party
because he advocates a rethink of our approach to Russia, only to be cheered on by American media powerhouses that once valued
civil liberties, who among us is safe from such a fate? What are the chances that ambitious early-or mid-career professionals
inside or outside the U.S. government will critically examine the premises of our Russia policies, knowing that it might invite
investigations and professional excommunication? The answer is obvious.
Indeed it is. America went through such stifling of debate during the original McCarthy era. The impact lasted a generation and
was especially pernicious with respect to policy toward East Asia. Washington locked itself into a set of rigid positions, including
trying to orchestrate an international effort to shun and isolate China's communist government and see every adverse development
in the region as the result of machinations by Beijing and Moscow. The result was an increasingly futile, counterproductive China
policy until Richard Nixon had the wisdom to chart a new course in the early 1970s. This ossified thinking and lack of debate also
produced the disastrous military crusade in Vietnam.
America cannot afford such folly again. Smearing those who favor a less confrontational policy toward Moscow as puppets, traitors,
and (in the case of accusations against Tulsi Gabbard) "
Russian assets " will not lead to prudent policies. Persisting in such an approach will exacerbate dangerous tensions abroad
and undermine needed political debate at home.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in security studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at The American
Conservative , is the author of 12 books and more than 850 articles on international affairs.
966 pages and not one single proof. They go from telling how some businessmen from America and Russia do business together
(which is indication of what exactly? Hunter Biden was doing business with the same oligarch) to saying that if Trump (and other
opposition to hillary) went to see the Podesta' emails from wikileaks that was proof that Trump AND Russia together made the leaks
(what? If some dirt comes out over your opponent it is just normal to go and see what's about); and the only proof they provide
for this assertion (in a 966 page report) is one sentence: "The DNC said Russia had hacked their servers" - not one single proof
offered for that. After all, the DNC would never lie, would they?
And again, please name one policy Trump enacted which does benefit Russia in any way. If they truly helped Trump to get elected
(and they are still doing it) then they must be getting something out of it. So what it is, that Russia is getting from Trump?
"From a layperson's point of view, it looks like we've reduced our troop presence in Europe at a time that Russia is actually
becoming more of a threat,"
Troops weren't really reduced though. Troops were moved to Belgium and Italy (Italy, who's been occupied during WWII and who
still is precluded access to certain areas of their sovereign territory because of American occupation, and Belgium, the Capital
of the European Union, a subservient vassal to American policies, who would rather damage herself and her SMEs rather than growing
some b*lls and promote policies for her people's benefits). The move to Poland was to be expected, but what is really worrying
is that if the US moves nukes to Poland (as German politicians, from both the left and the right are starting to complain about
these nukes sitting under their bottoms) then the 1997 NATO-Russia treaty will crumble, and if that crumbles, Europe will be in
danger. What the author suggests (that America gets out of conspiratorial idiocy and gets back to cooperation) is actually the
best way to maintain peace and stability. Of course the other way (and this is not an either/or, this is complementary action)
is to get Europe to take independent decisions, take the reins of her defence, and tell the US to stop stuffing the East with
weapons and take their nukes back on the other side of the Ocean (after all we've got France who's got nukes as well, and there
is little chance Russia would actually nuke Europe, as they are part of geographical Europe and they'd suffer the consequences
as well to some degree).
EDIT: plus, there is literally zero proof that Russia wants to invade Europe and have a war in Europe (as part of Russia is
European as well). Yes last time they did win the war, but at what cost? This "protecting Europe" rhetoric is just a way to keep
control over Europe. Europa Faber Fortunae Suae , it is really time for it, isn't it Europe?
Actually, "protecting Europe" is about providing bodyguard services to Germany. For which Germany pays less than nothing. Except
in Germans paying for the liberal left think tanks and loss-generating MSM. And them then talking about Russian interference in
US elections, roflol.
NATO is like all other government bureaucracies - once you create one it is nearly impossible to disband. Whole industries
have grown up around it, and think tanks keep moving people in and out of government to ensure continuation of this mission (which
is to keep lots and lots of money flowing into industries that have no purpose.)
Germans and Italians benefit if troops on their soil keep buying their tchotchkes and baubles.Their governments are also staffed
by the same think tank people.
The troop reduction is leverage to try to get Germany to pay their way. The President is not happy with us paying their way,
perpetually, as the Washington establishment (including Biden) would have it.
It would be a tragic irony if the West blindly stumbled into a conflict with Russia after having avoided it during the dangerous
Cold War years. But history shows wars can start in that way.
https://www.ghostsofhistory...
Sure, absolutely. I have said for years (and still say) that we should have better relations with Russia. There was a real
opportunity to improve the relationship due to shared interests against Islamic extremism.
Too bad Trump blew the opportunity. First, he asked for illegal Russian election help on live TV. Then, Trump and his people
lied about their contacts with Russia, lied some more about the purpose of the Trump Tower meeting, and just kept on lying about
their contacts with Russia. Then his cowtowing to Putin in Helsinki without an official US interpreter or offical record just
put gas on what just a smoldering pile of suspicion that could have been much more easily discredited. So Trump brought a lot
of this on himself.
How different might it have been if Flynn, Don, Jr. and everyone else had said, "Hell, yes, we're talking to Russia because
it is in the national interest of the United States to have better relations with Russia, and we're proud to be working in that
direction." Might have taken the wind out of the Dems sails, or at least make them look stupid. Instead, Trump and his lies just
fed into the whole investigation -- why lie if you did nothing wrong?
Since Flynn, Trump has had no apparent advisors worth the title. If he were operating completely in the dark and making policy
decisions based on feel alone it would look much the way it does. Nor do I believe that most of this is his fault, other than
his jettisoning Flynn at the first sign of DNC hatred. That to them (and to future talent) was a clear sign his house was made
of straw and vulnerable to being taken down.
There's probably some truth to the claim that potential advisors were cautious after Flynn was canned. Of course, there is
no reason to assume that Trump would follow anyone's advice.
Flynn was working for Turkey on our dime, and pleaded guilty for lying to the FBI under oath. He had to go. He was a worthless
"advisor" who was in it for himself, and his son too.
Russia interfered extensively in our election to help Trump. Trump encouraged that help. Trump doesn't want to hear any reports
of continued Russian interference in our election. Trump refuses to do everything he can to prevent Russian interference.
Change Trump to Obama and RWers would be currently storming the gates they'd be freaking out so much. Their partisanship easily
overwhelms their patriotism.
America's anti russian paranoia stems from american failures the past 20 years. That paranoia originates from America's ruling
class not its people. America had 4 periods of anti-Russian/soviet paranoia, always coming at a time america felt weak
Before Germany's reunification in 1990, the Russians and the Americans reached an understanding that NATO would not expand
eastward, in return for Russia's not opposing the reunification. Unfortunately, the US/NATO violated this understanding starting
in 1999 when Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were admitted to NATO. More former East Block countries were admitted in later
years. The expansion of NATO coupled with US interference in Ukraine and its support of the Maidan Revolution in 2014 have resulted
in a deterioration in US - Russia relations. It would be a real stretch to blame this deterioration on Trump.
Trump has been the most Russia-friendly president. His initial instinct or policy view about Russia is rational! He knows the
US cannot be in war with both China and Russia at the same time. His goal was/is to divide these two countries that are very close
recently, so the US would pivot to China without fearing fighting with Russia too.
Having said that, his ineptitude, corrupt mind, and everything is transactional attitude messed that up by mixing his private
business and diplomacy contaminating the whole affair. The US is going to pay big time for Trump's mistakes.
There is plenty to criticize about America's policy towards Russia going back to the expansion of NATO, which was entirely
counter-productive, but this is just fighting one conspiracy with another. The leaders of the Trump campaign wanted to obtain
information on Clinton from Russian intelligence and were disappointed when the Russians didn't deliver. Trump lied repeatedly
about his involvement with Russia and took "anti-Russian" actions only when forced to by the entire Congress, which until 2019
was entirely under Republican control. The tone of this article is thoroughly dishonest and shows contempt for TAC's readers.
Our elite, drunk from imagined Cold War win, made up plans to control universe. It always felt artificial -- globalization
being good for us, while saturating China with our industry. While from the beginning refusing all Russia's overtures to normalize
relations. Clearly, Russia as a more formidable military and scientific entity had to be subjugated first, while China, overwhelmed
by rapid development would have acquiesced to being our manufacturing colony. China turned out not timid, while Russia being pushed
and demonized -- struck independent course. Chinese and Russian objectives were converging for along time. .But we stuck to the
script. Trump abandoned the script,hoping to charm Russia into our fold. The establishment disagrees, so without a clue in how
to proceed in global domination -- - confusion reigns.
While China was under Western thumb we'd become used to thinking of them as mere "coolies", but they proved to be more intelligent
than us, by our own methodology. The government works for the benefit of the people, not just a fraction of it, and it seems is
far more popular than our own. They deserve their hard earned wealth.
Russia is a different story, and will take decades to overcome the damage done by Yeltsin. Your views on Trump-Russia I agree
with but he was hampered by the fake conspiracy cooked up by Hillary C. and the Spy agencies.
Why is Democratic and a good chunk of Republican establishment still fixated on Russia? Even if economically, technologically,
geographically and demographically -- China is a threat to our own technological dominance, what is left of it.
I think the answer is a potent blend of fear and hatred. Fear is easy to explain. Russia has always been militarily and
scientifically advanced, and after Cold War displayed somewhat deceptive image of its weakness. Thus, no rush to finish them off.
Hatred part goes deeper then classical British empire Russophobia. It goes back to hundreds of years of slavery conducted out
of Crimea by successive empires, Khazars, Tatars, Ottomans. The wealth was accumulated from the millions of Slavs sold into Slavery
-- and the wealth went into Byzantine empire, and following the Venetian sack of Constantinople, the wealth went into Venice and
many German and French feudal cities, including Vatican. Nearly exclusive slave trade rights was in the hands of Jewish traders.
Twice Russians broke down slave trade -- first by Russian ruler in 10 century, where in Crimea Russians took Christianity. And
following centuries of occupation -- again, in 18th century by Catherine the Great -- this time for good.
But the banking set up in Venice was the foundation of modern banking in Europe, dictating wars ever since. The move of
European banking in early 18th century was cemented by the entry of Rothshield international banking into UK. Not only that
UK had by 1815 the debt twice its GDP, from which it did not recover until WWI, but continued as limping empire -- but it became
a loudest purveyor of Russophobia since. Russophobia and money lords walk hand in hand. This is the irrational part of the
equation. And the outcome is the fury that Russia "escaped" so many times. The mere notion that these inferior people -- whose
ethnicity is the very meaning if the word slave in German , French and English -- would aspire to equality, is unthinkable.
The rational part of the fear -- Russia is technologically advancing. Thus -- no effort is to be spared in degrading their
capabilities. Following their own line if thinking -- they fear revenge.
It is for that reason that Trump's notion of accepting Russian partnership -- is unacceptable. Even if for the purposes of
global domination. They would prefer taking their chances with China. Too late.
Russia has been damaged, but has reestablished political macro stability through constitutional change, by reviving State Council
function, and by creating massive reserves. Asia is a massive market independent of controlled straits, canals or islands. This
is at present fairly obvious. And challenges to status quo are well under way, while we still dream if the empire.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Friday dropped a little October surprise said his
department has Hillary Clinton's 'deleted' emails and will release them before the
election.
"We're getting them out," Pompeo told Fox News Dana Perino.
TheGhostOfJamesOtisJr 17 minutes ago (Edited)
Shandong Carter Heavy Industry received all email, including classified material, sent to
Hillary Clinton's private server based on an Intelligence Community Investigator General (ICIG)
report. The ICIG determined all Hillary Clinton email was being forwarded to " [email protected] ",
an address possibly connected to the Chinese equipment manufacturer Shandong Carter Heavy
Industry The ICIG alerted FBI agent Peter Strzok who strangely did not seem alarmed by the
connection despite the fact all but four of the emails sent to Hillary Clinton's private email
server were forwarded to that address, roughly 600,000 in total.(
pdf , p14/105)
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019-08-14%20Staff%20memo%20to%20CEG%20RHJ%20-%20ICIG%20Interview%20Summary%20RE%20Clinton%20Server.pdf
The following is an excerpt from testimony by Frank Rucker of the ICIG, "Mr. Strzok seemed
to be 'aloof and dismissive.' [Rucker] said it was as if Mr. Strzok felt dismissive of the
relationship between the FBI and ICIG and he was not very warm." - (
pdf p15/105)
The FBI later determined the email address was set up by a Clinton IT staffer named Paul
Combetta. The FBI dismissed the possible China connection because they found no evidence to
contradict Combetta's claim he "had no connection to, and had never heard of, ' Shandong Carter
Heavy Industry Machinery CO., Ltd.'''(
pdf p104/105) That's an odd statement because IT staffers wouldn't normally be expected to
have relationships with Chinese heavy industry. IT workers usually set up email addresses for
others.
Paul Combetta is the IT staffer who used BleachBit to erase emails on Clinton's private
email server.( pdf
p38 ) . Perhaps this is why the FBI didn't consider it necessary to question Combetta in
front of a Grand Jury .( pdf , p127 ) That this didn't demonstrated
criminal intent to the FBI is beyond comprehension. Obviously this goes beyond mere bias and
borders on obstruction of justice. The numerous attempts to debunk this story are almost
comical when combined with other evidence, namely Peter Strzok's leaking to the press:
December 15, 2016 Peter Strzok: " Think our sisters have begun leaking like mad. Scorned
and worried, and political, they're kicking into overdrive. "
April 10, 2017 Peter Strzok: " I had literally just gone to find this phone to tell you I
want to talk to you about media leak strategy with DOJ before you go. "
April 22, 2017 Peter Strzok: " Article is out! Well done, Page. "
There is only one important matter at this time. And that is confirming ACB to the SC prior
to the so-called election. All this other stuff can wait. Lose and it's all pointless
anyway.
As we disregarded Russian fears and ignored the chance for a true partnership, Steve worried
about the resumption of hostile relations between our two countries and possibly a new Cold
War.
Jim Comey Ignored State Department Whistleblower on HIllary's Crimes With Classified
Material by Larry C Johnson
One year before Jim Comey was immersed in his plot to overthrow Donald Trump, the duly
elected President of the United States, a brave Foreign Service Officer at the U.S. Department
of State came forward with firsthand information of Hillary Clinton's rampant abuse of
Classified material. The man, a senior State Department diplomat who had served as the acting
Ambassador (Chargé d'Affaires) in the Asia Pacific
region under President Clinton, also was a veteran of the U.S. Army during the Vietnam
War.
The letter from this whistleblower is stunning and I am going to present it in total. It is
dated 10 January 2016. You can read it for yourself here
starting at page 121 . I became aware of this letter thanks to the assiduous research and
writings of Charles Ortel (he wrote about this recently
at the American Thinker ).
The letter explains in great detail how Hillary and her cabal of sychophants used an
unclassified system to disseminate Top Secret and Secret intelligence. But the Senior Diplomat
did not stop there. He explained carefully and specifically who the FBI needed to interview and
the questions they needed to ask. You do not need to take my word for it. You can read the
letter for yourself.
And what did the sanctimonious, smug buffoon heading up the FBI do? Nothing. But this senior
Foreign Service Officer was dogged in making sure the FBI had the information. He called FBI
Headquarters and could not get any confirmation that his letter was accepted. Not satisfied, he
walked into the FBI's Washington Field Office. The results of this meeting were reported to
three FBI Agents working on the Hillary Clinton investigation. Named in the report are Peter
Strzok and Jonathan Moffa (the third name is blacked out).
Here is the report in its entirety. Please note that the State Department official delivered
the information on the 27th of January 2016, but the report was not written up until four weeks
later–22 February 2016. (You can see the original on the
FBI website here starting at page 11.)
I do not know if John Durham has seen these documents. I am posting to make sure that he
does. There is no evidence that Inspector General Horowitz examined these documents or
interviewed the Foreign Service Officer. With Secretary of State Pompeo's promise that Hillary
emails will be forthcoming, I think it is worthwhile to revisit what this brave whistleblower
tried to bring to the attention of the FBI, who clearly was hellbent on protecting Hillary
rather than pursing justice and upholding the law. Shameful.
Unfortunately the formatting on this website cuts off the sides of the letter and makes it
unreadable for me - anyone else having this problem? (MacAirBook- Safari)
Great find and wish I could read it. Thanks, LJ. Share your appreciation of the American
Thinker website.
Sad but I suspect that the shear number of those in Government that have a vested interest
in this will ensure that nothing continues to be the outcome.
Deap: I had the same formatting problem. But you can find the letter by clicking on the
link in the post which states "here starting at p. 121."
When you get to the FBI Vault, click on the PDF on the left side of the page, near the
top, entitled "Hillary Rodham Clinton part 23 of 23.pdf."
When the PDF opens, scroll down to page 121. The letter will be found at pp. 121 to 131.
Page 132 (HRC 10114) may be the postage receipt for the letter when it was originally sent,
but it is illegible.
I haven't tried to find the American Thinker article which is referenced in this post, but
it may provide context.
I found the Ortel article at American Thinker. Google "Charles Ortel American Thinker" and
you can find a page with Ortel's articles and blogs. The article is entitled "James Comey and
Robert Mueller have Massive Clinton Foundation Problems." It appears that Mr. Ortel has a
significant interest in the Clinton Foundation.
Carter Page is interviewed by Sharyl Atkinsson on C-Span 2/ Book TV this weekend.
Chilling, interesting perspective. Page's book is out: Abuse and Power.
Apparently Atkinson, of Sinclair Broadcasting, has had her own troubles with illegal
surveillance.
Often Book tv replays programs, sometimes late, when it can be recorded.
Thanks all for the tips to access this link. Got it. All I can remember is Barry Soetoro
stating ...but Hilary didn't mean any harm running her separate insecure server.
The beginning pages of this link re-capping the strings of false and highly hedged
statements about Benghazi were bone chilling to read too. I guess we should be grateful Biden
did not pick Susan Rice for VP, but then he did much worse, he picked Kamala Harris.
And oh yeah, lock her up!
PS: is there some comfort seeing my spell check still does not recognize the word
"Kamala"? The gods of small favors strikes again.
am so very happy that you have been able to get the documents to prove what became so very
obvious to so many who did not have access to documents but who just had working brains. They
help us to understand what was going on with HRC's computer situation and with Jim Comey's
FBI.
You mention Hillary's "cabal of sychophants." There was no one more eager to become a
card-carrying member of that cabal than Comey himself. I do remember an interview on
television--don't have the date nor can I remember the media outlet that broadcast it--in
which Comey gushed about how wonderful it would be for Hillary to win since his wife and
daughters and even he himself were excited about possibly having the first female POTUS.
It seemed to me at the time that it was not an appropriate statement for the head of the
FBI to make on national television--especially with all the questions about Hillary's emails
and her obliterated computer--not to mention also the tarmac meeting in AZ between Bill and
Loretta Lynch (supposedly to discuss grandchildren). I thought then and still think that the
old Peter Principal was really being played out in the FBI at the time.
I don't remember the timeline of all this. But all I remember is how rotten things seemed
were the District of Columbia.
The myth that Donald Trump is Vladimir Putin's puppet just won't die, even though ample
evidence demonstrates that the president's policy toward Russia has actually been
surprisingly hardline and confrontational. Such pervasive paranoia has led to a rebirth of
McCarthyism in the United States and is preventing a badly needed reassessment of U.S. foreign
policy. In short, threat inflation with respect to Russia and an obsession with the phantom
danger of presidential treason continues to poison our discourse.
The end of the exhaustive FBI and Mueller commission investigations into "Russia collusion"
was never going to put the treason innuendoes to rest. Subsequent developments, such as
unsupported charges that Moscow paid financial bounties to the Taliban to kill U.S. troops
in Afghanistan, served to keep the narrative alive. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi epitomized the
ongoing efforts to make imputations of disloyalty stick. "With [Trump], all roads lead to
Putin,"
Pelosi said in late June 2020. "I don't know what the Russians have on the president,
politically, personally, or financially."
In a September 21 Washington Postop-ed
, former New York Times correspondent Tim Weiner echoed Pelosi's perspective. He
asserted that
despite the investigation by former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, despite the
work of congressional intelligence committees and inspectors general -- and despite
impeachment -- we still don't know why the president kowtows to Vladimir Putin, broadcasts
Russian disinformation, bends foreign policy to suit the Kremlin and brushes off reports of
Russians bounty-hunting American soldiers. We still don't know whether Putin has something on
him. And we need to know the answers -- urgently. Knowing could be devastating. Not knowing
is far worse. Not knowing is a threat to a functioning democracy.
Only visceral hatred of Donald Trump combined with equally unreasoning suspicions about
Russia, much of it inherited from the days of the Cold War, could account for the persistence
of such an implausible argument. Yet an impressive array of media and political heavyweights
have adopted that perspective.
As during the McCarthy era in the 1950s, challenging the dominant narrative entails the risk
of severe damage to reputation and career. In September 2020, TheIntercept 's Glenn
Greenwald disclosed in an interview with Megyn Kelly that
he had been blacklisted at MSNBC, primarily because he'd disputed the network's unbridled
credulity about Russia's alleged menace and President Trump's collusion with it. When Kelly
asked him how he knew he was banned, Greenwald responded: "I have tons of friends there. I used
to go on all the time. I have producers who tried to book me and they get told, 'No. He's on
the no-book list.'"
Although an MSNBC spokesperson denied that there was any official ban, the last time
Greenwald had appeared on a network program regarding any issue was in December 2016, just as
the Russia collusion scandal was gaining traction. The timing was a striking coincidence.
Greenwald insisted that he was told about being on the no-book list by two different producers,
and he charged that his situation was not unique: "[I]t's not just me but several liberal-left
journalists -- including Matt Taibbi and Jeremy Scahill -- who used to regularly appear there
and stopped once they expressed criticism of MSNBC's Russiagate coverage and skepticism
generally about the narrative."
It would be bad enough if blows to careers were the extent of the damage that paranoia about
Russia and Trump had caused. But that mentality is inhibiting any effort to improve relations
with a significant international geostrategic player that possesses several thousand nuclear
weapons.
The opposition to any conciliatory moves toward Russia has reached absurd and toxic levels.
Critics even condemned the Trump administration's April 2020 decision to issue a joint
declaration with the Kremlin to mark the date when Soviet and U.S. forces linked up at the Elbe
River during World War II, thereby cutting Nazi Germany into two segments. The larger purpose
of the declaration was to highlight "nations overcoming their differences in pursuit of a
greater cause." The U.S. and Russian governments stressed that a similar standard should apply
to efforts to combat the coronavirus. It should have been noncontroversial, but some
condemned it as "playing into Putin's hands."
That theme has been even more prominent since Trump's decision to move some U.S. troops out
of Germany. Even some members of the president's own party seem susceptible to the argument.
During recent House Armed Services Committee hearings, Congressman Bradley Byrne invoked
Russia. "From a layperson's point of view, it looks like we've reduced our troop presence in
Europe at a time that Russia is actually becoming more of a threat," Byrne
said . "It looks like we're pulling back, and I think that bothers a lot of us." Such
arguments have been surprisingly common since the administration announced its plans in late
spring. Allegations that Trump is "doing Putin's bidding" continue to flow, even though some of
the troops withdrawn from Germany are going to be redeployed farther east
in Poland -- a step the Kremlin will hardly regard as friendly.
George Beebe, vice president and director of programs at the Center for the National
Interest, aptly describes
the potential negative consequences of fomenting public fear of and hatred toward Russia.
He points out that
the safe space in our public discourse for dissenting from American orthodoxy on Russia
has grown microscopically thin. When the U.S. government will open a counterintelligence
investigation on the presidential nominee of a major American political party because he
advocates a rethink of our approach to Russia, only to be cheered on by American media
powerhouses that once valued civil liberties, who among us is safe from such a fate? What are
the chances that ambitious early-or mid-career professionals inside or outside the U.S.
government will critically examine the premises of our Russia policies, knowing that it might
invite investigations and professional excommunication? The answer is obvious.
Indeed it is. America went through such stifling of debate during the original McCarthy era.
The impact lasted a generation and was especially pernicious with respect to policy toward East
Asia. Washington locked itself into a set of rigid positions, including trying to orchestrate
an international effort to shun and isolate China's communist government and see every adverse
development in the region as the result of machinations by Beijing and Moscow. The result was
an increasingly futile, counterproductive China policy until Richard Nixon had the wisdom to
chart a new course in the early 1970s. This ossified thinking and lack of debate also produced
the disastrous military crusade in Vietnam.
America cannot afford such folly again. Smearing those who favor a less confrontational
policy toward Moscow as puppets, traitors, and (in the case of accusations against Tulsi
Gabbard) "
Russian assets " will not lead to prudent policies. Persisting in such an approach will
exacerbate dangerous tensions abroad and undermine needed political debate at home.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in security studies at the Cato Institute and a
contributing editor at The American Conservative , is the author of 12 books and more
than 850 articles on international affairs.
966 pages and not one single proof. They go from telling how some businessmen from
America and Russia do business together (which is indication of what exactly? Hunter Biden
was doing business with the same oligarch) to saying that if Trump (and other opposition to
hillary) went to see the Podesta' emails from wikileaks that was proof that Trump AND
Russia together made the leaks (what? If some dirt comes out over your opponent it is just
normal to go and see what's about); and the only proof they provide for this assertion (in
a 966 page report) is one sentence: "The DNC said Russia had hacked their servers" - not
one single proof offered for that. After all, the DNC would never lie, would they?
And again, please name one policy Trump enacted which does benefit Russia in any way. If
they truly helped Trump to get elected (and they are still doing it) then they must be
getting something out of it. So what it is, that Russia is getting from Trump?
"From a layperson's point of view, it looks like we've reduced our troop presence in
Europe at a time that Russia is actually becoming more of a threat,"
Troops weren't really reduced though. Troops were moved to Belgium and Italy (Italy,
who's been occupied during WWII and who still is precluded access to certain areas of their
sovereign territory because of American occupation, and Belgium, the Capital of the
European Union, a subservient vassal to American policies, who would rather damage herself
and her SMEs rather than growing some b*lls and promote policies for her people's
benefits). The move to Poland was to be expected, but what is really worrying is that if
the US moves nukes to Poland (as German politicians, from both the left and the right are
starting to complain about these nukes sitting under their bottoms) then the 1997
NATO-Russia treaty will crumble, and if that crumbles, Europe will be in danger. What the
author suggests (that America gets out of conspiratorial idiocy and gets back to
cooperation) is actually the best way to maintain peace and stability. Of course the other
way (and this is not an either/or, this is complementary action) is to get Europe to take
independent decisions, take the reins of her defence, and tell the US to stop stuffing the
East with weapons and take their nukes back on the other side of the Ocean (after all we've
got France who's got nukes as well, and there is little chance Russia would actually nuke
Europe, as they are part of geographical Europe and they'd suffer the consequences as well
to some degree).
EDIT: plus, there is literally zero proof that Russia wants to invade Europe and have a
war in Europe (as part of Russia is European as well). Yes last time they did win the war,
but at what cost? This "protecting Europe" rhetoric is just a way to keep control over
Europe. Europa Faber Fortunae Suae , it is really time for it, isn't it Europe?
Actually, "protecting Europe" is about providing bodyguard services to Germany. For
which Germany pays less than nothing. Except in Germans paying for the liberal left think
tanks and loss-generating MSM. And them then talking about Russian interference in US
elections, roflol.
NATO is like all other government bureaucracies - once you create one it is nearly
impossible to disband. Whole industries have grown up around it, and think tanks keep
moving people in and out of government to ensure continuation of this mission (which is to
keep lots and lots of money flowing into industries that have no purpose.)
Germans and Italians benefit if troops on their soil keep buying their tchotchkes and
baubles.Their governments are also staffed by the same think tank people.
The troop reduction is leverage to try to get Germany to pay their way. The President is
not happy with us paying their way, perpetually, as the Washington establishment (including
Biden) would have it.
It would be a tragic irony if the West blindly stumbled into a conflict with Russia
after having avoided it during the dangerous Cold War years. But history shows wars can
start in that way.
https://www.ghostsofhistory...
Sure, absolutely. I have said for years (and still say) that we should have better
relations with Russia. There was a real opportunity to improve the relationship due to
shared interests against Islamic extremism.
Too bad Trump blew the opportunity. First, he asked for illegal Russian election help on
live TV. Then, Trump and his people lied about their contacts with Russia, lied some more
about the purpose of the Trump Tower meeting, and just kept on lying about their contacts
with Russia. Then his cowtowing to Putin in Helsinki without an official US interpreter or
offical record just put gas on what just a smoldering pile of suspicion that could have
been much more easily discredited. So Trump brought a lot of this on himself.
How different might it have been if Flynn, Don, Jr. and everyone else had said, "Hell,
yes, we're talking to Russia because it is in the national interest of the United States to
have better relations with Russia, and we're proud to be working in that direction." Might
have taken the wind out of the Dems sails, or at least make them look stupid. Instead,
Trump and his lies just fed into the whole investigation -- why lie if you did nothing
wrong?
Since Flynn, Trump has had no apparent advisors worth the title. If he were operating
completely in the dark and making policy decisions based on feel alone it would look much
the way it does. Nor do I believe that most of this is his fault, other than his
jettisoning Flynn at the first sign of DNC hatred. That to them (and to future talent) was
a clear sign his house was made of straw and vulnerable to being taken down.
There's probably some truth to the claim that potential advisors were cautious after
Flynn was canned. Of course, there is no reason to assume that Trump would follow anyone's
advice.
Flynn was working for Turkey on our dime, and pleaded guilty for lying to the FBI under
oath. He had to go. He was a worthless "advisor" who was in it for himself, and his son
too.
Russia interfered extensively in our election to help Trump. Trump encouraged that help.
Trump doesn't want to hear any reports of continued Russian interference in our election.
Trump refuses to do everything he can to prevent Russian interference.
Change Trump to Obama and RWers would be currently storming the gates they'd be freaking
out so much. Their partisanship easily overwhelms their patriotism.
America's anti russian paranoia stems from american failures the past 20 years. That
paranoia originates from America's ruling class not its people. America had 4 periods of
anti-Russian/soviet paranoia, always coming at a time america felt weak
Before Germany's reunification in 1990, the Russians and the Americans reached an
understanding that NATO would not expand eastward, in return for Russia's not opposing the
reunification. Unfortunately, the US/NATO violated this understanding starting in 1999 when
Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were admitted to NATO. More former East Block
countries were admitted in later years. The expansion of NATO coupled with US interference
in Ukraine and its support of the Maidan Revolution in 2014 have resulted in a
deterioration in US - Russia relations. It would be a real stretch to blame this
deterioration on Trump.
Trump has been the most Russia-friendly president. His initial instinct or policy view
about Russia is rational! He knows the US cannot be in war with both China and Russia at
the same time. His goal was/is to divide these two countries that are very close recently,
so the US would pivot to China without fearing fighting with Russia too.
Having said that, his ineptitude, corrupt mind, and everything is transactional attitude
messed that up by mixing his private business and diplomacy contaminating the whole affair.
The US is going to pay big time for Trump's mistakes.
There is plenty to criticize about America's policy towards Russia going back to the
expansion of NATO, which was entirely counter-productive, but this is just fighting one
conspiracy with another. The leaders of the Trump campaign wanted to obtain information on
Clinton from Russian intelligence and were disappointed when the Russians didn't deliver.
Trump lied repeatedly about his involvement with Russia and took "anti-Russian" actions
only when forced to by the entire Congress, which until 2019 was entirely under Republican
control. The tone of this article is thoroughly dishonest and shows contempt for TAC's
readers.
Our elite, drunk from imagined Cold War win, made up plans to control universe. It
always felt artificial -- globalization being good for us, while saturating China with our
industry. While from the beginning refusing all Russia's overtures to normalize relations.
Clearly, Russia as a more formidable military and scientific entity had to be subjugated
first, while China, overwhelmed by rapid development would have acquiesced to being our
manufacturing colony. China turned out not timid, while Russia being pushed and demonized
-- struck independent course. Chinese and Russian objectives were converging for along
time. .But we stuck to the script. Trump abandoned the script,hoping to charm Russia into
our fold. The establishment disagrees, so without a clue in how to proceed in global
domination -- - confusion reigns.
While China was under Western thumb we'd become used to thinking of them as mere
"coolies", but they proved to be more intelligent than us, by our own methodology. The
government works for the benefit of the people, not just a fraction of it, and it seems is
far more popular than our own. They deserve their hard earned wealth.
Russia is a different story, and will take decades to overcome the damage done by Yeltsin.
Your views on Trump-Russia I agree with but he was hampered by the fake conspiracy cooked
up by Hillary C. and the Spy agencies.
Why is Democratic and a good chunk of Republican establishment still fixated on Russia?
Even if economically, technologically, geographically and demographically -- China is a
threat to our own technological dominance, what is left of it.
I think the answer is a potent blend of fear and hatred. Fear is easy to explain.
Russia has always been militarily and scientifically advanced, and after Cold War displayed
somewhat deceptive image of its weakness. Thus, no rush to finish them off.
Hatred part goes deeper then classical British empire Russophobia. It goes back to
hundreds of years of slavery conducted out of Crimea by successive empires, Khazars,
Tatars, Ottomans. The wealth was accumulated from the millions of Slavs sold into Slavery
-- and the wealth went into Byzantine empire, and following the Venetian sack of
Constantinople, the wealth went into Venice and many German and French feudal cities,
including Vatican. Nearly exclusive slave trade rights was in the hands of Jewish traders.
Twice Russians broke down slave trade -- first by Russian ruler in 10 century, where in
Crimea Russians took Christianity. And following centuries of occupation -- again, in 18th
century by Catherine the Great -- this time for good.
But the banking set up in Venice was the foundation of modern banking in Europe,
dictating wars ever since. The move of European banking in early 18th century was cemented
by the entry of Rothshield international banking into UK. Not only that UK had by 1815
the debt twice its GDP, from which it did not recover until WWI, but continued as limping
empire -- but it became a loudest purveyor of Russophobia since. Russophobia and money
lords walk hand in hand. This is the irrational part of the equation. And the outcome is
the fury that Russia "escaped" so many times. The mere notion that these inferior people --
whose ethnicity is the very meaning if the word slave in German , French and English --
would aspire to equality, is unthinkable.
The rational part of the fear -- Russia is technologically advancing. Thus -- no
effort is to be spared in degrading their capabilities. Following their own line if
thinking -- they fear revenge.
It is for that reason that Trump's notion of accepting Russian partnership -- is
unacceptable. Even if for the purposes of global domination. They would prefer taking their
chances with China. Too late.
Russia has been damaged, but has reestablished political macro stability through
constitutional change, by reviving State Council function, and by creating massive
reserves. Asia is a massive market independent of controlled straits, canals or islands.
This is at present fairly obvious. And challenges to status quo are well under way, while
we still dream if the empire.
Gina Haspel is the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Haspel is the first
career clandestine service officer to become director, and the first woman. She was the CIA
Chief of Station in London -- twice, and that repeat assignment is very unusual. What is most
interesting is the timing of Haspel's last tour as London Station Chief -- from 2014 to early
2017. That is the same timeframe (specifically, the late summer of 2016) when the FBI
approached foreign policy academic and "utility government operative" Stefan Halper to begin the operation targeting
Carter Page and George Papadopoulos in an FBI-designed foreign counterintelligence operation,
against Team Trump, to be launched in Cambridge, England.
Nothing speculative here -- the Justice Department Inspector General pegged the exact date
of the FBI/Halper meeting as August 10, 2016. Halper had been on contract (again) with the U.S.
government since the Iowa Caucuses began in October 2015. For the sake of brevity, I am not
discussing Halper's role in targeting former Defense Intelligence Agency Director, Lieutenant
General Mike Flynn. That is another column for another day -- and certainly Haspel knows a
great deal about that, as well.
The timeframe (2014-2017) matters, because Haspel, as London Station Chief would have been
briefed on the FBI's counterintelligence plan before any actions were approved to go forward.
The CIA Station Chief is the top intelligence official in any given country. The FBI must
inform the Station Chief of what they planned to do and get Station Chief approval. The FBI
hates that, but those are the rules.
Because the various intelligence agencies are sensitive, they do not use the word
"approved." Instead, they use the word "coordinated."
Jargon aside, nothing would have happened without Haspel's okay.
Think about this for a while : The current CIA director was an active, knowledgeable party
to the efforts to target candidate Trump with a contrived foreign counterintelligence
investigation. That carried forward to a more sophisticated and aggressive plan to carry out a
soft coup against President Trump. People around President Trump were prosecuted and/or had
their lives destroyed based on a scheme of U.S. government lies. Who appears to have been "in
on it" from day one? Gina Haspel.
So, when we read in an
article by Sean Davis, co-founder of The Federalist , that Haspel is personally resisting
the declassification and release of records on "Russiagate," we are not surprised. In fact, we
are relieved, because a few of us have been shouting from the mountaintops about Haspel for
years, to no avail. The smarmy James Comey is easier to identify and loathe than the elusive
Haspel.
For those seeking
more information on Haspel , Shane Harris of the Washington Post wrote a nauseating
hagiography of Haspel in July 2019. Consistent with WaPo 's standards there are several factual
errors and loads of opinion masquerading as "tough reporting." Harris (and one assumes Haspel)
makes sure readers know that Haspel and company "boils down" presidential intelligence
briefings to "a few key points that they think Trump absolutely needs to know." We are supposed
to also believe that "Trump favors pictures and graphics over text." Of course, the CIA
director's office did not cooperate with Harris. No, not at all.
The FBI is not allowed to penetrate and subvert a presidential campaign. Executive
Order 12333, Section 2.9 , "Undisclosed Participation in Organizations in the United
States," prohibits it in plain language. Historically, the prohibition is a consequence of U.S.
Army Counterintelligence penetrating Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) at the behest of
the FBI during the 1960s -- among other abuses of power and authority. That legal prohibition
is the reason the FBI felt the need to manufacture a "foreign counterintelligence threat" in
the UK and then "import" the investigation back into the United States.
The FBI plotters needed to establish a foreign counterintelligence "event" to run their
operation. The UK was the easiest and operationally safest/friendliest place to pull it off,
especially with Stefan Halper's connections to Cambridge. Haspel was clearly fully informed and
had "coordinated" the operation. She also enjoyed cordial relationships with MI6 and GCHQ. Now
we (largely, but imperfectly) know what transpired. Halper under oath, in public, would fill in
a lot of blanks. Gina Haspel, under the same circumstances and conditions, might just complete
the puzzle.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Should President Trump be reelected, it might just happen. A President Biden guarantees we
will never hear another syllable of the rest of the story.
Former FBI Director James Comey testified to Congress last Wednesday that he did not
remember much about what was going on when the FBI deceived the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) Court into approving four warrants for surveillance of Trump campaign
aide Carter Page.
Few outsiders are aware that those warrants covered not only Page but also anyone Page was
in contact with as well as anyone Page's contacts were in contact with – under the
so-called two-hop surveillance procedure. In other words, the warrants extend coverage two
hops from the target – that is, anyone Page talks to and anyone they, in turn, talk
to.
At the hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsay Graham reviewed the facts (most
of them confirmed by the Department of Justice inspector general) showing that none of the
four FISA warrants were warranted.
Graham gave a chronological rundown of the evidence that Comey and his "folks" either
knew, or should have known, that by signing fraudulent FISA warrant applications they were
perpetrating a fraud on the court.
The "evidence" used by Comey and his "folks" to "justify" warrants included Page's
contacts with Russian officials (CIA had already told the FBI those contacts had been
approved) and the phony as a three-dollar bill "Steele dossier" paid for by the
Democrats.
Two Hops to the World
But let's not hop over the implications of two-hop surveillance , which apparently remains
in effect today. Few understand the significance of what is known in the trade as "two-hop"
coverage. According to a former NSA technical director, Bill Binney, when President Barack
Obama approved the current version of "two hops," the NSA was ecstatic – and it is easy
to see why.
Let's say Page was in touch with Donald Trump (as candidate or president); Trump's
communications could then be surveilled, as well. Or, let's say Page was in touch with
Google. That would enable NSA to cover pretty much the entire world. A thorough read of the
transcript of Wednesday's hearing, particularly the Q-and-A, shows that this crucial two-hop
dimension never came up – or that those aware of it, were too afraid to mention it. It
was as if Page were the only one being surveilled.
Here is a sample of The New York Times 's typical coverage
of such a hearing:
"Senate Republicans sought on Wednesday to promote their efforts to rewrite the
narrative of the Trump-Russia investigation before Election Day, using a hearing with the
former F.B.I. director James B. Comey to cast doubt on the entire inquiry by highlighting
problems with a narrower aspect of it.
"Led by Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary
Committee spent hours burrowing into mistakes and omissions made by the FBI when it applied
for court permission to wiretap the former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page in 2016 and
2017. Republicans drew on that flawed process to renew their claims that Mr. Comey and his
agents had acted with political bias, ignoring an independent review that debunked
the notion of a plot against President Trump."
Flawed process? Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz pinpointed no few
than 17 "serious performance failures" related to the four FISA warrant applications on Page.
Left unsaid is the fact that Horowitz's investigation was tightly circumscribed. Basically,
he asked the major players "Were you biased?" And they said "No."
Chutzpah-full Disingenuousness
Does the NYT believe we were all born yesterday? When the Horowitz report was
released in early December 2019, Fox News' Chris Wallace found those serious performance
failures "pretty shocking." He quoted an
earlier remark by Rep. Will Hurd (R,TX) a CIA alumnus:
"Why is it when you have 17 mistakes -- 17 things that are misrepresented or lapses --
and every one of them goes against the president and for investigating him, you have to say,
'Is that a coincidence'? it is either gross incompetence or intentionality."
Throughout the four-hour hearing on Wednesday, Comey was politely smug – a hair
short of condescending.
There was not the slightest sign he thought he would ever be held accountable for what
happened under his watch. You see, four years ago, Comey "knew" Hillary Clinton was a
shoo-in; that explains how he, together with CIA Director John Brennan and National
Intelligence Director James Clapper, felt free to take vast liberties with the Constitution
and the law before the election, and then launched a determined effort to hide their tracks
post election.
Trump had been forewarned. On Jan. 3, 2017, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY),
with an assist from Rachel Maddow, warned Trump not to get crosswise with the "intelligence
community," noting the IC has six ways to Sunday to get back at you.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/fotKK5kcMOg
Three days later, Comey told President-elect Trump, in a one-on-one conversation, what the
FBI had on him – namely, the "Steele Dossier." The media already had the dossier, but
were reluctant (for a host of obvious reasons) to publish it. When it leaked that Comey had
briefed Trump on it, they finally had the needed peg.
New Parvenu in Washington
After the tête-à-tête with Comey on Jan. 6, 2017, newcomer Trump didn't
know what hit him. Perhaps no one told him of Schumer's warning; or maybe he dismissed it out
of hand. Is that what Comey was up to on Jan. 6, 2017?
Was the former FBI director protesting too much in his June 2017 testimony to the Senate
Intelligence Committee when he insisted he'd tried to make it clear to Trump that briefing
him on the unverified but scurrilous information in the dossier wasn't intended to be
threatening?
It took Trump several months to figure out what
was being done to him.
Trump to NYT: 'Leverage' (aka Blackmail)
In a long Oval Office interview
with the Times on July 19, 2017, Trump said he thought Comey was trying to hold the
dossier over his head.
" Look what they did to me with Russia, and it was totally phony stuff. the dossier Now,
that was totally made-up stuff," Trump said. "I went there [to Moscow] for one day for the
Miss Universe contest, I turned around, I went back. It was so disgraceful. It was so
disgraceful.
"When he [Comey] brought it [the dossier] to me, I said this is really made-up junk. I
didn't think about anything. I just thought about, man, this is such a phony deal. I said,
this is – honestly, it was so wrong, and they didn't know I was just there for a very
short period of time. It was so wrong, and I was with groups of people. It was so wrong that
I really didn't, I didn't think about motive. I didn't know what to think other than, this is
really phony stuff."
The Steele dossier, paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign
and compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, includes a tale of Trump cavorting
with prostitutes, who supposedly urinated on each other before the same bed the Obamas had
slept in at the Moscow Ritz-Carlton hotel.
Trump told the Times : "I think [Comey] shared it so that I would think he had it
out there. As leverage."
Still Anemic
Even with that lesson in hand, Trump still proved virtually powerless in dealing with the
National Security State/intelligence community. The president has evidenced neither the skill
nor the guts to even attempt to keep the National Security State in check.
Comey, no doubt doesn't want to be seen as a "dirty cop," With Trump in power and Attorney
General William Barr his enforcer, there was always the latent threat that they would use the
tools at their disposal to expose and even prosecute Comey and his National Security State
colleagues for what the president now knows was done during his candidacy and presidency.
Despite their braggadocio about taking on the Deep State, and the continuing
investigations, it seems doubtful that anything serious is likely to happen before Election
Day, Nov. 3.
On Wednesday, Comey had the air of one who is equally sure, this time around, who will be
the next president. No worries. Comey could afford to be politely vapid for five more weeks,
and then be off the hook for any and all "serious performance failures" – some of them
felonies.
Thus, a significant downside to a Biden victory is that the National Security State will
escape accountability for unconscionable misbehavior, running from misdemeanors to
insurrection. No small thing.
Sen. Graham concluded the hearing with a pious plea: "Somebody needs to be held
accountable." Yet, surely, he has been around long enough to know the odds.
Given his disastrous presidency, either way the prospects are bleak: no accountability for
the National Security State, which is to be expected, or four more years of Trump.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27-year career as a CIA analyst includes serving as
Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and preparer/briefer of the President's Daily
Brief. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). This
originally appeared at Consortium
News .
DNI Declassifies Brennan Notes; Briefed Obama On Intelligence That Hillary Clinton
Concocted Trump-Russia Allegations by Tyler Durden Tue, 10/06/2020 - 16:19
Twitter Facebook Reddit EmailPrint
Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe on Tuesday declassified several documents,
including handwritten notes from former CIA John Brennan after he briefed former President
Obama on an alleged plot by Hillary Clinton to tie then-candidate Donald Trump to Russia as "a
means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server" ahead of the 2016 US
election, according to Fox News .
Ratcliffe declassified Brennan's handwritten notes – which were taken after he
briefed Obama on the intelligence the CIA received – and a CIA memo, which revealed
that officials referred the matter to the FBI for potential investigative action.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence transmitted the declassified documents
to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees on Tuesday afternoon.
"Today, at the direction of President Trump, I declassified additional documents relevant
to ongoing Congressional oversight and investigative activities ," Ratcliffe said in a
statement to Fox News Tuesday. - Fox News
" We're getting additional insight into Russian activities from [REDACTED], " read Brennan's
notes. "CITE [summarizing] alleged approved by Hillary Clinton a proposal from one of her
foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference
by the Russian security service."
On September 7, 2016, US intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral to
former FBI officials James Comey and Peter Strzok concerning allegations that Hillary Clinton
approved a plan to smear then-candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Russian President Vladimir
Putin and Russian hackers , according to information given to Sen. Lindsey Graham by the
Director of National Intelligence.
According to Fox News' Chad Pergram, "In late July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained
insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary
Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate
Donald Trump," after one of Clinton's foreign policy advisers proposed vilifying Trump "by
stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services."
U.S. Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe recently declassified information
indicating the CIA obtained intelligence in 2016 that the Russians believed the Clinton
campaign was trying to falsely associate Russia with the so-called hack of DNC computers. CIA
Director John Brennan shared the intelligence with President Obama. They knew, in other words,
that the DNC was conducting false Russian flag operation against the Trump campaign . The
following is an exclusive excerpt from The Russia Lie that tells the amazing story in
detail:
On March 19, 2016, Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta, surrendered his emails
to an unknown entity in a "spear phishing" scam. This has been called a "hack," but it was not.
Instead, it was the sort of flim-flam hustle that happens to gullible dupes on the
internet.
The content of the emails was beyond embarrassing. They
showed election fraud and coordination with the media against the candidacy of Bernie
Sanders. The DNC and the Clinton campaign needed a cover story.
Blaming Russia would be a handy way to deal with the Podesta emails. There was already an
existing Russia operation that could easily be retrofitted to this purpose. The problem was
that it was nearly impossible to identify the perpetrator in a phishing scheme using computer
forensic tools.
The only way to associate Putin with the emails was circumstantially.
The DNC retained a company that called itself "CrowdStrike" to provide assistance.
CrowdStrike's chief technology officer and co-founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, is an anti-Putin,
Russian expat and a senior fellow at the Atlantic
Council .
With the Atlantic Council in 2016, all roads led to Ukraine. The Atlantic Council's list of
significant contributors includes
Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk.
The Ukrainian energy company that was paying millions to an entity that was funneling large
amounts to Hunter Biden months after he was discharged from the US Navy for drug use, Burisma,
also appears prominently on the Atlantic Council's donor list.
Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the Western puppet installed in Ukraine,
visited the Atlantic Council's Washington offices to make a speech weeks after the
coup.
Pinchuk was also a
big donor (between $10 million and $20 million) to the Clinton Foundation. Back in '15, the
Wall Street Journal published an investigative
piece , " Clinton Charity Tapped Foreign Friends ." The piece was about how Ukraine was
attempting to influence Clinton by making huge donations through Pinchuk. Foreign interference,
anyone?
On June 12, 2016, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
announced : "We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton . . . We have emails
pending publication."
Two days later, CrowdStrike fed the Washington Post a
story , headlined, "Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on
Trump." The improbable tale was that the Russians had hacked the DNC computer servers and got
away with some opposition research on Trump. The article quoted Alperovitch of CrowdStrike and
the Atlantic Council.
The next day, a new blog – Guccifer 2.0 – appeared on the
internet and announced:
Worldwide known cyber security company CrowdStrike announced that the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) servers had been hacked by "sophisticated" hacker groups.
I'm very pleased the company appreciated my skills so highly))) But in fact, it was easy,
very easy.
Guccifer may have been the first one who penetrated Hillary Clinton's and other Democrats'
mail servers. But he certainly wasn't the last. No wonder any other hacker could easily get
access to the DNC's servers.
Shame on CrowdStrike: Do you think I've been in the DNC's networks for almost a year and
saved only 2 documents? Do you really believe it?
Here are just a few docs from many thousands I extracted when hacking into DNC's
network.
Guccifer 2.0 posted hundreds of pages of Trump opposition research allegedly hacked from the
DNC and emailed copies to Gawker and The Smoking Gun . In raw form, the opposition research was
one of the documents obtained in the Podesta emails, with a notable difference: It was widely
reported the document now contained "
Russian fingerprints ."
The three-parenthesis formulation from the original post ")))" is the Russian version of a
smiley face used
commonly on social media. In addition, the blog's author deliberately used a Russian
VPN service visible in its emails even though there would have been many options to hide
any national affiliation.
Under the circumstances, the FBI should have analyzed the DNC computers to confirm the
Guccifer hack. Incredibly, though, the inspection was done by CrowdStrike, the same Atlantic
Council-connected private contractor paid by the DNC that had already concluded in The
Washington Post that there was a hack and Putin was behind it.
CrowdStrike would declare the "hack" to be the work of sophisticated Russian spies.
Alperovitch described it as, " skilled
operational tradecraft ."
There is nothing skilled, though, in ham-handedly disclosing a Russian identity when trying
to hide it. The more reasonable inference is that this was a set-up. It certainly looks like
Guccifer 2.0 suddenly appeared in coordination with the Washington Post 's article that
appeared the previous day.
FBI Director James Comey
confirmed in testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee in January 2017 that the FBI's
failure to inspect the computers was unusual to say the least. "We'd always prefer to have
access hands-on ourselves if that's possible," he said.
But the DNC rebuffed the FBI's request to inspect the hardware. Comey added that the DNC's
hand-picked investigator, CrowdStrike, is "a highly respected private company."
What he did not reveal was that CrowdStrike never corroborated a hack by forensic analysis.
In testimony released in 2020, it was revealed that CrowdStrike
admitted to Congressional investigators as early as 2017 that it had no direct evidence of
Russian hacking.
CrowdStrike's president Shawn Henry testified, "There's not evidence that [documents and
emails] were actually exfiltrated [from the DNC servers]. There's circumstantial evidence but
no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated."
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS
MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The circumstantial evidence was Guccifer 2.0.
This was a crucial revelation because the thousand ships of Russiagate launched upon the
positive assertion that CrowdStrike had definitely proven a Russian hack. Yet this fact was
kept from the American public for more than three years.
The reasonable inference is that the DNC was trying to frame Russia and the FBI and
intelligence agencies were going along with the scheme because of political pressure.
Those who assert that it is a "conspiracy theory" to say that CrowdStrike would fabricate
the results of computer forensic testing to create a false Russian flag should know that it was
caught doing exactly that around the time it was inspecting the DNC computers.
On Dec. 22, 2016, CrowdStrike caused an international stir when it claimed to have uncovered
evidence that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery computer app to help pro-Russian
separatists. Voice of America later determined the claim
was false , and CrowdStrike retracted its finding.
Ukraine's Ministry of Defense was forced to eat crow and admit that the hacking never
happened.
If you wanted a computer testing firm to fabricate a Russian hack for political reasons in
2016, CrowdStrike was who you went out and hired.
Nobody can even imagine of inflicting on the USA the same damage as CIA/FBI sponsored
Russiagate did.
And who authorized this CIA honcho to classify other countries as "enemy states"? He revealed
himself as yet another "national security parasite" and probably should be fired on the
spot.
US intelligence, the Pentagon, and national security officials are closely monitoring how
America's rivals and enemies "react" to Thursday night's shock news of President Trump's
coronavirus diagnosis, for which he's since said to be exhibiting mild symptoms.
"The U.S. military stands ready to defend our country and its citizens," Joint Staff
spokesperson Col. Dave Butler said Friday, according to
Politico . "There's no change to the readiness or capability of our armed forces."
"What we are anticipating is that the Russian actors and probably the Iranians will play
this up," one anonymous defense official also added. Further the countries of China and North
Korea are also being monitored, according to the report.
Specifically US intelligence will scrutinizing any "subtle increase in activity against us,
knowing we are preoccupied, and the opportunity to test us, perhaps," Marc Polymeropoulos, a
former CIA Senior Intelligence Service officer,
described to Politico.
The former CIA officer emphasized that "Our enemies will see us in a vulnerable state."
Ex-Oligarch , 6 hours ago
It's not the foreign adversaries we need to worry about.
Peter Royce Clayon da Turd , 5 hours ago
Herbert Walker Bush almost did in Reagan and got away with it. To be honest, I think he
ran EVERYTHING after that assassination attempt anyway, so the powers that be got what they
wanted. Would also explain why Ronnie could not recall Iran Contra.
Philo Beddoe , 6 hours ago
Pro tip.
Ahem, try monitoring domestic adversaries.
reTARD , 6 hours ago
By US Intelligence agencies, you mean the same 17 US Intelligence agencies that were
complicit in Russiagate, 9/11, etc.? LMAO.
KekistanisUnite , 6 hours ago
It's not the Russians or Iranians I'm concerned about.
goldenspiral9 , 6 hours ago
Lol. PuuhleeZe. This scripted tv show is getting ridiculous.
WTFUD , 6 hours ago
WTF - US Intelligence - The same NWO filth who dun 9/11.
That's a relief. sarc
LetThemEatRand , 6 hours ago
I wonder if our elected officials really believe their own ******** that they are the one
thing standing between an invasion and the nation's security. Most of them probably don't,
but they are glad that we allow them to spend trillions in tax dollars for bunkers and other
measures of keep them safe in the event of a war that they may start.
Captain Scarlet , 6 hours ago
Speaking from Britain I can honesty say that the BBC is one of Trump's premier foreign
adversaries.
Dzerzhhinsky , 6 hours ago
The BBC was the first official Government propaganda outlet in the world. They have a long
history of lying.
yerfej , 6 hours ago
When I listen to the BBC (or CBC) I am reminded that there are many people on this planet
with glossy degrees in some garbage but yet they can't actually think or relate to anyone but
their college cliques.
44magnum , 6 hours ago
The only adversaries we have are the ones the government tells us we have. Who to like who
to hate.
ay_arrow
Pied - Piped - Piper , 5 hours ago
Rubio desperately attempting to remain viable after he's already dead
politically......
Hulk , 5 hours ago
"US intelligence, the Pentagon, and national security officials are closely monitoring how
America's enemies "react" to Thursday night's shock news of President Trump's coronavirus
diagnosis, for which he's since said to be exhibiting mild symptoms"
and so far, Schumer, Piglosi, Feinstein, Biden, Nadler Obama, Brennan, Comey, Mueller and
his team of winners, havent tried a thing !!!
Is-Be , 5 hours ago
Putin calls all other countries "partners" and the MIC call everyone "adversaries".
One of these is not the same as the other.
Hint: You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
ZENDOG , 6 hours ago
Are they looking at the FBI ??
Lots of traitors there.
Thraxite , 4 hours ago
Dude forgot his paranoia medication. What a loony.
Aussiestirrer , 2 hours ago
Never pass up an opportunity to run a false flag operation.
President Trump has gotten rid just about everyone in this article I found 3 years ago
> The ATLANTIC COUNCIL is funded by BURISMA, GEORGE SOROS OPEN SOCIETY FOUNDATION &
others. It was a CENTRIST, MILITARISTIC think tanks,now turned leftist group
> JOE BIDEN extorted Ukraine to FIRE the prosecutor investigating BURISMA, HUNTER's
employer.
> LTC VINDMAN & FIONA HILL met MANY TIMES with DANIEL FRIED of the ATLANTIC
COUNCIL. FIONA HILL is a former CoWorker of CHRISTOPHER STEELE !
> AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH is connected to the ATLANTIC COUNCIL, is PRAISED in their
documents, gave Ukraine a "do not prosecute" list, was involved in PRESSURING Ukraine to not
prosecute GEORGE SOROS Group.
> BILL TAYLOR has a financial relationship with the ATLANTIC COUNCIL and the US UKRAINE
BUSINESS COUNCIL (USUBC) which is also funded by BURISMA.
> TAYLOR met with THOMAS EAGER (works for ADAM SCHIFF) in Ukraine on trip PAID FOR by
the ATLANTIC COUNCIL. This just days before TAYLOR first texts about the "FAKE" Quid Pro Quo
!
> TAYLOR participated in USUBC Events with DAVID J. KRAMER (JOHN MCCAIN advisor) who
spread the STEELE DOSSIER to the media and OBAMA officials.
> JOE BIDEN is connected to the ATLANTIC COUNCIL, he rolled out his foreign policy
vision while VP there, He has given speeches there, his adviser on Ukraine, MICHAEL CARPENTER
(heads the Penn Biden Center) is a FELLOW at the ATLANTIC COUNCIL.
> KURT VOLKER is now Senior Advisor to the ATLANTIC COUNCIL, he met with burisma
"... For societies to evolve and flourish, we all need to accept other people's viewpoints and continue open-minded, civil and respectful dialogue. In science, scientists always question everything; why shouldn't we question everything in life without personalizing and demonizing those you disagree with? It's become impossible to have rational fact-based discussions with these inflexible ideological zealots. ..."
"... The intelligentsia has created a toxic environment of indoctrination where freedom of thought and speech is outlawed. The student "mob" will enforce the process of re-education, utilizing lies, propaganda, peer-pressure and fear of cancellation. No student or adult should be intimidated, bullied or harassed to the point of unwavering compliance. There is something systematically rotten in our educational system, and it needs to be purged of these radical ideologues. These are fascist tactics - USA-style. ..."
The bitter divisions in
America are turning neighbour against neighbour and tearing families apart, amid an atmosphere
of indoctrination where freedom of thought and speech is outlawed. I fear we're on the road to
civil war.
2020 has been one hell of a year. It included getting Brexit done, Covid-19, big-tech
tyranny featuring extreme censorship by Twitter, Google, Facebook and Amazon as well as the
stealth implementation of a social credit framework by Silicon Valley oligarchs as they plunder
the economy under the diversionary power grab by pay-to-play politicians implementing
quasi-permanent unlawful lockdowns. I'm sorry to say that the USA will become a banana
republic.
In addition, the global economy is in the worst economic depression in history - one that
will only deepen as unemployment rates skyrocket as we enter the last few months of
2020.
I bet most folks wish they could put a bullet in the head of 2020 and move straight on into
2021, but there are three months left - 2020 is only 75% done. What else could go wrong?
Well in the USA, we still have to deal with a presidential election and the appointment of
Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States - two things that the left
are fighting tooth and nail to stop.
Since Donald Trump was elected president of the United States in 2016, US politics have not
only become highly toxic, they have also become radioactive. The swamp's resist-everything
Democratic Party, enabled by FBI bias and animus that was spun like a spider's web by the
feckless fake news media and echoed by Hollywood's hypocritical perverts, made
numerous attempts to stage a coup d'etat (carefully read the declassified letter below) of
the democratically elected president. The CIA referred an investigation to the FBI that the
Hillary Clinton campaign was colluding with Russia to impact the 2016 presidential election.
The FBI lied to the FISA judges to spy on the Trump campaign, and no one was ever
prosecuted.
Why have
FISA judges Collyer, Mosman, Conway and Dearie, who signed off on those warrants, and were
lied to by the FBI to illegally obtain those same warrants to spy on a political opposition
party during a presidential election, done nothing? Why have these Judges remained silent? Is
the entire system a stitch-up?
Now, the narrative has shifted at warp speed. It's no longer about Russian collusion. The
new narratives that matter are virtue signalling, identity politics, critical race theory,
record hypocrisy and a
dual justice system where
murder, looting and arson are justified because those on the right are all Nazis and the
radicalized left's enforcers,
ANTIFA and BLM thugs, are only " peaceful protestors
."
And nothing will interfere with this narrative. For example, the BLM mob influenced the
prosecutors by getting them to charge BLM supporter Larynzo Johnson with "
wanton endangerment " when he ran up to two police officers and shot them while rioting.
Why was this blatant assassination rampage not prosecuted as attempted murder? Is the BLM mob
now dictating charging decisions? Johnson's attempted murder of police officers has quickly
disappeared as it interferes with the media mob's narrative.
The media have drummed these themes into the heads of the public and driven a wedge between
family members, close friends and co-workers that has polarized America to the brink of civil
war. Life has become so bad in the USA that many of my several decades-old friendships recently
ended when they became unable to respect any individual opinion that differed from their own.
That has happened to me. Friends for decades have been consumed by Trump Derangement Syndrome
and are cancelling me.
For societies to evolve and flourish, we all need to accept other people's viewpoints and
continue open-minded, civil and respectful dialogue. In science, scientists always question
everything; why shouldn't we question everything in life without personalizing and demonizing
those you disagree with? It's become impossible to have rational fact-based discussions with
these inflexible ideological zealots.
I just had a long conversation with Hudson, my friend's son. He is 18 years old and is a
popular American football playing, honour-list senior attending a private school in California.
Hudson graduates this spring, and he hopes to be accepted and attend a college where he will
play football. There are around 2,000 students in his private high school. From our
conversation, I gleaned that most of Hudson's teachers and the student population are very
liberal and intolerant of anyone who has differing views.
What I found most shocking was how Hudson's teachers "teach". Today's students are not
educated; they are indoctrinated. By that, I mean "teachers" are only telling half-truths or
half of the story, so any "conclusions" the students are allowed to reach on their own are
based on inaccurate data. These teachers incorporate their bias into an indoctrination cocktail
with a dash of critical race theory in order to get the students to conform to the teacher's
world view. Hudson explained how "the loudest students at school are liberal -- I guess it's
over 98%."
Regarding the comments Hudson reads on social media channels from his school friends, he
says all are supportive of Joe Biden becoming the 46th president of the United States; none are
supporting Trump. When I asked why, he responded, "Your life would be ruined, and you would
not get into college."
On 3 November, Hudson will be voting in his first presidential election. He will be voting
for Donald Trump. But he is too fearful to discuss politics at school with his peers.
He is too
afraid to discuss politics with anyone but his parents. Terrorizing students is repugnant
and must be stopped.
The intelligentsia has created a toxic environment of indoctrination where freedom of
thought and speech is outlawed. The student "mob" will enforce the process of re-education,
utilizing lies, propaganda, peer-pressure and fear of cancellation. No student or adult should
be intimidated, bullied or harassed to the point of unwavering compliance. There is something
systematically rotten in our educational system, and it needs to be purged of these radical
ideologues. These are fascist tactics - USA-style.
Was this racism censored by Twitter? No, Jack Dorsey, Twitter's CEO, gave Kendi $10
million
That said, don't expect things to improve anytime soon; in fact, COVID-19 will be used as an
excuse to reset the economy. What does that mean? The oligarchs in Wall Street and in Silicon
Valley will manipulate this election result, so Kamala Harris will be the de facto 46th
president of the United States.
... ... ...
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Mitchell Feierstein is the CEO of Glacier Environmental Fund and author of 'Planet Ponzi: How the World Got into This
Mess, What Happens Next, and How to Protect Yourself.' He spends his time between London and Manhattan.
"... AP is hardly the Ministry of Truth, dictating Newspeak under the penalty of torture. As it turns out, it doesn't have to be. A bit of updated style – and thought – guidance announced on Twitter from time to time will do. ..."
Used as the journalism Bible by most English-language media, the AP Stylebook has updated its guidance for employing the word 'riot,'
citing the need to avoid "stigmatizing" groups protesting "for racial justice."
While acknowledging the dictionary definition of riot as a "wild or violent disturbance of the peace," AP said the word
somehow "suggests uncontrolled chaos and pandemonium."
Worse yet, "Focusing on rioting and property destruction rather than underlying grievance has been used in the past to stigmatize
broad swaths of people protesting against lynching, police brutality or for racial justice " the Stylebook account tweeted on
Wednesday.
The claim that something has been used in the past in a racist way has already led to banishing many English terms to the Orwellian
"memory hole." It certainly appears the AP is trying to do the same with "riot" now.
Instead of promoting precision, the Stylebook is urging reporters to use euphemisms such as "protest" or "demonstration."
It advises "revolt" and "uprising" if the violence is directed "against powerful groups or governing systems,"
in an alarming shift in focus from what is being done towards who is doing it to whom .
There is even a helpful suggestion to use "unrest" because it's "a vaguer, milder and less emotional term for a condition
of angry discontent and protest verging on revolt."
Translated to plain English, this means a lot more mentions of "unrest" and almost no references to "riot," in media
coverage going forward, regardless of how much actual rioting is happening.
Mainstream media across the US have already gone out of their way to avoid labeling what has unfolded since the death of George
Floyd in May as "riots." Though protests in Minneapolis, Minnesota turned violent within 48 hours, before spreading to other
cities across the US – and even internationally – the media continued calling them "peaceful" and "protests for racial
justice."
Yet in just the first two weeks of the riots, 20 people have been killed and the property damage has
exceeded $2 billion , according
to insurance estimates – the highest in US history.
AP is no stranger to changing the language to better comport to 'proper' political sensitivities. At the height of the riots in
June, the Stylebook decided to capitalize"Black" and "Indigenous" in a "racial, ethnic or cultural sense."
A month later, the expected decision
to leave "white" in lowercase was justified by saying that "White people in general have much less shared history and culture,
and don't have the experience of being discriminated against because of skin color."
Moreover, "Capitalizing the term 'white,' as is done by white supremacists, risks subtly conveying legitimacy to such beliefs,"
wrote AP's vice-president for standards John Daniszewski.
The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law, as its full name goes, has effectively dictated the tone of English-language
outlets around the world since it first appeared in 1953. It is also required reference material in journalism schools.
So when it embraces vagueness over precision and worrying about "suggestions" and "subtly conveying" things over
plain meaning, that rings especially Orwellian – in both the '1984' sense of censoring speech and thought and regarding the corruption
of language the author lamented in his famous 1946
essay 'Politics and the English language.'
AP is hardly the Ministry of Truth, dictating Newspeak under the penalty of torture. As it turns out, it doesn't have to be.
A bit of updated style – and thought – guidance announced on Twitter from time to time will do.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of RT.
Nebojsa Malic is a Serbian-American journalist, blogger and translator, who wrote a regular column for Antiwar.com from
2000 to 2015, and is now senior writer at RT. Follow him on Twitter @NebojsaMalic
I draw your attention to the irrefutable fact that Mr. Cohen said that the Buk missile, which
brought down Malaysian Flight 370 over the skies of Donbas, was the Ukraine government "playing
with its new toys and made a big mistake." -- and I draw your attention to the irrefutable fact
that Mr. Cohen said that the Buk missile, which brought down Malaysian Flight 370 over the skies
of Donbas, was the Ukraine government "playing with its new toys and made a big mistake."
He was a real giant in comparison with intellectual scum like Fiona Hill, Michael McFaul and other neocons.
Notable quotes:
"... I tried to explain to American friends what was happening, but quickly realized that ultimately, even friends believe what they read in the newspapers, and the newspapers were pushing the Washington line. Except for Steve Cohen. Steve was the only major figure in America who insisted on remembering the Russian-speaking Ukrainians who, like my family members, distrusted and hated the new Kiev government. He spoke of neo-Nazi paramilitiaries who fought for the US-backed government committing war crimes against civilians in eastern Ukraine. He spoke the truth, regardless of how unwieldy it was. ..."
"... There's a lot to say about Steve. He was extraordinarily kind, never forgetting that in geopolitics, the ones who have the most to lose aren't strategists but everyday individuals impacted by policy. He was a consummate teacher, insisting on giving mentees the skills to navigate the world, a real proponent of the Teach a man to fish philosophy. He had facets and stories and memories; he lived life with empathy and gusto. ..."
"... Steve's insistence on speaking the truth about Ukraine and US-Russia relations drew all sorts of attention. America was hurtling toward a new cold war with Russia, and Steve well, from the perspective of Washington's foreign policy establishment, Steve was fucking up the narrative. Steve talked about inconvenient things, things like US-backed war criminals and America's own meddling in Russian affairs; in the process, he himself had become inconvenient. ..."
"... After all, this wasn't some random blogger. This was one of America's foremost Russia experts, a tenured professor at Princeton and New York University, someone who didn't just write about history but had dinner with it, had briefed US presidents, and was friends with legends like Mikhail Gorbachev. Steve had clout earned from decades of brilliant work; by 2014, he was using that clout to throw a wrench in the think tank world. ..."
"... It was something far colder, more sustained, something that ironically the Soviets did to dissidents: a relentless crusade to render the target untouchable, a leper without a platform. The barrage of articles and diatribes hurled at Steve in the national press painted him as not just a dissenter but a supporter of dictators and murderers. It was a vicious, prolonged assault carried out by think tank toadies, the kind of people who win races by kneecapping the competition. ..."
"... I'd often talk with Steve after a new hatchet job or smear on national television. Of course, the attacks were hurtful -- the only way to not be affected was to not care, and Steve cared. But I also noticed he was remarkably free of bitterness. Every time I thought he'd snap, he'd return the next day to write, discuss, keep fighting. ..."
"... It took me a couple of years to understand that what kept Steve going was faith in his beloved institutions. He believed in academia, in scholarship, in discourse, debate, and civility. He believed in the capacity of everyday people to explore and engage with their world, he believed in Russia, and he always believed in America. He believed in these things far more than he believed in the power of today's warmongers. ..."
"... In 1967 Noam Chomsky wrote an article in the NY Review entitled "the Responsibility of Intellectuals" the first sentence ran like this: "IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies.". Stephen Cohen did precisely that when all the parrots and pundits were lined up against him. ..."
"... Always I was skeptical of prevailing scholarly interpretive trends on the Soviet experience that were echoed by colleagues claiming expertise on the subject. Cohen provided the foundation for my skepticism and invigorated my lectures on American foreign policy. ..."
"... Once Cohen plied his knowledge against the hysterical narrative that culminated in 4 years of frothing neo-McCarthyism (by the freakin' "left," no less), we were no longer gonna see him on the PBS newshour any more likely than we would and will see chris hedges, chomsky, or margaret kimberly. ..."
"... His book War With Russia? was an oasis of counter-narrative when I picked it up. Losing voices like his is immeasurable as we hurtle toward total war with Russia and/or China, both of whom are finally, naturally, and perfectly predictably beginning to draw a line in the sand. ..."
I first reached out to Stephen Cohen because I was losing my mind.
In the spring of 2014, a war broke out in my homeland of Ukraine. It was a horrific war in a
bitterly divided nation, which turned eastern Ukraine into a bombed-out wasteland. But that's
not how it was portrayed in America. Because millions of eastern Ukrainians were against the
US-backed government, their opinions were inconvenient for the West. Washington needed a clean
story about Ukraine fighting the Kremlin; as a result, US media avoided reporting about the
"wrong" half of the country. Twenty-plus million people were written out of the narrative, as
if they never existed.
I tried to explain to American friends what was happening, but quickly realized that
ultimately, even friends believe what they read in the newspapers, and the newspapers were
pushing the Washington line. Except for Steve Cohen. Steve was the only major figure in America
who insisted on remembering the Russian-speaking Ukrainians who, like my family members,
distrusted and hated the new Kiev government. He spoke of neo-Nazi paramilitiaries who fought
for the US-backed government committing war crimes against civilians in eastern Ukraine. He
spoke the truth, regardless of how unwieldy it was.
And so I e-mailed him, asking for guidance as I began my own writing career. Of course,
there were many who clamored for Steve's time, but I had an advantage over others. Steve and I
were both night owls, real night owls, the kind who have afternoon tea at three am. It
was then, when the east coast was sleeping, that he became my mentor and friend.
There's a lot to say about Steve. He was extraordinarily kind, never forgetting that in
geopolitics, the ones who have the most to lose aren't strategists but everyday individuals
impacted by policy. He was a consummate teacher, insisting on giving mentees the skills to
navigate the world, a real proponent of the Teach a man to fish philosophy. He had
facets and stories and memories; he lived life with empathy and gusto.
But one thing Steve taught me is to stick to my strengths, and truth be told, there are
others who can describe his life better than I. I'll stick to what I learned during our
conversations at three in the morning, which is that, above all else, Stephen F. Cohen was a
man of faith.
Steve's insistence on speaking the truth about Ukraine and US-Russia relations drew all
sorts of attention. America was hurtling toward a new cold war with Russia, and Steve well,
from the perspective of Washington's foreign policy establishment, Steve was fucking up the
narrative. Steve talked about inconvenient things, things like US-backed war criminals and
America's own meddling in Russian affairs; in the process, he himself had become
inconvenient.
After all, this wasn't some random blogger. This was one of America's foremost Russia
experts, a tenured professor at Princeton and New York University, someone who didn't just
write about history but had dinner with it, had briefed US presidents, and was friends with
legends like Mikhail Gorbachev. Steve had clout earned from decades of brilliant work; by 2014,
he was using that clout to throw a wrench in the think tank world.
The DC apparatchiks couldn't discredit Steve's credentials or track record -- he'd predicted
events in Ukraine and elsewhere years before they occurred. They couldn't intimidate him --
he'd faced far worse threats, like the KGB. Instead, they set out to turn him into an
America-hating, Putin-loving pariah.
This went beyond an ad hominem campaign. It was something far colder, more sustained,
something that ironically the Soviets did to dissidents: a relentless crusade to render the
target untouchable, a leper without a platform. The barrage of articles and diatribes hurled at
Steve in the national press painted him as not just a dissenter but a supporter of dictators
and murderers. It was a vicious, prolonged assault carried out by think tank toadies, the kind
of people who win races by kneecapping the competition.
I'd often talk with Steve after a new hatchet job or smear on national television. Of
course, the attacks were hurtful -- the only way to not be affected was to not care, and Steve
cared. But I also noticed he was remarkably free of bitterness. Every time I thought he'd snap,
he'd return the next day to write, discuss, keep fighting.
It took me a couple of years to understand that what kept Steve going was faith in his
beloved institutions. He believed in academia, in scholarship, in discourse, debate, and
civility. He believed in the capacity of everyday people to explore and engage with their
world, he believed in Russia, and he always believed in America. He believed in these things
far more than he believed in the power of today's warmongers.
Steve liked movies and would often end a lecture with a movie reference to drive home the
thesis. When I think of him, I think of the ending of The Shawshank Redemption , the
line about Andy Dufresne crawling through filth and coming out clean on the other side. Steve
didn't live in a movie; I can't claim he emerged unscathed. What he did was come through
without bitterness or cynicism. He refused to turn away from the ugliness, but he didn't allow
it to blind him to beauty. He walked with grace. And he lost neither his convictions nor his
faith.
Lev
Golinkin Lev Golinkin is the author of A Backpack, a Bear, and Eight Crates of Vodka,
Amazon's Debut of the Month, a Barnes & Noble's Discover Great New Writers program
selection, and winner of the Premio Salerno Libro d'Europa. Golinkin, a graduate of Boston
College, came to the US as a child refugee from the eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkov (now
called Kharkiv) in 1990. His writing on the Ukraine crisis, Russia, the far right, and
immigrant and refugee identity has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los
Angeles Times, CNN, The Boston Globe, Politico Europe, and Time (online), among other venues;
he has been interviewed by MSNBC, NPR, ABC Radio, WSJ Live and HuffPost Live.
Pierre Guerlain says: October 1, 2020 at 12:42 pm
In 1967 Noam Chomsky wrote an article in the NY Review entitled "the Responsibility of
Intellectuals" the first sentence ran like this: "IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY of intellectuals
to speak the truth and to expose lies.". Stephen Cohen did precisely that when all the
parrots and pundits were lined up against him. He was a Mensch. History will bear him
the historian out.
Valera Bochkarev says to Lance Haley: October 1, 2020 at 11:09 am
Hmm, who's the apologist here ?
If the Ukraine is SO sovereign how is it I did not see any outrage in your diatribe
against 'Toria, Pyatt and the rest orchestrating the Maidan putsch or the $5Billion US spent
on softening up the ukraine for the regime change ?
I believe in numbers, as in the number of military bases any given country has surrounding
the ones it wants to subvert, in the amount of money allocated to vilify and eventually bring
down the "unwanted" regimes and the quantity and 'quality' of sanctions imposed against those
regimes; and the sum of all of the above perpetrated against humanity in the past 75 or so
years.
Your vapid drivel, Mr Haley, evaporates almost without a trace once seen with those
parameters in mind.
Numbers don't lie.
Michael Batinski says: September 30, 2020 at 5:48 pm
Let me add from the perspective of an American historian who taught for forty years in a
midwestern university. From the start I depended on William Appleman Williams to keep
perspective and to counter prevailing interpretive trends.
Always I was skeptical of
prevailing scholarly interpretive trends on the Soviet experience that were echoed by
colleagues claiming expertise on the subject. Cohen provided the foundation for my skepticism
and invigorated my lectures on American foreign policy.
I will always be thankful.
Michael Batinski
Tim Ashby says: September 30, 2020 at 2:37 pm
The smothering agitprop in America trumps even Goebbels and co. with its beautifully
dressed overton window and first-amendment-free-press bullshit.
Once Cohen plied his knowledge against the hysterical narrative that culminated in 4 years
of frothing neo-McCarthyism (by the freakin' "left," no less), we were no longer gonna see
him on the PBS newshour any more likely than we would and will see chris hedges, chomsky, or
margaret kimberly.
Let's face it, we were lucky to win the editorial fight to even give him
space in the Nation.
His book War With Russia? was an oasis of counter-narrative when I picked it up. Losing
voices like his is immeasurable as we hurtle toward total war with Russia and/or China, both
of whom are finally, naturally, and perfectly predictably beginning to draw a line in the
sand.
"... The REASON they won't release them: The TRUMP Collusion wasn't with the Russians , but with APARTHEID Isra-h-e-l-l. But NO ONE will investigate that. M.A.G.A. is out. M.I.G.A is in. ..."
"... 'Bloody Gina' is Trump's loyalist appointee, following through on what loyalist Pompeo started to protect Trump Crime Family Corruption, Chabad Mafia, and ZOG. ..."
"... please allow me to still congratulate Gina on reducing the almighty Third Option into the Toiletpaper Option. ..."
"... 2018, BREAKING: Trump appoints Haspel as first female CIA director ..."
"... 2017: Breaking: CIA Director Mike Pompeo appoints Haspel as the first female CIA officer to be named deputy director. ..."
"... Fathead and Esper were best buds at West Point.. ..."
"... Evidence destruction was one the main purposes of the Mueller "investigation". ..."
"... Please. If you can see what Trump has done, basically bending the US and its taxpayers over for Israel, you'd realize he's just another in a long line of AIPAC Presidents. Ain't nobody opposing him. CIA knows what Russia knows about him, and they're just using him as bait. ..."
"... proof is in the pudding, Hillary still walks free, none of the corrupt ones are in jail and won't ever go to jail. Face it, Biff has many fooled. ..."
"... U.S. Navy Reserve Doctor on Gina Haspel Torture Victim: "One of the Most Severely Traumatized Individuals I Have Ever Seen" ..."
"... What bothers me more is how deep the Deep State goes in Washington. They totally control the government and without mass firings it is impossible to even make a dent in it. This country is gone and just doesn't know it yet. Once Kamala is crowned as queen reality will come slamming home pdq. By the time the country realizes what has happened to them it will be way too late, no matter how many guns they have at home. Once they cut off access to your money, very few people will be independent enough to survive on their own. ..."
"... Trump has opened the eyes of more Americans to the simple fact that an unelected bureaucracy is running the country ..."
"... DJT hired this c8nt, sure, but the pool of candidates equipped to take over the CIA is very small, and all are career swamp things. If DJT put in a true outsider, the ranks would close and the "Director" would know nothing, could do nothing, and nothing would change. The ranks would just wait for another President. Trump is powerless over the CIA. After all, they could easily have him 'accidentally' killed; they've done it before. ..."
"... The CIA just needs to be dissolved in acid. The political, psychological and historical deep-rooted corruption isn't fixable by anyone. ..."
"... McConnell would never confirm a "true outsider". Mitch is the real problem here, he tells Trump who he will and will not confirm, so Trump has to accept one of Mitch's choices. ..."
"... He could put in Mike Flynn. And any vested employee who "closed ranks" would go on immediate and permanent furlough. ..."
"... Here's something we Americans can learn from the Russians. In August 1991 after Gorbachev left to the Black Sea for a short vacation, the heads of the USSR "power ministries" (KGB chairman, armed forces chief of staff, Minister of Interior, etc. etc.) formed the "State Committee for Extrordinary Situation" ( G.K.Ch .P.) and tried to overthrow the government. ..."
"... That's what happened in Washington in 2016-2018 - "GKChP Lite." ..."
"... After the putsch attempt failed, the leaders were arrested and the power ministries reorganized - the KGB was split into several departments including the FSB and SVR for internal and external intelligence. ..."
"... Trump can declassify these personally if he wants, at any time. He could even go live on air and read portions of it to the public. He has the power, but he refuses to use it. ..."
"... Trumps entire cabinet is full of Goldman Sachs, Skull and Bones, CFR, Pentagon, CIA, Career politicians... at what point do you realize he was never going to drain the swamp? Both candidates are a joke and so is this website for becoming a Big R Republican website. ..."
"... This is all kabuki theater because Trump could have signed an Executive Order releasing everything back to JFK 3 years ago instead of flapping his yap. Comey has a Hollywood movie coming out this fall, As Biden said, "Shut up, man". ..."
"... No one is going to prison that deserves to over this. They'll crucify some desk monkey or intern, pat each other on the back and brag about a job well done. We've seen it the last four years, some low level schmuck changes the footer on some emails and the DOJ is all over it like white on rice. Totally ignoring the fact there is a seditionist movement, maybe even treasonous, happening at a systemic level throughout government. Four years is enough time to build a case, lord knows any one with half a mind can find all the evidence needed in four damned days. ..."
"... The a-holes running the DOJ won't prosecute Comey, or Clinton, or Brennan or any other name we know. Because they're doing dirty deeds themselves and don't want to set the precedent in fear those who come after them might in turn prosecute them ..."
"Federalist" co-founder Sean Davis reports that CIA Director Gina Haspel is personally
blocking the release of documents that will show "what actually happened" with Russiagate.
" This isn't just a scandal about Democrat projection, this is a scandal about what was a
coup planned against the incoming administration at the highest levels and I can report here
tonight that these declassifications that have come out," Davis told FOX News host Tucker
Carlson on Wednesday. "Those weren't easy to get out and there are far more waiting to get
out."
"Unfortunately those releases and declassifications according to multiple sources I've
talked to are being blocked by CIA director Gina Haspel who herself was the main link between
Washington and London ," Davis said.
"As the London station chief from John Brennan's CIA during the 2016 election. Recall, it
was London where Christopher Steele was doing all this work. And I'm told that it was Gina
Haspel personally who is blocking a continued declassification of these documents that will
show the American people the truth of what actually happened."
Watch:
pier , 1 hour ago
The REASON they won't release them: The TRUMP Collusion wasn't with the Russians , but with APARTHEID Isra-h-e-l-l. But NO ONE will investigate that. M.A.G.A. is out.
M.I.G.A is in.
Joseph Sullivan , 1 hour ago
No. This is all the UK. And Brit east India/pharma complex I'm serious. Israel is a UK proxy.
tion , 1 hour ago
True. 'Bloody Gina' is Trump's loyalist appointee, following through on what loyalist
Pompeo started to protect Trump Crime Family Corruption, Chabad Mafia, and ZOG.
My last
comment including my sentiments towards Gina got eaten by censorship for reasons obvious to
me, but please allow me to still congratulate Gina on reducing the almighty Third Option into
the Toiletpaper Option.
acetrumchura , 1 hour ago
2018, BREAKING: Trump appoints Haspel as first female CIA director
acetrumchura , 1 hour ago
2017: Breaking: CIA Director Mike Pompeo appoints Haspel as the first female CIA officer
to be named deputy director.
BGen. Jack Ripper , 49 minutes ago
Fathead and Esper were best buds at West Point..
NoWorries77 , 1 hour ago
Evidence destruction was one the main purposes of the Mueller "investigation".
realitybiter , 2 hours ago
Trump Has played like Tom Brady. Without either guard or tackle. Take the CIA and the FBI. They are both still ran by rats. Tree of liberty is VERY thirsty.
eatapeach , 1 hour ago
Please. If you can see what Trump has done, basically bending the US and its taxpayers
over for Israel, you'd realize he's just another in a long line of AIPAC Presidents. Ain't
nobody opposing him. CIA knows what Russia knows about him, and they're just using him as
bait.
GreatUncle , 57 minutes ago
Either they are accountable or they are treasonous. CIA is the globalist intelligence agency now.
MAGAMAN , 2 hours ago
It will happen, the fuse just keeps getting shorter. Nobody even refutes that Obama is a
traitor that spied on Trump's campaign and tried to overthrow the President. The evidence is
overwhelming and continues to snow ball.
ChiangMaiXPat , 1 hour ago
It will never happen as Trump appointed these Clowns. Imagine appointing people working
DIRECTLY against your self interest. Does this sound logical or even remotely plausible? I
don't recall it EVER happening in any other administration.
spqrusa , 2 minutes ago
He cannot do anything without Consent from the Privy Council and the circle of demons.
ThaBigPerm , 2 hours ago
Aaaand Trump can just order declassification over "her" head. Do it.
Lather Rinse Repeat , 1 hour ago
Surfaces the cabal's foot soldiers. CIA Director Haspel was a great leader when appointed. But when process drives Haspel to
block an action, the message is that Haspel is rot and so is Haspel's network. These networks run deep and wide and prosecuting 1 or 10 does nothing - you need them all,
or the problem comes back in 5 years.
Lokiban , 2 hours ago
He won't
proof is in the pudding, Hillary still walks free, none of the corrupt ones are in jail
and won't ever go to jail. Face it, Biff has many fooled.
spam filter , 2 hours ago
The way he's constantly saying, "someone should do something about this" ...Tells my
spidey sense that he has little power in the swamp.
Propaganda Phil , 2 hours ago
Isn't she the same chick who destroyed all the torture tapes? Good luck.
Mr. Bones , 1 hour ago
All power of classification is derived from the office of the executive.
He could do exactly this, unilaterally.
Farmer Tink , 1 hour ago
First, normal people who consume news from the networks, particularly those that get their
news from MSNBC and social media, would never hear this. Second, if they did find out about
this, they'd never believe it. It would cause too much cognitive dissonance for them to
believe.
They wouldn't believe it unless the four legacy broadcast media told them so. They
just live in a land of Orange Man Bad as far as news go. A plot to overthrow the US
government by Obama and the Brits would be unfathomable to them.
Someone Else , 2 hours ago
Trump had an abrasive demeanor during the debate and in general.
How could he not, when truly everybody for four years HAS fought him tooth and nail? Few
would have had the ability to stand up to what he has stood up to.
Quia Possum , 1 hour ago
He had that demeanor before he was president too, so I don't accept that excuse.
desertboy , 27 minutes ago
U.S. Navy Reserve Doctor on Gina Haspel Torture Victim: "One of the Most Severely
Traumatized Individuals I Have Ever Seen"
justyouwait , 2 hours ago
All this crap needs to come out. Any date for the release before the election will have
the Dems and their media lap dogs crying foul. It just doesn't matter. They will NEVER
support the release of any documents that are damming to them. He should release it all right
up to the day of the election. This country needs to know all the criminality that went down.
That goes for the so called Durham report too, of which there have been so many rumors. That
one is likely to be a huge zero though by the time Barr gets done with it and then tells us
there were "improprieties" but nothing really bad. What a joke.
What bothers me more is how deep the Deep State goes in Washington. They totally control
the government and without mass firings it is impossible to even make a dent in it. This
country is gone and just doesn't know it yet. Once Kamala is crowned as queen reality will
come slamming home pdq. By the time the country realizes what has happened to them it will be
way too late, no matter how many guns they have at home. Once they cut off access to your
money, very few people will be independent enough to survive on their own.
John Couger , 2 hours ago
Trump has opened the eyes of more Americans to the simple fact that an unelected
bureaucracy is running the country
Sigh. , 2 hours ago
DJT hired this c8nt, sure, but the pool of candidates equipped to take over the CIA is
very small, and all are career swamp things. If DJT put in a true outsider, the ranks would
close and the "Director" would know nothing, could do nothing, and nothing would change. The
ranks would just wait for another President. Trump is powerless over the CIA. After all, they
could easily have him 'accidentally' killed; they've done it before.
The CIA just needs to be dissolved in acid. The political, psychological and historical
deep-rooted corruption isn't fixable by anyone.
Mclovin , 1 hour ago
McConnell would never confirm a "true outsider". Mitch is the real problem here, he tells
Trump who he will and will not confirm, so Trump has to accept one of Mitch's choices.
gcjohns1971 , 1 hour ago
He could put in Mike Flynn. And any vested employee who "closed ranks" would go on immediate and permanent
furlough.
There are only a couple or three thousand CIA agents and analysts. The rest are
contractors.
To bypass the swamp things you sideline them and put your own people in charge of the
contracts.
otschelnik , 1 hour ago
Here's something we Americans can learn from the Russians. In August 1991 after Gorbachev
left to the Black Sea for a short vacation, the heads of the USSR "power ministries" (KGB
chairman, armed forces chief of staff, Minister of Interior, etc. etc.) formed the "State
Committee for Extrordinary Situation" ( G.K.Ch
.P.) and tried to overthrow the government.
That's what happened in Washington in 2016-2018 - "GKChP Lite."
After the putsch attempt failed, the leaders were arrested and the power ministries
reorganized - the KGB was split into several departments including the FSB and SVR for
internal and external intelligence.
Trump has to do the same thing - break them up.
Occams_Razor_Trader , 1 hour ago
Kennedy wasn't a big fan................. look where it got him......................
Back and to the left.................................
LostinRMH , 2 hours ago
Trump can declassify these personally if he wants, at any time. He could even go live on
air and read portions of it to the public. He has the power, but he refuses to use it.
LostinRMH , 2 hours ago
The only timing Trump is interested in is running out the clock. If he get's a second term, a lot of these current issues will magically vanish, and new
ones will appear. This is just a scripted political show for the sheeple. It's all fake.
Oldwood , 2 hours ago
The swamp owns the government's employment agency. All hires come from within the swamp.
LooseLee , 1 hour ago
Sorry Old Man. Trump could have handled this sooooo much better and differently. I call
BS.
knightowl77 , 50 minutes ago
Here is the "B.S."
80 to 90% of the Federal Government are swamp creatures or friendly to the swamp...90 out
of 100 U.S. Senators are either swamp members or at least friendly to the swamp....Trump can
only get people confirmed to certain agencies who are Not hostile to the swamp...McConnell
and company are blocking the draining....The Dems would be even worse or just impeach
Trump....
No One else has even tried...I doubt anyone else could've survived the swamp as long as
Trump has....So you tell us HOW he could have done it better and differently?????????
AlexTheCat3741 , 1 hour ago
Not one person who has had a prior association with John Brennan should be doing anything
in the Trump Administration. And if that person cannot be fired, then reassign them to
cleaning toilets or picking up trash.
WHERE IS PRESIDENT TRUMP GETTING HIS PERSONNEL CHOICES FROM? We know Chris Cristie was one
who recommended director of the "Fibbers Bureau of Insurrection", Chris Wray and he is an
absolute disaster AND NEARLY AS BAD AS JAMES COMEY WHO MUST BE SUFFERING FROM DEMENTIA TOO AS
HE CANNOT SEEM TO REMEMBER ANYTHING WHILE UNDER OATH BEFORE A SENATE COMMITTEE.
And now we have this Gina Haspel running the CIA? ARE YOU F CKING KIDDING??
The first person to next get the ax in the Trump Administration is whoever it is that is
giving him these personnel choices, e.g., Rex Tillerson, James Matis, John Kelly, Kirsten
Nielson, Mark Esper, Mark Miley..........WHO IS PICKING THIS TRASH WHEN THE PRESIDENT NEEDS
REAL HELP PERFORMING A COLON FLUSH ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO GET THE GARBAGE OUT AND TO
UNDO THE DAMAGE DONE BY 8 YEARS OF BARACK O'DINGLEBARRY AND SLOW JOE BIDEN??
Citi The Real , 1 hour ago
Trumps entire cabinet is full of Goldman Sachs, Skull and Bones, CFR, Pentagon, CIA,
Career politicians... at what point do you realize he was never going to drain the swamp?
Both candidates are a joke and so is this website for becoming a Big R Republican
website.
DeeDeeTwo , 1 hour ago
This is all kabuki theater because Trump could have signed an Executive Order releasing
everything back to JFK 3 years ago instead of flapping his yap. Comey has a Hollywood movie
coming out this fall, As Biden said, "Shut up, man".
Alfred , 2 hours ago
The Director of the CIA is a cabinet position. If she doesn't want to take direction from POTUS, she should be fired.
Wild Bill Steamcock , 53 minutes ago
Yeah, there's a reason she's blocking it. If those papers are released, it'll lead to
someone high up the food chain facing a courtroom out of necessity because people will lose
their goddamed ****.
Once that happens, you'll by necessity have to go after six more. Then six more. Then
everyone in D.C., their families, friends, and pet dogs are gonna be locked up.
They protect themselves. "Obeyance of the law is for thee, not for me."
Wild Bill Steamcock , 41 minutes ago
No one is going to prison that deserves to over this. They'll crucify some desk monkey or
intern, pat each other on the back and brag about a job well done. We've seen it the last
four years, some low level schmuck changes the footer on some emails and the DOJ is all over
it like white on rice. Totally ignoring the fact there is a seditionist movement, maybe even
treasonous, happening at a systemic level throughout government. Four years is enough time to
build a case, lord knows any one with half a mind can find all the evidence needed in four
damned days.
The a-holes running the DOJ won't prosecute Comey, or Clinton, or Brennan or any other
name we know. Because they're doing dirty deeds themselves and don't want to set the
precedent in fear those who come after them might in turn prosecute them
radical-extremist , 1 hour ago
Be aware CIA people stick together like glue. They're more loyal to each other than they
are the US or any president. Once you're in the CLUB, you're in the CLUB for life. Trump was
absolutely right about not trusting "our intelligence agencies".
12Doberman , 1 hour ago
I hate the CIA...and it's been a power unto itself for a very long time. The idea that it
is under civilian oversight is a joke.
Max21c , 1 hour ago
the CIA...and it's been a power unto itself for a very long time. The idea that it is
under civilian oversight is a joke.
Quite true there is no oversight and the secret police community and intelligence
community are presently and have been for a long time above the law, above the Constitution,
above the very framework of government per above Congress & above the President and above
the Courts... and everybody just goes along with the pack of criminals in the security state
and accepts that they have the right to commit crimes, run criminal activities, and abuse
secret police powers... and nobody ever stands up to the Nazis and NeoNazis and these
radicals in the military secret police, military intelligence, Pentagon Gestapo, National
Security Council, FBI & CIA and the rest of the criminal underworld network inside and
around the organized criminal enterprises and organized criminal networks of the security
state...
12Doberman , 1 hour ago
That's right and the civilian government is largely just a facade.
ken , 1 hour ago
CIA wasn't W-A-S for preventing 9/11...or were they involved in it? Did the missing
trillions go to Israel, and that other country, as payment for services???
_arrow
protrumpusa , 2 hours ago
Someone asked in previous post - why do democrats hate Trump? Good question.
It can't be his policies - who except illegals don't want secure borders, who doesn't want a
strong private buisiness economy, who doesn't want manufacturing jobs to be brought back from
China.
Our democrat leaders, plus Romney all have a connection to Ukraine's stolen treasury money
and Soros's money too, and Trump doesn't . This I believe is the reason democrats hate
President Trump
protrumpusa , 2 hours ago
The Obama administration and the FBI knew that it was they who were meddling in a
presidential campaign - using executive intelligence powers to monitor the president's
political opposition. This, they also knew, would rightly be regarded as a scandalous abuse
of power if it ever became public. There was no rational or good-faith evidentiary basis to
believe that Trump was in a criminal conspiracy with the Kremlin or that he'd had any role in
Russian intelligence's suspected hacking of Democratic Party email accounts.
[snip]
In the stretch run of the 2016 campaign, President Obama authorized his administration's
investigative agencies to monitor his party's opponent in the presidential election, on the
pretext that Donald Trump was a clandestine agent of Russia. Realizing this was a gravely
serious allegation for which there was laughably insufficient predication, administration
officials kept Trump's name off the investigative files. That way, they could deny that they
were doing what they did. Then they did it . . . and denied it.
LEEPERMAX , 30 minutes ago
Gina Haspel worked directly for the instigator of the Crossfire Hurricane operation
– John Brennan. It would have been impossible for Haspel not to have known about the
British spying from London since it was reported in UK newspaper on a weekly basis.
She certainly was controlling Stefan
Halper , Josef
Mifsud ,
Stephan Roh , Alexander Downer, Andrew Wood, John McCain, Mark Warner, Adam Schiff and
the other conspirators.
Kan , 2 hours ago
The FBI and CIA are the enemy of the people. There is little doubt at this point that they
serve nobody but the bankers that formed the organization and themselves.
Gunston_Nutbush_Hall , 2 hours ago
How convenient.
CIA operative Trump nominates Haspel to be the CIA director, after CIA Operative Trump
picked CIA chief Mike Pompeo to replace Rex Tillerson as secretary of state, thereafter
Epstein is Trumpincided on CIA Operatives Barr Pompeo Trump's watch, while running smoke
cover for the CIA's Obama's False Flag National Government.
Shortly after taking office in 1999, Jesse Ventura writes he was asked to attend a meeting
at the state Capitol. He says 23 CIA agents were waiting for him in a basement conference
room.
The greatest False Flag ever? Brainwashing Americans to think Constitutional Federal
Government exists.
Kefeer , 17 minutes ago
The people who want to know and care to know the truth already know the truth. It is
suspect that Trump appoints people like Christopher Wray and Gina Haspel and I really do not
know what to make of it - is he part of the swamp or making bad decisions? I honestly do not
know, but my biblical lens filter tells me we are in trouble regardless of the outcomes
because so many of the institutions in government and industry are so corrupt.
Maltheus , 29 minutes ago
Trump is absolutely incompetent, when it comes to selecting people. He always has been.
Flynn was one of the few, who was halfway decent, and he got thrown to the wolves. Pretty
much everyone else, he's ever chosen, has knifed him in the back, and most of us saw it
coming a mile away.
Tuffmug , 13 minutes ago
The Swamp is deep and has had twenty + years to grow . Trump had to chose the ones who
stunk least from a slimy pool of corrupted officials and fight against every agency, each
filled with deep state snakes. I'm just surprised he is still breathing.
Kinskian , 29 seconds ago
So his incompetence begins and ends with "selecting people" and that gets no downvotes
from the 'tards. I understand why. You're still blaming other people for Trump's failures in
office instead of placing the blame squarely with HIM. He is incompetent in his role as
President, and that is his responsibility.
LEEPERMAX , 36 minutes ago
Gina Haspel would have known about the coup. If she has not reported all of this to the
President Trump, she is complicit in the overthrow attempt and is guilty of HIGH TREASON.
Wild Bill Steamcock , 49 minutes ago
Spooks run this world. And they certainly like power, and money. But do you want to know
what they like most of all?
Information.
Control of information drives everything else. And anyone who has even sniffed that world
knows to get quality information you can't buy it. Instead you have to trade information of
equal value.
We're not important enough to have the opportunity to know what they know. I don't know
about you, but I'm a little angry about that.
StealthBomber , 30 minutes ago
That is because they are un-accountable.
Wild Bill Steamcock , 30 minutes ago
and untouchable.
Take one out and the whole thing collapses.
insanelysane , 51 minutes ago
Don't think we need declassifications to know what happened. We know what
happened.
as I've stated many times, governments would be completely unstable if the government
legally proved that organizations within the government were involved is sedition. With the
IRS scandal the deflection was that a few rogue employees did some things even though the
entire IRS was involved in harassing far right and far left organizations.
The problem with Russiagate is that none of the rogue employees are willing to to go down
without taking everyone involved down. The IRS rogues got nice payouts and no prison
time.
radical-extremist , 1 hour ago
She doesn't want them released because obviously it implicates her in Strzok's Crossfire
Hurricane scheme. It also puts mud on the face of MI6, which is why Trump might be
hesitant.
October is young.
12Doberman , 1 hour ago
Haspel is also likely a figurehead in many respects. From what I've read about CIA over
the years those at the top have competing agendas and don't trust and share information with
each other. The idea that a president is sworn in ever 4-8 years and is brought up to speed
on everything they are doing is laughable...and likely impossible. No president fully
controls the CIA and it has it's own agenda that runs across and through
administrations...may as well call it the head of the deep state snake.
Felix da Kat , 2 hours ago
Haspel is a Brennan redux.
The deep state is much deeper than anyone dare thought.
If Trump cannot do unwind the DS,then all is lost.
If Biden gets in, he will only serve to further entrench DS operatives.
Looking bleak out there, folks.
1nd1v1s1ble1 , 3 hours ago
*sigh* As if anything is going to come of this...when has any high ranking politician EVER
been taken to task or incarcerated for their crimes? It's the same political theater brought
to you by the MSM/Jesuit/Jooish/Freemason cult who ritually perform their televised 'skits'
to the masses to make it appear as if justice exists or better yet, we have a Republic-
newsflash: it died a long, long time ago. The frightened mask-wearing, compliant sheeple lap
it up every f'n time-when do you awake and realize there is no bi-partisan political machine,
there is no blue versus red, just like their cronies in Hollyweird, these politicians are
simply actors who were too ugly to make it there, orange man aint gonna save ya, bumbling joe
aint gonna save ya, understand Stockholm Syndrome-survivors of 'merica....they DO NOT GIVE A
F#*K ABOUT YOU OR YOUR FAMILY and would prefer you were dead.
Even the POTUS cannot do anything in DC alone, no matter what he wants to do. He needs
people to cooperate or follow orders. It seems many or most of the people around him are deep
state spies. I think they are scared ****less of what Trump might try to declassify. I think
the CIA would destroy evidence before providing proof of a seditious coup. If you've
committed murder or treason, destroying evidence seems like jaywalking.
Now we know Haspel is personally involved and we probably know exactly why she is blocking
the release of this information.
Jack_Ewing , 17 minutes ago
Trump was supposed to drain the swamp but surrounded himself with the scariest of swamp
creatures, this Medusa-like entity being one of the most terrifying. Pompeo, Mnuchin, Wray,
Miller, Haspel, Kushner, and the chief of the all, the official cover-upper for the Deep
State for the last 40 years, William Barr.
donkey_shot , 45 minutes ago
surprise, surprise: one-time iraqi detainee torturer and current CIA chief gina haspel is
a nasty piece of work: geez, whodathunk?
The only reason I can think of for holding these documents is that the conspiracy is so
vast and intricate, it might destroy 80 plus percent of the government! If that's what it
comes down to, so be it! Blow the whole PHUCKING thing to kingdom come!
Philthy_Stacker , 45 minutes ago
An accurite assumption.
LOL123 , 1 hour ago
Gina Haspel doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
"The most explosive revelation was that the dossier was
bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee , a
fact that the Clinton campaign took pains to hide, that Clinton officials lied about, and
that Fusion GPS refused to reveal on its own. It wasn't an intelligence report at all. It was
a political hit job paid for by Trump's opponent."
Political issues " incorporated" into public stock holding corporations.
"Individual shareholders cannot generally sue over the deprivation of a corporation's
rights; only the board of directors has the standing to assert a corporation's constitutional
rights in court. [7]
-USA
Ever since Citizens United, the Supreme Court's 2010 decision allowing unlimited
corporate and union spending on political issues, Americans have been debating whether, as
Mitt Romney said, "Corporations are people, my friend."
The question came to the Supreme Court in a challenge to regulations implementing
President Obama's landmark health care law. Those regulations require employers with 50 or
more employees to provide those employees with comprehensive health insurance, which must
include certain forms of contraception. The contraception requirement was designed to protect
the rights of women. Studies show that access to
contraception has positive benefits for women's education, income, mental health, and family
stability.
since a political entity ( DNC and Hillary Campaign funded a public corporation which
is a " corporate personhood" and can be sued it is open to discovery in a court of
law.
the chickens have come home to roost....as Mitt Romney says....corporations are the
citizens "best friend".
R.G. , 1 hour ago
Citizens ARE corporaions.
4Y_LURKER , 1 hour ago
Finkel is Einhorn!
Einhorn is Finkel!
Totally_Disillusioned , 1 hour ago
If Sean Davis was able to unearth this, President Trump, Pompeo have known this for some
time and Ratcliffe certainly knows this. the question is "why is she allowed to block
disclosure?". None of the players are currently in service and would not be at risk if their
involvement was disclosed. What possibly is the excuse? Are they using the old excuse of not
revealing sources and methods?
All these people need a stern reminder the govt is owned by the people...they work for us.
So far we are the only people kept in the dark. Breakup the intel 17 agencies and re-engineer
down to two - one domestic and one international.
SirBarksAlot , 1 hour ago
It's always a national security issue when it's your responsibility to release the
documents that would incriminate you.
Gunston_Nutbush_Hall , 3 hours ago
Exactly why CIA Trump hand selected her. Exactly for the same reason CIA Trump hand
selected BARR.
TO PROVIDE CLEAN SMOKE N COVER FOR THEIR CIA NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.
Barr: CIA operative
It is a sobering fact that American presidents (many of whom have been corrupt) have gone
out of their way to hire fixers to be their attorney generals.
Consider recent history: Loretta Lynch (2015-2017), Eric Holder (2009-2015), Michael
Mukasey (2007-2009), Alberto Gonzales (2005-2007), John Ashcroft (2001-2005),Janet Reno
(1993-2001), **** Thornburgh (1988-1991), Ed Meese (1985-1988), etc.
Barr was a full-time CIA operative, recruited by Langley out of high school, starting
in 1971. Barr's youth career goal was to head the CIA.
CIA operative assigned to the China directorate, where he became close to powerful CIA
operative George H.W. Bush, whose accomplishments already included the CIA/Cuba Bay of
Pigs, Asia CIA operations (Vietnam War, Golden Triangle narcotics), Nixon foreign policy
(Henry Kissinger), and the Watergate operation.
When George H.W. Bush became CIA Director in 1976, Barr joined the CIA's "legal office"
and Bush's inner circle, and worked alongside Bush's longtime CIA enforcers Theodore "Ted"
Shackley, Felix Rodriguez, Thomas Clines, and others, several of whom were likely involved
with the Bay of Pigs/John F. Kennedy assassination, and numerous southeast Asian
operations, from the Phoenix Program to Golden Triangle narco-trafficking.
Barr stonewalled and destroyed the Church Committee investigations into CIA
abuses.
Barr stonewalled and stopped inquiries in the CIA bombing assassination of Chilean
opposition leader Orlando Letelier.
Barr joined George H.W. Bush's legal/intelligence team during Bush's vice presidency
(under President Ronald Reagan) Rose from assistant attorney general to Chief Legal Counsel
to attorney general (1991) during the Bush 41 presidency.
Barr was a key player in the Iran-Contra operation, if not the most important member of
the apparatus, simultaneously managing the operation while also "fixing" the legal end,
ensuring that all of the operatives could do their jobs without fear of exposure or
arrest.
In his attorney general confirmation, Barr vowed to "attack criminal organizations",
drug smugglers and money launderers. It was all hot air: as AG, Barr would preserve,
protect, cover up, and nurture the apparatus that he helped create, and use Justice
Department power to escape punishment.
Barr stonewalled and stopped investigations into all Bush/Clinton and CIA crimes,
including BCCI and BNL CIA drug banking, the theft of Inslaw/PROMIS software, and all
crimes of state committed by Bush
Barr provided legal cover for Bush's illegal foreign policy and war crimes
Barr left Washington, and went through the "rotating door" to the corporate world,
where he took on numerous directorships and counsel positions for major companies. In 2007
and again from 2017, Barr was counsel for politically-connected international law firm
Kirkland &
Ellis . Among its other notable attorneys and alumni are Kenneth Starr, John Bolton,
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and numerous Trump administration attorneys.
K&E's clients include sex trafficker/pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and Mitt Romney's Bain
Capital.
A strong case can be made that William Barr was as powerful and important a figure in the
Bush apparatus as any other, besides Poppy Bush himself.
...Shortly after taking office in 1999, Jesse Ventura writes he was asked to attend a
meeting at the state Capitol. He says 23 CIA agents were waiting for him in a basement
conference room.
Bobby Farrell Can Dance , 3 hours ago
The Navalny "incident" is the latest pathetic CIA and British MI6 operation and the
Belarus incitement. Sloppy, unoriginal and going to backfire in their stupid faces.
Everybody knows the evil empire wants Nordstream II dead, Navalny is the latest lever and
that woman they recognized as leader of Belarus is as laughable as that Guaido goon they
recognized in Venezuela, but he's actually outside of Venezuela - yeah that's how popular he
is. Western intelligence agenices are hacks, they are past their peak.
John Hansen , 3 hours ago
The real stupid thing is the West will succeed.
Spinifex , 20 minutes ago
Christopher Steele is THE GUY who 'doctored all this up'. Why has he not been bought
before congress and asked questions?
Sergi Scripal worked for Christopher Steele. Sergi Scripal earned tens of thousands of
pounds 'providing information' to Christopher Steele. Why is he 'not being asked questions?
He's not 'dead'. Sergi Scripal is 'alive and well' and 'being hidden' by the U.K. Government
'for his own safty.' The U.K. can provide 'access to Sergi Scripal.
Pablo Miller worked for Christopher Steele. Pablo Miller was Sergi Scripals 'handler' with
MI6. Pablo Miller was also the 'last person to talk to Sergi Scripal' before Sergi Scripal
'surccumed to Novichok poison.' Why is Pablo Miller (aka: Antonio Alvarez de Hidalgo -
https://gosint.wordpress.com/2019/02/02/who-is-mi6-officer-pablo-miller/
All three worked for Orbis Business Intelligence the company that wrote the 'Steele
Dossier' that Gina Haspel had access to and 'approved' sending onto the FBI and CIA. All
three, Christopher Steele, Sergi Scripal and Pablo Miller are 'alive and well' and all three
are able to provide information about the Steele Dossier, what was in the Steele Dossier, and
WHERE the information in the Steele Dossier came from. Ask the questions dammit, and you'll
get the answers.
headless blogger , 58 minutes ago
Not a fan of Trump, although I voted for him the first time, but he will be in serious
trouble if Biden gets into office as there are too many vengeful people on that side of the
isle. They attempted a coup d'etat which is the worse treason, where most of these people
would be executed in "normal" times.
So, they HAVE TO win at all costs, in their thinking. They will then turn the tables on
Trump as well as the entire Conservative camp. It looks like an ugly future if they win. If
Trump wins, it will be ugly too.
Sure signs to get the hell out now if you can.
The Technocracy crowd is behind all of this, btw. They are waiting for the full collapse
at which time we will be inundated with Tech Billionaires coming forward to "save us".
BEWARE!!
4 play_arrow 1
1nd1v1s1ble1 , 1 hour ago
*sigh* As if anything is going to come of this...when has any high ranking politician EVER
been taken to task or incarcerated for their crimes? It's the same political theater brought
to you by the MSM/Jesuit/Jooish/Freemason Satanic cult who ritually perform their televised
'skits' to the masses to make it appear as if justice exists or better yet, we have a
Republic- newsflash: it died a long, long time ago. The frightened mask-wearing, compliant
sheeple lap it up every f'n time-when do you awake and realize there is no bi-partisan
political machine? There is no blue versus red, just like their cronies in Hollyweird, these
colluding politicians are simply actors who were too ugly to make it there, orange man aint
gonna save ya, bumbling joe aint gonna save ya, understand Stockholm Syndrome-survivors of
'merica....they DO NOT GIVE A F#*K ABOUT YOU OR YOUR FAMILY and would actually prefer you
were dead.
Better/cheaper than sending US military to fight in another useless war.
headless blogger , 1 hour ago
Gina Haspel was selected by Trump!! When you take into consideration Trump's selections of
Haspel, Bolton, and many others, it becomes obvious there is someone in his admin that is
directing him to bring these people on. He brings them on and then they betray him.
5onIt , 1 hour ago
Pence is the dude you are looking for.
Haspel was the CIA Station Chief in London, when this was all going down.
Be sure, she has chit to hide.
LEEPERMAX , 1 hour ago
John Brennan led the coup this side of the Atlantic, while Gina Haspel , who was in the
CIA London office at the time, worked the coup from London as the CIA chief in cooperation
with GCHQ and Robert Hannigan. Both are creepy, corrupt traitors of America.
The current head of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gina Haspel, oversaw one such site
where torture was carried out. ... Abu Zubaydah, Courtesy Professor Mark P. Denbeaux, Seton
Hall University ...
y_arrow
Mister Delicious , 2 hours ago
She was Brennan's London pet.
She should be fired and escorted from the building, and then DOJ NSD should open an
investigation into her contacts with Brennan.
Think there might be a Demstate coup attempt?
Well, don't you imagine any friend of John Brennan's is not a friend of Trump.
I don't care how much you love Orange Jesus - he has picked absolutely terrible people
over and over and over.
Good DNI now but he needs to take charge.
richsob , 3 hours ago
Orange Fat Boy is getting played like a violin. You and I both know it. Does he? Probably
because you can see it on his face but he's just not willing to do what it would take to get
everything out into the open. And if he tries to expose everything after he's lost the
election nobody will listen to him......even you and I. It will be too late then.
We would think that the New York Slimes would know something about losses. After all, they
paid $1.1 Billion in 1993 for The Boston Globe and in 2013, sold it for $70 Million to
businessman John Henry, the principal owner of the Boston Red Sox, and a massive 93%
loss.
But it's worse than that because included in that sale is BostonGlobe.com ; Boston.com ; the direct-mail marketing company Globe Direct; the
company's 49 percent interest in Metro Boston, a free daily paper; Telegram.com and The Worcester Telegram & Gazette. The Times
bought the Telegram & Gazette for $295 million in 1999.
We should be convinced to pay any attention to Fake News Tabloid, The New York Slimes,
given that kind of Business Acumen? I don't think so.
rwe2late , 3 hours ago
Hope & Change, Drain the swamp, End the wars
Angelic Obama allegedly prevented from saving us by "deep state" Republicans.
Angelic Trump allegedly prevented from saving us by "deep state" Democrats.
Poor us, our chosen leaders and parties are always so blameless in failing us.
protrumpusa , 4 hours ago
President Trump has gotten rid just about everyone in this article I found 3 years ago
> The ATLANTIC COUNCIL is funded by BURISMA, GEORGE SOROS OPEN SOCIETY FOUNDATION &
others. It was a CENTRIST, MILITARISTIC think tanks,now turned leftist group
> JOE BIDEN extorted Ukraine to FIRE the prosecutor investigating BURISMA, HUNTER's
employer.
> LTC VINDMAN & FIONA HILL met MANY TIMES with DANIEL FRIED of the ATLANTIC
COUNCIL. FIONA HILL is a former CoWorker of CHRISTOPHER STEELE !
> AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH is connected to the ATLANTIC COUNCIL, is PRAISED in their
documents, gave Ukraine a "do not prosecute" list, was involved in PRESSURING Ukraine to not
prosecute GEORGE SOROS Group.
> BILL TAYLOR has a financial relationship with the ATLANTIC COUNCIL and the US UKRAINE
BUSINESS COUNCIL (USUBC) which is also funded by BURISMA.
> TAYLOR met with THOMAS EAGER (works for ADAM SCHIFF) in Ukraine on trip PAID FOR by
the ATLANTIC COUNCIL. This just days before TAYLOR first texts about the "FAKE" Quid Pro Quo
!
> TAYLOR participated in USUBC Events with DAVID J. KRAMER (JOHN MCCAIN advisor) who
spread the STEELE DOSSIER to the media and OBAMA officials.
> JOE BIDEN is connected to the ATLANTIC COUNCIL, he rolled out his foreign policy
vision while VP there, He has given speeches there, his adviser on Ukraine, MICHAEL CARPENTER
(heads the Penn Biden Center) is a FELLOW at the ATLANTIC COUNCIL.
> KURT VOLKER is now Senior Advisor to the ATLANTIC COUNCIL, he met with burisma
By Jonny Tickle Angela Merkel's visit to Alexey Navalny was an attempt to politicize
the situation, according to Russia's Foreign Ministry. The German Chancellor dropped in to see
the Russian opposition figure when he was hospitalized in Berlin.
Speaking to Komsomolskaya Pravda Radio, the Ministry's spokesperson Maria Zakharova said
that the chancellor's visit had "nothing to do with the desire to find the truth" about
what happened to an opposition figure who was allegedly poisoned, and was simply a political
decision.
"Many people ask why," Zakharova said, when questioned about Merkel's motives. "I
think these questions should be addressed to the German side we regard it as an attempt to
politicize the issue."
The current communication between Moscow and Berlin is an "endless game of tag," with
Germany refusing to use official channels, Zakharova claimed.
On Monday, Navalny confirmed that the chancellor had met with him in Berlin's Charite
hospital. The opposition figure denied that the meeting was "secret," calling it a
"private conversation with (his) family." The visit was also confirmed by German
government spokesperson Steffen Seibert, who clarified that Berlin does not announce Merkel's
private meetings. According to German magazine Der Spiegel, which first broke the news of the
encounter, it "should be regarded as a clue for the Russian government that Berlin will not
give in and will find out the truth [behind the incident]."
On August 20, Navalny was hospitalized in the Siberian city of Omsk after he became ill on a
flight from Tomsk to Moscow. Two days later, after a request from his family and associates,
the activist was flown to Berlin for treatment at the city's Charite clinic. Over a week later,
German authorities announced that the anti-corruption activist was poisoned with a substance
from the Novichok group of nerve agents. The medical team in Omsk denies that any poison was
found in Navalny's body. On September 23, he was discharged from hospital and is expected to
make a full recovery.
If you like this story, share it with a friend! Embla Bill Johnson 7 hours ago What
is certain is that EUC Ursula Von der Legen was activated. At least they are two about it. So
therefore the geopolitical region is covering EU member countries, not only Germany. Tor
Gjesdal 5 hours ago When the Banksters, Rothschild s are your Masters you just have to obey
Merkel. Besides US$ HAS much dirt on You also by their Spying on us All... Cyber criminals
Supreme. Which simply put: No Real Democracy at all, Faked this also. ((( Not to mention their
lies, cheating and stealing in their Medias and schools. etc.. What complete Hypocrits and how
Truely Un-Godly! It is so sad to see these Leaders of the Nazto-sphere showing how sold out
their Souls and Minds are. (( Galaxy31 5 hours ago The West is so desperate to make crooked
Navalny look like an important fierce opposition. In reality he is far far from being important
or a fierce opposition. He is simply a traitor politely said, nothing else. ariadnatheo 3 hours
ago What do they and what does Angela herself mean by "a private visit"? She is the head of the
German state for Zweibelkuchen sake! Private as in ... intimate? I cannot see her as a cougar.
In fact I can't even imagine her in bed. No way! Please say it ain't so, Angela! armyexpat 1
hour ago I wonder what "they" have on Merkel or her gov. The German gov is spinning a fairy
tail as fact.
"... In the infamous Steele dossier , prepared for the Clinton campaign by a 'former' British spy, the first entry that is tying the Trump campaign to the 'Russian DNC hack' was allegedly written on July 28 2016. ..."
"... The president of Crowdstrike, the cybersecurity company which investigated the DNC leak, later said that his company never found any proof that Russia had hacked the DNC. ..."
"... The claims made in the Ratcliffe letter fit the timeline of the scandal as it developed. They supports the assertion that the Clinton campaign made up 'Russiagate' from whole cloth. It was supported in that by a myriad of media and by dozens of high level anti-Trump activists in the FBI and CIA. ..."
"... "There was no transition because they came after me trying to do a coup. They came after me spying on my campaign. They started from the day I won and even before I won. From the day I came down the escalator with our First Lady. They were a disaster. They were a disgrace to our country. And we've caught 'em. We've caught 'em all. We've got it all on tape. We've caught 'em all." ..."
"... The need to then cover for murder added to the urgency to propagate the whole "Russiagate" fiction. The US' misnamed "intelligence community" and mass media both were complicit in the murder of Rich, so they had additional motivation to lead the public off the scent with an entirely fabricated false narrative. ..."
"... I doubt that it was solely a Clinton operation. After all, CIA director Mike Morrell kicked it off with his piece in the NY Times, which signaled some significant level of support at least parts of the intelligence community. ..."
"... The whole Russiagate affaire was very reminiscent of the Ken Starr inquisition, which yielded nothing until Bubba cavalierly incriminated himself with Monica. Trump has yet to prove himself that stupid. ..."
"... Remember when Tulsi Gabbard called out Hillary Clinton about getting the media to support her Russiagating of her? ..."
"... "Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know -- it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose. It's now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don't cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly." ..."
"... Seriously, Mr. President? You have been given a personal intelligence briefing from your CIA Director that one of the candidates to succeed you in the Presidency is an actual, bought and paid-for agent of Russia? And you don't go public because Ole Meanie Mitch won't let you ? ..."
"... This said to me that Obama knew it was all BS from the beginning. Of course, there have been gobs of disclosures and evidence since that it was fake and BS, and none whatsoever that it was real. ..."
"... Thanks to Wikileaks, we have a copy of an email exchange between Hillary's Campaign Manager, John Podesta and longtime Democratic operative Brent Budowsky talking about how Hillary should take on The Donald. Budowski tells Podesta: "Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin, but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria."" ..."
"... The Russiagate fabrication was a political convenience for the Dems, but it allowed Trump and his NATO/EU agents to sanction, pressurise, interfere with Russia in every dimension, because Trump 'had to' to show they he was not Russia's sock puppets! ..."
"... The video I just watched and linked to on the Week in Review thread makes this observation: The Ds burned the US-Russia relationship while the Rs made no real protest; now we have the Rs burning the US-China relationship while the Ds make no real protest. ..."
"... Assange announced on June 12, 2016 that a new tranche of DNC emails had been leaked to Wikileaks and was being prepared for publication. The effort to manufacture the false narrative about Russian hacking began immediately after that, likely within minutes of the announcement. ..."
"... A "populist outsider" will NEVER be allowed to win the Presidency. It was claimed that Obama was also a "populist outsider" yet he served the Deep State/Empire and the US establishment very well. ..."
"... Russiagate was primarily a means of initiating a new McCarthyism as part of a plan to counter Russia and China. ..."
Where the allegations that Russia intervened in the 2016 presidential elections made up by
the Clinton campaign?
A letter sent by Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe seems
to suggest so :
On Tuesday, Ratcliffe, a loyalist whom Trump placed atop U.S. intelligence in the spring,
sent Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) a letter claiming that in late July 2016, U.S. intelligence
acquired "insight" into a Russian intelligence analysis. That analysis, Ratcliffe summarized
in his letter, claimed that Clinton had a plan to attack Trump by tying him to the 2016 hack
of the Democratic National Committee.
...
Ratcliffe stated that the intelligence community "does not know the accuracy of this
allegation or to the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect
exaggeration or fabrication."
The letter says that then CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Obama on the
intelligence. He reported that the Russians believed that Clinton approved the campaign plan on
July 26 2016.
So U.S. intelligence spying on Russian intelligence analysts found that the Russians
believed that Clinton started a 'Trump is supported by the Russian hacking of the DNC'
campaign. The Russian's surely had reason to think that.
Emails from the Democratic National Committee were published by Wikileaks on July 22
2016, shortly before the Democratic National Convention. They proved that during the primaries
the DNC had actively worked against candidate Bernie Sanders.
On July 24 Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook went on CNN and made, to my knowledge,
the very first
allegations (video) that Russia had 'hacked' the DNC in support of Donald Trump.
It is likely that the Russian analysts had seen that.
Mook's TV appearance was probably a test balloon raised to see if such claims would
stick.
Two days later Clinton allegedly approved campaign plans to emphasize such claims.
In the infamous Steele
dossier , prepared for the Clinton campaign by a 'former' British spy, the first entry that
is tying the Trump campaign to the 'Russian DNC hack' was allegedly written on July 28
2016.
The president of Crowdstrike, the cybersecurity company which investigated the DNC leak,
later said that his company
never found any proof that Russia had hacked the DNC.
There are suspicions that Seth Rich, an IT administrator for the DNC and Bernie Sanders
supporter, has leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks . Rich was murdered on July 10 2016 in
Washington DC in an alleged 'robbery' during which nothing was stolen.
The claims made in the Ratcliffe letter fit the timeline of the scandal as it developed.
They supports the assertion that the Clinton campaign made up 'Russiagate' from whole cloth. It
was supported in that by a myriad of media and by dozens of high level anti-Trump activists in
the FBI and CIA.
Posted by b on September 30, 2020 at 16:04 UTC |
Permalink
Are you trying to tell me b that "We came, we saw, he died" Clinton is suspected of
wrongdoing?/snark
I am all for bringing down the whole house of corrupt cards that fronts for the private
finance cult. The Clintons are just examples of semi-recent to recent corruption. Obama is in
that boat as is Biden and others.
But just remember that Trump was already entirely corrupt before (s)elected into power.
Trump is just another front for global private finance evil that humanity must face.
Another "conspiracy theory" turned into conspiracy fact.
With regards to Killary being "supported in that by a myriad of media and by dozens of
anti-Trump activists...", well, it's a pay-to-play world and CGI was the
piggybank at that particular time...
thanks b... the timeline certainly fits and is consistent here.... larry johnson at sst has
an article up on the same topic... how much of this is coming out now due the election and
how much of it is coming out now, just because it happens to be coming out now??
It's hard to tell when Trump is ever being truthful, but in last night's debate he clearly
stated:
"There was no transition because they came after me trying to do a coup. They came after
me spying on my campaign. They started from the day I won and even before I won. From the day
I came down the escalator with our First Lady. They were a disaster. They were a disgrace to
our country. And we've caught 'em. We've caught 'em all. We've got it all on tape. We've
caught 'em all."
Whether that is indicative of an imminent substantial October surprise i guess we will all
have to wait and see.
The murder/robbery of Seth Rich has frequently been described as "botched" , which I
have always felt was a strange way to describe a murder. It is as if the mass media were
trying to exculpate the murderer even though we are supposed to not know who the murderer
actually is.
So nothing was taken from Rich, but perhaps that is because the murderer couldn't find
what he was looking for? The USB thumb drive with the purloined emails, maybe? Of course, by
the time Rich was murdered the emails had already been passed along to Wikileaks, but I
suppose the murderer might not have known that at the time. That would make an effort to
retrieve the emails "botched" , wouldn't it? This suggested to me from the moment that
I heard it that those in the mass media who seeded the story of a robbery being
"botched" in fact were knowingly covering for the effort to control the leak which was
what was "botched" .
The need to then cover for murder added to the urgency to propagate the whole
"Russiagate" fiction. The US' misnamed "intelligence community" and mass media
both were complicit in the murder of Rich, so they had additional motivation to lead the
public off the scent with an entirely fabricated false narrative.
With no evidence at all my suspicion is that Rich was killed as a crime of passion committed
by a hotheaded member of his own family, which would explain both the family's reticence and
the somewhat muted investigation.
There are suspicions that Seth Rich, an IT administrator for the DNC and Bernie Sanders
supporter, has leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks. Rich was murdered on July 10 2016 in
Washington DC in an alleged 'robbery' during which nothing was stolen.
That explains why Bernie Sanders suddenly became the "sheep dog". He flat out doesn't want
to be assassinated and doesn't want his family to be also assassinated.
While it would be a boon for the nation, I rather doubt Trump will have Barr indict the
Clintons for their crimes or go after the daily fraud committed at the Fed or on Wall Street.
I doubt Trump has any inkling that in order to truly make America Great Again he must first
destroy the Financial Parasites who caused America's downfall in the first place. Thirty-four
days to go.
Assange repeatedly stated russia didn't leak the emails. i saw no compelling reason to think
he would lie about it. then when the steel dossier came out it was so over the top and reeked
of fabrication. the whole thing was so far fetched and then ratcheted up 1000 fold after she
lost the election as an excuse. she never took any responsibility for her loss.
i think what amazes me most is how the media, and everyone following along, believed this
story that drove the narrative for years. this ridiculous obsession with russia was all part
of a coverup to distract the public from how rotten to the core the dnc is.
The mention of Seth Rich in connection with Russiagate prompted a hazy recollection of an
article over at SST by Larry C Johnson (LCJ), who has been exposing flaws in the Russiagate
fiasco for several years. LCJ deduced from the publicly-available Wikileaks/DNC files that
they couldn't have been hacked over the WWW because the timestamp for each file indicated
that those files came from a portable device, a thumb drive. From that info, and Assange
being very upset about the murder of Seth Rich, LCJ concluded that Rich sent the DNC files to
Wikileaks.
I looked up SST's "Russiagate" files and found the relevant article dated August 28, 2019
from which the following brief extract is the section mentioning file-types which LCJ found
so compelling...
... An examination of the Wikileaks DNC files shows they were created on 23 and 25 May and 26
August respectively. The fact that they appear in a FAT system format indicates the data was
transfered to a storage device, such as a thumb drive.
How can you prove this? The truth lies in the "last modified" time stamps on the
Wikileaks files. Every single one of these time stamps end in even numbers. If you are not
familiar with the FAT file system, you need to understand that when a date is stored under
this system the data rounds the time to the nearest even numbered second.
Bill examined 500 DNC email files stored on Wikileaks and found that all 500 files
ended in an even number -- 2, 4, 6, 8 or 0. If a system other than FAT had been used, there
would have been an equal probability of the time stamp ending with an odd number. But that is
not the case with the data stored on the Wikileaks site. All end with an even number.
...
I doubt that it was solely a Clinton operation. After all, CIA director Mike Morrell kicked
it off with his piece in the NY Times, which signaled some significant level of support at
least parts of the intelligence community.
The whole Russiagate affaire was very reminiscent of the Ken Starr inquisition, which
yielded nothing until Bubba cavalierly incriminated himself with Monica. Trump has yet to
prove himself that stupid.
I suspect that Hillary was delighted at the prospect of revenge for all she and Bubba had
gone through in the 1990s...except that she totally blew it...
Remember when Tulsi Gabbard called out Hillary Clinton about getting the media to support her
Russiagating of her? Here it is, you can see she blames Hillary as the source of the story:
"Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption,
and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have
finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has
been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why.
Now we know -- it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate
media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose. It's now clear that this primary is
between you and me. Don't cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly."
The Ballad of Tulsi and Hillary shows us how much the US and the world lost by the media
supporting Hillary in her plan to Russiagate the world.
The letter says that then CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Obama on the
intelligence. He reported that the Russians believed that Clinton approved the campaign plan
on July 26 2016.
I was one of those who thought that the whole Russia conspiracy was dubious from day one,
although I might have been kind of, "Well, maybe " for a day or so.
But that line from your post I quoted above points to one of the earliest and most
convincing pieces of evidence to me that the whole thing was fake. It was reported early on
that Obama had been briefed on the Russian interference and he wanted to go public to the
American people about what was going on, but Senator Mitch McConnell wouldn't agree to
it!
Seriously, Mr. President? You have been given a personal intelligence briefing from your
CIA Director that one of the candidates to succeed you in the Presidency is an actual, bought
and paid-for agent of Russia? And you don't go public because Ole Meanie Mitch won't let
you ?
This said to me that Obama knew it was all BS from the beginning. Of course, there have
been gobs of disclosures and evidence since that it was fake and BS, and none whatsoever that
it was real.
Even with all the revelations debunking the whole Russiagate narrative, the Deep State has
been successful in instilling in the news media, Hollywood, political elites of both parties,
and the overwhelming base of the democratic party that Russia somehow "installed" Trump, that
he is a Putin "puppet/puppy" (your choice), and any resistance to establishment democratic
party power is due to Russian manipulation of social media, and in general Russia (etc.) is
fundamental to causing social and political problems. It took America about seven years to
get over McCarthyism. Russiagate will stay in American discourse for a long time.
The dangerous part of Russiagate is that it has reached the level of hysteria that it can
be used by American Deep State to justify direct and dangerous confrontations with Russia up
to and including war. Russiagate pales the propaganda about Saddam and WNDs. Let us remember
that two days into the US invasion of Iraq, the invasion had a 72% approval rating according
to Gallup. Any conflict with Russia will probably have even higher approval levels.
Between Trump and Biden, it is Biden who will be the most likely to start the final
conflagration.
@hoarsewhisperer I trust that the time stamps indicates that a FAT format was used at a
certain stage. What I don't recall is that how this would exclude workflows which involve an
USB stick at any later stage after a hack. I think this technical proof is not as decisive as
it seems and calculating huge statistical odds does not change that. The fact that the NSA
has not come up with proof, now that does mean something. Something Baskervillish.
Found it interesting that in the very mainstream 'Friends' sitcom it was already a joke in
the 90s that "gi joe looks after american foreign oil interests".
Except for a few conflict sitreps there really hasn't been much of note posted here this
year.
Former NSA Technical Director Bill Binney has also argued that the data could not have been
hacked because internet speeds at the time were not sufficient for the transfer of the data
when it was extracted. He claims that the speed was consistent with saving to a thumb drive.
The word "botched" could have been invented to explain why nothing was stolen, in order to
put off those who questioned the motive.
No witness came forward but it could be that someone saw the shooting from a distance and
yelled at the perp.
"Ratcliffe's letter, which is based on information obtained by the CIA, states that Hillary
decided on 26 July 2016 to launch the Russia/Trump strategem. But the CIA was mistaken. The
Clinton effort started in 2015--December 2015 to be precise.
Thanks to Wikileaks, we have a copy of an email exchange between Hillary's Campaign
Manager, John Podesta and longtime Democratic operative Brent Budowsky talking about how
Hillary should take on The Donald. Budowski tells Podesta:
"Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin, but not go too far betting
on Putin re Syria.""
Larry Johnson wrote today in his article "I Told You Long Ago, Hillary's Team Helped
Fabricate the Trump Russia Collusion Lie by Larry C Johnson"
If I remember correctly Obummer signed legislation making it ok for the press to openly lie
to everyone in the us! HR4310, legalized propaganda for US consumption. He gave us fake news!
The constant stream of US, UK, NATO, EU fabrications framing Russia, from MH17, Skripal,
'interfering in elections' garbage, the Navalry poisoning, coupled with endless provocations
like interfering in the Syrian settlement, twisting the OPCW work, attempting to destroy the
Iran nuclear agreement and so much more appear to -finally - running out Russia's strategic
patience with the Trump administration.
1. 24 September Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov:
"...the incumbent US administration has lost its diplomatic skills almost for good."
"we have come to realise that in terms of Germany and its EU and NATO allies' conduct, ...it
is impossible to deal with the West until it stops using provocations and fraud and starts
behaving honestly and responsibly."
The Russiagate fabrication was a political convenience for the Dems, but it allowed Trump
and his NATO/EU agents to sanction, pressurise, interfere with Russia in every dimension,
because Trump 'had to' to show they he was not Russia's sock puppets!
Looks like Russia might be shifting strategy from strictly going through the defined and
agreed processes in relation to problems with the West to perhaps not engaging so
meticulously.
After all, what's the point when the agreed processes are ignored by the other party?
So, does "impossible to deal with" mean "will not deal with"?
The video I just watched and linked to on the Week in Review thread makes this observation:
The Ds burned the US-Russia relationship while the Rs made no real protest; now we have the
Rs burning the US-China relationship while the Ds make no real protest.
Many other nations
are watching, some already having joined the China-Russia bloc while others get ready as they
watch what little remains of US soft power go down the tubes thanks to Imperial tactics being
deployed onto US streets. Meanwhile, lurking not too far away is the coming escalation of the
financial crisis which Trump's Trade War has exacerbated. Those running this show are myopic
to the max--in order to post an economic recovery, the markets existing in those nations now
being alienated will be essential since the domestic market will be far too weak to fuel a
recovery by itself, even with enlightened leadership.
"On July 24 Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook went on CNN and made, to my knowledge, the
very first allegations (video) that Russia had 'hacked' the DNC in support of Donald
Trump."
It is not the case that it was the first such allegation. To my knowledge, the first such
allegation that was published was published on 14 June 2016 in the Washington Post,
headlining "Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump"
and I provide here an archived link to it instead of that newspaper's link, so that no
paywall will block a reader from seeing that article: https://archive.is/T4C2G
powerandpeople @28: "So, does "impossible to deal with" mean "will not deal with"?"
Highly unlikely. The Russians will continue to pursue reason even after the war on Russia
goes hot. If the Russians give up on diplomacy then that means Lavrov is out of a job. The
Russians are capable of walking and chewing gum, or shooting and talking as the case may be,
at the same time.
By the way, I think the same is true for the Chinese, even if they have not done much
shooting lately. When America's war against them goes hot they will keep the door to
diplomacy open throughout the conflict. Neither of these countries wants a war and it is the
US that is pushing for one. They will be happy to stop the killing as soon as the US does.
Personally I think that may be a mistake because when the war goes hot and the US suffers
some military defeats and sues for peace, if America still has the capability to wage war
then the peace will just be temporary. The US will use any cessation of hostilities to rearm
and try to catch its imagined enemies off guard.
Whether or not the US will be able to rearm after significant military defeats in its
current de-industrialized condition is another matter.
How can the US possibly contemplate a war with China? The US cannot function without China's
production. To cite just one example; eighty percent of US pharmaceuticals are produced in
China. The US needs China far more than China needs the US. A war with China is a war the US
cannot win.
Assange announced on June 12, 2016 that a new tranche of DNC emails had been leaked to
Wikileaks and was being prepared for publication. The effort to manufacture the false
narrative about Russian hacking began immediately after that, likely within minutes of
the announcement.
We already knew that Hillary had engaged Steele in Spring 2016 as what was termed an
"insurance policy". This "insurance" angle makes no sense: 1) Hillary was the overwhelming
favorite when she engaged Steele and had virtually unlimited resources that she could call
upon. And, 2) the bogus findings in Steele's dossier could easily be debunked by any
competent intelligence agency so it wasn't any sort of "insurance" at all.
<> <> <> <> <>
That Hillary started Russiagate is not surprising. This limited hangout, which is
so titillating to some, is meant to cover for a far greater conspiracy than Hillary's
vindictiveness.
We should first recognize a few things:
the Empire is a bi-partisan affair;
the Presidency is the lynch-pin of the Empire;
it became apparent in 2013-14 that the Empire (aka "World Order") was at grave risk as
Russia's newfound militancy showed that her alliance with China had teeth.
the 2016 race was KNOWN to be rigged via Hillary's collusion with DNC and Sanders'
sheepdogging (Note: After the collusion became know, Hillary gave disgraced Debra
Wasserman-Shultz a high-level position within Hillary's campaign - further angering
progressives). Why does it surprise anyone that the General Election was also rigged?
These facts lead to the following conclusions:
A "populist outsider" will NEVER be allowed to win the Presidency. It was claimed that
Obama was also a "populist outsider" yet he served the Deep State/Empire and the US
establishment very well.
Hillary's 2016 "campaign mistakes" were likely deliberate/calculated to allow Trump to
win. MAGA Nationalist Trump was the Deep State's favorite. This explains why Trump
announced that he would not investigate the Clintons within days of his being elected and
why Trump picked close associates of all his 'Never Trump' Deep State enemies to fill key
posts in his Administration such as: John Brennan's gal Gina Haspel for CIA Director; John
McCain's guy Mike Pence as VP; the Bush's guy William Barr for Attorney General; and the
neocon's John Bolton for NSA.
Russiagate was primarily a means of initiating a new McCarthyism as part of a plan to
counter Russia and China.
David @32: "How can the US possibly contemplate a war with China?"
Sadly, the United States is suffering from delusions of exceptionality. Mass psychosis.
The importance of industrial capacity is radically underestimated by the top economic
theorists (and thus advisors) in the West, and except for some of the deplorable working
people in America and perhaps about five or six Marxists in the country, the rest of the
American population is equally delusional. "Well, if we can't get it from China then we
will just order it from Amazon!
I hope you are sitting down and prepared to go into shock. Breaking news--""In late July
2016, US intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging
that US Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a
scandal against US Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians'
hacking of the DNC." If you are not a regular reader of SST, yes, you will be shocked. But for
you old timers, you already knew this.
Yes. I am taking another well earned victory lap. I was the first to write about this. You
can find my piece here (
published on 6 May 2019 ). Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe gave Senator
Lindsey Graham a letter today detailing recently declassified intelligence outlining the
Clinton Campaign's effort to manufacture a collusion narrative featuring Donald Trump and
Vladimir Putin. Here's the letter:
Ratcliffe's letter, which is based on information obtained by the CIA, states that Hillary
decided on 26 July 2016 to launch the Russia/Trump strategem. But the CIA was mistaken. The
Clinton effort started in 2015--December 2015 to be precise. Thanks to Wikileaks, we have a
copy of an email exchange between Hillary's Campaign Manager, John Podesta and longtime
Democratic operative Brent Budowsky talking about how Hillary should take on The Donald.
Budowski tells Podesta:
" Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin , but not go too far
betting on Putin re Syria ."
This was more then opposition research by Hillary's campaign. It entailed an extensive
weaponization of U.S. and foreign law enforcement and intelligence assets that set out to
identify and target members of Trump's campaign who could be used to feed the Russian collusion
meme. Hillary, for example, had a powerful and dangerous ally in a London firm comprised of
former MI6 assets–
Hakluyt:
there was a second, even more powerful and mysterious opposition research and intelligence
firm lurking about with significant political and financial links to former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton and her 2016 campaign for president against Donald Trump.
Meet London-based Hakluyt & Co. ,
founded by three former British intelligence operatives in 1995 to provide the kind of
otherwise inaccessible research for which select governments and Fortune 500 corporations pay
huge sums. . . .
Hakluyt is described by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism's
Henry Williams as " one of the more secretive firms within the corporate investigations
world " and as "a retirement home for ex-MI6 [British foreign intelligence] officers, but
it now also recruits from the worlds of management consultancy and banking "
It is no mere coincidence that Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer, who was credited by
the FBI as serving up the predicate to launch the investigation into
George Papadopolous, also was closely tied to the Clinton Foundation and funneling
Austailian money to the Clinton's. Back in 2006, Downer was Australia's Foreign Minister when
he and Bill Clinton signed a $25 million Memorandum of Understanding, marking the first round
of Australian taxpayer donations to the Clinton Foundation.
The timing of Alexander Downer's "sudden concern" about Papadopolous is very suspect. Downer
waited two months before informing US authorities about Papadopoulus's alleged drunken bragging
about the Trump team working with the Russians to get Hillary. But why wait two months? Should
we take it as nothing more than this being a coincidence with the fact that Hillary at the same
time approved an effort by her campaign to tie Trump to Russia in order to divert attention
from her email scandal. The alleged Russian hacking of DNC emails was front-page news around
the world by June 15. Why did it take Downer four more weeks to comprehend the dire
implications of Papadopoulus's intoxicated ramblings? Papadopoulos disputes Downer's account.
Yet, per Mueller, this was one more event justifying the Russian interference meme.
It was Downer who told the FBI of Papodopoulos' comments, which became one of the "driving
factors that led the FBI to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia's attempts to
disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump's associates conspired," The Times
reported.
Downer, a long-time Aussie chum of Bill and Hillary Clinton, had been on Hakluyt's advisory
board since 2008. Officially, he had to resign his Hakluyt role in 2014, but his informal
connections continued uninterrupted, the News Corp. Australian Network
reported in a January 2016 exclusive:
But it can be revealed Mr. Downer has still been attending client conferences and gatherings
of the group, including a client cocktail soirée at the Orangery at Kensington Palace a
few months ago.
His attendance at that event is understood to have come days after he also attended a
two-day country retreat at the invitation of the group, which has been involved in a number of
corporate spy scandals in recent times.
The Clinton Plot, aided and abetted by the CIA and the FBI, to destroy Donald Trump
continues to chug along. But it is no longer avoiding scrutiny. The truth is coming out, albeit
slowly. But this latest revelation should be considered in the context of news that John Durham
also is taking a fresh look at the criminal conduct of the Clinton Foundation. I do not think
these matters are unrelated.
"..Russian intelligence analysis alleging that US Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton
had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against US Presidential candidate Donald
Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians' hacking of the DNC."
Larry,
So what analysis did the US IC have not just in the Obama administration but also in the
Trump administration? Why didn't they get the intel on Hillary's plan?
All Trump appointees were in place by early 2017 - AG, DAG, FBI & CIA Director, DNI.
Is the story now that the Russian IC knew about Hillary's plan but the Trump IC did not?
A well earned victory lap. It looks like Trump finally got some people who were willing to
go there.
In saying that, in the past, or at least immediately after he assumed office, he was
reluctant to go after Hillary. And I think she has too much dirt on other people, too much
leverage to be put down.
I like this direction and I hope to see something happen.
Blue Peacock
The fact that this was hidden is further evidence that the Deep State was hiding this info
and trying to suppress it. The Russian meme is bullshit. What I mean by that is the narrative
that Trump was colluding with the Russians. He wasn't. It was a fabricated narrative and the
evidence was being withheld. If Trump interfered in trying to release that info they were
going to use it as evidence of "obstruction of justice."
Good News, Mr. Johnson. Politico reports that Ratcliffe duped by Russian Disinformation.
Source: SSCI. Warner and his succubus Richard Burr investigated the matter. Nothing to see.
Russian disinformation. Nothing to see here.
James,
Appreciate your humor. Politico is a disgrace. Ignore reality and whistle past the graveyard.
We'll see if the Little Old Lady from South Carolina finds his testicles tomorrow and presses
the issue with Jimmy Comey. But facts are facts. There is zero evidence that the Russians
hacked the DNC.
I recall Comey reporting he took a disturbing "letter" he had received to Loretta Lynch,
when he was agonizing over either (1) disclosing the Carlos Danger Weiner emails or (2) the
fake "exoneration" over the original Clinton email debacle.
Can't remember which event. . I believe Comey explained to Lunch, see what i am up
against?
Lynch apparently only gave Comey a very jaundiced eye, and made no comment. So Comey went
ahead and did what he did on his own -either (1) re-open the Weiner emails; or (2) go forward
with the pre-judged "exoneration". (Memory fritz here)
Does this ring a bell? Was this Clinton instigated Trump Russia hoax claim in the "letter"
to Comey? Did this have anything to do with Bill Clinton's "random" tarmac meeting with Lynch
in this same time frame?
The tarmac Lynch meeting would have coincided with the "exoneration" move by Comey.
PS, thanks for keeping us on top of this still very evolving and breaking story - 3.5
years later. Way too many loose ends that have not yet come together, but odd events when put
into relationship with other later disclosures help clear the fog.
......."
" To be clear, this is not Russian disinformation and has not been assessed as such by
the Intelligence Community. I'll be briefing Congress on the sensitive sources and methods by
which it was obtained in the coming days," he (Radcliffe) wrote.........
It gets better, Facebook labels the DNI's letter as false information, and it only took
them an hour to do so. Of course they turned it over to CNN's former reporter Alan Duke,
Editor-in-Chief & co-founder of "Lead Stories".
Congratulations on your early discernment of the centrality of the Clinton Group in this
conspiracy. What was the date of your first piece on this? I would like to re-publish it.
It's seems that every time that investigation/prosecution of those involved in the Seth
Rich murder is brought up, D.C. looks and runs the other way as fast as possible. What do you
think is going on? Was Rich one more of the Clinton Group's body count?
Yes, you DO deserve a victory lap. It's too bad that your right to a victory lap is now
confirmed so much later than it should have been. We could have had saved lots and lots of
time and newsprint if others had listened earlier. D.C. really is full of swamp gas that the
truth is often clouded over and ignored for a long time.
So much time wasted and so much in the way of tax payors' money spent over the years only
to have this finally confirmed years later. My greatest wish would be that we never have to
hear a word from HRC ever again.
Thanks for taking "no quarter" on the perpetrators of this attempt to subvert our
government.
"[A]betted by the CIA and the FBI" and legions of MSM types tripping over each other to
get their daggers bloody. If indictments go out (a big "if") the people coordinating the MSM
should be served, too.
"It gets better, Facebook labels the DNI's letter as false information, and it only took
them an hour to do so. Of course they turned it over to CNN's former reporter Alan Duke,
Editor-in-Chief & co-founder of "Lead Stories". "
The burden of proof is on your side. A letter is not proof. Anyone can write one.
Clinton approved an advisor's proposal to "vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal
claiming interference by Russian security services" in July 2016, according to information
declassified on Tuesday by Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe. The bombshell
revelation was made public in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.
Carolina), in response to a request for information related to the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane
(i.e. Russiagate) probe.
By the end of July 2016, US intelligence agencies had picked up chatter that their Russian
counterparts not only knew of the scheme, but that Clinton was behind it – though the
declassified material stresses that the American intelligence community "does not know the
accuracy" of the claim that Clinton had green-lighted such a plan, or whether the Russians
were exaggerating. However, then-CIA director John Brennan apparently followed up that
assessment by briefing then-President Barack Obama on Clinton's Russian smear scheme, according
to his handwritten notes – suggesting the spy agencies were very much aware what was
going on.
The news made a splash among the president's supporters and other Russiagate skeptics, one
of whom observed the timing of the events described in the declassified material dovetailed
seamlessly with the timetable in which Russiagate was unveiled to the public. Clinton staffer
Robby Mook appeared on CNN on July 24, 2016 to claim that "Russian state
actors broke into the [Democratic National Committee]" and "stole" the campaign's
emails "for the purpose of actually helping Donald Trump."
Former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele filed his report around the same date,
accusing the Trump campaign of colluding with Russian security services to hack the DNC and
dump the emails via Wikileaks. The false information that made up the infamous "peepee
dossier" – collected under contract from opposition research firm Fusion GPS –
was used to justify securing a FISA warrant for Trump campaign aide Carter Page. That warrant,
and others that followed, have since been declared invalid, as it was discovered the Obama
administration had "violated its duty of candor" on its application for every
warrant.
Just a month before the 2016 election, Obama's intelligence agencies announced that they
believed Russia was responsible for hacking the DNC – allegations it has since emerged
were made without even examining the server on which the emails were stored.
More than a year after the release of special counsel Robert Mueller's report shocked
Russiagate true believers with the absence of the promised proof of collusion, the colossal
conspiracy theory has all but unraveled.
Today, the Arctic has increasingly become identified as a domain of great prosperity
and cooperation amongst world civilizations on the one side and a domain of confrontation and
war on the other.
In 2007, the Russian government first voiced its support for the construction of the
Bering Strait rail tunnel connecting the Americas with the Eurasian continent- a policy which
has taken on new life in 2020 as Putin's Great Arctic Development strategy has wedded itself
to the northern extension of the Belt and Road Initiative (dubbed the Polar Silk Road). In
2011, the Russian government re-stated its pledge to build the $64 billion project .
####
On September 26, President Trump announced that a long-overdue project would receive
Federal support which involves connecting Alaska for the first time with Canada and the lower
48 states via a 2570 km railway.
In his Tweet announcing the project, Trump said:
####
I'd never read about the sale of Alaska to America by Russia in any detail before but just
by looking at the map it was clear that it made sense. Indefensible against a rapidly growing
country, so sell early for a good price or lose it and get nothing.
As for Ehret's hypothesis, we know that t-Rump sees things in a deal oriented way and not
simply 'You must be destroyed (TM)' way, though his methods of reaching such deals 'Maximum
Pressure (TM)' are none too bright and result in less than a normally negotiated deal. But,
if we look at the ends rather than the means, improving trade links is surely to America's
(and others) advantage.
One thing that does strike me from the maps of the proposed increased US-Asia links is
that having those function normally is not compatible with the current strategic goal of
trying to contain China. So, what is the point of the US Pacific Fleet? Just Free-Dumb of
Navigation (FONOPS) cruises for pensioners?
Update (1712ET): Online sleuths such as The Last Refuge are already connecting dots between
when the Trump-Russia allegations surfaced and the newly released briefing timeline
.
TheLastRefuge
@TheLastRefuge2 ·
Sep 29, 2020 This is additionally important for a specific reference point. Clinton ally,
and former acting CIA Director Mike Morell first published the Clinton created Russia narrative
(in the New York Times) less than a week after this July 26, 2016, briefing by Brennan.
The Reckoning @sethjlevy This conversation between
@jaketapper and
@RobbyMook happened on July 25th. The Reckoning @sethjlevy On day 1 of the Democrat
Convention as Wikileaks began their DNC releases Mook's interview uses the release to begin
spinning the Trump Russia tale. This was planned, prepared, purposeful and the beginning of one
of the most damaging psy op disinformation campaigns in US history.
https://twitter.com/sethjlevy/status/963977316547399680?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311019881039618049%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fus-intelligence-investigated-hillary-clinton-over-alleged-plan-smear-trump-russia
Sean Davis @seanmdav ·
Sep 29, 2020 Replying to @seanmdav Today's declassification confirms that from the
beginning, the FBI knew its anti-Trump investigation was based entirely on Russian
disinformation. Brennan and Comey were personally warned. They responded by fabricating
evidence and defrauding the courts. https:// judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/
09-29-20_Letter%20to%20Sen.%20Graham_Declassification%20of%20FBI's%20Crossfire%20Hurricane%20Investigations_20-00912_U_SIGNED-FINAL.pdf
BenTallmadge @BenKTallmadge https:// twitter.com/benktallmadge/
status/1310676483501768705?s=21 BenTallmadge @BenKTallmadge Replying to @BenKTallmadge
Alexander Vindman was working at thé US embassy in Moscow when the wife of former mayor
wired $3.5M to Hunter Biden, right before Russia took Crimea H/t @grabaroot https://
twitter.com/playstrumpcard /status/1310648949393502214?s=21 https:// twitter.com/playstrumpcard
/status/1310648949393502214
Meanwhile, this is being downplayed by intelligence officials as Russian disinformation,
which DNI Ratcliffe has refuted.
Chuck Ross @ChuckRossDC · 3h Intel officials came out
within minutes to claim Russian disinfo in the Ratcliffe letter. We didn't find out for nearly
three years that Russian disinfo might have been in the dossier.
https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-4&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1311056956023595009&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fus-intelligence-investigated-hillary-clinton-over-alleged-plan-smear-trump-russia&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=219d021%3A1598982042171&width=550px
Jeremy Herb @jeremyherb New statement from Ratcliffe on unverified Russian intel: "To be
clear, this is not Russian disinformation and has not been assessed as such by the Intelligence
Community. I'll be briefing Congress on the sensitive sources and methods by which it was
obtained in the coming days."
5:35 PM · Sep 29, 2020
* * *
On September 7, 2016, US intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral to
former FBI officials James Comey and Peter Strzok concerning allegations that Hillary Clinton
approved a plan to smear then-candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Russian President Vladimir
Putin and Russian hackers , according to information given to Sen. Lindsey Graham by the
Director of National Intelligence.
According to Fox News' Chad Pergram, "In late July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained
insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary
Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate
Donald Trump," after one of Clinton's foreign policy advisers proposed vilifying Trump "by
stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services."
Chad Pergram @ChadPergram ·
Sep 29, 2020 Replying to @ChadPergram 5) DNI info to Grahm: On 07 September 2016, U.S.
intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral to FBI Director James Comey and
Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok regarding 'U.S. Presidential
candidate Hillary Clinton's approval of a plan..
Chad Pergram @ChadPergram 6) DNI info to Graham:...concerning U.S. Presidential candidate
Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the
public from her use of a private mail server.'"
2:51 PM · Sep 29, 2020
In response to your request for Intelligence Community (IC) information related to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Crossfire Hurricane Investigation, I have declassified
the following:
In late July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence
analysis alleging that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan
to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and
the Russians' hacking of the Democratic National Committee. The IC docs not know the accuracy
of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect
exaggeration or fabrication.
According to his handwritten notes, former Central Intelligence Agency Director Brennan
subsequently briefed President Obama and other senior national security officials on the
intelligence, including the "alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26. 2016 of a proposal
from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal
claiming interference by Russian security services."
On 07 September 2016. U.S. intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral to FBI
Director James Comey and Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok
regarding "U.S. Presidential candidate I lillary Clinton's approval of a plan concerning U.S.
Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of
distracting the public from her use of a private mail server."
As referenced in his 24 September 2020 letter to your Committee, Attorney General Ban has
advised that the disclosure of this information will not interfere with ongoing Department of
Justice investigations. Additional declassification and public disclosure of related
intelligence remains under consideration; however, the IC welcomes the opportunity to provide a
classified briefing with further detail at your convenience.
Respectfully,
i RatcliiTc
https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-8&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1311021129981734912&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fus-intelligence-investigated-hillary-clinton-over-alleged-plan-smear-trump-russia&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=219d021%3A1598982042171&width=550px
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Wikileaks
In 2017, it was claimed that the "blame Russia" plan was hatched "within twenty-four hours"
of Clinton losing the election - while the US intelligence investigation predates that by
several months.
New book by 'Shattered' by Clinton insiders reveals that "blame Russia" plan was hatched
"within twenty-four hours" of election loss.
The authors detail how Clinton went out of her way to pass blame for her stunning loss on
"Comey and Russia."
"She wants to make sure all these narratives get spun the right way," a longtime Clinton
confidant is quoted as saying.
The book further highlights how Clinton's Russia-blame-game was a plan hatched by senior
campaign staffers John Podesta and Robbv Mook. less than "within twenty-fourhours" after she
conceded:
That strategy had been set within twenty -four hours of her concession speech. Mook and
Podesta assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case
that the election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple ofhours, with Shake Shack
containers littering the room, they went over the script theywould pitch to the press and
the public. Already. Russian hacking was the centerpieceof the argument.
The Clinton camp settled on a two-pronged plan -- pushing the press to cover how"Russian
hacking was the major unreported story of the campaign, overshadowed by thecontents of stolen
e-mails and Hillary*s own private-server imbroglio.'' while"hammering the media for focusing
so intently on the investigation into her e-mail, whichhad created a cloud over her candidacy
." the authors wrote.
US intelligence believed Clinton plot to 'stir up a scandal' was a 'means of distracting
the public from her use of a private mail server.'
"In late July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian
intelligence analysis alleging that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved
a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump by
tying him to Putin and the Russians' hacking of the Democratic National Committee," Ratcliffe
wrote Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Lindsey Graham. "The IC does not know the accuracy
of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect
exaggeration or fabrication
####
The chronology of events supports something like this. It seems to me t that when it was
evident that t-Rump might win the election, the Dems prepared the ground for a 'poison pill'
to leave behind. Ultimately this is what O-Bomber signed off when t-Rump won. What this does
tell us is that the Dems have become as well verse in the black arts of political sabotage at
least as well as what the Reps have done since the 1990s and onwards.
This is the basis of the current undeclared civil war in America. It was driven from the
top down by corrupt elites who never imagined that it would gain traction below ground as
globalization would cement the West's Fukuyamiyan superioritiy in to the foreseeable future.
Then there was 9/11, 2008 and a further self-made quagmire in more sensless Do
Something interventions around the world.
The funny thing here is now the Repubs are trying to spin it that Putin was actually
trying to hurt t-Rump! What's thre phrase, a day late and a dollar short ?
"... The DemoRats have never been a party dedicated to peace; the only ones thinking that are the walking bong-holes who assuage their cognitive dissonance by telling themselves that. Both the demorats and their willing accomplices 'across the aisle' have led us into constant war for nearly eight decades. Lilliputian Big enders and Little enders all. ..."
"... Screw the war mongers and the MIC. ..."
"... If you read the article, it's obvious that [neo]liberals/whores are the apogee of hypocrisy. ..."
"... Perpetual war is about $$$. It knows no party. Never has and never will. ..."
Feral, yes; rabid, absolutely; smart... not so much. Why is anyone surprised?
The DemoRats have never been a party dedicated
to peace; the only ones thinking that are the walking bong-holes who assuage their cognitive dissonance by telling themselves
that. Both the demorats and their willing accomplices 'across the aisle' have led us into constant war for nearly eight decades.
Lilliputian Big enders and Little enders all.
Yup. It's always about the money. As Fitts would say, that screeching you hear is the cash flow drying up for the rentiers.
The murdering of women and children be damned. Hillary's demonic cackle is but the grotesque cherry on top:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y
Yes, those are all good and sound arguments. The point I was trying to make, though, is
that American toxicologists and field experts are astounded that anyone might survive
exposure to VX; it is unaccountable not only that they could be alive, but that there is not
a trail of death following the assassins as well until it kills them, too. But nobody seems
surprised for Navalny to make a complete recovery and be sitting up in bed making demands and
strolling around the stairwells, after exposure to a much more toxic agent that should have
killed him, while nobody noticed anyone sneaking into his room dressed in a full hazmat suit
with breathing apparatus and apparently others could come and go from the scene of the
alleged exposure with no protection.
Perhaps the Skripals 'disappeared' because the British government was unsure how to
present them after a supposedly-deadly poisoning attempt which they plainly are said to have
survived. Perhaps also it is the judgment of similar authorities that the public will accept
the dichotomy without demur; hence, the agent can still be nefarious beyond belief because it
is so insidious and deadly, but Navalny can be alive and making noise after exposure to
it.
I'd like to look at the Navalny 'poisoning" from a slightly different angle, one which I
think bears scrutiny. I've said several times that nobody – to the best of my knowledge
– has ever survived poisoning by VX. But that's not quite accurate – the two
women who thrust what was always believed to be VX in some form into the face of Kim Jong Nam
(Kim Jong-Un's half-brother) at an airport in Kuala Lumpur killed him stone dead. But they
themselves apparently survived with no ill effects except that one of them allegedly may have
vomited.
The major difference in the way the stories are treated, then, is the incredulity with
which the apparent survival of the alleged poisoners is regarded by the western press.
Consider;
An amount of VX, we are told, that weighs as much as two pennies would kill 500 people. I
assume that's what he meant, as he is strikingly un-eloquent for a scientist and the 'penny'
is not a weight of measure. Is that a British penny, or an American one? Big difference in
weight.
''The other chemical agents like sarin, tabun, those kinds of things, they're way below
this. They're toxic, yes, but this is the king,'' said John Trestrail, a U.S. forensic
toxicologist who has examined more than 1,000 poisoning crimes.
He said an amount of VX weighing two pennies could kill 500 people through skin
exposure. It's also hard to acquire and would likely have come from a chemical weapons
laboratory, making it more likely that the attack was executed by a government."
Yes, you read that right – VX is the King of vicious toxicological agents. Except
for Novichok, which is ten times as deadly, and the would-be killers dusted Navalny's bottle
with enough of it that the bottle was liberally covered with the dust, and his clothes
apparently were as well, or so Team Navalny suspects. Say – that's a handy little
timeline right there, innit? When did Navalny put those clothes on? Presumably he had a
shower before going to bed; did he dress in fresh clothes before leaving for the airport, or
wear the same stuff from the day before? Either way, the poisoner must have accessed
Navalny's room between the time he got up and the time the plane took off – if he still
had Novichok on his clothes from the day before, he'd be dead, plus would have contaminated
God knows how many surfaces.
Anyway, remember – Novichok is ten times as deadly as the King of nerve agents, VX.
But it has killed – according to western yarns – only one of six people exposed
to it; Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Detective Nick Bailey, Navalny and Charles Rowley all
survived and have apparently achieved full recovery, Navalny in only a week after emerging
from an alleged coma.
Western incredulity? None. Nothing to see here, old chap.
Listen to the awful consequences of poisoning with VX, and remember the assassins only
pushed some quantity of VX into Kim Jong-Nam's face; a second's contact, them they ran away,
not wearing gloves or any protective gear at all.
"VX is an amber-colored, tasteless, odorless chemical weapon first produced in the
1950s. When inhaled or absorbed through the skin, it disrupts the nervous system and causes
constriction and increased secretions in the throat, leading to difficulty breathing. Fluids
pour from the body, including sweat, spontaneous urination and defecation, often followed by
convulsions, paralysis and death. Kim Jong Nam sought help at the airport clinic and died en
route to a hospital within two hours of being attacked, police said."
I don't think anyone has reported what Navalny was roaring and screaming, but perhaps it
was"Get back!!! I'm shitting myself!! Jesus, I can't stop pissing!!! Help me!!" although you
would think if his symptoms included spontaneous defecation and urination, someone would have
said – it could be important. Different agent, I know, but the symptoms of nerve-agent
poisoning are quite similar across the type. Navalny's symptoms were nothing like nerve-agent
poisoning, no matter how energetically the defector Mirzayanov and his fan club try to
backstop Navalny's story. The intense sweating and the obvious gross irritation of the mucous
membranes would have been unmistakable to the doctors in Omsk, considering Navalny had
already passed the onset of whatever symptoms he did have and was unconscious.
Kim Jong-Nam died within two hours of being attacked with a nerve agent ten times less
toxic than Novichok. Navalny was definitely poisoned with a substance ten times more toxic
than VX, according to the Germans and the French and whoever else swears to that ludicrous
story, but was to all appearances normal at least an hour after having been poisoned, since
he showed no symptoms until at least 40 minutes after the plane took off with no obvious GRU
agents on board, and hung around the airport before the flight was called at least long
enough to drink a cup of tea, plus however long it took for him to get from the hotel to the
airport.
"The two women -- one Vietnamese, one Indonesian -- recorded on surveillance cameras
thrusting a substance into Kim Jong Nam's face as he was about to check in for a flight home
to Macau, apparently did not suffer serious health problems. Malaysian police have said they
were not wearing gloves or protective gear and that they washed their hands afterward as they
were trained to do. However, authorities said Friday that one of them vomited
afterward.
Both have been arrested along with another man. Authorities are also seeking several
others, including an employee of North Korea's state-owned airline, Air Koryo.
''If they used their bare hands, there's just no possible way that they would have
exposed him to VX unless they took some sort of precaution,'' Goldberger said. ''The only
precaution I know of would be administration of the antidote before this went down.''
Perhaps that's it; perhaps immediately after swigging from his water-bottle – which
he left in the hotel room, obviously – Navalny rang room service for some Novichok
antidote. Just in case. Can't be too careful, when you are the main opposition leader.
"No areas were cordoned off and protective measures were not taken. When asked about it
a day after the attack, airport spokesman Shah Rahim said there was no risk to travelers and
the airport was regularly and properly cleaned. But officials announced Friday that the
facility would be decontaminated.
''It's as persistent as motor oil. It's going to stay there for a long time. A long
time, which means anyone coming in contact with this could be intoxicated from it,''
Trestrail said. ''If this truly is VX, they ought to be calling in a hazmat team and looking
at any place these women or the victim traveled after the exposure.''
A hazmat team, and looking at any place the assassin or anyone potentially exposed might
have traveled. For an agent ten times less toxic than Novichok.
Putin proposed, "exchanging guarantees of non-interference in each other's internal
affairs, including electoral processes, including using information and communication
technologies and high-tech methods."..
####
That is some excellently timed next level trolling from Pootie-McPoot-Face.
Of course the USA will never agree to such a proposal, because (a) it does not regard its
meddling as 'interference' but as the bringing of the gift of freedom, (b) it stands on its
absolute right of judgment as to what is a situation that requires more democracy and what is
not, and (c) it probably knows at some level that Russia did not meddle in the US elections,
and that it would therefore in that case be constraining its own behavior in exchange for
nothing.
But then, when refused – I imagine the US will try to extract something from the
offer, such as "A-HA!! So you ADMIT to meddling in our elections!! – Russia can
obviously claim, "Well, we tried."
The detail was previously redacted from a footnote in Justice Department inspector
general Michael Horowitz's 2019 report on four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
court warrant applications
the investigation was opened "based on information by the FBI indicating that the
Primary Sub-source may be a threat to national security." The investigation was closed in
2011 and not reopened.
####
I had assumed that anyone of Russian origin who is in contact with certain American
officials/agencies is automatically probed. Not much of a surprise.
"... Maybe Navalny had allegedly been assisted by his apparent drug of choice, cocaine? ..."
"... On the Navalny poisoning. Interesting to see that Vladimir Ashurkov is in the inner core of the Integrity Initiative. Suggesting another media-led provocation. ..."
"... Apparently, Pevchikh was given a bogus interview on the BBC and was presented as an uninteresting, nothing special sort of person, about whom rumours and innuendo were amassing for no reason whatsoever. ..."
"... The interviewer never pressed her on how long she had lived in the UK, what her business interests there were (claims have been made that she runs a book store), why she visits Russia so frequently, what indeed isher present citizenship, how she became involved with Navalny's "fund" -- she says she answered an ad., but where? In the UK? Hardly! And on and on . ..."
"... On Thursday (24 September), Christian Gramm, the president of Germany's Military Intelligence Service (MAD), was forced to resign. To many, the shake-up doesn't come as a surprise given the recent criticism over how the agency handled investigations into right-wing extremism in the German Special Forces (KSK). Gramm's term as MAD president will come to an end next month ..."
"... Verzilov is supposedly – according to one source I read – the force behind having Navalny evacuated to Germany. It will be funny now if he cannot return to Russia. ..."
"... That guy is a self-important prick with delusions of grandeur. If he is representative of the non-systemic opposition in Russia then, assuming that Putin is even aware of this guy, it would only provide a good laugh after a hard day at the office ..."
"... Verzilov is an attention junkie. He set himself up as the 'spokesman' of Pussy Riot because they were getting a lot of attention and he wanted to be part of it. He has no visible talent of his own – except perhaps a facility for languages, his English is pretty good ..."
"... His English is good because he went to school in Toronto until his somehow landing a place at MGU Philosophy Faculty, which is one of the greatest riddles of the Cosmos, in my opinion. ..."
"... I'd like to look at the Navalny 'poisoning" from a slightly different angle, one which I think bears scrutiny. I've said several times that nobody – to the best of my knowledge – has ever survived poisoning by VX. But that's not quite accurate – the two women who thrust what was always believed to be VX in some form into the face of Kim Jong Nam (Kim Jong-Un's half-brother) at an airport in Kuala Lumpur killed him stone dead. But they themselves apparently survived with no ill effects except that one of them allegedly may have vomited. ..."
"... The major difference in the way the stories are treated, then, is the incredulity with which the apparent survival of the alleged poisoners is regarded by the western press. Consider; ..."
"... It's hard to imagine the Germans poisoned his samples, although I suppose it is possible. But if Pevchik had poisoned him with something intended to incapacitate but not kill him, you'd think the doctors in Omsk would have detected it. ..."
"... It might be interesting to see what kind of deal would result from a process in which Russia has given up trying to be liked by the west, and consequently examines each negotiation on its merits alone. ..."
, "When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to
be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the
bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false." Uncle
Volodya
"Every ounce of my cynicism is supported by historical precedent."
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those
who haven't got it."
– George Bernard Shaw
I'm lazy. But vanity constrains me from admitting that, so I call it 'busy'. However I choose to label it, I haven't written
anything new in a long time. It's not writer's block, because I had a couple of topics in mind; if I had to blame it on
anything, I'd blame it on the comments section. We don't really have any rules here, or not many (there are a couple of people
who can't comment, but that's because they cannot be trusted to not instantly return to old habits as soon as they are
allowed), and things routinely drift off-topic to whatever is going on at the time. Current events; yes, that's the term I was
looking for. So when new things are happening, we tend to discuss them in the comments section, instead of my writing a new
post dedicated specifically to that issue. It's the primary cause, I'm afraid, of important comments you would like to be able
to locate because they contain hard-to-find sources or just the information you need to settle an argument, because they are
not linked by subject. Obviously I prefer the unregulated format, or I wouldn't use it, but it does have its disadvantages.
Anyway, the silver lining that comes with being late to discuss a particular current event is that you get to talk about the
filtered version, after the ferment has settled down and often new facts have presented. So it is with the teapot tempest of
Alexei Navalny, vaulted to international fame virtually overnight by becoming the latest victim poisoned by nefarious
Soviet-era deadly nerve agents that, in their known application, have a success rate of 16.67%. A funny statistic has emerged
from the absurd times we are living in – a viral infection, the 'novel coronavirus', more commonly called COVID-19, has the
world shivering with terror like frogs in a glass cage with a big snake, even though its Infection Fatality Rate (IFR)
compares with the annual influenza bouts we have lived with all our years. Yet an engineered nerve agent reputed to be ten
times as deadly as the most toxic poison the west could come up with – one which, I might add, has a known survivor list among
the exposed of zero point zero – has never killed the individual it was intended to kill, and managed to incidentally slay one
innocent bystander who was also
an
alcoholic and drug abuser
. As John Lennon remarked in "Nobody Told Me"; strange days indeed. Most peculiar, Mama.
https://c0.pubmine.com/sf/0.0.3/html/safeframe.html
REPORT THIS AD
I looked it up so as to have an electronic link, so readers could get the full effect. But I initially saw it in the
newspaper, the Canadian Globe & Mail (British Columbia edition), in which it was headlined a little differently –
"Why
nobody has power to make Kremlin come clean on poisoning"
. So far as I can make out on initial examination, the body of
the article is unchanged. Both pieces – well, the same piece with two different headlines – are by Mark MacKinnon, who is
The
Globe & Mail
's senior international correspondent, based in London, UK. He's
quite
highly-regarded by his employers
, is a seven-time winner of the National Newspaper Awards (for creativity, perhaps,
although they don't say), and the author of "
The New Cold War:
Revolutions, Rigged Elections and Pipeline Politics
". Gee, that sounds like it might be about a particular country; let's
have a dekko at
the
writeup
.
"When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 and the Soviet Union collapsed two
years later, liberal democracy was supposed to fill the void left by Soviet Communism. Poland and Czechoslovakia made the best
of reforms, but the citizens of the "Evil Empire" itself saw little of the promised freedom, and more of the same old despots
and corruption. Recently, a second wave of reforms -- Serbia in 2000, Georgia in 2003, and Ukraine in 2004, as well as
Kyrgyzstan's regime change in 2005 -- have proven almost as monumental as those in Berlin and Moscow. The people of the Eastern
bloc, aided in no small part by Western money and advice, are again rising up and demanding an end to autocracy. And once
more, the Kremlin is battling the White House every step of the way. Mark MacKinnon spent these years working in Moscow, and
his view of the story and access to those involved remains unparalleled. With The New Cold War, he reveals the links between
these democratic revolutions -- and George Soros, the idealistic American billionaire behind them -- in a major investigation
into the forces that are quietly reshaping the post-Soviet world."
Because western-imposed liberal democracy has been such a star-speckled success in so many places – Libya. Iraq,
Venezuela anyway, the above author information is offered to sort of set the tone for the type of worldview you might expect.
And to introduce a premonition, before you even read his material, that Mark MacKinnon just might be exactly the sort of guy
who would smirk with revulsion at the mention of Putin's name, and have a big ol' man-crush on Alexei Navalny. I'm not
implying anything untoward, here; Mr. MacKinnon is a realist. An ideologue, yes, but a realist.
And as with others of his ideological type, I marvel that he apparently sees some sort of inspirational leader in Navalny. I'm
cautiously optimistic, of course, because until international busybodies have a vote in Russian elections – as they have in
other places, except it's called 'regime change' – there is about as much chance of Alexei Navalny being elected to a position
of influence by a broad Russian vote as there is of you dying from coronavirus. Which you have about a 99.6% chance of
surviving, if you should get it. Anyway, I'm optimistic, as I have suggested many times before, because for so long as western
liberal meddlers choose to put all their eggs in the Navalny basket, for that long leaders elected by Russian votes will rule
more or less unmolested. You could probably persuade Russians to dress up as Obama on Hallowe'en (well, first you would have
to persuade them to celebrate it, which
The Moscow Times
almost
reduced itself to tears trying to bring about) as you could to persuade them to vote for Navalny. And this latest escapade,
which – perversely – has put him in the western hall of political fame has probably actually cost him votes in Russia, which
is remarkable considering he already was about as popular as vomit air-freshener.
https://c0.pubmine.com/sf/0.0.3/html/safeframe.html
REPORT THIS AD
Mr. MacKinnon starts off his excoriation of the Kremlin, and his apparent poignant appeal for someone to rid us of this
troublesome autocratic dictator, with some lighthearted snark about how predictable it is that the Kremlin would deny
poisoning Alexei Navalny. Uh huh; of course they would. Real men would immediately own up – yeah, I poisoned that
motherfucker. Teach him to talk smack about me. What are you gonna do about it? You might be repulsed by the implicit evil
there, but at least you could respect Putin for telling the truth.
Let's look at it a little differently. Suppose I said "Mark MacKinnon is a wife-beater". For the record, I don't even know if
he is married. Or straight. But that's beside the point, which is that to the best of my knowledge, it is not true. Doesn't
matter. Predictably, he would deny it. Now suppose I repeated that allegation regularly for twenty years. Might I be able to
say, wearily, "the only predictable thing about MacKinnon's latest wife-beating incident is his denial of having had anything
to do with it"? I think I could. But denying it is exactly the predictable occurrence if he had not done it.
How about we take a quick recap of some of the things Russia has been accused of just in the last few years. A state-sponsored
doping program for its Olympic athletes, in which they were fed performance-enhancing cocktails that powered them all the way
to the podium. The special investigatory body put together to look into it, headed by Canadian Richard McLaren, claimed there
was so much proof that it was embarrassing. When we got down to where the rubber meets the road, said investigatory body could
not prove fuck-all, their star witness
fell
apart in testimony
, and 28 Russian athletes
had
their Olympic bans reversed
while 7 medals were reinstated. The Nation
recapped
it thus
;
"How the Times could provide such minimal coverage of these important
April 2018 reasoned CAS decisions on matters on which the Times had extensively reported is inexplicable. By allowing the
Russian athletes, for the very first time, to confront their accusers with cross-examination, the CAS was in a position to
make startling revelations about Rodchenkov and McLaren. Rodchenkov, for example, admitted that he never personally witnessed
any accused Russian athlete committing doping violations themselves, including taking the illegal drug cocktail, giving a
clean urine sample out of competition, tampering with a urine sample, or transmitting information to co-conspirators about the
coding on the drug sample after it had been given.
Furthermore, several of Rodchenkov's explanations of events were simply
not believable. For example, Rodchenkov had stated that the swapping of urine samples occurred after 1 am, but his own diary
entries confirmed his bedtime by midnight each night, with two or three exceptions. When confronted with this contradiction,
he made the incredible claim that he had lied to his diary."
Were the Russians guilty? Apparently not. What is the appropriate response when you are accused of something but did not do
it? Denial? Damn straight. But there's another key takeaway in there – the testimonial hearing in which the athletes and their
representatives dismantled Rodchenkov's self-important blathering was
the
very first time they had been able to confront their accuser
. Uncorroborated denials are easy to brush off, which would
seem to summarize Mr, MacKinnon's style.
One more. Russia was accused by the United States – whose allies quickly picked it up as one more example of the reprehensible
Russian conduct that just makes you shake your head in helpless wonder – of paying the Taliban in Afghanistan a bounty to kill
American soldiers.
https://c0.pubmine.com/sf/0.0.3/html/safeframe.html
REPORT THIS AD
For starters, it would not be difficult to imagine the US Army as being so loathed in Afghanistan – considering American
military operations have devastated the country for 19 years now – that jihadis in Afghanistan would be happy to kill them for
free; might even pay for the opportunity, if they had any money. Some might say well, if not for the democracy-promotion
efforts of America, the Taliban might still be in charge! Yeah, ha, ha; funny story about that. President Trump announced this
past Spring that it was
time
to turn over law and order in Afghanistan
to the Taliban.
He said US troops had been killing terrorists in Afghanistan "by the
thousands" and now it was "time for someone else to do that work and it will be the Taliban and it could be surrounding
countries".
Personally, I think it's a hell of a cheek of the Taliban to accept money from the Russians to kill Americans who just cut
them such an exceptional deal – you would think they would be so happy that they would dance into the streets with their arms
full of flowers and candy. Oh, wait – different democracy-promotion operation.
And I'd just like to point out to anyone who is forming the opinion that I am a sarcastic prick that the main piece of
'evidence' on which the Americans based the assessment that a mysterious Russian GRU (military intelligence) unit was paying
bounties to the Taliban to kill American soldiers was the discovery of 'a large amount of American cash from a raid on a
Taliban outpost'.
Jesus, God of our fathers – please tell me they had more than that. Quite apart from the patent rudeness of carrying out a
raid on the 'outposts' of your new Afghanistan caretakers, the US dollar is the most common and widely-circulated currency in
the world. Instead of leaping to the conclusion that it had to have come from the Russians – whose currency was still the
ruble the last time I looked – why was the King Arthur Flour Company not immediately a suspect? After all, sourdough baking
has
lunged
to a quivering peak
during 'COVID times' (as I heard one imbecile describe the peyote cartoon we are all living); King
Arthur offers a
very
popular sourdough starter
, and the Afghans are great bakers. Maybe they were saving up to buy a couple of truckloads, give
the people something to raise their morale! Get it? 'Raise' their morale? It's not funny if I have to explain it. But it makes
as much sense as assuming the Russians want to accelerate the killing of American forces just as they are arranging terms for
a pullout, which would surely make them stay longer.
Well, let's get back to Mr. MacKinnon's story, before we wander too far off the path. But I hope that addresses the issue of
the Kremlin denying western accusations. Deny is what you do when you really had nothing to do with whatever it was you are
being accused of, instead of 'manning up' and saying "Yeah; it was me". Gaddafi did that, in the hope of making peace with the
Americans, and look where it got him. And America is not put off by lack of evidence – obviously.
So we're back where Russia might be believed today, if the past 20 years had never happened. At that, I would suggest he's
casting too wide a net; the USA and Russia were getting along fairly well between the time the Harvard Boys were invited in to
remake Russia in 1991, and the presidential candidacy of American Idiot and Venture Capitalist Mitt Romney, during which
candidacy he identified Russia – for no apparent reason than that it sometimes caused headaches for the United States at the
UN – as the USA's Number One Geopolitical Enemy. That was in 2012, which was only 8 years ago, and in fact the great majority
of western accusations against Russia have taken place since 2014 and the US State Department's successful second run at
taking over Ukraine to Make It Safe For Democracy. It's pretty hard to restore your 'credibility' when the international press
whose language is foreign to your own continues to insist it has mountains of evidence that you are lying, but cannot reveal
any of it because of national security. On the occasions it does publish some of its substantiation, the alternate-narrative
element of the public is so scathing in its scorn – as happened when the British tried going public with their Skripals Case –
that
the
storytellers are sent back to the drawing-board
to make up something different. Otherwise they might have to explain why a
poison so virulent that Sergei Skripal's house had to have its roof removed because Novichok was daubed on the front doorknob,
but the same poison failed to kill not only the Skripals times two, Detective Nick Bailey, Charles Rowley and now Navalny. The
Skripals came into direct contact with it while the family's roof did not, unless they had a sixteen-foot diameter doorknob,
and Navalny actually
drank
it. So the story goes. I don't think
'absurd' is too strong a word.
Russia, we hear, denied that its soldiers were in Crimea before Russia 'annexed' the territory in 2014. Where? Russia was
permitted by international agreement to base sufficient forces at Sevastopol to easily take the region away from a Ukrainian
Army so useless that initial attempts to stop the unraveling were made by civilian militias. Oh, and my favourite; Russia
denied shooting down MH-17 "even after the anti-aircraft system involved in the attack was detected leaving Russia then
returning short one missile." Is that a fact? Well, no; it's not. That accusation was made by Bellingcat, the brain trust of
former underwear-company accountant Eliot Higgins, and there was
never
any 'detection'
of any such anti-air system "leaving Russia and returning short one missile". Bellingcat offered a
potential route such a system might have taken to and from a launch site, in an animation, which was itself never
substantiated by evidence – a route which took the system many vulnerable kilometers out of its way on the alleged return –
and the photograph that made the cover of Paris Match is
so
obviously a Photoshop mosaic
. And the inclusion of Ukraine, who was automatically a suspect considering the incident
occurred in Ukrainian airspace, in the investigation to establish Russian guilt, together with its unsupervised access to the
collected evidence, renders the whole issue farcical.
"And on it went. The official RIA Novosti newswire quoted chemical-weapon
experts who said that had Novichok been used, Mr. Navalny would already be dead. It's a line Russian state media have used
before, after Mr. Skripal and his daughter survived the 2018 attack, but one they dropped after 44-year-old Dawn Sturgess died
after coming into contact with an unused vial of Novichok in a Salisbury park three months later."
Is that what happened, Mr. seven-times-recipient-of-the-National-Newspapers-Award? Dawn Sturgess was given the perfume bottle
as a gift from her boyfriend, Charles Rowley, at his home in Amesbury, 8 miles from Salisbury. She allegedly 'immediately
sprayed some on her wrists and rubbed them together'
according
to Rowley
.
"Charlie Rowley claimed his partner, mother-of-three Dawn Sturgess, fell
ill within 15 minutes of spraying the bottle, which he said he had found, on to her wrists at his home in Amesbury,
Wiltshire."
Couldn't ask for much more of an eyewitness than Rowley – he's kind of at the center of the story, albeit he is a heroin
addict himself, according to a previously-cited reference. He claims that within 15 minutes she was stricken, claimed to have
a headache, and disappeared to the bathroom, where he found her fully clothed and lying in the bath, 'in a very ill state'.
That's
funny; according to Sky News, she was not so ill that she could not admit herself to hospital, which she is alleged to have
done at 11 AM on Saturday, after being poisoned with a nerve agent ten times as deadly as VX, exposure to which nobody has
survived.
"During their trip to Salisbury on Friday, the pair visited a number of
shops during the afternoon and evening with their friend Sam Hobson.
https://c0.pubmine.com/sf/0.0.3/html/safeframe.html
REPORT THIS AD
The following day, Ms Sturgess admitted herself to hospital at 11am. Mr
Hobson, 29, and Mr Rowley went on to visit a number of places in the town centre."
Mr. Rowley, the poor man who 'lost so much', was so affected by his beloved's condition that he and his friend Sam Hobson went
on – after she admitted herself to hospital – to see the sights of downtown Amesbury. We know they were in Amesbury because
one of the locations they visited, Boots the Chemist in Amesbury, was soon thereafter closed by police as part of the
investigation.
Perhaps they were looking around for the hospital. Because
there
isn't one in Amesbury
. The closest is in Salisbury, 8 miles away, and the next-closest is in Andover, even further. So the
poor woman, having passed out in a very ill state after spraying a deadly nerve agent directly on her skin, somehow roused
herself for the 8-mile drive to Salisbury and then proceeded with the admittance process, while the cretins in Emergency let
the two who had dropped her off head back to Amesbury for some window-shopping. The alternative is that they were not even
with her, and she drove herself. Say, do you know what one of the symptoms of nerve-agent poisoning is? Blurred vision due to
excessive watering of the eyes.
The 'only predictable part of the drama', to borrow from Mr. MacKinnon's introduction, is that Ms. Sturgess did not "die after
coming into contact with an unused vial of Novichok in a Salisbury park", or anything close to it. Sloppy, or loyal? Which is
it?
Anyway, back to Navalny; for some reason I seem to be incapable of staying on his dramatic story. So, 'predictably', there are
some pretty big holes in his story. For one, he was supposedly – initially – exposed to a near-unimaginably-toxic nerve agent
which he drank in tea at the airport, prior to departure. Then the same Novichok which laid out Dawn Sturgess within 15
minutes did not affect Lyosha until 40 minutes after the plane took off. Team Navalny and its backers have attempted to
explain that away by suggesting this was a specially-engineered 'slow-acting' Novichok.
What use would a slow-acting military-grade nerve agent be? Want to give the enemy a fair chance before killing him stone
dead? And while we're on the subject: note to the GRU, or the FSB or whoever – stop engineering Novichok to be slow-acting
just to attack Navalny, and impervious to rain (like no other nerve agent ever, the immediate countermeasure is to flush the
area with water and take atropine) to attack Sergei Skripal, and WORK ON MAKING IT KILL PEOPLE!!! Jesus Christ, do I have to
think of everything myself?
So, obviously, the tea narrative was not going to work. Enter The Water Bottle Of Death. Allegedly, the GRU or FSB, or maybe
Putin himself poisoned a water bottle and left it in Navalny's hotel room in Tomsk, where there were always people in and out
and they had no clue whether it would kill Navalny or someone else. Maybe that's why they engineered it to be slow-acting and
non-fatal. Then, after Navalny checked out and headed to the airport, where he hung around for at least long enough to drink a
cup of tea before his flight was called, and then after takeoff and 40 minutes into the flight, suddenly, Lyosha is poisoned!!
He begins to roar and scream with pain, and members of his entourage immediately go to get a lawyer to accompany them, and go
to Navalny's hotel, and – wonder of wonders – not only has it not been cleaned, it is still completely undisturbed!! Fucking
hotel service in Tomsk, unbelievable, I hope they don't pay them much.
So, what do we deduce from that? Not only did Navalny show no ill effects after being poisoned with a military-grade nerve
agent for approximately an hour – rolling back the moment of his poisoning to his drinking tea in the airport before his
flight was called – he survived it for significantly longer than that, because in the end the tea was just tea. He did not
take the Water Bottle Of Death with him, instead leaving it in his hotel room, so he must have drunk from it before he left
the room. How long was that? How far was his hotel from the airport? Well, let's see – he
stayed
at the Xander
(four stars, not too shabby), which is
24
km from the Bogashevo Airport
. I feel safe in suggesting Navalny survived direct contact with a military-grade nerve agent
for at least two hours before he even showed any symptoms, and perhaps for considerably longer than that. Which sounds quite a
bit like the Skripal saga, in which they were poisoned by their front doorknob – the approximately sixteen-foot-diameter one
which reaches to the roof, it's a two-level home – but still managed to drive to the town center, feed the duckies in the park
and then go on to a restaurant and finish dinner, before throwing a poison wobbler on a nearby bench outside. Where they
happened to be discovered by the senior medical officer in the British Army. Quite by chance, she was just passing by.
So contact with the American VX agent means near-instantaneous death, but contact with a substance ten times more toxic means
nothing at all for at least an hour and perhaps twice that, then an unpleasant bout of coma, then presto! 90% recovery of
mental faculties – admittedly, not a high threshold for Navalny – and maybe 50% recovery of physical capability, with a
cautiously-optimistic prognosis of a full recovery. Lawdy Jeebus; a miracle!
Back to MacKinnon's story for a moment. "His transfer to Berlin's specialist Charité hospital was delayed for 24 crucial hours
while Russian officials floated wildly different versions of what might have happened to him." Actually, they did no such
thing; the doctors in Omsk are acknowledged to have probably saved his life, there actually was something wrong with him. They
stabilized him for transport rather than immediately saying "Here you go, Krauts, it's your show", so his transfer was delayed
for a not-at-all-excessive 24 hours, and it was the Germans who 'floated wildly different versions of what might have happened
to him', initially claiming he had been poisoned with a cholinesterase inhibitor, and only changing the story to Novichok
after the Water Bottle Of Death was delivered to Berlin by Navalny's wife. And unless Lyosha had a water bottle secretly
hidden on his person, they did not establish nerve-agent poisoning from his samples, either, unless the German doctors are
incredibly incompetent. It would be pretty hard for a skilled medical technician to confuse a cholinesterase inhibitor with a
nerve agent, and the doctors in Berlin initially had no clue what was wrong with him. They became confident after the water
bottle was delivered.
Navalny's aide is shown delivering his tea to him at the airport. No gloves, no Personal Protective Equipment whatsoever. But
Lyosha was already crawling with Novicok – he must have been poisoned in his room. Was the hotel closed? The airport? Was the
plane impounded and destroyed? Why is Navalny's aide still alive, and not just waking up from a coma?
And now I am afraid I have some questions about Chain of Custody of important evidence in a criminal investigation. Because
according to the timeline of the 'Navalny poisoning', Team Navalny back on the ground in Tomsk did not announce the discovery
of a poisoned water bottle from his hotel room until September 17th – two days after the fact. Right up until then, Navalny's
'press agent' stuck with the story that he was poisoned with tea at the airport. What kind of four-star hotel does not clean
the room of a guest who has checked out for two days afterward? Alternatively, what kind of political team allows a narrative
to persist that their leader was poisoned with tea at the airport for two whole days before they clue the world in that they
have discovered important evidence to the contrary? So far as we know, nobody had analyzed the alleged traces on the bottle
while it was still in Russia – the Germans allegedly established it was Novichok. Or else Team Navalny already knew, but
didn't bother to tell anyone, just assuming everyone who handled it would take deadly-nerve-agent precautions. Who else might
have been inside that hotel room in two days?
According
to the NewsTimes
, an Instagram post by Navalny claimed members of his 'team' tossed his hotel room looking for evidence
only an hour after he collapsed, which is pretty impressive considering they had no real reason at that point to suspect a
crime had been committed; he probably had just reached the hospital in Omsk by that point, if even that, and there had been no
announcement as to his condition, But they waited until September 17th to announce they had discovered a bottle contaminated
with Novichok? nearly a month later? Excuse me – some state-sponsored nerve agent – the bottle had not been tested yet.
According to the certifiable inbreeders in the European Parliament, Novichok and its family of poisons can only be made in
state-owned military laboratories, and there is no way civilians could have gotten hold of it.
"MEPs have called for
sanctions against Russia, saying on September 17, "The poison used, belonging to the 'Novichok group', can only be developed
in state-owned military laboratories and cannot be acquired by private individuals, which strongly implies that Russian
authorities were behind the attack."
Huh. That's odd. Because Alistair Hay – a toxicologist at the University of Leeds, a leading expert in the toxic properties of
chemical warfare agents and a member of the British government's advisory group on chemical warfare –
assessed
that it could be made by "any competent chemist"
. I'm pretty sure they're not all in the military, and obviously they do
not need to be Russian. The principal developmental engineer of Novichok, Vil Marzayanov, published a book which contained the
formula, and which sells on Amazon for less than 30 bucks. But what does Hay know, right?
"The Kremlin's latest denials should and will fall flat with Western
governments. It was already clear that Mr. Putin's inner circle had ample reasons to wish Mr. Navalny harm. (The Kremlin's
feelings about the anti-corruption campaigner have long been obvious. Mr. Putin has repeatedly refused to use Mr. Navalny's
name, even when asked direct questions about him. On Thursday, Mr. Peskov continued that practice, referring only to "the
Berlin patient.")
Ha, ha!! Oh, my God. It is clear that the Kremlin has ample reasons to wish Mr. Navalny harm, because they don't talk about
him. If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, I wouldn't have believed it. That's some award-winning journalism right there.
I think we're done here; what is supposed to be a straightforward tale of the unrepentant state poisoning of a political
opponent is in fact so confusing and contradictory that I cannot make any sense of it. I suspect even closer examination of it
is only going to reveal further inconsistencies.
"The notion of carefully wrought bullshit involves, then, a certain inner
strain. Thoughtful attention to detail requires discipline and objectivity. It entails accepting standards and limitations
that forbid the indulgence of impulse or whim. It is this selflessness that, in connection with bullshit, strikes us as
inapposite. But in fact it is not out of the question at all. The realms of advertising and of public relations, and the
nowadays closely related realm of politics, are replete with instances of bullshit so unmitigated that they can serve among
the most indisputable and classic paradigms of the concept. And in these realms there are exquisitely sophisticated craftsmen
who – with the help of advanced and demanding techniques of market research, of public opinion polling, of psychological
testing, and so forth – dedicate themselves tirelessly to getting every word and image they produce exactly right."
Harry G. Frankfurt, from "
On Bullshit
".
How many of you would describe the western media as "
exquisitely
sophisticated craftsmen who dedicate themselves tirelessly to getting every word and image they produce exactly right"
?
Count me out. They're not even good at it. Fortunately for them, critical thinking is at an all-time low.
In the
aftermath of 9/11, I never could have imagined that the US government would ever openly side with the perpetrators, much
less that the public at large would be OK with it. And yet that is precisely what happened in Libya and Syria. When
Trump showed signs of disengaging from Syria, some of the people protesting were themselves survivors of 9/11 or
families of the victims. If they can get away with that, what can't they do? It seems like the media can claim whatever
they want, no matter how ridiculous, and the public will believe them without question. Some of the things I've seen in
the media look to me like experiments being undertaken to probe the gullibility of the public.
This is
what weakens the sincerity of people like Tulsi Gabbard and retired Colonel, Senator Richard Black despite all the
good that they have said and done.
Exactly –
WHY would the US aid and abet in Iraq, Libya and Syria the group that 'allegedly' perpetrated the worst act of
diabolical terrorism against American citizens in its history it wouldn't – unless of course the official narrative
was just not true.
You only
have to listen to very clumsy performance by Ehud Barak in the BBC studios on the very day, or Jane Standley
declaring the collapse of WT7 23 minutes before it happened (an honest mistake according to official BBC response) or
the very fact that WT7 collapsed at all to know that the 'official narrative' is Bullshit.
**"Tyranny
requires that the truth be silenced, that real history be erased and rewritten, that speech be restricted, and that
individual thought be silenced."**
*Erasing
History and Erasing Truth: Censorship and Destroying Records Is the Cornerstone of Tyrants* by Gary D. Barnett
We have
always been at war with Eastasia. It is hard to believe that Orwell almost predated television (he died in 1950), and
'1984' certainly did.
American –
and, in fact, western in general – manipulation of public perception almost invariably relies on values and the
public's impression of what is 'the right thing to do'. Consequently, the choice is always a Manichean one; this guy
is trampling on democratic values. He's killing his own people. Peaceful protests are being forcibly dispersed with
machine-gun fire. An entire people cries out for freedom. Are we gonna let him get away with it? Who's with me???
Slightly more subtle is the implication of, "If you're not with us, you're against us". There is no possibility of
detachment. Thus it is with the coronavirus crisis now – you and everyone else have a responsibility to public
safety. If you don't do as the government says is necessary for public safety, then you are an enemy of public
safety, and deserve the scorn of your fellow man. Come on; who's with me??
You simply
have to make it clear that everyone must make a choice; there is no such thing as 'sitting this one out'. Then you
frame the choice in such a way that choosing for the majority is easy – do you want to make the world a better place?
If you say 'No', then obviously you want to make it a worse place.
Like taking
candy from a baby. In Trump's case, though, he's on the wrong side of the equation, and rather than he and his
administration steering the narrative, others both for him and against him are framing the choice and he is having to
react to it. Those who are against him want to destroy and cast him out, and those for him want to use him as a
global influence.
Thank you
Mark; I'm glad to have found your blog site.
I find the
format just fine- I learn a heck of a lot from the diversion onto 'off topic' topical events.
I wandered
into one of my favourite bookstores a couple of times over the last week (I am in Australia). Really, the only reason
for doing so is to check out the classics section (which remains authentic) or to follow up on a special order – there
is nothing on the shelves these days, especially the 'latest/best sellers', that is worth burning the paper it is
printed on. I get most of my books directly from the author's site or as free pdf downloads from such places as
archive-dot-org. I have never, and never would utilise Amazon.
You will see
books glorifying Greta, Jacinda, Hillary, Michael (sic), the Walrus, the latest ['Rage'] by Woodward or the latest
obligatory 'testimony' from a 100-year-old 'survivor'.
They then have
the array of trash talk vilifying, demonising and assassinating anyone with integrity who has something worthwhile to
say and who cares about humanity:
"The Doctor
Who Fooled the World: Andrew Wakefield's War on Vaccines"
– "Award-winning investigative journalist Brian Deer reveals the shocking truth blah "
But the
centrepiece at the moment is
"The
Rodchenkov Affair: How I Brought Down Putin's/Russia's Secret Doping Empire" by Grigory Rodchenkov. [Oh dear!!]
Great lines:
"exquisitely
sophisticated craftsmen who dedicate themselves tirelessly to getting every word and image they produce exactly wrong
[sic]"
"When an
honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that
he considers his statements to be false."
This is what
so impresses me – that they can produce so much bullshit that some (?many/most) people actually find credible – but when
what is left of the world and humanity is based entirely on exquisitely crafted lies – then what?
PS. I see that
Russia and/or China meddled in the RBG's respiratory system overnight. One commenter wrote "Weekend at Bernie's" is
FINALLY over.
PPS. Russia
has also denied bombing schools and hospital in Syria. Boris Johnson would know – here he is admitting that the UK
openly funds terrorists – he forgot that people would actually realise who and what the 'White Helmets' are as he
proudly boasts of another £65 million going the way of these "fantastically brave people".
not to
mention the despicable practice of 'double tapping' by Russia and the [Assad] 'regime' – rotten bastards!
Ha, ha!
Thanks, Julius; I thought the post just went on and on as it was, and each avenue seemed to lead into another, so
that I despaired of ever finishing it. If I had brought Browder into it, I'd still be writing. But if you are a
devotee of Browder and his mendacious machinations, here's a post from my old blog on 'that individual'. Get it? I'm
showing how much he disturbs me by refusing to mention him by name.
Navalny is simulating – we go through this point by point
Navalny came to his senses and immediately started having photos
published on Instagram. Indeed, what else is there to to do in hospital? But it would have been better, of course, if he
had not do this, because the public has raised many questions.
Journalist Alexander Sosnovsky has analyzed Navalny's photos and
posts on social networks, coming to a rather simple and logical conclusion -- Alexey is simulating. This is hardly
surprising, given Navalny and his associate's love for exaggeration, lies and fraudulent schemes.
Sosnovsky
highlighted several points by which it is quite easy to realize that the blogger is lying about his "terrible" state.
There is no tracheostomy mark on Navalny's neck, which means that he did not have such a serious violation of the
respiratory system. And it means that there is no talk of any kind of poisoning with combat poison.
In the photo, he is walking down stairs -- after a few weeks in a
coma, muscles can hardly recover so quickly. The knee joints literally "freeze", and it is simply impossible to use
stairs so easily.
The same applies to sitting in the lotus position, and this is how
the blogger is sitting in the earlier photo. Again, this is absolutely impossible after such a severe poisoning, as all
Navalny's hamsters and his family talk about.
By the way, In the message, Navalny thanks the doctor, but he did not
write about his family under any of the photos. But when a person is on the verge of death, relatives are the first ones
he thinks of when he comes to his senses. And his daughter had flown from the USA, but not a word about Yulia, Dasha and
Zakhara, although usually Navalny now and then shows photos and videos of his family, posing as a loving family man.
Next, we pay attention to Navalny's trainers, and they are rather
heavy, not of cloth. Such footwear is not worn in an intensive care unit. It is used by patients undergoing normal
treatment and who can walk about on the street, but the blogger has not been outside, otherwise his photos would have
already appeared on the Web, because there are a lot of paparazzi around. By the way, the fact that he is in the
"Charité" has not been in any way confirmed.
In general, there are a lot of questions about Navalny. It remains
only to wait for answers from him, although he probably will not bother to devote time to this, because the blogger
usually does not comment on any of his type of fraud.
s
t
imulating?
Maybe Navalny had allegedly
been assisted by his apparent
drug of choice, cocaine? Or, he was actually out of a coma a few days earlier (to plan how to spin things) and had
access to a rowing machine
My
point is that we are given a
narrative
but there really
is absolutely nothing but his/team/Charite's word about any of this. It's annoying that we have to question
everything but even then we often accept much of what is said and look at the most obvious inconsistencies
rather than the much more subtle
sleights of hand
or
sideways misdirections. It is non-stop.
What
we can do is if we know the conclusion sic 'Navalny poisoned', then the narrative has to (mostly) fit in to
that box/framework. So work backwards and see if the public claims fit that narrative, short of deliberate
traps to to mop up the conspiracy crowd.
Yes,
I had to laugh when MacKinnon ridiculed the notion that Navalny might have been poisoned by samagon by invoking
the image of Navalny – as painted by his 'press agent' and his 'team' – as a "near teetolaler". What are they
going to say? That he is a lush who drowns kittens? Mark MacKinnon, Stenographer to the Stars, all gossip
repeated.
What is far
more likely is that he will consult with his handlers, and together they will come up with a reply stinging in its
scorn, revolving around the theme, "Can you believe they are saying this??", inviting all readers to have a hearty
laugh at the squalling of the conspiracy theorists. It's worked before – no reason to change the formula until it
stops working.
In that
photo, Navalny looks as if he is walking through a fire escape area. Would hospitals really allow patients to walk
unassisted and unprotected through the fire escape area? Once the door into the fire escape closes, if you're in
the fire escape, you cannot open it again. You'd have to walk all the way down to the exit and out into the open
air – fire escapes are designed to get you out of a burning building. Once out, Navalny would be exposed to all
kinds of aerosols including air pollutants, let alone the odd coronavirus spike-ball, that could sicken him in his
recently recovered state.
This
makes you wonder whether Navalny even set foot into any hospital in Berlin at all, and not just a medical clinic
or some place where discharged patients go to recuperate after a hospital stay. (I forget the term used for such
places where people receive care after being discharged from hospital.)
Which
I would say support my suposition that Berlin's Charite hospital has been rather conservative with it is press
release (patient confidentialty) that has afforded FC Nav
alny's PR team
sufficient time to create a nice visual story fit for western consumption, nyam nyam nyam copy copy copy,
snore.
Perhaps the
category and grade of Novichok used to poison Navalny are the same as for the Novichok used on Julia Skripal. Recall
that during her May 2018 interview with the Reuters reporter at USAF Fairford base in Gloucestershire or wherever,
Julis Skripal looked slim and radiant and her skin was in good condition. She was able to walk unassisted to the
interview as well. It seems clear to me that that Novichok stuff must actually be some Fountain of Youth elixir, that
it puts its victims into temporary Snow White repose and then, without warning, not only awakens them but restores
them to a better state of health and physical condition better than what they had before they were poisoned. Next
thing you know, Navalny will be training for the marathon in next year's Olympic Games.
Oh, man. New
reader here. The "peyote cartoon" line made me laugh so damn hard. Thanks you for that. Nothing beats this cult-like
world like a good long laugh at the cult's expense.
While the
western world(read fascist) was going ape over novichok-you know the Russian bio-weapon that is the most dangerous
chemical known to man except it fails to kill anyone-Putin had developed and infected the entire political and mass
media leaders of the west with a new bio-weapon that he created himself. It's called Notajoke and it makes those
infected become babbling idiots and anyone can see that it has worked. Trump got his dose from some Las Vegas hookers
who the FSB infected and they in turn pissed on him. Even worse, it eventually gives every infected person a Hitler
mustache that cannot be gotten rid of. These babbling idiots are aware something is wrong but they are not sure of whats
happening and they have developed a strategum. They are going to emulate certain successful comics from the past and
make their adversaries die laughing. Trump becomes Moe, Boris becomes Larry and Angela becomes Curly-wise guy eh? They
plan to resort to slapstick, where upon they slap you with sanctions and then stick it to you, bomb your country and
everyone is in stitches(in the hospital) "Yeah that' what we'll do eh Moe?". As part of the plan the G7 mental 7 dwarfs
are on board with Moe(Trump-coc) as their leader followed by Larry(Boris-sleezy) and Curly(Angela-frumpy) with those
idiots True-dough(dopey) Canada, Cunte(bashful) Italy, Macaroon(creepy) France and the Jap chap Ape Abe(jappy). What a
team folks- I may die of laughter before I'm finished this tirade. Their latest brilliant stroke is to put an end to
Nordstream 2 so that their citizens can pay double thereby aiding Moe and getting rid of their excess money. The Baltic
states are on board as well. They are afraid that Russia will steal their technology- ooops they don't have any, their
natural resources- ooops ditto, their dirt-ya that's it, their dirt. Poland is worried about the theft of their
telecommunications technology developed by Alexander Graham Kowalski better known as "The Telephone Pole". Ukraine got
on board and has now elevated itself to the poorest country in Europe. Moe thought Putin may be behind all this so he
offered a challenge. Putin responded with chess?, judo?, hockey?, Moe had in mind a pie throwing contest. "wise guy eh?"
Pompeo and
Abrahms not to be outdone have become Ollie and Stan as Ollie admonishes Stan-"this is another fine mess you've gotten
me into" over Venezuela and proceed to bump into one another. To add a little "stiff" competition in comes Joe "the
stiff" Biden to out stupid them all.
MacKinnon is
a
follower.
No relation to autistic hacker Gary MacKinnon.* This
MacKinnon is a member of the Ford Estate, not the Fourth Estate. It's the
appearance
of
journalism. Just because some thing is long (lots of words) doesn't make it fact. Never mistake quantity for
quality, but that is the strategic propaganda goal against Russia. Bombard the public with endless long, big, stronger,
higher, faster, deeper/whatever reports/investigations/studies etc. which when you actually look for the source is
either
anonymous/highly likely/judged to be
/whatever, but you
never get to read the actual source material. NEVER.
Vis the poison
in the hot tea. What got me was that no-one commented that using a poison in 70c+ tea would dramatically reduce its
effect (chemically break down very quickly) which is directly contrary to the claimed goal of killing Navalny). It would
also have to be specifically designed to be heat resistant which is a whole other level of chemical weapons development
more suitable for a sci-fi future of scorching global temperatures where the human race dwell below ground like
Morlocks.
Top stories in
the Russian press on Thursday, September 17
Vedomosti:
Rostec
to shell out $1.7 bln on creating new Sukhoi Superjet aircraft
By 2023, the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) plans to create the
Sukhoi SuperJet New, an import-substituted version of the short-haul Sukhoi SuperJet 100, the only civilian jet built by
the Russian aviation industry. The development of the new Sukhoi Superjet New aircraft, which UAC plans to create by
2023, will cost 120 bln-130 bln rubles ($1.6-1.7 bln), Vedomosti writes, citing sources close to the corporate
leadership of Rostec and UAC.
According to the newspaper, the United Engine Corporation (UEC) is
developing a domestic PD-8 engine, which the aircraft will use. ..UAC will allocate at least 50 bln rubles ($664 mln)
for the development of SSJ New.
####
Plenty of
stuff, but as usual, put up or shut up. Russia puts up.
Vis the
u-Ropean 'Magnitsky Act' no unanimity required. Russia would do well to say in advance that it would counter-act against
certain senior EU officials/member states for complicity in genocide in Libya, Yemen etc.
The problem
with u-Rope is that is that Brussels is a balm for the crimes of its member states. On the one hand the EU is the
collective consciousness of its member states but is not responsible for their individual actions. It is yet again 'cake
and eat it.' Brussels needs to be rudely disabused that it can continue to play this game without consequence (f/y
European Parliament second hand, seat warming pols who are only waiting until their party wins elections back home
again). Take away this option. I don't see Russia taking this new act lying down though and are deliberately playing
their cards close to their chest.
Now on
reflection, this act has taken a remarkably long time to come to this point. This in itself tells us that there are
clearly significant misgivings behind closed doors. The fact that it has now reached his stage also tells us that
Brussels/Paris/Berlin think they have come up with a
cunning plan
aka
'squared the circle', but it is also a significant sign of weakness. Maybe the timing is related to the almost completed
NordStream 2 but that is irrelevant. This is about
consequence.
u-Rope
is currently at its weakest (politically and economically) for a long time but for some reason it thinks now is the time
for a EU Magnitsky It's really poor thinking.
So, I declare
2020 as the year of Hail Marys. The last throw of the dice. Desparation of maybe a final win, however fleeting to go out
in a blaze of heavenly glory before the EU turns inward to deal with its US sponsored saboage attempts, sic the PiS run
lo-land of Po-land that runs out of substantial cash on 31 December 2020 and the wheels of the bus start coming off.
The only other
tidbit I've seen is about Byelorussia. In particular only Latvia has STFU about and avoided the ire of Lucky-shenko. The
Brits would say that Riga is 'Boxing Clever.' Still, is it setting itself up as an EU interlocutor. Yet again, this is a
story of omisson. Lucky shouldn't trust any of them. And speaking of f/kers who won't let go, Borissov in Bulgaria is
still refusing to resign (who cares, they're in the EU) and Djukanovic in pro-EU Montengro remains presient despite
losing parliament. But, if you are in Da Klub, however korrupt or faked (hello Romania too!), it's just not
news.
So it must be
true! "Novichok" was used to murder the "Leader of the opposition"! Soviet developer of "Novichok" makes an apology to
Navalny:
Отравление
Навального , 20 сен, 00:23 179 058
Разработчик "Новичка" извинился перед Навальным
Он назвал разработку боевого яда "преступным бизнесом" и пояснил, что посвятил всю свою последующую жизнь борьбе против
применения отравляющих веществ
Vil Sultanovich Mirzayanov, a Tatar now living happily in the USA,
where he likes to dish the dirt on Russia as regards chemical weapons
Novichok developer has apologized to Navalny
He called the
development of combat poison "a criminal business" and explained that he had devoted his entire subsequent life to the
fight against the use of toxic substances
A chemist and one of the developers of the Novichok chemical warfare
agent Vil Mirzayanov has apologized to opposition leader Alexei Navalny on the Dozhd TV channel.
"I sincerely
apologize to Navalny for being involved in this criminal business -- the development of this substance, which he was
poisoned with", said the chemist who has lived in the United States since 1995.
He noted that
he had devoted himself all his subsequent life to the fight against the use of combat poisons.
In an
interview with Dozhd, Mirzayanov explained that in 1993 he met a man who had survived poisoning by "Novichok". He stated
that the symptoms he described were similar to those mentioned by Navalny on Instagram on September 19.
"All the
symptoms are similar. He overcame, survived. Apparently, Navalny will have to be patient. But, ultimately, he must be
healthy, "said the scientist. The restoration of full health to the Russian politician, Mirzayan said, could take up to
a year.
In his opinion, the situation as regards the impossibility of writing
words on a blackboard, which Navalny described, is associated with problems of signal transmission from the brain to
functional organs -- "Novichok" molecules prevent the breakdown of the protein responsible for the transmission of such
signals.
RBK calls
Navalny a "politician".
"Dozhd" gave
the interview.
Both are
libturd organs.
Mirzayanov was
not a developer of "Novichok". At one time he worked at the State Research Institute of Organic Chemistry and Technology
in the department for counteracting foreign technical intelligence, where he rose to the rank of head of department.
That is, he was familiar with what they do in laboratories, but he himself did not "invent" Novichok.
He started
blowing the whistle as regards the Soviet Union allegedly working around compliancy with the proposed 1990 Chemical
Weapons Accord and In 1992 published an article about the USSR and Russian development of extremely potent
fourth-generation chemical weapons from the 1970s until the early 1990s. The publication appeared just on the eve of
Russia signing the 1990 Chemical Weapons Convention.
Mirzayanov was
arrested on treason charges but the trial collapsed. He was released, but kept under house arrest and observation. In
1995 he relocated to the United States where he presently resides, taking a position at Rutgers University in New
Jersey.
Mirzayanov is
a professional Tatar: On October 26, 2008, was elected to the Presidium of the Milli Mejlis of the Tartar People in
exile. On January 17, 2009, in an article on CNN, he published the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE OF TATARSTAN, adopted at
a Special Meeting of the Milli Mejlis of the Tatar People on December 20, 2008] At a conference on the separation of
Tatarstan from Russia, held in Ankara in the same year, Mirzayanov was elected "Prime Minister" of the "government in
exile". In March 2010, Mirzayanov signed the "Putin Must Go" campaign.
In March 2018,
after the alleged poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal by "Novichok", Mirzayanov spoke about how Russia had maintained
tight control over its "Novichok" stockpile and that the agent is too complicated for a non-state actor to have
weaponized.
"It's torture.
It's absolutely incurable."
"I never
imagined even in my bad dreams that this chemical weapon, developed with my participation, would be used as terrorist
weapons."
Mirzayanov
said only the Russians could be behind the use of the weapon and said he was convinced Russia carried it out as a way of
intimidating opponents of President Vladimir Putin.
All part of
Washington's momentum campaign – keep it rolling, a new atrocity by Russia every day. Mirzayanov is an American now,
well established and apparently happy, and doubtless he will be well-rewarded for his storytelling. But I doubt the
'apology' to Navalny was his idea. Washington just wants to keep Navalny in the news, in the hope that the more
people learn who he is and what he is all about, the greater will be his influence in Russia.
Who is Mirzayanov and why did he apologize to Navalny?
The mass media, which in general few people trust, continue to
increase false publications about the poisoning of blogger Navalny. So, absurd information has appeared on the Web
about the fact that one of the creators of "Novichok", Vil Mirzayanov, who lives in the States, has apologized to
Alexei Navalny.
But the
fact is that Mirzayanov is not a developer of Novichok, he has nothing to do with this poisonous substance. He was
involved in some kind of indirect way with the creation of the poison, as were many others, but to call him a
developer is like calling a woodworker who made a stretcher for a canvas the artist who created the oil painting that
is on it.
So in
general, complete nonsense. One of the direct participants in the process of creating the toxin, Leonid Rink, stated
that Mirzayanov was only one of the workers on "Novichok", but did not participate in the direct creation of the
poison.
He also
commented on Navalny's symptoms, saying that they are in no way similar to those that should have been in the case of
Novchik poisoning. Rink stressed that his "colleague" also cannot know what the real symptoms are when this toxin
enters the human body. So Mirzayanov's statement is completely unfounded, and may apparently be explained as having
been made because he was ordered by someone to make it.
Finally, Rink said that if Navalny had been poisoned with this
particular poison, he would not have been saved.
Russia has
so many internal traitors (Navalny, Rodchenko and this Mirzayanov for example) that it makes too easy for Russia's
enemies to use them against Russia.
And is
it working? Is the west achieving the goals it set for itself by co-opting these traitors? Maybe in the short
term; the west was successful – using Rodchenkov – of keeping Russia largely out of a couple of Olympics series.
But the overall effect, it seems to me, is that the west is increasingly revealed as a partisan liar, and
consequently untrustworthy.
Why do
you say, "So many"? Does Russia have more 'internal traitors' than other countries? From the point of view that
they are willing to help other countries overthrow their own government, perhaps. But otherwise they are simply
people who disagree with the way their country is run, by the people who run it. The rest is support offered by
the west for them to air their views. Do you think Russia could make good use of Edward Snowden to bring down the
United States government by starting a movement in the USA of discontented people? I do; it wouldn't even be
difficult – it is a fragmented and angry country already, with several anti-government movements the government
can barely keep in check. Are there any signs Russia plans to use that approach? I mean, for real, not the
hysterical cries that Russia is behind Black Lives Matter and other obviously-American groups that are fed up with
their lives as they are.
It is
working because 95% of the people in Finland or the United States or Germany believe that Russian state
poisoned Navalny. The facts don't matter as much as what people believe in.
And
those who want more sanctions against Russia and isolate Russia also benefit, because they can point to Navalny
"poisoning" and say that Russia must be punished.
In
the US, virtually everyone has an opinion regardless of the level of familiarity with the topic. But, the
willingness to suffer for those opinions is ZERO, nada, nita.
I
would appreciate a link to the information indicating 95% of the US population "believe[s] that Russian
state poisoned Navalny".
Like I said before, so much US propaganda is being dispensed that its value, like an overprinted currency,
is diminishing. When the US economic system collapses, as it surely will, all those opinions will be
forgotten as quickly as last year's "America's Got Talent" runner-up.
And so they apply more sanctions. Has that had any measurable negative effect on Russia? What will they do,
ban it from the Council of Europe again?
Look at it this way – the sanctions and the regime-change operations in neighbouring countries and the
serial-lying campaigns have all been part of a plan, a plan to drive Putin from power and put a western
bobblehead in his place. How many years have they been trying this, now – since 2014? Is it working? Is
Russia in worse shape now than it was then, or better? Is it more independent, or less? More assertive, or
less? Does it have a more diversified economy, or less?
If
I had put this plan together, and poured it on as hard as I could for six straight years now and had as
little to show for it as the west has, I'd be expecting to be called into the office any day now to get
fired.
Russia has so many internal traitors (Navalny, Rodchenko and
this Mirzayanov for example) that it makes too easy for Russia's enemies to use them against Russia.
The US
government/deep state leadership is traitorous to its own population. The steadily decreasing standard of living
over the past 3-4 decades combined with a rapidly growing wealth inequity tell us that,
Having
traitors fighting the national leadership is to be much preferred to a national leadership in the hands of
traitors. More simply, the US does not have many traitors because the traitors are running the show.
Got it?
When all
is said and done, the countries with the most fit population will generally prevail if left alone. The West knows
that hence the continuous pressure on Russia. Still got it?
The last photo of
Alexei Navalny before boarding the Moscow bound aeroplane plane in Tomsk / Twitter
Taken after
Navalny had allegedly drunk poisoned tea, they all at first howled in unison, but now they say he drank from a Novichok
contaminated bottle in his hotel room, which the Navalnyites later so fortuitously recovered from Navalny's long vacated
hotel room and sent to Berlin.
95% of people
in the West believe this story, namely that Navalny was poisoned by Novichok?
And not only
do 95% of Westerners believe that Navalny had ingested Novichok, but also, that it was a specially developed delayed
action Novichok that would only take effect some 40 minutes after that photo above had been taken.
Furthermore,
95% of Westerners believe that Navalny recovered from his poisoning by specially developed, delayed-action Novichok.
Now if the
story were subsequently changed and it were claimed that Navalny had been poisoned by, say, special, delayed action
strychnine,
AND
had
recovered from its effects, would 95% of Westerners believe that as well?
Well, maybe,
if it were alleged that such special, delayed action Strychnine could only have been developed by evil Russian
scientists, and one of those who partook in its development now showed remorse for his nefarious activities ands made a
public apology to Navalny for all the bother said strychnine had caused him.
Greetings from
Berlin! The happy couple enjoying
deutsche Gemütlichkeit
. It's a
miracle, I tell ya!
The above
Instagram text reads:
Julia and I had our
anniversary on August 26 -- 20 years of being wed, but I'm even glad that I missed it and I can write this today, when I
know a little more about love than I did a month ago.
You, of
course, have seen this a hundred times in films and read about it in books: one loving person lies in a coma, and the
other brings him back to life with her love and incessant care. Of course, we also acted in this way. According to the
canons of classic films about love and coma. I slept and slept and slept. Julia came, talked to me, sang songs to me,
turned on music. I won't lie – I don't remember anything.
But I'll tell
you what I remember exactly. Rather, it can hardly be called a "memory", rather, a bundle of my very first sensations
and emotions. However, it was so important to me that it has been forever imprinted in my mind. I'm lying there. I have
already been brought out of the coma, but I don't recognize anyone, I don't understand what is happening. I don't speak
and I don't know what to say. And the whole of the time that I was there was spent waiting for her arrival. Who she is
is unclear. I don't know what she looks like either. Even if I manage to see something with a defocused gaze, then I
simply cannot remember the picture. But She is different, I understand that, so I lie and wait for her all the time. She
comes and becomes the head of the ward. She adjusts my pillow very comfortably. She doesn't have a quiet, sympathetic
tone. She talks cheerfully and laughs. She tells me something. When she is around, idiotic hallucinations recede. It's
very good with her. Then she leaves, I feel sad, and I start waiting for her again.
I don't doubt for a
second that there is a scientific explanation for this. Well, like, I caught the timbre of my wife's voice, my brain
secreted dopamines, it became easier for me. Each visit literally became healing, and the expectation effect increased
the dopamine reward. But no matter how cool scientific and medical explanation sounds, now I know for sure just from my
own experience: love heals and brings you back to life. Julia, you saved me, and let it be written in the textbooks on
neuroscience😍
[Wipes tear
from eye .]
The body of
the Kommersant article text:
Opposition leader Alexei Navalny has published a blog post in which
he is outraged by the lack of a criminal investigation into his poisoning. He has also demanded the return of his
clothes, which may be important evidence. Mr. Navalny noted that two independent laboratories in France and Sweden, as
well as a German special laboratory in the Bundeswehr, had confirmed the presence of Novichok in his body. "However, in
Russian political and legal reality, none of this exists In Russia there is no criminal case, but there is a
"pre-investigation check on the fact of hospitalization ". It seems that I didn't fall into a coma on the aeroplane, but
slipped in a supermarket and broke my leg", wrote Mr. Navalny. He also demanded that the clothes he wore on August 20 be
returned to him -- the day he felt sick. According to the politician, he was "sent absolutely naked" to Germany.
"Considering that a Novichok was found on my body and a contact method of infection is very likely, my clothes are a
very important piece of evidence. 30 days allotted by law for pre-investigation
Listen,
arsehole: you threw a wobbler on the aircraft, howled and screamed and rolled around on the deck and then, allegedly,
went into a coma. On admission to hospital, you were put into a coma and remained in an induced comatose state until
your miraculous recovery in the Charité, Berlin
The reason why
no criminal case has been made in the country where you were allegedly dosed with Novichock, is that there is no
evidence of this being the case. Furthermore, there was no evidence of poisoning in the analyses of your body fluids and
tissue done in Omsk.
German doctors
say that they have such evidence, but they wont show it; likewise the Bundeswehr laboratories.
And there will
be no traces of Novichok on your clothing in the Omsk hospital either. If there had been, there would have been a lot of
dead people at that hospital last month.
September
21, 2020
The results of investigations of Navalny's clothing have become
known
Russian experts did not find traces of poison or hazardous
substances on the belongings of Alexei Navalny, in which he was on the day of hospitalization. The results of the
research have been made known to the TASS agency.
"In his
personal belongings, no dangerous, prohibited, poisonous, other substances or their traces were found", said a source
in law enforcement agencies.
Earlier,
the Ministry of Health of the Omsk region told Interfax that Navalny's clothes were seized from doctors by the
investigating authorities during an inspection.
On Monday, September 21, the blogger demanded that the things that
were removed from him in the Omsk hospital be returned to him. According to him, these clothes could become important
evidence, since there were traces of a poisonous substance on his body. "30 days of a 'pre-investigation check' were
used to hide this vital piece of evidence. I demand that my clothes be carefully packed in a plastic bag and returned
to me", the oppositionist said.
Yeah, deny,
deny, deny! That's all that Russians do. However, 95% of Finnish people think he was Novichocked and there were
traces of the most deadly nerve agent known to man on his clothes.
RUSSIA HAS NO
FUTURE: NAVALNY'S PARTY LIQUIDATED
09/21/2020
Today, September 21, the RF Supreme Court liquidated Navalny's party
"Russia of the Future".
In mid-May
2019, Alexey Navalny's assistants submitted documents to the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation for
registration of the "Russia of the Future" party. True, the ministry re-registered the "Party of Free Citizens" under a
new name, but refused to register Navalny's associates, owing to the fact that a party with this name had already been
registered.
Alexei Navalny
filed a lawsuit trying to challenge the registration refusal. Ultimately, both the Zamoskvoretsky Court and the Moscow
City Court were on the side of the Ministry of Justice.
Navalny's
aide, Ivan Zhdanov, said they currently do not plan to reapply for party registration.
"Our case has
been communicated to the ECHR and we are not planning new filings in the near future", Zhdanov said.
Since 2012, politician Navalny has been trying to register his party
under the names "People's Alliance", "Party of Progress" or "Russia of the Future". However, all attempts to do so have
been in vain.
In other
words, as I have said before: "Fuck off, arsehole!"
The
"politician" without a party and with statistically zilch public support in Russia.
No mass
protests or civil unrest anywhere in Russia since Navalny's alleged poisoning: nothing like the massive popular protests
held week in week out in support for Furgal in Khabarovsk. Sweet FA in support of the "leader of the Russian opposition"
whom Putin tried to murder with Novichok!
However, I
hear that 95% of people in the West believe there was indeed an assassination attempt made against the US agent using
the most deadly nerve agent (weapons grade, modified) known to man and undertaken on Putin's direct order.
Here's a
possible solution – call it "The Party of Crooks and Thieves". Subtle, innit? Then The Kremlin will think Navalny is
calling himself and his fellow party members crooks and thieves, when all along he is simply planning – cunningly, as
he and the US Department of State do everything – to give his signature phrase the publicity boost it deserves!
Fookin' ELEGANT!
Over a dozen members of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's
Russiagate-investigating team "accidentally" wiped their phones before they could be inspected and "lost" the phone of
disgraced FBI lawyer Lisa Page with anti-Trump texts.
Musing
during an evening work break – the reason why mass rape of children by our vaunted leaders draw so little attention
from the MSM has nothing to do with "protecting" those in power either due to fear or reward. Rather, Bill and Hilary
do what comes natural to sociopaths. As such, their behavior is accepted, if not condoned, as normal for those in
power. Us deplorables just don't get it.
Journalist who has visited Charité has pointed out signs of Navalny's
absence there
14:55 22 September 2020, Berlin, Germany
Alexei Navalny is not at the Charité clinic in Berlin. This is the
conclusion reached by journalist Alexander Sosnovsky, who has visited the place.
A journalist from
Berlin has shown why Navalny cannot be at the "Charité" / Collage: FBA "Economics Today"
According to the journalist, the photo of Navalny with his wife on a
balcony makes one think about his whereabouts. Sosnovsky, who is familiar with the architecture of Berlin, drew
attention to the strange urban landscape in the corner of the picture. He pointed out that the Charité building does not
have balconies with a similar view, as it is located in the central part of Berlin with a completely different
architecture.
To confirm his
words in practical way, Sosnovsky personally went to the Charité and walked around the building with a camera. He drew
attention to the construction work near the clinic (this would probably have got into the blogger's photo), as well as
the complete absence of journalists and security. All this confirmed Sosnovsky's suspicions about Navalny's absence from
Charité.
In addition to
the cityscape, the journalist had questions about the can with cigarette butts on Navalny's balcony. Sosnovsky called
such an object impossible in an élite medical institution in Germany with patients of this level. If Navalny himself
smoked all the cigarettes in the frame, this raises even more questions about his "diagnosis" and the conclusions of
German doctors.
The journalist
notes that all the shots of Navalny taken after he had emerged from the coma are static and "inanimate." Sosnovsky, a
person with a medical education and a practicing doctor, calls this understandable, pointing to the possibility of
identifying the signs of specific diseases and influences based on movements, speech and other dynamic manifestations.
For example, after a tracheostomy (artificial windpipe), a person often has voice problems.
"Any video and
audio makes it possible with a high degree of probability to calculate where and how it was made. It is much more
difficult from a photo. And if they hide from us the opportunity to determine the location and diagnosis, this is very
significant", Sosnovsky said on the air of Soloviev Live.
Earlier, Navalny demanded that Russia return the clothes in which the
blogger was hospitalized in Omsk. However, Navalny's own associates previously wrote that all his belongings were
transferred to his wife, and some of the items that the blogger touched and used could have been taken out by Maria
Pevchikh, a suspect in his poisoning.
" This makes you wonder whether Navalny even set foot into any
hospital in Berlin at all, and not just a medical clinic or some place where discharged patients go to recuperate
after a hospital stay "
– even
before that photo of the Navalnys being lovey-dovey on a balcony appeared. Do hospital floor plans normally include
balconies attached to patient wards? I am sure hospitals are not designed like hotels or even like educational
institutions, to include balconies for individual patients or groups of patients, for possible security and liability
reasons among others. (You don't want patients sneaking out at night and possibly getting run over in traffic when
they are supposed to be under hospital supervision; and you also don't want to make entry easy for people looking for
drugs and entering hospitals through patient wards to get drugs.)
And since
when do hospitals allow patients or even their visitors to smoke on their premises? Not only are they a health hazard
(to smokers and non-smokers alike in sealed air-conditioned environments such as hospitals provide) but they are also
a fire hazard.
I can't
remember where I read it (Euractiv?), but apparently the current NordStream II plan is to complete it
and
then
apply restrictive measures such as capacity caps etc. This I can believe. A) it get's Brussels off the hook for
wildly violating its own Energy Charter (private investor protections), something which you may all recall Brussels has
been trying to use against Russia even though the latter did not ratify it but is technically supposed to be bound by
the rules or a period; b) it looks like it has taken action; c) it can reverse at any point not to mention all the
exemptions Brussels allowed for 'Field Pipes', TAP etc. and retro-actively trying to redefine its rule to be
ex-territoria – i.e. apply to out pipline that are not end-to-end EU pipelines but cross outside of the EU. And finally
to threaten and blackmail Gazprom in public to agree Privately mutually beneficial terms that do not contravene the
Energy Charter, i.e. if Gazprom
voluntarliy
goes along with the
new rules. Very Brussels 'squaring the circle'/presenting weakness/compromise as VICTORY!
We know from
the past that Brussels imposed a 50% capacity cap on Russian gas though NS I until demand picked up and the restriction
would have driven up prices for EU industry and private customers and thus magically lifted the cap, subject to 'market
conditions' of course!
In other news,
a PiS (Polish government) spokesman said that they didn't need coalition partners which turned out to mean that
'The
PiS-led coalition would lose its parliamentary majority without United Poland, which has 17 seats. The coalition crisis
came after simmering tensions spilled into open conflict when the junior members refused to support an animal rights
bill.
.' 'Hanging by a thread' anal-cyst looks more like projection to me.
Oh, what a
stupid fucking plan. They're not serious, or don't realize they are not, but ENI and Uniper and Wintershall are not
going to put up with that shit for a minute. They invested to make money, not lose it, and they are not remotely
interested in making room for American LNG. I sometimes wonder what passes for political nous in Europe these days –
it doesn't look like you have to have too many synapses firing.
Therefore it is very much a political figleaf. Something they can tell themselves and others knowing full well
that they won't do it. More importantly they think it buys them time for example if t-Rump is not re-elected even
though the Dems are onboard with the 'f/k NSII' plans.
I think
this actually shows that they looked down the barrel of the gun (i.e. spoke to their own Legal Service) and didn't
like what they saw, that Brussels would be unequivocaly on the hook for NSII not being completed. This is just
like earlier when the EU Legal Services told them that they couldn't apply the Third Energy Package retroactively
(as previously posted on this blog – or was it the old one?). The article below has a pdf upload of the actual EU
Legal Services opinion & the German.* Bundesnetzagentur.
Oh, look at
that – Mr. Less-than-5% has been 'discharged' from the hospital he probably was never in, so you journalists can stop
hanging about picking the western storyline apart; he ain't here no more.
Poisoned with the deadliest nerve agent
known to man, and in less than a week he's ready to hit the road (less than a week after coming out of a coma where
he had to have a ventilator breathe for him, I mean). Day one, he wakes up. Day two, he's recovered 90% of his brain
function and nearly all his mobility. And only a couple of days after that, he's demanding his clothes back from
Russia and making plans for his glorious return, perhaps riding an Abrams main battle tank. Wasn't Detective Bailey
in the hospital for weeks, with death hovering over his pillow the whole time? And HE had gloves on! Navalny is
Superman. Remarkable.
Fully
recovered, the Fritz miracle worker doctors say.
A golden
Guinea to the swab who first spies a balcony on yon white monster! Aaaaarrr!!!
As it
happens, I lived in Berlin for a while in 1988 -- in both the capitalist showcase of "West Berlin" and in "East
Berlin", the capital of the former German Democratic Republic or "sowjetische Besatzungszone" as "West German"
politicians liked to label the place without going into details about why exactly a large chunk of the so=called
"Thousand Year Reich" was indeed occupied by the Soviet Union, and I agree with other critics: no way was that
balcony shot of Bullshitter and his wife taken at the Charité, which is situated right slap bang in the middle of
Berlin.
Berlin's
Charité Hospital -- "Bettenhochhaus" -- was completed in 1982 and was cleaned and renovated in 2016-2017. It is
around 87m tall and is Germany's largest hospital. It dominates the skyline at the Mitte Campus, nestled right in
the middle of the city near the Parliament and Central Station.
Not because he
is in trouble with the law here. Although a trial awaits him in order to establish the truth as regards another criminal
case. Not because he can be poisoned (but who needs him), although no one poisoned him. He is either a pawn in someone's
dirty game that was used on the quiet, or the initiator of this whole bad story.
If he had
really been poisoned with a chemical warfare agent, then everyone who had contact with him would be in the hospital bed.
And the aeroplane in which they brought the bottle on which the traces of "Novichok" were allegedly found, would have
been burnt long ago. As in the case with the Skripals, the British demolished the house where they had found traces of
the poison. Somehow everything turns out awkwardly.
What is it all
for? By and large, Navalny does not play any role in Russian politics. An ordinary blogger who positions himself as an
opposition politician, fighter against corruption. True, it is worth recalling that this fighter against corruption has
himself been a defendant in a criminal case of embezzlement in Kirovles. And he received a five-year suspended sentence
for embezzlement and yet more embezzlement.
Scandals are
his bread and butter. The forgotten blogger decided to remind everyone about himself in this way, let's say for the sake
of hype. True, it all went too far. And if the truth is revealed, and someday it will definitely come out, then Navalny
will really have to worry about his health . . .
Most likely, the fugitive blogger will disappear like Skripal. It
will be better for everyone. So stay there in Germany or go to the states.
And the above
opinion, in my opinion, is what the vast majority of Russians think.
I live with
Russians -- real Russians: I don't sit in flash cafés or bars, chinwagging with the Russian bourgeois "élite", who are
ever willing to spill forth to me their tales of woe and suffering in the "regime" and their yearning for the
establishment of a "liberal" Western "democracy" here, as do the likes of Independent Moscow correspondent Carroll, and
Shaun "don't-give-me-no-dill" Walker, the BBC correspondent Rainsford, so full of negative spin on all things Russian,
and her slimy git of a BBC colleague Rosenberg.
And now the
ever truthful Frog rag "Le Monde" reports that in conversation with Macron, Putin suggested that the Bullshitter may
have poisoned himself. Signal
immediate heart-rending response from team Navalny -- read "Washington":
"I cooked 'Novichok' in the kitchen. I took a soft sip from a flask on
the plane "
Navalny has responded to Putin's suggestion that the oppositionist himself drank poison
Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny has responded to the
words of Russian President Vladimir Putin, published in the French newspaper "Le Monde", that he poisoned himself with a
substance from the "Novichok" group. "Good version. I believe that it deserves the closest study. Cooked "Novichok" in
the kitchen. Took a soft sip from a flask on the plane. I fell into a coma. Prior to that, I agreed with my wife,
friends and colleagues that if the Ministry of Health insists that they take me to Germany for treatment, they would not
allow it to be done. To die in the Omsk hospital and end up in the Omsk morgue, where the cause of death would be
established: "had lived enough" – this is the ultimate goal of my cunning plan. But Putin outplayed me. You just can't
fool him. As a result, I, like a fool, lay in a coma for 18 days, but did not achieve my goal. The provocation failed! "
– ironically Navalny on his page on the social network Instagram.
23
September 2020, 08:39
Macron's statement on Navalny and the resonating publication of "Le
Monde"
The French
President said that what happened to the Russian oppositionist was an "assassination attempt." Le Monde wrote about
the conversation between Macron and Putin, and the Russian ambassador to Germany has said that Berlin does not want
to cooperate with Moscow over the Navalny situation.
Updated at
10:07
French President Emmanuel Macron called on Russia to shed light on
the situation with Navalny. Speaking at a session of the UN General Assembly, the French President called the
incident an "assassination attempt": "We will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons in Europe, Russia or Syria. We
need to clarify quickly and flawlessly as we will make sure that the red lines are respected. "
His video
message to the UN coincided with a high-profile publication of the French newspaper "Le Monde" about a telephone
conversation between Macron and Putin. Sources of the publication retell their conversation about the situation with
Navalny.
According to Le Monde, it was "a conversation not intended to be
heard". According to sources, Macron said that since it would be impossible for a private organization to use
"Novichok"
[Why? Peddling another "Novichok" myth yet again! -- ME]
,
an official Russian explanation is needed
[Why? Presumption of Russian guilt? -- ME]
.
In response, Putin allegedly called Alexei Navalny "a simple internet brawler who committed illegal actions in the
past and used the Anti-Corruption Fund to blackmail deputies and officials". According to the newspaper, the Russian
president noted that Navalny had previously simulated various diseases and could have swallowed the poison himself.
Why the politician did this, Putin did not explain, writes "Le Monde".
According
to the newspaper, Vladimir Putin also noted that "Novichok" is a much less complex substance than it is believed. The
lack of an official investigation was explained by the fact that the results of the French and German tests were not
transferred to Russia. In addition, the Russian president, according to "Le Monde's" sources, suggested investigating
other versions, leading, in particular, to Latvia, where the inventor of "Novichk" lives. As the newspaper noted, in
fact, several Soviet scientists took part in the creation of "Novichk" at once, and the fact that one of them lives
abroad says nothing, especially in the absence of any plausible motive. According to the newspaper, Macron rejected
the Latvian trace and the version of an attempt to poison himself.
How should
one feel about the publication of "Le Monde" and will it have any impact in Europe? Commentary by political scientist
Georgy Bovt:
– First of
all, Le Monde has just thrown shit at the Russian president, because, first of all, we do not know in what context
this was said. It could have been said in such a sarcastic tone, for example, and in the context of other spoken
phrases, it would have sounded different from what it sounds like now, when such a position seems rather too strange
to many. This happens quite often when retelling rather frank conversations of politicians, which are then presented
without understanding the tone and context. So, of course, this post will make a difference. And secondly, the fact
that the Elysée Palace itself considered it possible to leak this information to the press makes it problematic in
the future to communicate with Macron at the level at which it happened before.
– During his speech at the session, he also called on Russia to shed
light on, as he put it, the attempt to assassinate Navalny.
– It
doesn't matter much now, since it is obvious that the conversation with Putin, which took place in confidence, was
leaked to the press. Usually this is not done after all. And if it is done, then the relationship that was before is
cancelled out. This probably means that Macron also decided to cross out his relationship with Putin, which had
developed before.
– Couldn't Putin have thus, on the contrary, been try to improve
relations by recounting all Navalny's "ideas" and attempts to blackmail people close to the authorities during his
investigations?
– The Kremlin's attitude towards Navalny can hardly be called
exalted, and to say that the Kremlin loves Navalny would be a strong exaggeration. Therefore, the attitude to this
politician there is supercritical, dismissive. Nevertheless, to seriously talk about the fact that he poisoned
himself -- well, the general public will not understand this: this requires at least some additional clarification
about the basis on which such statements are made, if they are made seriously, and not in such a manner as a cynical
joke.
[You must
be kidding, Bovt! Navalny critics -- and most Russians are! -- think he's lower than a snake's belly, that he's a
TRAITOR, a FOREIGN AGENT!!!!! If the Pindosi tell him to give one for the Gipper, he'll fucking well do it! That's
his nature. He's in it for the moolah!!!! Nothing else! -- ME]
Late at
night, Navalny himself reacted to the publication. On social media, he wrote: "Good version. I cooked "Novichok" in
the kitchen. I took a soft sip from a flask on the aeroplane. To die in an Omsk hospital and end up in an Omsk
morgue, where the cause of death would be established "had lived enough" -- that was the ultimate goal of my cunning
plan. But Putin outplayed me. You just can't fool him. As a result, I, like a fool, lay in a coma for 18 days, but
did not achieve my goal. The provocation failed! "
Russian
Ambassador to Germany Sergei Nechaev said that Berlin does not want to cooperate with Moscow on the situation with
Navalny. According to him, the Russian Prosecutor General's Office sent requests for legal assistance to France,
Sweden and twice to Germany, but did not receive a single answer.
According
to the diplomat, without these samples from foreign laboratories, law enforcement agencies cannot start a criminal
investigation into the incident. He said that a preliminary investigation of the situation had already begun on the
part of Russia: many objects were examined, the staff of the hotel, hospital and airport were interviewed.
According
to the latest data, Navalny's condition improved and he was discharged from the hospital. This was told in the Berlin
clinic Charite. Doctors consider it possible that he will recover completely.
Which all
begs the question that he was poisoned with "Novichok", which he clearly wasn't!
Why?
Because he
is not dead!
It matters
not who administered the poison or whether the bullshitting bastard took it himself: the dose wasn't lethal.
The bastard
took some salts in the aircraft toilet, then put on a show for the passengers, none of whom suffered any ill effects
from their having been in close proximity with a person covered with the most deadly poison known to man.
Russian
doctors at Omsk know that the lying traitorous bastard wasn't poisoned.
So do
German doctors in Berlin, but they have political agenda to follow.
On the Navalny
poisoning. Interesting to see that Vladimir Ashurkov is in the inner core of the Integrity Initiative. Suggesting
another media-led provocation.
More fool
you BBC for believing the story of such a cnut!
Ashurkov is
Executive Director of the Anti-Corruption Foundation. A former banker, Ashurkov was rolling the lolly in as the
Director of Group Portfolio Management and Control at Alfa Group Consortium from 2006 to 2012, when he was asked to
step down because of his political involvement with Alexei Navalny. So he has an axe trto grind.
As usual,
the rich and privileged Ashurkov is so typical of the millions of Russians who love and adore Bullshitter Navalny.
From the
Russian
Wiki
entry on Ashurkov, which is far more revealing than the sparse
English
Wiki
on the thieving twat:
In April 2014, Ashurkov left Russia. On July 30, 2014, he was put
on the federal wanted list in the case of fraud with the financing of Navalny's election campaign as mayor of Moscow.
In July
2014, he applied for political asylum in the UK in connection with persecution in the Russian Federation. In February
2015, he received asylum, at the same time his common-law wife Alexandrina Markvo was arrested in absentia by the
Basmanny Court, whose firm Bureau 17 of the RF IC was accused of stealing several million budget funds during
literary events.
In the UK,
he was engaged in investment projects in the field of venture and angel investments dedicated to e-commerce. At the
same time, he continued to work with Alexei Navalny. In December 2015, he launched the
Sanation
Law
project, which analyzes the adopted scandalous bills and the process of their further cancellation, "which
will become relevant when the political system is liberalized and the new government takes a course to dismantle the
authoritarian regime". According to his own statements, he changed his libertarian beliefs to more leftist ones.
He gave,
along with several others, testimony to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons of the British
Parliament in connection with the preparation of the latter's report "Russian corruption and the UK inquiry", which
was presented in May 2018 year.
In November 2018, hackers of the Anonymous group published
documents of the British project Integrity Initiative; amongst others, Ashurkov's surname appeared in the lists of
participants. Ashurkov suggested that the hackers stole the Institute of Statecraft (one of the founders of the
Integrity Initiative) mailing address database, which actually contains his email address. According to him, he had
not heard of the Integrity Initiative.
Western politicians are still undecided over their response to
the
poisoning
, says the BBC's Jenny Hill in Berlin.
However, Mr
Navalny's discharge from hospital will intensify pressure on German Chancellor Angela Merkel who has demanded – so far
in vain – a full explanation from the Kremlin, she adds.
A nerve agent from the Novichok group was also used to poison Russian
ex-spy Sergei Skripal
and his daughter in Salisbury, England in 2018. They both survived, but a local woman, Dawn
Sturgess, died after coming into contact with the poison.
Britain
accused
Russia's military intelligence of carrying out that attack
. Twenty countries expelled more than 100 Russian
diplomats and spies. Moscow denied any involvement.
And no
evidence presented whatsoever for the above highlighted accusations.
But Russia, as
ever, is presented as denying a fully proven fact -- a "slam dunk" accusation, as I believe Pindosi are sometimes wont to
say.
What with all the noise of the dogs and camels, a swan song can be
easily missed. But not Maria Pevchikh's (lead image, right) broadcast by the BBC's Russian Service.
For the first
time, the British state propaganda organ has said too much too loudly in defence of one of its Russian assets, and
confirmed the combination of celebrity, political ambition, and money which has made the poisoning of Alexei Navalny a
faulty fabrication; and Navalny's attempt to make political capital out of it, a modest success for the British secret
services; an immodest failure for the German Foreign Ministry, Defence Ministry, German Army, and the Berlin medical
clinic which goes by the name of Charity
German sources close to the thinking of the Chancellery in Berlin
and of Chancellor Angela Merkel believe that whatever she has been told by her subordinates and experts, her intention
is to let the Navalny poisoning narrative fade away for lack of evidence of a crime the Germans are willing to publish
####
More at the
link.
I concur with
the conclusion. I think at some point Merkel realized she was being bumped in to action and rather than just saying 'No'
against a mass of pressure and liability for her, she moved sideways and insisted on the full processes to be followed.
That way she could not be accused of blocking, and secondly it affects the time frame for actions which is the whole
critical point of the whole affair. Outside a certain window, proposed actions lose much of their force, are obsolete or
ultimately become pointless.
As for les
grenouilles, le coq is all about puffing up its chest and looking much bigger than ite really is. Maybe they've given up
on their 'special relationship' with Russia. It's certainly backwards from when Putin allowed Sarkozy to dig the EU/NATO
and the west out of its self-made hole of backing Saakashiti's 2008 'war of liberation.' Exactly what 'other tools' does
Clément Beaune think the EU can bring to bear on Russia that would have any more effect than the current sanction etc.?*
Unless he is talking about sorcery
But we were so bad at dealing with power that we just delegated it,
if I may put it like that, to NATO, to the U.S., to national states, armies and so on," Beaune said.
"The EU was not about this. So the EU is learning that, hello, there
are some powers on the doorstep -- Russia, Turkey, just to mention two of them, the main ones -- and they are not so nice.
So we have to unite and we have to develop tools, and we don't have them at this stage," he said
Apparently,
Pevchikh was given a bogus interview on the BBC and was presented as an uninteresting, nothing special sort of
person, about whom rumours and innuendo were amassing for no reason whatsoever.
The
interviewer never pressed her on how long she had lived in the UK, what her business interests there were (claims
have been made that she runs a book store), why she visits Russia so frequently, what indeed isher present
citizenship, how she became involved with Navalny's "fund" -- she says she answered an ad., but where? In the UK?
Hardly! And on and on .
It was a
"nothing to see here, now move along!" interview undertaken by the free of state control BBC under the auspices of
the State Intelligence Service, for whom, I am sure, Pevchikh is a most willing helper, if not in its employ.
"In response
to the actions of the European Union, Russia has decided to expand the list of representatives of EU member states and
institutions that are prohibited from entering the Russian Federation".
She stressed that the number of people in the list is equal to a
similar list compiled by the European Union, adding that the bloc has taken multiple unfriendly steps towards Russian
citizens, using sanctions as an "absurd" excuse
With his
receding hairline and rapidly thinning mop Navalny has exceeded his shelf life for attracting naïve youngsters. He looks
like the Russian equivalent of Rigsby, the seedy rackrent landlord in Rising Damp.
Rigsby
was a great snidey, lecherous, creep of a landlord
Poor old
Leonard Rossiter was a good actor as well. I was rather saddened when he died unexpectedly.
One of
my old workmates could take Rigsby off to a "T". He used to chat up girls using Rigsby-style creepy flattery and
strangely enough, he used to hit it off with them when performing his chatting-up of them in this fashion.
Oh, I doubt
it – Pevchikh is the exact opposite of a media personality, apparently doing her best to remain in a blurry
background and not get noticed. And owing to the suspicion now surrounding her, she would never have Navalny's
freedom of movement in Russia, where he is watched only by the newbies who need the training and the guys who showed
up to work hung-over and are being punished.
Did Russia
really poison opposition politician Navalny? And NATO wants a color revolution in Belarus
708 views•23 Sep 2020
Moderate
Rebels
20.9K subscribers
Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton start off with an exclusive, bombshell intercepted recording we were leaked of Russian
President Vladimir Putin's phone calls.
Then we speak
with journalist Bryan MacDonald, who lives in Russia, about the very suspicious alleged poisoning of opposition
candidate Alexei Navalny, and what his real, xenophobic politics are.
We also
discuss the NATO/EU attempt to orchestrate a so-called color revolution in Belarus and install a pro-Western neoliberal
regime.
SECTIONS
0:00 Exclusive, bombshell intercepted recording
8:33 Poisoning of Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny
45:00 Belarus color revolution attempt
1:21:30 Outro
Over at
OffGuardian, a frequent contributor argues compellingly that information which supports questions as to whether face
masks have any beneficial effect against an airborne viral infection is being systematically purged from the internet.
Furthermore,
the comments carry on the discussion of the extent to which not only well-known corporate-friendly browsers and search
engines like Google censor searches and limit access to critical information through down-ranking algorithms, but even
'independent' browsers like DuckDuckGo.
Often people
who narrate tech talks seem chosen for their preoccupied monotone delivery, so that reading the phone book seems a
viable alternative to listening, and this one is no exception – nonetheless, a very interesting demo of a fairly-new
website known as 'Censored Search'.
I think most
people realize the internet is slowly but surely being taken over by corporate and one-world interests that want to
shape your thinking by controlling what you read – apparently monitoring was not enough. But I would wager few grasp
just how blatant and invasive it is. The internet is lost, and it is past time for an alternative that gets back to its
maverick early days while maintaining its present versatility. The secret to the success of advertising – which after
all, is mostly propaganda – is to prevent your ability to turn it off and not be exposed to it.
Which is
the modern version that stands today, then? The one with balconies, or without?
According
to Wiki, the Charite has four campuses, all in Berlin – the main building in Mitte (which appears to be the one in
which the honoured guest was allegedly quartered and allowed to smoke and wander about the stairwells at will). the
Benjamin Franklin in Lichterfelde , the Virchow Klinikum in Wedding and the Berlin Buch, in Buch. Of those pictured,
only the main building appears to have balconies like a hotel. The Buch is not pictured, but was apparently acquired
in 2001 by the Helios clinics Group; the Charite now uses it only for research facilities.
It's hard
to know which side you're looking at, but one side appears flat right across while the sections that are balconied
protrude slightly at each side. It would obviously be much easier to build them on than to blast them off, so it
appears the version with the balconies is current.
On Thursday
(24 September), Christian Gramm, the president of Germany's Military Intelligence Service (MAD), was forced to resign.
To many, the shake-up doesn't come as a surprise given the recent criticism over how the agency handled investigations
into right-wing extremism in the German Special Forces (KSK). Gramm's term as MAD president will come to an end next
month
####
Curious timing
no? Surely completely unrelated to the recent likely faked Navalny 'poisoning.'
I'll be
damned. That IS an astonishing coincidence, and they apparently felt it was enough of a glaring coincidence that a
red-herring excuse was supplied. If your guess is accurate, it likely suggests there will be no flinching from
Germany on supplying Navalny's samples to Russia, and no apology; the issue will just be allowed to fade away, while
a few selective firings is supposed to send its own message. We'll see. Good catch!
Well
keep an eye on the follow up or far more likely the almost total absence of it.
When it
is embarassing to oneself, suddenly it becomes like classic 'straight facts' reporting. When it can cause trouble
for your enemies, speculation runs wild, pure
Rosenford
(Rosenberg/Rainsford),
They can peddle all kinds of ropey speculative s/t and opinon as proper journalism
because
it is Russia
where we all know that everything is possible.
RUSSIA AND COVID. As far as I can see it's pretty much under control
in Russia. CNN has a (surprisingly) intelligent discussion; counting is everything (vide: with or from?) and the
Russians are stricter on their counting. They also treat early with an effective drug. Meanwhile in the USA and UK,
supposedly the best prepared I recommend Stephen Walt's essay again: The Death of American Competence. And I reiterate:
2020 will go down as the year the West lost its mojo .
####
Navalny's apartment in Moscow has been seized following a lawsuit by
Prigozhin
Bailiffs have
seized the apartment of opposition politician Alexei Navalny in Moscow, FBK press secretary Kira Yarmysh said on
Twitter.
According to
her, Federal Bailiff Service officers announced a ban on registration actions at the end of August, a week after Navalny
had been poisoned on board a Tomsk-Moscow flight.
"This means
that the apartment cannot be sold, donated or mortgaged. At the same time, Alexey's accounts have been seized", Yarmysh
explained.
She also added
that the seizure was connected with a lawsuit filed by the St. Petersburg businessman Yevgeny Prigozhin, who bought out
the FBK debt of 88 million rubles from "Moskovskiy Shkolnik". 30 million rubles have already been collected from the
fund's accounts.
In October, the Moscow Arbitration Court took the side of "Moskovskiy
Shkolnik" in a dispute with FBK. The company demanded compensation for damages received as a result of the fund's
investigation of poor quality food in the capital's schools.
Data from an extract of the Unified State Register of Real Estate,
which is at the disposal of RIA Novosti, confirms that the bailiffs imposed encumbrances on Navalny's apartment, in
which he owns one third of the living space.
In addition,
as follows from the database of enforcement proceedings on the Federal Bailiff Service website, Navalny must pay almost
29 million rubles under a writ of execution on "other foreclosures of a property nature" in favour of individuals and
legal entities, as well as pay off an enforcement fee of more than two million rubles.
Commenting on
the situation with Navalny's apartment, Yevgeny Prigozhin, director of "Concord Management and Consulting", said that he
would be able to give shelter the blogger for a small fee.
"As for Navalny's apartment, if he does not find shelter with his comrades-in-arms, like Lenin, then I will make him an
inexpensive in the hallway", the Concord press service quotes him.
In 2019, a
court in Moscow found 17 statements in a video clip and a publication on catering in Moscow schools and kindergartens as
untrue and defamatory to the business reputation of "Moskovskiy Shkolnik" and ordered that there be recovered from FBK,
as well as Navalny and Lyubov Sobol, in total 88 million rubles. They were also ordered to remove the subject and
articles containing inaccurate information from their websites and social media accounts, as well as publish a
refutation in the form of the operative part of the court decision.
In July this year, Navalny announced the closure of the
Anti-Corruption Fund. In August, Prigozhine bought out the debt of Navalny, Lyubov Sobol and FBK to the Moscow Schoolboy
company. After that, the right to claim passed to the businessman.
What you gonna
do now, Yogi?
You should
know: both you and Sobol are lawyers -- aren't you?
It sounds
as if 'the Kremlin' is finally going to get serious about punishing that toad. He's so used to piling up suspended
sentences hat he perhaps expected another. But I suspect the purpose of the legal actions against him this time
around is to prevent his return to Russia. Moscow is likely quite comfortable with the idea of him becoming another
'president in exile' like Khodorkovsky.
And Navalny has access to the finest legal minds in the west – surely they
will take his case pro bono, and show up where 'the Kremlin' is acting illegally. If they cannot do that, well then
what must be our conclusion?
I suspect
the days of money-for-nothing for Lyosha may be over.
It
sounds like a lien or inhibition on dealing with the property – standard practice in seeking to recover monies
owed in the western legal systems so admired by the blogger. A bog-standard remedy in private law disputes – i.e.
NOT involving the state other than through its position to adjudicate between non-state parties in duly conducted
court proceedings.
The
purchase of the assignation of rights in the school services defamation case was pure genius.
Commenting
on the situation with Navalny's apartment, Yevgeny Prigozhin, director of "Concord Management and Consulting", said
that he would be able to give shelter to the blogger for a small fee.
"As for Navalny's apartment, if he does not find shelter with his comrades-in-arms, like Lenin, then I will fashion
him an inexpensive bed in the hallway", the Concord press service quotes him.
Dasha studied English language in-depth at Moscow Gymnasium No. 45,
one of the most prestigious educational institutions in the Russian capital,
However, after
graduating from high school, the girl did not want to stay in her native Moscow. Dasha has frankly admitted in her blog:
she is going to study at Stanford University, one of the top universities in America, located in sunny California.
According to Daria, she will study at Stanford free of charge, since
her parents' income is below one hundred thousand dollars. However, this has caused more surprise among Russians – the
fact is that only US citizens on a low income have the opportunity of studying at this university without paying fees,
and In any case, her parents must pay considerable expenses for her living and studying in America
I daresay
Moscow is starting a dossier on Darya, with relevant information such as this, against the day she will want to
return to Russia as a celebrated dissident like Daddy.
*Pussy Riot
Activist May Have Been Poisoned, German Doctors Say*
Sept. 18, 2018
BERLIN --
German doctors treating a Pussy Riot activist who lost his sight, speech and mobility after spending time in a court in
Moscow said on Tuesday that it was "highly plausible" that he had been poisoned, as their tests had found no evidence
that he was suffering from a long-term illness.
The activist,
Pyotr Verzilov, 30, was treated for several days in the toxicology wards of two hospitals in Moscow after falling ill.
On Saturday, he was flown to Berlin and admitted to the Charité hospital. His doctors in the German capital told
reporters at a news conference that he was in an intensive care unit but was not in life-threatening condition.
"We are
working on the assumption of a poisoning that has lasted about a week," Dr. Kai-Uwe Eckardt, director of the hospital's
medical center, said. "Test results indicate certain active ingredients, but the exact substance has not yet been
determined."
Verzilov is
supposedly – according to one source I read – the force behind having Navalny evacuated to Germany. It will be funny
now if he cannot return to Russia.
That
guy is a self-important prick with delusions of grandeur. If he is representative of the non-systemic
opposition in Russia then, assuming that Putin is even aware of this guy, it would only provide a good laugh
after a hard day at the office
Verzilov is an attention junkie. He set himself up as the 'spokesman' of Pussy Riot because they were
getting a lot of attention and he wanted to be part of it. He has no visible talent of his own – except
perhaps a facility for languages, his English is pretty good – and so he must attach himself to those who
either are talented, or who fancy they are and who are supported in that belief by the English-speaking
media.
His English is good because he went to school in Toronto until his somehow landing a place at MGU
Philosophy Faculty, which is one of the greatest riddles of the Cosmos, in my opinion.
I think he was at least 12 when he began to live in Canada. He lived there with his "philosopher" first
wife as well. What exactly their status in Canada is, I can never clearly find out.
She dropped out of the MGU Philosophy Faculty after he had humped her when she was 18. A couple of weeks
before she had the baby, he was shagging her in public -- or simulating the act -- in a Moscow zoological
museum. He and his ex-wife had other fornicating accomplices during the "event".
Time to pay up! More than three million rubles have been blocked on
Alburov's bank account
Today, 18:17
Georgy Alburov, who
had previously called himself the head of the FBK investigation department, suddenly revealed his real boss to the
world, when the activities of Maria Pevchikh were exposed
Photo:
http://www.instagram.com/alburov
It is time to
pay the bills. The hand of justice has also reached out to the liberalist Georgy Alburov from the so-called
Anti-Corruption Fund, recognized as a foreign agent. More than three million rubles have been blocked on his bank
account. The money will go towards losses incurred by government services during last year's rallies in Moscow.
Navalnyist Alburov was one of the main agitators of the disorder there.
Unlike
adequate people, Navalnyists do not recognize the obvious illegality of their actions, as well as the right of
representatives of the authorities to impose completely justified punishment against them. They start screaming on all
their Twitter, Facebook, Telegram etc. accounts about alleged blatant injustice and, as it happens, every time, they ask
for donations. Thus, they manage, of course, by manipulating the hamsters a little, to avoid financial responsibility by
dumping it on their lop-eared biomass.
This method is
used not only by Alburov, it is a common feature of FBK foreign agent members. First, they fuck everything up and then
cry onto ther subscribers' shoulders
Sabine
Hossenfelder is one intelligent and charismatic physicist. She takes on established science for its tendency to pursue
projects simply to create job openings for scientists as well as presenting lucid explanations of various scientific
phenomenon. Here, she rants about science being used to justify political decisions.
Navalny is 'a
ray of light emerging from the darkness'. Remarkable. Like Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show in "Cover of the Rolling
Stone", Navalny will want to buy five copies for his mother.
Well, well;
look at that. Shale oil and gas production in the USA continues to fall, and according to BP's 2020 Energy Outlook
Report, oil demand 'may never return to pre-pandemic levels'. Which would suggest we saw the peak in global consumption
last year.
And which, I
am bound to suggest, is not the desirable state of affairs if you fancy yourself the World's Biggest Energy Exporter.
International
Banker agrees, adding the gloomy forecast – depending on your point of view – that according to IATA, airline companies
will require 25% fewer planes in the sky over the next 5 years. That's hardly good news for Boeing, and might mean the
end of production for the 737 MAX. But it's quite a few gallons less of avgas, as well.
"Can US shale bounce back quickly from this crisis? It seems
unlikely. According to Ramanan Krishnamoorti, professor of petroleum engineering at the University of Houston's Cullen
College of Engineering, the industry is in serious trouble. "You're going to see a lot of bankruptcies, a lot of
furloughs, more than furloughs. You're going to see layoffs. You're going to see people leave this entire industry
because there aren't going to be jobs," he told Houston's ABC13 news outlet."
The US
fracking industry has been basically a Ponzi scheme since the first well was drilled. It seems to have become the
darling of the investment class who never quite seemed to realize that they were really not making much as a return
on investment.
Combine
that with what seems to be very short life spans for wells, and I think we probably have seen a decimation or
destruction of the industry. I'm not sure but I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see that the US will not have oil "
self-sufficiency" how much longer. (We will not mention the Russian and Canadian oil that is being imported.)
After
putting up with Doug Ford for the last while, I have rather given up on expecting modern-day Conservatives to
actually have a grasp on reality that Kenny is really a worry. It really sounds like he thinks did Alberta is going
to go back to the boom days of 1970s or at least of the 1990s. He is nuts.
I was just
reading about city of Shenzhan, the new 12 million inhabitant city just over the border from Hong Kong. As of this
year there's 16,000+ city buses and God knows how many taxis that have all gone electric. This is just a hint of
what's going to be happening around the world from the look of it. Heck, my small city has 3 electric buses on order.
The oil
market is not going to disappear anytime soon but even BP is reported as saying they don't expect oil demand to come
back to what it was before the pandemic
Our
lease ran out a couple of weeks ago on the RX-350, and we traded it in for a hybrid, the
UX-250H
.
Below 40 kph it's all-electric, like if you are cruising around a neighbourhood looking for a particular house
number. Above that the gas engine kicks in, but it is supported by the electric motor and gets more than 700 km on
a tank of gas. Teslas used to be a bit of an oddity around here as recently as 5 years ago, but now they're
everywhere. The Nissan Leaf is very popular as well, and the buyer base for electrics has expanded rapidly as soon
as drivers realized electric vehicles do not have to be nerdy, and at the high end (Tesla) they can leave
conventionally-powered cars in the dust. The Tesla is very fast and the acceleration is instant, with no throttle
lag.
Losing
the economic clout of the energy industry would be a blow – potentially a fatal one – to the USA. A few years ago,
not many, oil and gas companies would have made up nearly half of the top ten US companies for both revenue and
profit. Only one makes both listings now – Exxon-Mobil – but the industry remains tremendously influential in
politics and, more importantly, is into the government for so much money in loans and investments that its
collapse would imperil the government itself.
Some
would be quite happy to see America with its shoulders pinned to the mat, after enduring decades of its arrogance
and swaggering; I wouldn't be too sorry to see it myself. But it maintains -somehow – the world's biggest and
best-outfitted military by a long shot, and when it sees itself on an irreversible downward trend, it is going to
want to take its enemies with it.
It may
seem like a small matter but China seems to have electrified its entire scooter fleet. Scooters often pump out
more pollution than a car. Multiply that by tens of millions and you have a major pollution source. The battery
powered scooters are quiet and likely maintenance-free. Compare and contrast with India and its tens of millions
of two-cycle oil smoke/unburnt gasoline pollution generators a.k.a. scooters.
I
have not heard if it is 100% but it should be close. IIRC, I have read that Shanghai is full of them and there
seems to be pretty decent recharge facilities.
Given
the combination of global warming and the often atrocious air quality in major cities, the Communist Gov't
seems to be really pushing to get away from fossil fuels.
India
might be a good market for Chinese scooters and might spur some Indian companies to get going -- well after this
latest border war calms down.
And you
won't find the u-Ropean Parliament harping much or even loudly about the authoritarian regime in Azerbaidjan because
its produces good gas and it is run by
our kind of
dictator.
That's their 'Human Rights' bulls/t in a can for you. Myanmar has also got of remarkably lightly from the west too.
Leaving
Europe behind, I have always been amazed that President Duterte of the Philippines is`not not a pariah. Declaring
open season on one's citizens and
letting
encouraging the police to
shoot anyone they want strikes me as a bit dubious for a head of state.
Putin proposed, "exchanging guarantees of non-interference in each
other's internal affairs, including electoral processes, including using information and communication technologies and
high-tech methods."..
####
That is some
excellently timed next level trolling from Pootie-McPoot-Face.
I'd like to
look at the Navalny 'poisoning" from a slightly different angle, one which I think bears scrutiny. I've said several
times that nobody – to the best of my knowledge – has ever survived poisoning by VX. But that's not quite accurate – the
two women who thrust what was always believed to be VX in some form into the face of Kim Jong Nam (Kim Jong-Un's
half-brother) at an airport in Kuala Lumpur killed him stone dead. But they themselves apparently survived with no ill
effects except that one of them allegedly may have vomited.
The major
difference in the way the stories are treated, then, is the incredulity with which the apparent survival of the alleged
poisoners is regarded by the western press. Consider;
An amount of
VX, we are told, that weighs as much as two pennies would kill 500 people. I assume that's what he meant, as he is
strikingly un-eloquent for a scientist and the 'penny' is not a weight of measure. Is that a British penny, or an
American one? Big difference in weight.
''The other chemical agents like sarin, tabun, those kinds of things,
they're way below this. They're toxic, yes, but this is the king,'' said John Trestrail, a U.S. forensic toxicologist
who has examined more than 1,000 poisoning crimes.
He said an amount of VX weighing two pennies could kill 500 people
through skin exposure. It's also hard to acquire and would likely have come from a chemical weapons laboratory, making
it more likely that the attack was executed by a government."
Yes, you read
that right – VX is the King of vicious toxicological agents. Except for Novichok, which is ten times as deadly, and the
would-be killers dusted Navalny's bottle with enough of it that the bottle was liberally covered with the dust, and his
clothes apparently were as well, or so Team Navalny suspects. Say – that's a handy little timeline right there, innit?
When did Navalny put those clothes on? Presumably he had a shower before going to bed; did he dress in fresh clothes
before leaving for the airport, or wear the same stuff from the day before? Either way, the poisoner must have accessed
Navalny's room between the time he got up and the time the plane took off – if he still had Novichok on his clothes from
the day before, he'd be dead, plus would have contaminated God knows how many surfaces.
Anyway,
remember – Novichok is ten times as deadly as the King of nerve agents, VX. But it has killed – according to western
yarns – only one of six people exposed to it; Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Detective Nick Bailey, Navalny and
Charles Rowley all survived and have apparently achieved full recovery, Navalny in only a week after emerging from an
alleged coma.
Western
incredulity? None. Nothing to see here, old chap.
Listen to the
awful consequences of poisoning with VX, and remember the assassins only pushed some quantity of VX into Kim Jong-Nam's
face; a second's contact, them they ran away, not wearing gloves or any protective gear at all.
"VX is an amber-colored, tasteless, odorless chemical weapon first
produced in the 1950s. When inhaled or absorbed through the skin, it disrupts the nervous system and causes constriction
and increased secretions in the throat, leading to difficulty breathing. Fluids pour from the body, including sweat,
spontaneous urination and defecation, often followed by convulsions, paralysis and death. Kim Jong Nam sought help at
the airport clinic and died en route to a hospital within two hours of being attacked, police said."
I don't think
anyone has reported what Navalny was roaring and screaming, but perhaps it was"Get back!!! I'm shitting myself!! Jesus,
I can't stop pissing!!! Help me!!" although you would think if his symptoms included spontaneous defecation and
urination, someone would have said – it could be important. Different agent, I know, but the symptoms of nerve-agent
poisoning are quite similar across the type. Navalny's symptoms were nothing like nerve-agent poisoning, no matter how
energetically the defector Mirzayanov and his fan club try to backstop Navalny's story. The intense sweating and the
obvious gross irritation of the mucous membranes would have been unmistakable to the doctors in Omsk, considering
Navalny had already passed the onset of whatever symptoms he did have and was unconscious.
Kim Jong-Nam
died within two hours of being attacked with a nerve agent ten times less toxic than Novichok. Navalny was definitely
poisoned with a substance ten times more toxic than VX, according to the Germans and the French and whoever else swears
to that ludicrous story, but was to all appearances normal at least an hour after having been poisoned, since he showed
no symptoms until at least 40 minutes after the plane took off with no obvious GRU agents on board, and hung around the
airport before the flight was called at least long enough to drink a cup of tea, plus however long it took for him to
get from the hotel to the airport.
"The two women -- one Vietnamese, one Indonesian -- recorded on
surveillance cameras thrusting a substance into Kim Jong Nam's face as he was about to check in for a flight home to
Macau, apparently did not suffer serious health problems. Malaysian police have said they were not wearing gloves or
protective gear and that they washed their hands afterward as they were trained to do. However, authorities said Friday
that one of them vomited afterward.
Both have been
arrested along with another man. Authorities are also seeking several others, including an employee of North Korea's
state-owned airline, Air Koryo.
''If they used their bare hands, there's just no possible way that
they would have exposed him to VX unless they took some sort of precaution,'' Goldberger said. ''The only precaution I
know of would be administration of the antidote before this went down.''
Perhaps that's
it; perhaps immediately after swigging from his water-bottle – which he left in the hotel room, obviously – Navalny rang
room service for some Novichok antidote. Just in case. Can't be too careful, when you are the main opposition leader.
"No areas were cordoned off and protective measures were not taken.
When asked about it a day after the attack, airport spokesman Shah Rahim said there was no risk to travelers and the
airport was regularly and properly cleaned. But officials announced Friday that the facility would be decontaminated.
''It's as persistent as motor oil. It's going to stay there for a
long time. A long time, which means anyone coming in contact with this could be intoxicated from it,'' Trestrail said.
''If this truly is VX, they ought to be calling in a hazmat team and looking at any place these women or the victim
traveled after the exposure.''
A hazmat team,
and looking at any place the assassin or anyone potentially exposed might have traveled. For an agent ten times less
toxic than Novichok.
Reading
this
Wikipedia account
of how Kim Jong-nam was targeted and attacked by the two women, I think there are other
possibilities to consider:
(a) that the substance or substances sprayed into his face was / were dangerous only if (in the case of two or more
substances) combined in a particular way and then inhaled;
(b) Kim was known to be allergic to particular substances and the people who plotted his assassination knew what
those substances were and used them to induce an anaphylactic shock that killed him;
(c) Kim had other health issues (he was a very tubby fellow) that should have been considered factors in his death;
(d) one of the women who attacked Kim supposedly crept up behind him, took out a cloth with chemical on it and
reached around his head to smack the cloth onto his face – sounds a bit like those movie / TV show stunts where
someone creeps up from behind his victim and puts a chloroform-soaked cloth onto the victim's face – and
chloroform
can be toxic in high doses
;
(e) Kim's treatment at the Menara clinic at the airport included atropine and adrenaline and these could have
contributed to his death if the plotters had foreknowledge of what would be used to treat him were he to be poisoned
and planned his assassination accordingly.
Kim's
assassins need not have been North Koreans or connected to the North Korean government in any way. He also might not
have been expected to die but just be given a scare, but the shock he got along with his obesity and other underlying
health issues might have done him in.
Yes,
those are all good and sound arguments. The point I was trying to make, though, is that American toxicologists and
field experts are astounded that anyone might survive exposure to VX; it is unaccountable not only that they could
be alive, but that there is not a trail of death following the assassins as well until it kills them, too. But
nobody seems surprised for Navalny to make a complete recovery and be sitting up in bed making demands and
strolling around the stairwells, after exposure to a much more toxic agent that should have killed him, while
nobody noticed anyone sneaking into his room dressed in a full hazmat suit with breathing apparatus and apparently
others could come and go from the scene of the alleged exposure with no protection.
Perhaps
the Skripals 'disappeared' because the British government was unsure how to present them after a supposedly-deadly
poisoning attempt which they plainly are said to have survived. Perhaps also it is the judgment of similar
authorities that the public will accept the dichotomy without demur; hence, the agent can still be nefarious
beyond belief because it is so insidious and deadly, but Navalny can be alive and making noise after exposure to
it.
MOSCOW,
September 28 – RIA Novosti.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel secretly
visited Alexei Navalny while he was being treated at the Charité clinic in Berlin, "Spiegel" weekly reported, citing its
own informant.
Other details
are not provided.
On August 20,
the founder of the Anti-Corruption Foundation* was hospitalized in Omsk after he had fallen ill on an aeroplane. Doctors
diagnosed a metabolic disorder that had caused a sharp drop in blood sugar levels. It is not yet clear what caused this,
but no poisons were found in Navalny's blood and urine.
Later he was
transported to Germany. In early September, the German government announced that the Russian had been poisoned with a
substance from the "Novichok" group of biological warfare agents. Moscow sent a request for more detailed information on
the results of analyses from the Berlin laboratory, but there was no response.
At the same
time, it is known that the German intelligence service BND has had access to "Novichok" since the 1990s. In addition, it
has been studied by about 20 Western countries, including Great Britain, the USA, Sweden, the Czech Republic. Russia, in
accordance with a presidential decree of 1992, stopped developing in the field of chemical weapons, and in 2017
destroyed the entire available stock of such substances, which has been confirmed by the OPCW.
On September
7, Navalny was discharged from the hospital, his condition is satisfactory.
*The Anti-Corruption Foundation is included by the Russian Ministry
of Justice in the register of NGOs performing the functions of a foreign agent.
Note: the
bastion of freedom and democracy has still not, as per agreement, destroyed its chemical weapons stocks -- always delays
and so on, see
On Wednesday the Director-General of the Organisation for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Ambassador Ahmet Üzümcü of Turkey, congratulated Russia on completing the
destruction of its chemical weapons stockpile which originally totalled 39 967 agent tonnes (i.e. excluding munition
weight). This represents a major milestone towards realizing a world without chemical weapons as envisaged by the
negotiators of the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)
The USA, the other major possessor of a chemical weapons stockpile
(which originally totalled approximately 30 000 agent tonnes), has completed the destruction of approximately 90 per
cent of its stockpile and is scheduled to finish its operations by 2023 .
Technologically backward Russia completes its task as agreed: the far more technologically advanced USA is still
dawdling along
It's hard
to imagine the Germans poisoned his samples, although I suppose it is possible. But if Pevchik had poisoned him with
something intended to incapacitate but not kill him, you'd think the doctors in Omsk would have detected it.
Navalny confirms meeting with Merkel at Berlin clinic
28 September 2020, 11:22
Blogger Alexei Navalny has confirmed that German Chancellor Angela
Merkel visited him at the Berlin Charité clinic, where he was being treated. Earlier, the secret visit of the politician
was reported by the journal "Der Spiegel", citing sources.
"There was a
meeting, but you shouldn't call it "secret " -- rather, a private meeting and conversation with the family. I am very
grateful to Chancellor Merkel for visiting me at the hospital", Navalny wrote on his Twitter microblog on September 28.
At the same
time, the interlocutors of "Der Spiegel" called the visit top secret, without giving details of the meeting. The
publication considered this fact a sign of Merkel's loyalty to Navalny.
Earlier, the
German Chancellor called Navalny a victim of an attack carried out with a substance from the "Novichok" group.
The Russian
Foreign Ministry considered such statements by Berlin to be yet another information campaign against Russia, noting that
the accusations were not supported by facts.
Alexei Navalny
felt unwell during the Tomsk-Moscow flight on 20 August. The plane urgently landed in Omsk, the blogger was taken to the
emergency hospital No. 1, and later transported to the Charite clinic in Berlin,
Gazeta.ru
recalls.
There, the Russian "found" signs of intoxication with a substance
from the group of cholinesterase inhibitors. However, Omsk doctors during the examination of the patient did not reveal
intoxication with this substance. On September 23, Navalny was discharged from the hospital.
So Merkel too
is part and parcel of the Navalny bullshit performance dreamt up by the US Dept. of State.
I wonder if
she "secretly" visited Yuschenko and Timoshenko and Verzilov when they were patients at the Charité
I should
hardly imagine so -- they are of no importance whatsoever when compared with the "leader of the Russian opposition",
albeit the Russians themselves consider the Bullshitter with the derision he deserves, but don't tell anyone in the
"free world" that!
Germany
seems to be collecting Eastern Europe's politicians. Timoshenko miraculously woke from her coronavirus coma, but I
cannot find information that says she was also at Charite.
EU green light
for merger suggests Franco-German pressure for 'champion' companies is paying off.
blah blah blah blah
The clearance
could become a precedent for other political mergers -- such as the Franco-Italian tie-up between cruise ship-builders
Fincantieri and Chantiers de l'Atlantique -- and the Commission will have to "limit the contagion," the first senior
official said.
And the Dane has to ensure the Polish champion keeps its promises .
####
Interesting if
you follow how the Brussels/EU is still struggling to adapt to the real world (i.e. outside the EU) rather than its own
bubble and dreams of a western led globalization, particularly it's failure to balance consumer protection with building
modern, EU based companies/organizations that can hold their own against other globocorps. It's where principles hit
reality.
But, I was
sure that there was something in the past about a possible Russian share in the Gdansk Lotos Refinery (I was wrong) but
I did come across this in looking for further information:
One of the
arguments for the thesis that Russians could enter the Polish market as a shareholder of one of the two biggest
refineries, is supposedly the fact that they are already present in Germany. However, it is worth reminding that they
slipped into Germany thanks to Venezuela's fondness towards Russian politics. Venezuela's late president Hugo Chavez
agreed for PDVSA, a state-owned oil company, to sell its shares in five German refineries to Russia's Rosneft. Since
then, Igor Sechin's concern has been trying to acquire the missing link – the retail market and gas stations. Despite
interventions, negotiations and investments, Russians have not achieved this goal yet. They have been trying to purchase
gas stations in Germany for a few years. This is the next natural step for any oil company that took over shares in a
refinery on a new market. After the success on the wholesale market, it wants to earn on the retail market by selling
its own oil products. However, nobody wants to sell Russians, in this case Rosneft, any gas stations despite the fact
they have been present on the market in Germany for years.
In January
2019, Rosneft Deutschland GmbH, Rosneft's daughter company, launched a trade and marketing business in Germany. Today it
purchases products from three German refineries in which it has shares
Why would Russians want to enter the Polish market? Poland is one of
the biggest importers of Russian oil. In 2019 PKN Orlen imported 8.3 m tons of oil from Russia, which makes it one of
the biggest importers of this fuel. By entering the Polish market, Russians could achieve synergy by acquiring 30
percent of shares in the refinery. However,
####
Plenty more at
the link.
So, it looks
like this merger is to bolster the lo-land of Po-lands energy position and protect the key refinery being picked up by
one means or another by Russia.
French
president heads to Lithuania and Latvia, where discussion will focus on Russia and Belarus.
"The so-called new architecture of security that France wants to
develop with Russia is sensitive for us, because it's a bilateral conversation discussing a multilateral issue," said a
Lithuanian government official ahead of Macron's visit
So far
Macron's team has played it coy, avoiding confirming that he will meet with Tikhanovskaya but not ruling it out either.
She has expressed her desire to meet with him
Western officials have stressed that they are not in competition
with Moscow over Belarus and Macron believes Russia has a role to play.
####
The €µ
'Failing at Home so preening abroad' PR campaign continues apace after his successful trip to Lebanon where he saved the
country from disaster. Except he didn't!
Le Coq soit
bloqué! (trans. 'cock block' ! 😉 )
What the f/k
does he think he can offer? Are the Balts and Russia going to be overawed with his garlic charm before he sleeps with
their wives (and husbands) before they all form a circle and hold hands merrily? No.
Yes, the only
thing that makes sense is a a grand strategic treaty between the EU and Russia, but when some of its own members are
actively undermining such a thing and playing with the Americans at the same time, you have to wonder what all the point
of this is? Simply 'Don't you forget about me'? Russia is not going to patiently wait for the EU to climb out of its own
hypocritical a**hole after years of sanctions and 'Do as we say, not as we do.'
The CFE Treaty
is not fit for purpose and the permanent rotation of NATO forces on Russia's borders drives a tank through it, however
clever they think this loophole is. By the time the EU is ready to talk properly and get off its high horse, the only
things it will have attached to its shoulders will be its own stubby little fingers, or should that be 'cut off its nose
to spite its face'? Just ridiculous!
Ha, ha,
haaaa!! 'Garlic charm' – I don't know if that was deliberate or accidental, but it's brilliant.
The Baltic
position on Russia is well-known, and you would not have to be much of a political wunderkind to figure out that the
Balts hope for a chance to shit all over any plans France might have that smack too much of rapprochement to suit
them. But there is no real danger Micron would proceed with any such plans even if he made them; he is a political
lightweight aching to duplicate the derring-do of Sarkozy. No political softening between Russia and Europe is
possible with the current crop of European leaders, as all are committed Atlanticists to some degree and in thrall to
Washington. They might pretend Washington is bullying them, but it hurts so good, daddy.
Lavrov has
already announced that Russia has given up on trying to get the west to like it, and acknowledges it is not possible.
Just like admitting you are an alcoholic – metaphorically speaking, I wasn't pointing at you personally -is the day
your recovery begins, resolving to dedicate no more Russian effort to wooing the western delinquents is the day the
west loses a shiny toy it loved to play with. Few moments were so satisfying as those dedicated to typing "Moscow
denies it!" after some new fabricated atrocity was thrown in Russia's face. I recommend a macro be built into all
Russian diplomatic computers' word-processor programs which reads, "Believe what you like. It is of no interest to
us. Oh, and your zipper is open. Made you look!!". The last two sentences are optional, but I think they lend a
certain
joie de vivre
.
Why the
German Chancellor visited the blogger at the hospital is not quite clear. After all, if German doctors are right
about "Novichok", then the head of the German Cabinet of Ministers, Bundeskanzlerin Merkel, seriously risked her
life.
Armen
Gasparyan* has suggested that the matter is due to the status of the patient from Russia -- after all, he is in
Germany as an official guest of the Chancellor. And what kind of guest is this, with whom the hospitable hostess does
not even meet?
So they
decided to support this fantasy about his status in Germany by following due protocol, but with a supposedly secret
visit, which secret the whole world immediately learnt about.
* Armen
Gasparyan works for a Russian media outlet Sputnik and, at the same time, is a member of Russia Today board. In
parallel, he is a member of Russian State Duma Youth Council and a holder of a prize from the Ministry of
Communications of the Russian Federation for his contribution towards developing radio communication.
In December
2018, the "Russian opposition" (that's the non-systemic opposition, mind you -- the ones that no one votes for) -- has
included Gasparyan in the list of "Putin's propagandists".
It might be
interesting to see what kind of deal would result from a process in which Russia has given up trying to be liked by
the west, and consequently examines each negotiation on its merits alone.
I think it might result in quite a few
initial offers being rebuffed with "Uh huh. Go fuck yourself." And that would be kind of refreshing. It might usher
in an international process between the two countries in which no 'deal' was possible until each side was satisfied
it had gotten the better of the other. I need hardly point out these would be few and far between, and none would be
arms-control agreements.
22 September 2020 13:18 What is known about Maria Pevchikh: Navalny's mysterious companion – connected with
his foreign customers?
The trail of Maria Pevchikh begins in London and seems to lead to the shadow curators of the
Anti-Corruption Foundation
If you believe that journalists have so far been able to unearth Navalny's mysterious
companion on his "last tour" in Siberia, Maria Pevchikh lives in a prestigious area of London
overlooking the Thames. But her old grandmother Valentina Vasilievna – in a modest
two-room apartment on the far outskirts of Moscow – in Zelenograd. Only now her
granddaughter does not visit her at all, although in recent years she has flown to Moscow 64
times.
"Komsomolskaya Pravda" went to all the addresses of Maria Pevchikh in Russia –
Zelenograd, Moscow State University, school, neighbours, relatives and colleagues at
FBK
and discovered that Pevchikh was not only Navalny's employee, but the conspiratorial
head of his investigation department, and, possibly, its curator from Western
customers.
LIKE A DETECTIVE Maria Pevchikh. A couple of weeks ago, this name was not known to anyone except to a
narrow circle of people. But now it has thundered all over the world. Now Pevchikh claims to
be an old and trusted employee of the Anti-Corruption Foundation (Navalny's main brainchild)
with almost 10 years of experience, who has had a hand in almost all of his landmark
investigations. But her name never flashed in the credits for the FBK video exposures . And
the opposition blogger's associates have never spoken about her anywhere.
So after the mysterious "poisoning" of Navalny on August 20, no one let slip the fact
that on the trip he was accompanied by a mysterious companion – 33-year-old Maria
Pevchikh. Perhaps Maria would have remained unnoticed if the transport police of the Siberian
Federal District had not found her name among those who were on that trip with the
oppositionist. And it turned out – what a coincidence – she was the only one of
the 6 members of Navalny's entourage in Siberia who was not interviewed: " Marina [sic}
Pevchikh, who permanently resides in Great Britain, on August 20, avoided giving
explanations. On August 22 the said citizen flew to Germany, and therefore it was not
possible to get an explanation from her", the police reported on September 11. That is, 3
weeks after the incident! Until that moment, there was complete silence about the existence
of Pevchikh.
But as soon as this name was sounded, something strange began to happen. More like a
detective story.
LOOKING FOR POLICE, LOOKING FOR JOURNALISTS
The name of the Pevchikh immediately became surrounded with rumours and speculation. Who is
she? Where from? FBK employees were stubbornly silent. There were only two mentions of
Pevchikh in open sources. First, how about a 9th grade student from Zelenograd gymnasium No.
1528 who took part in the international (!) "Gifted children" competition. The second (from
2010) on the website of the Faculty of Social Sciences of Moscow State University:
"Congratulations to Maria Pevchikh! The 5th year student has been selected as the head of the
Russian delegation at the G8 Youth Forum in Canada based on the results of the All-Russian
competition". And a photo of a smiling red-haired girl. And journalists also found the name
of the Pevchikh in the list of students at the prestigious London School of Economics and
Political Science.
A couple more blurry images from the Internet, where it is generally difficult to see
someone (supposedly in 2013, from a Moscow hotel, where Navalny had a secret meeting with the
ex-Prime Minister of Belgium). Well, Western journalists also recognized Maria as the woman
caught in the lenses of cameras in Berlin next to Navalny's wife Julia. True, everywhere the
"Pevchikhs" are in dark glasses and wearing a mask. From coronavirus or prying eyes? That, in
fact, is all.
We congratulate Maria Pevchikh!
Such mystery only spurred interest – who is this lady?
"Investigations" began – who Pevchikh was, overshadowing even the "poisoning" of
Navalny. And bit by bit the image of a certain secret agent was formed – a sort of
James Bond in a skirt. With reference to a source close to FBK, a Sherlock Holmes managed to
dig up from the Internet that Maria lives in a prestigious area of London overlooking Tower
Bridge. Owns a chain of bookstores in Britain. And she participates in competitions under the
US Special Forces program – "Navy Seals"!
And she is also a friend of Navalny's rivals and associates in the fight against the
"Russian regime" who have settled in London – Khodorkovsky, Chichvarkin, Ashurkov. But
bad luck – none of these figures in social networks have found a friend by the name of
Pevchikh. And in the photos that appear in their social networks, none of Maria is to be
seen.
Maria's story with social networks is generally amazing – they simply do not
exist! In the 21st century that is simply unthinkable for a young woman. Have you at least
one young woman acquaintance who has no Facebook or Instagram page, or who is in at least in
Odnoklassniki or VKontakte? Quite!
Experts believe that such secrecy is one of the sure signs that a person is related to
the special services. They – both in Russia and abroad – do not welcome the
publicity of their employees on social networks.
However, Major General of the FSB in reserve Alexander Mikhailov admits that she might
be playing a two-sided gamey:
"Apparently, this person leads a double life and, on the one hand, creates turbulence
around her activities in the same social networks, but on the other hand, she does not want
to attract personal attention to herself. I think this woman may have accounts, but under
assumed names. Because it is impossible to imagine that she works in such a field and does
not use modern technologies at all."
HER FATHER IS A SCIENTIST AND WORKS WITH VIRUSES
But a page on the social network has turned out to belong to Pevchikh's father
Konstantin. No one has any doubts that he is Maria's father – both are registered in
the same apartment in Zelenograd. And Konstantinovna is Maria's patronymic. At the same time,
there is no Maria Pevchikh even in his photo or in subscribers! But there is information that
he is the general director of the Zelenograd NIOBIS LLC, which is engaged in research in the
field of virology. At the same time, he is developing the SkinPort system of painless (say,
invisible) drug delivery through the skin. Which is also a very suspicious circumstance, when
his daughter accompanies an oppositionist, who was either injected or not with some kind of
poison. So much so that he only knew he had been poisoned when he began to feel bad.
There is not much information about NIOBIS either. In the magazine "Zelenograd
Entrepreneur" of October 2011, there is an interview with the leaders of the company Grishin
and Morozov (Pevchikh even then did not communicate with journalists for some reason). In it,
they declare that the NIOBIS biological laboratory is a joint project of the Probe Microscopy
and Nanotechnology Research and Education Centre and the Zelenograd Nanotechnology Centre.
However, in these centres, no matter how many times we called, they did not tell us anything
about NIOBIS, switching from one employee to another. At the legal address in Moscow on
Viktorenko Street, we did not find any information.
Interestingly, the British tabloids could not find Pevchikh either. In search of at
least some information, British journalists began to call Russia, former and current FBK
employees.
"British journalists contacted me and found out at least some information about Maria
Pevchikh", Vitaly Serukanov, the former deputy head of Navalny's Moscow headquarters and
lawyer of his foundation, told KP. "This suggests that not only we in Russia do not
understand what kind of person she is, but, apparently, the British themselves are not clear
about what kind of activities she is involved with. Even they have nothing concrete to go
on.
Of course, rumours immediately spread that Maria Pevchikh was a spy. Some even stated
it openly:
"She is an undercover British intelligence agent with MI6", political scientist
Vladislav Rogimov believes. "My source, a former high-ranking official of the Stasi [GDR
Ministry of State Security] , immediately stated this. And Pevchikh supplied Navalny with
information about the targets of his investigations, such that an ordinary person cannot
get."
A couple more blurry shots from the Internet, where it is generally difficult to see
anyone
MSU AND COLLEGE
Strange, but none of the graduates of those years could remember the outstanding student who
glorified the faculty during her studies by becoming the leader of a youth
delegation.
"Well, I seem to remember Maria – such a bright girl. We crossed paths with her
in the hostel. She loved rock music and knew English well", Svetlana Cherezova, a graduate of
the social faculty in 2009, told KP. [American rock music, the chief weapon of US soft
power! Rock music is the bane of modern society! -- ME 😦 ]
"And how did you realise that she knows a foreign language?"
"In the summer, foreign students were settled in the hostel. And she communicated well
with them. But after that I somehow didn't see her "
Another graduate of the social faculty recalled the Pevchikh, but also only vaguely.
"Yes, she studied with us. Smart, open like that. But that's all I remember about
her."
And in the Zelenograd gymnasium №1528 Maria Pevchikh was not remembered at all. Even
by the old-timers who have been working at the school for over 30 years.
"No, we didn't have a student with that last name."
HEAD, ABOUT WHOM NO ONE KNEW ANYTHING Even after journalists had found out that Pevchikh has been an FBK employee since 2011,
Navalny's fund employees remained silent about her. No statements! None at all.
And only on September 15, when Navalny came to his senses, and journalists and
political analysts said in unison that Pevchikh herself could have organized his "poisoning",
the FBK employees, as if on command "from above", began to urgently divert suspicions from
her, turning everything into a joke and publishing pictures of themselves with her. Georgy
Alburov, who had previously called himself the head of the FBK investigation department,
suddenly revealed his real boss to the world yes, Pevchikh:
"I have been working with Maria in the Investigation Department for 8 years and for
about 7 of them we constantly joked about some kind of martial art that she went to a couple
of times. They teach how to fight off drunken men with the help of a hundred different
techniques of hitting in the groin (we laugh at this). Our office wiretap also failed to
remember the name, and now Maria is featured in the media as 'a martial arts master trained
under the US Army SEAL program'. It's funny. And it's not funny that now all her relatives
are hunted by the Prigozhin gangster 'media' (and the British ones are also "Prigozhin
gangsters", yes, George? – author) . Not for the poisoners of Alexei, but for
Maria's 85-year-old grandmother. We shall remember this and shall not forget. And I wish my
fighting friend (and boss) fortitude and courage."
Georgy Alburov, who had previously called himself the head of the FBK investigation
department, suddenly revealed his real boss to the world. Photo: http://www.instagram.com/alburov
On the same day, FBK lawyer Lyubov Sobol also published a photo of herself with Maria:
"I know Masha as an honest and decent person. To suggest that she may have been involved in
the poisoning of Navalny complete bullshit and a smokescreen to distract attention".
And not a word about why for so long all as one "fighters against corruption" were
silent about the existence of Pevchikh and the fact that she was on a trip with Navalny in
Siberia.
BUT WHAT ABOUT GRANDMA?
And Maria Pevchikh's grandmother really lives in Zelenograd. Not far from the local forest
park. Here, apparently, the "Prigozhin gangster media" had been hunting for her.
In general, it is strange that an employee of the investigation department, who herself
"hunts" for the targets of Navalny's revelations and for these targets' relatives as well,
was outraged that journalists began to visit all possible addresses associated with Maria.
What would have happened if the "Navalnyites" themselves had not hidden her existence hardly
anyone could have "crossed her grandma's threshold", because nobody had seen her there for a
long time: she dwelt elsewhere.
"Yes, I know Valentina Vasilievna. Our children studied together, in the same school.
My son and her Kostya", a neighbour told the KP correspondent on the street at the entrance.
"She lived here just like me since the construction of the house, since 1982. But I haven't
seen her for a long time, although I had met her all the time before. She seems to be still
working".
"At 85 years of age?"
"Why 85? She is 84".
"And what does she do? "
"Earlier, I believe, she was at Mikron [manufacturer of integrated circuits –
author] . Where now, I do not know".
"Her son often turns up here? "
"No, I haven't seen him for a long time.
And her granddaughter Maria?
"Oh, I did not know that she has a granddaughter! I have never seen her."
No other neighbours remembered Masha Pevchikh, even from the photo. Although she, as
the media has already dug up, in recent years flew to Moscow at least 64 times, but here,
with her grandmother, she has not appeared. At least, neighbours have never came across
her.
"I AM SO FUCKING AWESOME" .
And only ABOUT a month after the "poisoning" of Navalny, when suspicions about Maria Pevchikh
had reached their peak, she herself gave an interview for some reason to the BBC, and not to
the Russian media. "I am the head of the investigation department at FBK. I was recruited by
an ad (in 2011), as they say. If you've seen our investigations on Navalny's channel, then I
have this or that relationship." Maria explained her incognito state in one phrase: "It was
my personal choice and desire to avoid publicity". But at the same time: "Absolutely everyone
in the office knew me. A huge number of people from the journalistic environment knew me.
Therefore, the fact that I am somehow connected with FBK is a secret only for a very wide
audience."
Investigations about herself were ridiculed by Pevchikh (a professional technique when
it is impossible to refute, but it is necessary to object): "This is absolutely ridiculous. I
read about myself and thought: Damn, how fucking awesome I am".
About the her scientist father: "Some creepy, crazy story has been made up about my
father, with whom I have not communicated for 15 years – my parents are divorced. And
he is portrayed as almost a key figure in all that has happened".
But Maria gave a lot and of details about what happened in Tomsk, about how boldly she,
together with others, rushed into Navalny's room in order to collect "evidence" –
bottles of water. She confirmed that she flew to Germany on the same aircraft as did Navalny
and took those bottles out of the hotel to the West and on which German experts found traces
of "poison". True, she did not explain why she had not y taken sheets and towels, because
poison can be both solid and gaseous. The discerning Pevchikh's' suspicions fell only on
liquid.
Maria tossed a few of her pictures to the BBC and a portion, apparently to dilute the
avaricious photos that the media was chewed on.
Talking about everything and yet . . . again about nothing. Also a professional
reception?
SECRET BRITISH FBK CURATOR
"When they began asking me about Maria Pevchikh, I also could not immediately understand who
it was", Vitaly Serukanov, an FBK employee in 2013-2017, told KP. "But then I remembered that
I first noticed her (although I had probably seen her many times, but had not paid any
attention to her) in 2016. It was surprising to me that Navalny, who always kept his distance
from his employees, behaved in a special way with her. With respectful reverence. As if they
were of the same rank, as if they were of the the same position. This is generally strange
and did not fit into the paradigm of his behaviour. That is to say, Maria is a person who
appeared sometimes, but who had to be respected. My personal opinion is that she is a liaison
agent between Navalny and foreign customers. The person who brought the invoice and, at the
right time, audited the investigation department, supervised its work. Such as , you know, a
British auditor who is always lurking in the shadows.
"Pevchikh told the BBC that she actually ran Navalny's investigation
department.
"I have been saying for a long time that the FBK investigation department "headed by
the talented Alburov" was a screen that does not represent anything. Alburov is just a drone
driver who provides a naive Russian man in the street with a picture: "You see, we are not
foreign agents. Our investigation department is here". In fact, there is no talented Alburov.
And there are people like Maria Pevchikh who flock to Russia to promote the interests of
their Russian and Western masters. That's all, no matter how tough it sounds.
"That is, all this hidden lifestyle, lack of social networks and photos are part of
this opera?
"Absolutely!"
But you had some corporate parties, meetings at FBK. How did it happen that for
almost 10 years Pevchikh never got into the frame?
"She very professionally avoided attracting attention to herself. Never hit the lens.
And I'm sure the rest of the people made sure that this did not happen. At the same time, FBK
is a special society where everyone wants to become a media and popular person. There are
even internal competitions to see who is more popular on social media. The same was always
demanded by Navalny. His main postulate in politics was: "I am absolutely open. I have no
secrets. " But it turns out there are! Suddenly, a certain Pevchikh is presented to the
world, who has never even been registered in the fund and who lives on an unbelievable
income. All the stories about her business are just a way to legalize her financial situation
– like 'I'm such an ordinary simpleton from Britain'. Who's going to believe
that?
And they would hide Pevchikh further. But she was so very much lit up in this story
with the "poisoning" that they had no other choice. I was really amused how all these clowns,
such as Alburov and Sobol, on command, simultaneously began to upload their prepared photos
of Pevchikh. It's funny. Why did they hide her before? Refused to answer questions about her?
And then they burst through at once. Received instructions to bring Pevchikh out into the
light so as to ward off the threat from her? All this suggests that Pevchikh knows more than
we can ever imagine. The story is a real detective one. Even a spy one. It's very interesting
what will happen next.
She is almost too perfect; a daddy who is both a virologist and a developer of a means of
delivering a drug through the skin without a needle or any sensation likely to be noticed,
leader of the effort to collect 'evidence' in the hotel room – an effort surprising in
its thoroughness in that they thought to take a lawyer with them and yet still made it before
the hotel had begun to clean the room, and a young woman with no social media presence when
they normally cannot powder their noses without Facebooking it. Add to that the full-court
press by the Navalnyites to ridicule any possibility she might be involved; especially Sobol,
who as a lawyer herself would be able to more accurately appraise the weight of mounting
coincidences.
But you went too far when you spat on American rock music. I will grant that at least half
of it is crap, but America is the cradle of rock, more so than the UK. Your punishment is to
listen to Joan Jett and the Blackhearts do "I Hate Myself for Loving You" on a volume at
least 8 and preferably all the way over. This is a fine example of the genre, one I used to
play for the little 'un when she actually was a little 'un, to show her that women can do
anything.
Truth be told: political operatives own and run our MSM. This is why the press is called
the 'Fourth Estate'.
They are more correctly described as a Fifth Column , one far more open and sworn to
destroy our country and its foundational citizens – and taxpayers – as any that
ever operated during World War II. You would think this would be of vital interest to people
who loudly declare themselves to be "Nazi-punchers", but who time and again show themselves to
be merely low-level street terrorists informed and inspired by Mao's Red Guard and the
irredeemable thugs of the African National Congress.
One wonders what's preventing them from
mimicking the Red Terror waged by the leftists of Spain, when the battle for "freedom" involved
the disinterment of the graves of Catholic clergy to better pose the corpses in blasphemous
positions. Imagine how depraved those Mostly Peaceful protesters had to have been for even a
leftist-supporting site such as Wikipedia to baldly state
The violence consisted of the killing of tens of thousands of people (including 6,832
Roman Catholic priests, the vast majority in the summer of 1936 in the wake of the military
coup), attacks on the Spanish nobility, industrialists, and conservative politicians, as well
as the desecration and burning of monasteries and churches.
Directly in the crosshairs this time are small and medium-sized owner-operated businesses
– the true backbone of American freedom and prosperity – who have largely been
sacrificed in exchange for the knock-kneed offerings of Danegeld from our giant conglomerates,
all of whom have prospered immensely from the suffering and privation brought on by the
Democratic lockdown of society – and the total shutdown of our economy.
Think! – have you read a single article charting how the government war on small
business directly enriched Amazon.com and
world's richest autocrat, Jeff Bezos? . who then funnels his windfall into a newspaper that
blatantly pimps for the Democratic Party, which translates into a vast payday for the DNC, not
least from its newly-approved partnership with the shadowy and many-tentacled Soros-surrogate
group, BLM?
The result is what you'd expect when a fringe group operates with the full cooperation and
partnership of major industry and both political parties (don't confuse Trump with a
standard-issue Republican, please – he may have terrible flaws, but that isn't one of
them) – 10% of the population holding the other 90% in a chokehold with only one set of
rules: no arrest and prosecution for Bolshevik violence and terror ..but the zero-tolerance
heavy hand of corrupt Leviathan coming down hard against any and all citizens who fight back
or, eventually – inevitably – who even struggle against their restraints.
Short of the sudden arrival of celestial horsemen to punish the guilty and reward the
set-upon, it has become clear that the only answer is the one that the Powers That Be claim to
be dead set against: racial separatism. (Particularly when we consider that all that will be
necessary to turn America into Hell on earth will be the adoption of Ibram Kendi's First Law,
sometimes known as equality of outcome :
To fix the original sin of racism, Americans should pass an anti-racist amendment to the
U.S. Constitution that enshrines two guiding anti-racist principals: Racial inequity is
evidence of racist policy and the different racial groups are equals.
Could any "amendment" be more terrifyingly totalitarian than this?)
White and black separation would, instead, accomplish two goals, both more important than
Kendi's quick fix: we would learn soon enough about actual equality of outcomes (which
is why no Communist, black or white, wants anything to do with the creation of one more failed
basket-case black state), and much more importantly, white families can sleep secure in their
beds at night, without worrying about Apache raids at midnight, egged on and recorded for
"posterity" by that Fourth Estate/Fifth Column referred to up top. Because the fact of the
matter is that, even should some combination of government and law-enforcement halt the burning
and looting of America – as things stand now, none of the worst malefactors will ever see
the inside of a prison cell .which means any ceasefire will only be temporary, to be violently
ripped asunder the moment they sense white Americans have at last lowered their guard once
more. And living in perpetual paranoid readiness for violent uprisings and mindless destruction
is no way to live at all.
Trump has it half right, a border wall is the answer: only it needs to run
lengthwise , between the Southern and Northern borders. If we don't use the next four
years to plan out such a separation, fretting over our children's children will be a fruitless
exercise – those who aren't murdered will be captured and 'go native' .and in case you
haven't looked at a globe lately, there's no place left to run.
As a recovering journalist, I can point out that even on a rinkydink rag in a small city,
where I got fired for being a real journalist back in the early '70's; he who owns the
presses and distribution networks calls the tune. It's a matter of working-class (no matter
how middle-class your income or social-status) versus the ownership class. The latter wins
every time.
"Then there are the Chinese. OK, they really are communists, but who is it that has
bought into the nonsense about them oppressing poor, innocent, religious head choppers? Who
cares even if those lies were true? Yep, that's millennial morons."
Actually it was the USG through funding of various think tanks and NGOs that started the
whole fiasco with the MSM pushing the narrative. You know people with power in established
organizations, who tend to be much older. I wouldn't blame the people at the bottom so much for
the decisions made at the top.
Ahead of the 2020 U.S. elections, foreign states will continue to use covert and overt
influence measures in their attempts to sway U.S. voters' preferences and perspectives, shift
U.S. policies, increase discord in the United States, and undermine the American people's
confidence in our democratic process."
What America is yet again conniving to do is to discredit any domestic political dissent
against the fraud of "American Democracy" by connecting this dissent to those nations that
are the latest targets of America's Two Minutes of Hate campaign.
This is a standard American tactic that the USA always resorts to when it fears its own
citizens are starting to question the fairy tale of American "Democracy and Freedom." Thus,
during the Cold War, the USA even to discredit some elements of the Civil Rights movement as
being assets of the Soviet Union.
The great Orwellian hypocrisy of America's pants-wetting complaints that other countries
are meddling in America's (fake) democracy is that the United States itself is guilty of
regime changing, balkanizing, and colonizing scores of foreign nations dating back over a
century to the USA's regime change and eventual colonization of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Bottom Line: America needs to drink a big up of Shut the F*ck Up with its pathetic Pity
Party whining about foreigners trying to influence its bogus democracy.
The Washington Post , whose sole owner
is a CIA contractor , has published yet another anonymously sourced CIA press release
disguised as a news report which just so happens to facilitate longstanding CIA foreign
policy.
True to form ,
at no point does WaPo follow standard journalistic protocol and disclose its blatant financial
conflict of interest with the CIA when promoting an unproven CIA narrative which happens to
serve the consent-manufacturing agendas of the CIA for its new cold war with Russia.
And somehow in our crazy, propaganda-addled society, this is accepted as "news".
The CIA has had a hard-on for the collapse of the Russian Federation
for many years , and preventing the rise of another multipolar world at all cost has been
an open agenda of US imperialism since the fall of the Soviet Union. Indeed it is clear
that the escalations
we've been watching unfold against Russia were in fact
planned well in advance of 2016, and it is only by propaganda narratives like this one that
consent has been manufactured for a new cold war which imperils the life of every organism on
this planet.
There is no excuse for a prominent news outlet publishing a CIA press release disguised as
news in facilitation of these CIA agendas. It is still more inexcusable to merely publish
anonymous assertions about the contents of that CIA press release. It is especially inexcusable
to publish anonymous assertions about a CIA press release which merely says that something is
"probably" happening, meaning those making the claim don't even know.
None of this stopped The Washington Post from publishing this propaganda piece on behalf of
the CIA. None of it stopped this story from being widely shared by prominent voices on social
media and repeated by major news outlets like
CNN , The New
York Times , and
NBC . And none of it stopped all the usual liberal influencers from taking the claims and
exaggerating the certainty:
The CIA-to-pundit pipeline, wherein intelligence agencies "leak" information that is picked
up by news agencies and then wildly exaggerated by popular influencers, has always been an
important part of manufacturing establishment Russia hysteria. We saw it recently when the
now completely debunked claim that Russia paid bounties on US troops to Taliban-linked
fighters in Afghanistan first surfaced;
unverified anonymous intelligence claims were published by mass media news outlets, then by
the time it got to spinmeisters like Rachel
Maddow it was being treated not as an unconfirmed analysis but as an established fact:
If you've ever wondered how rank-and-file members of the public can be so certain of
completely unproven intelligence claims, the CIA-to-pundit pipeline is a big part of it. The
most influential voices who political partisans actually hear things from are often a few
clicks removed from the news report they're talking about, and by the time it gets to them it's
being waved around like a rock-solid truth when at the beginning it was just presented as a
tenuous speculation (the original aforementioned WaPo report appeared on the opinion page).
The CIA has a well-documented history of
infiltrating and manipulating the mass media for propaganda purposes, and to this day the
largest supplier of leaked information from the Central Intelligence Agency to the news media
is the CIA itself. They have a whole process for
leaking information to reporters they like (with an internal form that asks whether
the information is Accurate, Partially Accurate, or Inaccurate), as was
highlighted in a recent court case which found that the CIA can even leak documents to
select journalists while refusing to release them to others via Freedom of Information Act
requests.
The way mainstream media has become split along increasingly hostile ideological
lines means that all the manipulators need to do to advance a given narrative is set it up
to make one side look bad and then share it with a news outlet from the other side. The way
media is set up to masturbate people's confirmation bias instead of report objective facts will
then cause the narrative to go viral throughout that partisan faction, regardless of how true
or false it might be.
https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-4&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1291936114698153984&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fmsm-promotes-yet-another-cia-press-release-news&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=219d021%3A1598982042171&width=550px
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The coming US election and its aftermath is looking like it will be even more insane and
hysterical than the last one, and the enmity and outrage it creates will give manipulators
every opportunity to slide favorable narratives into the slipstream of people's hot-headed
abandonment of their own critical faculties.
And indeed they are clearly prepared to do exactly that. An
ODNI press release last month which was uncritically passed along by the most prominent US
media outlets reported that China and Iran are trying to help Biden win the November election
while Russia is trying to help Trump. So no matter which way these things go the US
intelligence cartel will be able to surf its own consent-manufacturing foreign policy agendas
upon the tide of outrage which ensues.
The propaganda machine is only getting louder and more aggressive. We're being prepped for
something.
* * *
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see
the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack , which will get you an email
notification for everything I publish. My work is
entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around,
liking me on Facebook
, following my antics on Twitter ,
throwing some money into my tip jar on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise ,
buying my books Rogue Nation:
Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone and
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and
what I'm trying to do with this platform,
click here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded,
has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else
I've written) in any way they like free of charge.
'It's Easier to Fool People Than to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled'
- Mark Twain
palmereldritch , 49 seconds ago
And prior to Bezos/CIA ownership the paper was managed by heirs whose ownership stake
was originally acquired through a bankruptcy sale by a board member/trustee of The Federal
Reserve.
So maybe it was just a share transfer...
Freeman of the City , 1 minute ago
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free"
We can both be right. Russia cockblocking Israel's ability to just roll over Assad's
Syria, their relationship with Iran, etc. are big factors. It's been pretty funny to watch
American Progressives rant and rave about Russia like warmonger rednecks in the 80's who just
watched Rocky IV.
The US is ruthlessly waging an intense Hybrid War on Russian energy interests in Europe by
targeting the Eurasian Great Power's relevant projects in Germany, Belarus, and Bulgaria,
banking on the fact that even the partial success of this strategy would greatly advance the
scenario of an externally provoked "decoupling" between Moscow and Washington's transatlantic
allies.
The Newest Front In The New Cold War
The New
Cold War is heating up in Europe after the US intensified its Hybrid
War on Russian interests there over the past two months. This proxy conflict is being
simultaneously waged in Germany, Belarus, and Bulgaria, all three of which are key transit
states for Russian energy exports to the continent, which enable it to maintain at least some
influence there even during the worst of times. The US, however, wants to greatly advance the
scenario of an externally provoked "decoupling" between Moscow and Washington's transatlantic
allies which would allow America to reassert its unipolar hegemony there even if this campaign
is only partially successful. This article aims to explore the broad contours of the US'
contemporary Hybrid War strategy on Russian energy in Europe, pointing out how recent events in
those three previously mentioned transit states are all part of this larger
plan.
Germany
From north to south, the first and largest of these targets is Germany, which is nowadays
treating Russian anti-corruption blogger Navalny. The author accurately predicted
in late August that "intense pressure might be put upon the authorities by domestic politicians
and their American patrons to politicize the final leg of Nord Stream II's construction by
potentially delaying it as 'punishment to Putin'", which is exactly what's happening after
Berlin signaled that it might rethink its commitment to this energy project. America isn't all
to blame, however, since Germany ultimately takes responsibility for its provocative statements
to this effect. Dmitri Trenin, Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, published a
thought-provoking piece titled " Russian-German Relations: Back To The Future " about
how bilateral relations will drastically change in the aftermath of this incident. It's concise
and well worth the read for those who are interested in this topic.
Belarus
The next Hybrid War target is Belarus , which the
author has been tracking for half a decade already. After failing to convince Lukashenko to
break off ties with Russia after this summer's Wagner incident, a Color Revolution was then
hatched to overthrow him so that his replacements can turn the country into another Ukraine
insofar as it relates to holding Russian energy exports to Europe hostage. The end goal is to
increase the costs of Russian resources so that the US' own become more competitive by
comparison. Ultimately, it's planned that Russian pipelines will be phased out in the
worst-case scenario, though this would happen gradually since Europe can't immediately replace
such imports with American and other ones. "Losing" Belarus, whether on its own or together
with Nord Stream II, would deal a heavy blow to Russia's geopolitical interests. Countries like
Germany wouldn't have a need to maintain cordial relations with it, thus facilitating a
possible "decoupling".
That's where Bulgaria could become the proverbial "icing on the cake". Turkish Stream is
expected to transit through this Balkan country en route to Europe, but the latest
anti-government protests there threaten to topple the government, leading to worries that
its replacement might either politicize or suspend this project. Azerbaijan's TANAP and the
Eastern Mediterranean's GRISCY pipelines
might help Southeastern Europe compensate for the loss of Russian resources, though the latter
has yet to be constructed and is only in the planning stages right now. Nevertheless,
eliminating Turkish Stream from the energy equation (or at the very least hamstringing the
project prior to replacing/scrapping it) would deal a death blow to Russia's already very
limited Balkan influence. Russia would then be practically pushed out of the region, becoming
nothing more than a distant cultural-historical memory with close to no remaining political
influence to speak of.
Economic Warfare
The overarching goal connecting these three Hybrid War fronts isn't just to weaken Russia's
energy interests, but to replace its current role with American and other industry competitors.
The US-backed and Polish-led " Three Seas Initiative
" is vying to become a serious player in the strategic Central & Eastern European space,
and it can achieve a lot of its ambitions through the construction of new LNG and oil terminals
for facilitating America's plans. In addition, artificially increasing the costs of Russian
energy imports through political means related to these Hybrid Wars could also reduce Russia's
revenue from these sources, which presently account for 40%
of its budget . Considering that Russia's in the midst of a systemic economic transition
away from its disproportionate budgetary dependence on energy, this could hit Moscow where it
hurts at a sensitive time.
The Ball's In Berlin's Court
The linchpin of Russia's defensive strategy is Germany, without whose support all of
Moscow's energy plans stand zero chance of succeeding. If Germany submits to the US on one,
some, or all three of these Hybrid War fronts in contravention of its natural economic
interests, then it'll be much easier for America to provoke a comprehensive "decoupling"
between Russia and Europe. It's only energy geopolitics that allows for both sides to maintain
some sense of cooperation despite the US-encouraged sanctions regime against Russia after its
reunification with Crimea and thus provides an opportunity for improving their relations
sometime in the future. Sabotaging Russia's energy interests there would thus doom any
realistic prospects for a rapprochement between them, but the ball's in Berlin's court since it
has the chance to say no to the US and ensure that the German-Russian Strategic Partnership
upholds Europe's strategic autonomy across the present century.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT
MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Concluding Thoughts
For as much as cautiously optimistic as many in the Alt-Media Community might
be that the US' Hybrid War on Russian energy in Europe will fail, the facts paint a much more
sobering picture which suggests that at least one of these plots will succeed. Should that
happen, then the era of energy geopolitics laying the foundation for Russian-European relations
will soon draw to a close, thereby facilitating the US' hoped-for "decoupling" between them,
causing budgetary difficulties for Moscow at the moment when it can least afford to experience
such, and pushing the Eurasian Great Power's strategic attention even further towards Asia. The
last-mentioned consequence will put more pressure on Russia to perfect its "balancing"
act between China and India , which could potentially be a double-edged sword that makes it
more relevant in Asian geopolitical affairs but also means that one wrong move might seriously
complicate its
21st-century grand strategy .
If you look at the three countries mentioned Belarus will likely be absorbed by Russia
sooner rather than later. The push for this is underway looking at meetings taking place. For
Bulgaria the US is far away and has no power to stop the Turks. It is the Turks the
Bulgarians fear, with a lot of reasons, their surest way of keeping out of the Turks clutches
is to look to Russia for support. Unfortunately the USA has an appalling track record of
betraying countries, ask Libya.
The Germans have no choice but take the Russian gas, economically, socially and for
strategic reasons. The truly big fear for the US is a German/Russian bloc. German and Russian
technology with unrivaled resources. That is the future super power if they are pushed
together, something that is very likely if we see a major economic contraction in the next
few years.
Mustahattu , 4 hours ago
The US fear of an Eurasian alliance. The US fear Europe will create a Silicon Valley of
the future. The US fear the Euro will replace the dollar as a reserve currency. The US fear
Russia will become a superpower. The US fear China. There's a lot to fear yankee dear...cos
it's all gonna happen.
Hope Copy , 1 hour ago
RUSSIA is content with 45 and 25nm as it can be hardened.. 14 and especially 7nm is so
that the **** will wear out..
Ace006 , 2 hours ago
Instead of fretting about how this or that country or bloc will become a/an _________
superpower the US could focus on regaining its former pre-eminence.
It's a crazy thought, I know, but
moving a massive amount of industrial capacity to China and fueling the rise of a
communist country just might have been a bad idea and
thrashing about in the international arena like a rutting rhinoceros at huge expense
makes us look foolish and, in the case of Syria, petty and vindictive.
Repairing the damage from the former and stopping the hemorrhage of money and reputation
respectively would be a far better objective than playing Frankenstein in Libya, Afghanistan,
Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, Georgia, Serbia, Iran, Poland, N. Korea, and Venezuela, inter alia .
Mexico is a failed state right on our border that contributes mightily to our immigration,
cultural, and political problems. But, no, the puffed up, prancing morons who make US policy
can summon the imagination to figure out how to help our very own neighbors deal with their
hideous problems. No. Let's engage in regime change and "nation building" in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, and Belarus.
The words of the great Marcus Aurelius are on point: "Within ten days thou wilt seem a god
to those to whom thou art now a beast and an ape, if thou wilt return to thy principles and
the worship of reason."
Herodotus , 1 hour ago
Bulgaria must return to the protection of the Ottoman Empire.
yerfej , 4 hours ago
Easy solution, end NATO. Just have all US forces told to leave the EU and let them
determine their own destiny. Then do the same with US forces in the ME, Japan, Korea, etc.
EVERYONE would be better off, including US taxpayers which get nothing out of the useless
overseas deployment of resources which could be better spent at home.
yojimbo , 3 hours ago
5% budget deficit, 5% military spending. Leave the world, drop 4.5% of the spending and
either save money, or build infrastructure. It's so simple, I am disappointed Trump doesn't
at least state it. I get he is limited by the system, and can't be a Cincinnatus, even if he
wanted to, but he has his First Amendment.. though I grant him a personal fear of being
Kennedied!
Bac Si , 2 hours ago
Howdy Yerfej. It sounds like you are all for Isolationism.
But Isolationism means different things to different people. Pre WW2, Isolationism in the
US meant selling our products to hostile countries. In the case of Japan, oil to help them
kill Chinese people. In the case of Germany and Italy, food and vehicles to help them conquer
all of Europe.
Considering the ridiculous education that the US gives its children, it's no wonder that
most Americans don't know much about history (I say that in general terms, not to you
specifically). Henry Ford senior not only received the 'Grand Cross of the German Eagle' from
Adolf Hitler in 1938, he also received a 'Congressional Medal' from the US Congress shortly
after WW2 – and for the same reason. Selling trucks to help the war effort.
Even after Pearl Harbor, there were politically powerful Isolationists that did not want
the US to get involved in WW2. Why? Because a lot of money was at stake. It still is. These
same people will continue to argue for Isolationism even after we are attacked.
Two months AFTER Pearl Harbor, FDR made a speech that included this:
"Those Americans who believed that we could live under the illusion of isolationism wanted
the American eagle to imitate the tactics of the ostrich. Now, many of those same people,
afraid that we may be sticking our necks out, want our national bird to be turned into a
turtle. But we prefer to retain the eagle as it is – flying high and striking hard. I
know that I speak for the mass of the American people when I say that we reject the turtle
policy and will continue increasingly the policy of carrying the war to the enemy in distant
lands and distant waters – as far away as possible from our own home grounds." –
FDR
This radical change in our foreign policy has never been explained or even referred to in
US history books. Powerful economic forces will always love the idea of "Open Trade
Isolationism". But if Isolationism is ever suddenly defined by not doing business with any
hostile government – those powerful forces will go ballistic. They will strongly lobby
against 'Economic Warfare'. In other words, they will always want to make lots of money by
selling their products to hostile governments, no matter how many people die.
Want a great example?
Right after Loral Corporation CEO Bernard L. Schwartz donated a million dollars to the
DNC, President Clinton authorized the release of ballistic missile technology to China so
Loral could get their satellites into space fast and at low cost. Those same missiles, and
their nuclear warheads, are now pointed at the US.
The argument has always been that if we trade with hostile governments, they will grow to
like us. Does anyone out there believe that if the UK and France gave pre WW2 Germany an
extra $20 billion in trade, Germany wouldn't have started WW2? Anyone with a brain would tell
you that Germany would have put those resources into their military (like China has been
doing) and WW2 would have started earlier.
Yerfej, if we brought back the Cold War organization called the Coordinating Committee for
Multilateral Export Controls (COCOM), I would be all for Isolationism. President Clinton got
rid of it in his first year, and Western weapons technology has been threatening us ever
since.
BaNNeD oN THe RuN , 5 hours ago
You have to love the dynamic duo of "lie, cheat and steal" Pompeo and his "mob boss"
Trump. There is absolutely no subtlety in their obvious shakedown tactics.
PrivetHedge , 4 hours ago
The mob had far more honor, and better morals.
PrivetHedge , 4 hours ago
Washington's transatlantic allies...
Hahahah, occupied vassals.
Washington has cost Germany a massive slice of GDP.
you_do , 4 hours ago
Yankee has plenty of problems at home.
Rest of the world can decide their own energy policy.
They do not suffer from the 'Russia' propaganda.
geno-econ , 5 hours ago
Let Russia, the lowest cost energy producer win energy competition in Europe as China, the
lowest cost manufacturing producer is winning in America. Only difference is retailers,
shippers, assembly part importers such as auto, electronics and appliance makers are making a
profit and consumer gets lower prices. We should let others decide for themselves and stop
meddling----only result will be a bloody nose
you_do , 4 hours ago
Yankee has plenty of problems at home.
Rest of the world can decide their own energy policy.
They do not suffer from the 'Russia' propaganda.
geno-econ , 5 hours ago
Let Russia, the lowest cost energy producer win energy competition in Europe as China, the
lowest cost manufacturing producer is winning in America. Only difference is retailers,
shippers, assembly part importers such as auto, electronics and appliance makers are making a
profit and consumer gets lower prices. We should let others decide for themselves and stop
meddling----only result will be a bloody nose
free-energy , 4 hours ago
Notice how everything the US does around the world is a WAR. War on Energy, War on Drugs,
War on Birth Control, War War War... America will fall after 2020 if nothing changes for the
better. Every year the world grows more and more tired of the US bs and moves further away
from it. Its so bad that they choose to deal with a communist country over us.
You reap what you've sowed.
Bobby Farrell Can Dance , 3 hours ago
The Anglo American parasite pirate gangsters keep barking on about Russia bad, China bad,
but I look around and I see nothing but these trouble makers waging war on anything they
cannot control. The US and UK are devil nations. They will deserve all the rot they have
coming their way.
Unknown User , 5 hours ago
Trump wants a trade balance with all major economies like Germany and China. If they don't
buy from us, he will have to raise tariffs. In case of Germany, they need nothing from us so
he wants them to buy US LNG. Merkel's position is that "there is a cheap Russian gas", while
Trump is telling her "no there isn't one".
Pumpinfe , 4 hours ago
So trump loves to deep throat Russia but give Germany a hard time to Nordstream 2? Wake up
fanboys, your hero is a ******. I got so much money invested in gazprom. LNG is junk and
gazprom (Russian owned) is gona crush LNG and trump and his idiot following can't do a damn
thing. You trump idiots will believe anything. Let me enlighten you...gazprom is the lowest
cost producer of natural gas in the world...go look at the difference between gazprom and LNG
and then you will realize that orange dump is an idiot along with his army of empty heads. Oh
and if you think China and Russia are not friendly, go look up the Power of Siberia pipeline.
That will give you a good sense of the relationship between Russia and China. America is
rotting from the inside and Russia and China are eating their popcorn watching it happen.
Dabooda , 3 hours ago
I don't see Trump deep-throating anyone but Netanyahu. Sans gratuitous insults, your
comment about Gazprom is spot on
Lokiban , 5 hours ago
I doubt Merkel will give in. She would commit political suicide if she did that. She knows
Navalny is a US effort to stop Nordstream 2.
What is the alternative? Buying gas from the US or US-controlled oilfields in Iraq and Syria?
Putin might have a say in that.
Lokiban , 5 hours ago
I doubt Merkel will give in. She would commit political suicide if she did that. She knows
Navalny is a US effort to stop Nordstream 2.
What is the alternative? Buying gas from the US or US-controlled oilfields in Iraq and Syria?
Putin might have a say in that.
thurstjo63 , 3 hours ago
The main fault in Mr Korybko's thinking is that he believes that European countries will
not just shoot themselves in the foot but in the head to appease the US. At a european and
local level, those who wanted Nord Stream 2 to be suspended or killed have failed. The costs
are way too high. For that we can thank, perversely, the agreements associated with
protecting investments from political decisions pushed by the US itself!!! Given that there
is no proof of Navalny being poisoned, Germany knows that there is no way that they could
hope to win their case for stopping Nord Stream 2 in a tribunal with persons capable of
rational thought. That is why they made the deal to buy some US liquified gas for a couple of
billion dollars. Because that is the cheapest way of extricating themselves from this
situation. Otherwise, they are looking at orders of magnitude more compensation to russian
and european firms for stopping the pipeline.
As for Belarus, barring Lukashenko doing something profoundly stupid like reacting
violently to protests, that ship has already sailed. Protests are smaller every week and
mainly on the weekend as now the "opposition" has been publishing people's profiles accusing
them of collaborating with the government without any proof, leading to innocent people and
their families to be threatened. There will be a transition from Lukashenko over the next
couple of years but you can be sure that the present "opposition" given their desire to break
away from Russia will not be part of the group that comes to power in the future since their
base of support diminishes every week.
Finally Bulgaria already shot themselves in the foot when they backed out of South Stream
and had major problems securing energy resources to meet its needs during the intervening
period. Radev as any politician wanting to stay in office knows, if he doesn't go through
with connecting Turk Stream to the rest of Europe that he might as well resign. So unless the
US has compromising information on him that can force him from office or the Radev's
administration doesn't control the US attempts to create the conditions for a colour
revolution in Bulgaria, it is definitely not going to happen.
I'm sorry but Mr. Korybko is wrong on all counts!
Savvy , 4 hours ago
When the US backed Georgia's violent incursion into S Ossetia it took Russia one day to
send them back.
Russians are slow to saddle but ride fast.
Joiningupthedots , 2 hours ago
That was with the remnants of the old Soviet Army too.
The new Russian Army is an entirely different beast in both organisation, training,
experience and equipment.
Decoupling Russia from EU, is re-enforcing the Eurasia bloc...where is the future of the
world.
Russia belongs to Europa...not the USA.
BaNNeD oN THe RuN , 4 hours ago
Geographically Europe and Asia are one continent. It was "European exceptionalism" (the
precursor to American Exceptionalism) that divided it as an ethno-cultural construct.
researchfix , 5 hours ago
Cancelling NS2 will chase the German industry into Russia. Cheap energy, moderate wages,
Eurasian market at the front steps.
The sheep and their ex working places and Mutti will stay in Germany.
Bobby Farrell Can Dance , 3 hours ago
Do Germans want to be slaves of these abject Brits and Americans? Pffffft....gas from
Russia is a NO BRAINER.
Only British and Americans rats do not like that idea. How un-selfish then, it is for
these jealous, insecure morons to dictate to Germany how she should trade. That's called
outright meddling. These imperialists are like entitled Karens, they think the world owes
them favours at the snap of a finger.
Sandmann , 4 hours ago
Nordstream 2 has an add-on leg to UK. Germany is largest gas importer on earth and cannot
run its industry without gas imports from Russia. LNG is simply too expensive unless US
taxpayers subsidise it.
If US wants to destabilise Europe it will reap the consequences. Southern Europe depends
on gas from North Africa - Portugal generates electricity from Maghreb Pipeline to Spain from
Algeria via Morocco. Erdogan hopes to put Turkey in position of supplying gas to Europe.
Germany will not abandon Nordstream 2 but might abandon USA first.
Max21c , 3 hours ago
The US is ruthlessly waging an intense Hybrid War on Russian energy interests in Europe
by targeting the Eurasian Great Power's relevant projects in Germany, Belarus, and
Bulgaria, banking on the fact that even the partial success of this strategy would greatly
advance the scenario of an externally provoked "decoupling" between Moscow and Washington's
transatlantic allies.
It's a petty game and when it fails then the Washingtonians credibility and legitimacy
just further erodes. The EU needs the energy supplies and the Russian Federation has the
supplies. It's all just short term & small gain silliness by a pack of freaks in
Washington DC and their freaks in the CIA, Thunk Tank freaks and freaks in the foreign policy
establishment. It's just more of the Carnival sideshow/freakshow put on by Washingtonians. As
usual if it's a Washingtonian (post Cold War) policy then there's little or no substance
behind it and you can be sure it hasn't be thought through thoroughly and it'll eventually
turn and boomerang back on the circus people in Washington, Ivy League circus people, and
JudeoWASP elite circus people, CIA circus clowns and circus clowns in the Thunk Tonks and
elites Fareign Poolicy ***-tablishment.
John Hansen , 3 hours ago
If all it takes is a Navaly hoax to cause this Europe isn't really worth dealing with.
propaganda_reaper , 3 hours ago
Once upon a time, a revolution occurred in a country through which passed a gas pipeline.
The bad guys were vanquished. And the very good foreign guys who helped the local good guys
defeat the tyrant said: "We got the same stuff, but liquid."
Any similarity with fictitious events or characters was purely coincidental.
Remember the Gas to Europe still flows through the Ukraine. Russia just needs to reduce
the gas Pressure and blame the Ukraine and Europe goes cold and Dark.
German People will beg for Nordstream 2 to be switched on.
lucitanian , 31 minutes ago
That's not the way Russia works. But it's the kind of blackmail that the US uses. And
that's why Russia is a more dependable partner for Europe for energy.
Hope Copy , 1 hour ago
This **** goes right back to the 'DeepState' pseudo-revolution that got the Nicky-the-weak
killed ,because he financed his railroads and wanted to be rich as hell as he perceived the
ENGLISH monarchy to be, with a parliamentary DUMA that he could over rule if need be. I have
looked 'DeepState' right in the eyes when I was young and dumb and was told that I would
never go to their masion.. Nicky had family enemies. and the Czech fighting force was never
going to save him.. Stalin was also double-crossed, but was well informed.. it was in his
sector if one reads and believes. Cunning fox Stalin was, always playing those under him to
do his bidding.. and that lesson has been well learned by a couple of the world's leaders in
this day-in-age...
Herodotus , 1 hour ago
German manufacturing costs must be driven higher to take the heat off of the UK as they
emerge from the EU and attempt to become competitive.
novictim , 1 hour ago
When "War" is actually not war but trade policy and financial incentives then you know you
are engaged in dangerous bloviations and hyperbole.
When the shooting starts, then you can talk of War.
SuperareDolo , 2 hours ago
Russia might not want to fight these attempts to isolate it from the western economy. The
collateral damage will be that much less, once Babylon the great finally falls.
LoveTruth , 2 hours ago
And US claims to be a "Fair Player," caring for freedom and democracy, while twisting arms
and supporting corrupted officials.
IronForge , 3 hours ago
PetroUSD, MIC, Colonial Control of Vassals. World Domination Play by the Hegemony.
Just like the Policies of NATO: Russians Out, Germans Down, Anglo-American-ZioMasons and
Vatican_Vassals In.
Policies were like this - Sponsored by Anglo-ZioMasons from Pre-WWI, continued through
WWII and the First Cold War, and onwards after the Collapse of the SUN and the ensuing NeoCon
Wolfowitz Doctrine and PNAC7/Bush-Cheney PetroUSD Plans.
The Hegemony Control MENA Energy Producers. The IRQ-KWT War were mishandled; and KSA
demanded for the USA to Smite IRQ. The Initial War and Occupation prompted Hussein to opt the
EUR for Petroleum, which Brought about the End of Hussein through the 9-11/PNAC7 Long
War.
LBY opted for the Au-Dinar for Petroleum; and were Fail-Stated. IRN and RUS remain the
only Major Energy Producers not Controlled by the Hegemony.
IRN were Sanctioned since removing the Shackles of Hegemonic Occupancy via Shah Par Levi;
and attempts for Energy Diversification via Nuclear means raised suspicions of Nuclear
Weapons Development - prompting for heavier Sanctions and 5thColumn Regime Change Operations
by the Hegemony. IRN circumvented Sanctions in part by selling their Petroleum via Major
Currencies and Barter. Though many Countries have reduced or maintained their purchase of IRN
Petroleum via Sanctions Protocols, CHN are involved in Purchasing IRN's Output.
RUS, another Target of Ruin, Plunder, and Occupational Exploitation by the Hegemony, were
Too Large a Country with Standing Armed Forces for Direct Military Invasion by the Hegemony.
After the Collapse of the SUN, The Harvard/Chicago led Economic Reforms ended in Plunder -
which prompted the Selection and Rise of Putin, who drove out the Plunderers. The Hegemony
continue their Geopolitical War of Influence Peddling around RUS while attempting Soft War
NATO Membership Recruitment and Regime Change Coups within RUS, Ex-SUN Nation-States, and
Trading Partners.
RUS have endured, became Militarily mightier, have become the Major Energy Producer for
North/Western Europe and CHN. In addition to the Production, RUS now have begun Trading
Petroleum+NatGas outside of the PetroUSD Exchange Mechanism, opting for Customer Currencies
or RUB.
RUS and IRN are expected to be Key Providers of the PetroCNY-Au Exchange Mechanism.
The Hegemony and MENA Vassals can't Compete in Combined Petroleum+NatGas Volume and Price;
and DEU - by Directly Importing from RUS - will most likely become more Independent from the
Hegemon.
CHN, RUS, and DEU - Major Energy, Industrial, Natural Resource, and Military Powers
Decoupling from the Influences of the Hegemony, with IND Slowly coming to their Own (IND are
simply Too Large to remain Vassals to the Hegemon; and Vassal GBR did so much to Oppress them
in the past).
Funny that the Anglo-American-ZioMasons and VAT have brought each of these 3 Powers to
Ruin and Occupation in the Past 2 Centuries.
The Ironies being Played Out are that:
1) GBR Lost their Prime Colonies - America/USA, IND, and now Trade City Colony HKG - by
their Oppressive and Exploitative Occupancy; and
2) USA, after Fighting Wars for Independence from such Occupations by GBR - Once Becoming
a Major Military Power, Followed in the Anglo-ZioMason Tradition of Geopolitical Conquest and
Control to the Scale of pursing not only in World Domination - but in Absolute Global
Rule.
Maghreb2 , 2 hours ago
Problem is demographic
shift . The previous modern system dominated by Zio-Masonry was GNP and GDP where
currencies were measured against global output and floated against gold and each other. Now
with high inflation and demographic decline knocking out the economy is easier leading to
fights between zones of influence. Petro Ruble, Euro or dollar. Dangerous commodities like
kilos of heroin, trafficked humans or weapons. Zio-Masonic system has fallen to gangsterism.
Hybrid Warfare is the kind of thing we saw in Afghanistan or 80s Columbia .
Militarized Russian mafia vs NATO backed militarized police forces.
Once the population reaches a certain age and consumption drops there isn't much to fight
over besides social control systems of the young minority. Color revolutions in Central
Europe are really only effecting the long term economy of the young . Hope would be Left wing Radicals
stood up to the system and aligned with right wing groups to eliminate masonic and Zionist
factions and take back the command and control systems before the continet is shut down
permanently.
Precision strikes and hunting down their
descendents . Easy to find because Hitler and Stalin had their ancestors massacred for
loyalty to Rothschild. They won't bite the hands that feed.The Vatican vassal systems was
built on knowing that a Zionist is Zionist and Masons is a Mason. They are cults simply
teaching them the correct way to behave can avert these political problems.
In terms of Belarus and Russia they should consider the fact the birth rate rate rose
after the Soviet collapse and exodus west means many of them shouldn't have even been born in
Rothschilds plan. In their " system
" economic planning starts at birth because color revolutions effect
long term bond issuances they control.
Stalin and Hitler both knew this and used money linked to raw marterials and goods to beat
the British gold standard system. If you knew what the Western Central banks were worth you
would kill people for using their money.
"Life is hard, it's harder if your stupid" - John Wayne
Freeman of the City , 18 seconds ago
'It's Easier to Fool People Than to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled'
- Mark Twain
palmereldritch , 49 seconds ago
And prior to Bezos/CIA ownership the paper was managed by heirs whose ownership stake was
originally acquired through a bankruptcy sale by a board member/trustee of The Federal
Reserve.
So maybe it was just a share transfer...
Freeman of the City , 1 minute ago
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free"
Once I'd seen this mention of The Russian Playbook (aka KGB, Kremlin or Putin's Playbook), I saw the expression all over the place.
Here's an early – perhaps the earliest – use of the term. In October 2016, the Center for Strategic and International studies ("
Ranked #1 ") informed us of the "
Kremlin Playbook " with this ominous beginning
There was a deeply held assumption that, when the countries of Central and Eastern Europe joined NATO and the European Union
in 2004, these countries would continue their positive democratic and economic transformation. Yet more than a decade later, the
region has experienced a steady decline in democratic standards and governance practices at the same time that Russia's economic
engagement with the region expanded significantly.
And asks
Are these developments coincidental, or has the Kremlin sought deliberately to erode the region's democratic institutions
through its influence to 'break the internal coherence of the enemy system'?
Well, to these people, to ask the question is to answer it: can't possibly be disappointment at the gap between 2004's expectations
and 2020's reality, can't be that they don't like the total Western values package that they have to accept, it must be those crafty
Russians deceiving them. This was the earliest reference to The Playbook that I found, but it certainly wasn't the last.
Of course, all these people are convinced Moscow interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Somehow. To some effect. Never
really specified but the latest outburst of insanity is this
video from the Lincoln Project . As Anatoly Karlin observes:
"I think it's really cool how
we Russians took over America just by shitposting online. How does it feel to be subhuman?" He has a point: the Lincoln Project,
and the others shrieking about Russian interference, take it for granted that American democracy is so flimsy and Americans so gullible
that a few Facebook ads can bring the whole facade down. A curious mental state indeed.
What can we know about The Playbook? For a start it must be written in Russian, a language that those crafty Russians insist on
speaking among themselves. Secondly such an important document would be protected the way that highly classified material is protected.
There would be a very restricted need to know; underlings participating in one of the many plays would not know how their part fitted
into The Playbook; few would ever see The Playbook itself. The Playbook would be brought to the desk of the few authorised to see
it by a courier, signed for, the courier would watch the reader and take away the copy afterwards. The very few copies in existence
would be securely locked away; each numbered and differing subtly from the others so that, should a leak occur, the authorities would
know which copy read by whom had been leaked. Printed on paper that could not be photographed or duplicated. As much protection as
human cunning could devise; right up there with
the nuclear
codes .
And so on. It's all quite ridiculous: we're supposed to believe that Moscow easily controls far-away countries but can't keep
its neighbours under control.
There is no Russian Playbook, that's just projection. But there is a "playbook" and it's written in English, it's freely available
and it's inexpensive enough that every pundit can have a personal copy: it's named "
From Dictatorship To Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation " and it's written by
Gene Sharp (1928-2018) . Whatever Sharp may have thought he
was doing, whatever good cause he thought he was assisting, his book has been used as a guide to create regime changes around the
world. Billed as "democracy" and "freedom", their results are not so benign. Witness Ukraine today. Or Libya. Or Kosovo whose long-time
leader has just been indicted for numerous crimes
. Curiously enough, these efforts always take place in countries that resist Washington's line but never in countries that don't.
Here we do see training, financing, propaganda, discord being sown, divisions exploited to effect regime change – all the things
in the imaginary "Russian Playbook". So, whatever he may have thought he was helping, Sharp's advice has been used to produce what
only the propagandists could call "
model interventions "; to the "liberated" themselves, the reality is
poverty ,
destruction ,
war and
refugees
.
Reading Sharp's book, however, makes one wonder if he was just fooling himself. Has there ever been a "dictatorship" overthrown
by "non-violent" resistance along the lines of what he is suggesting? He mentions Norwegians who resisted Hitler; but Norway was
liberated, along with the rest of Occupied Europe, by extremely violent warfare. While some Jews escaped, most didn't and it was
the conquest of Berlin that saved the rest: the nazi state was killed . The USSR went away, together with its satellite governments
in Europe but that was a top-down event. He likes Gandhi but Gandhi wouldn't have lasted a minute under Stalin.
Otpor was greatly aided by NATO's war on Serbia. And, they're only
"non-violent" because the Western media doesn't talk much about
the violence ; "non-violent" is not the first word that
comes to mind in this video of Kiev 2014 . "Colour revolutions"
are manufactured from existing grievances, to be sure, but with a great deal of outside assistance, direction and funding; upon inspection,
there's much design behind their "spontaneity". And, not infrequently, with mysterious sniping at a expedient moment – see
Katchanovski's research
on the "Heavenly Hundred" of the Maidan showing pretty convincingly that the shootings were " a false flag operation" involving
"an alliance of the far right organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as Fatherland".
There is little in Sharp's book to suggest that non-violent resistance would have had much effect on a really brutal and determined
government. He also has the naïve habit of using "democrat" and "dictator" as if these words were as precisely defined as coconuts
and codfish. But any "dictatorship" – for example Stalin's is a very complex affair with many shades of opinion in it. So, in terms
of what he was apparently trying to do, one can see it only succeeding against rather mild "dictators" presiding over extremely unpopular
polities. With a great deal of outside effort and resources.
Patrick Armstrong was an analyst in the Canadian Department of National Defence specialising in the USSR/Russia from 1984
and a Counsellor in the Canadian Embassy in Moscow in 1993-1996. He retired in 2008 and has been writing on Russia and related subjects
on the Net ever since.
One of the most vibrantly alive people I met, André Vltchek, just died . Though he barely
made it past his mid-fifties he got in a lot more living than a hundred average Americans who
live to collect their pensions. Allah yarhamhu.
In honor of this great Truth Jihadi we're replaying this 2018 interview:
The West claims to be the "free world" -- the global leader in human rights,
humanitarianism, and free expression. Globetrotting independent journalist André Vltchek , who joins us from Borneo,
isn't buying it. His latest
essay begins:
Western culture is clearly obsessed with rules, guilt, submissiveness and punishment.
By now it is clear that the West is the least free society on Earth. In North America and
Europe, almost everyone is under constant scrutiny: people are spied on, observed, their
personal information is being continually extracted, and the surveillance cameras are used
indiscriminately.
Life is synchronized and managed. There are hardly any surprises.
One can sleep with whomever he or she wishes (as long as it is done within the 'allowed
protocol'). Homosexuality and bisexuality are allowed. But that is about all; that is how far
'freedom' usually stretches.
Rebellion is not only discouraged, it is fought against, brutally. For the tiniest
misdemeanors or errors, people end up behind bars. As a result, the U.S. has more prisoners per
capita than any other country on Earth, except the Seychelles.
Andre taunted rightwing elites and illness – with a passion. I guess one of them
caught up.
Living hard seems like a death-wish, maybe it was. Staring at darkness messes people up
and he traveled again and again into the hearts of darkness across the planet because he
wanted to be a modern Wilfred Burchett. He was one of the greats. My condolences to his
family and friends.
Peace to Stephen Cohen too. You both will be missed.
André Vltchek was not an intellectual heavyweight. What is fascinating about his
life-story is how and who financed. That should be easy for insiders to fish out, and
insiders there be.
As to my humble opinion, Chomsky was neither. From all angles, his pre-fabricated
prestige, his in-group attitudes, his encrusted prestance, pettiness, pedantry, always within
convention, his factoid approach, the channels of communication, the lack of any systemic
approach, his "good guys bad guys" copper´ approach, did not warrant the few hours
listening in on his tune and omni-presence. His numb personality, contrary to the combative
Vltchek is noted as a minor.
Some "intellectuals" have half a page of original content in them over the course of a
life-time (not the same as career (n´est ce pas Pinker?)), most have none. "History
repeat itself", through the bull-horns of public intellectuals. They both practiced a sort of
journalism that is superficial (accent on the superficial) agenda driven.
Ex-CIA John Kiriakou stated that the CIA was attempting to recruit just about anyone that
they were able to starting in the sixties ranging from Hollywood actors/actresses, musicians,
writers, journalists, artists, business people, just about anyone. Operation Mockingbird is
still widely used even if it is no longer regerred to it as Operation Mockingbird.
André Vltchek (1962-2020) was the son of a Czech nuclear physicist father, and a
Russian-Chinese artist-architect mother, born in Soviet-era St Petersburg (then Leningrad).
He spent part of his childhood as well in the famous Czech beer city of Pilsen.
Western culture is clearly obsessed with rules, guilt, submissiveness and
punishment.
What culture is not? Every single population on Earth wants to survive, Westerners want
non-Aryans to survive, but the mechanism is always the same. The Stasi, the Gestapo, the CIA,
the KGB – they all breathed air, and they all tortured dissenters. Turkey was almost
overthrown in 2016. The Shah of Iran was, as were Hosni Mubarak and Gaddafi in Egypt and
Libya. Bashar is facing quite a lot of criticism for being free – that critique comes
in the form of bombs and jihadi freedom fighters. The Saudi Prince is wise for strangling and
beheading Khashoggi. The USSR disintegrated after they had shut down the GULAG.
As a result, the U.S. has more prisoners per capita than any other country on Earth,
except the Seychelles.
In 2012, the U.S. Committee for Human Rights in [the DPR of Korea] estimated 150,000 to
200,000 are incarcerated, based on testimonies of defectors from the state police bureau,
which roughly equals 600–800 people incarcerated per 100,000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate
The World Prison Brief puts the United States' incarceration rate at 655 per 100,000.
Okay. If the West is the least free society on the planet, why the heck do all these
third-world people keep trying to move there? It is plain that Vltchek's thinking flunks the
real-world reality test.
The reality is, the rest of the world is worse off than the West, or people wouldn't keep
trying to leave the third world for the West.
@Anon ey want to have freedom of their stupid religious beliefs, not freedom from
religion. They still don't know that freedom of religion is not worth anything if it also
doesn't guarantee freedom from religion.
Thomas Jefferson tried very hard to explain this to them, but Yankee morons have never
learned what Jefferson tried to teach them. (With some notable exceptions, though, who,
however, have absolutely no political power.)
Vltchek is/was right: American/Western civilization [sic] (siphilization, rather) is
bankrupt and inhuman. It can only offer an abundance of material goods and military weapons
as if the only goals of human life were material things and warfare.
We all know that we are living in crazy, and dangerous, times, yet I can't help being awed
at what the imperial propaganda machine (aka the legacy ziomedia) is trying to make us all
swallow. The list of truly batshit crazy stuff we are being told to believe is now very long,
and today I just want to pick on a few of my "favorites" (so to speak).
First, of course, comes the " Novichok Reloaded " scandal around the alleged poisoning of
the so-called "dissident" Alexei Navalnyi. I already mentioned this absolutely ridiculous story
once
, so I won't repeat it all here. I just want to mention a few very basic facts:
in my
past article , if what the German authorities are claiming is true, then the Russians are
truly the dumbest imbeciles on the planet. Not content to use this now famous "Novichok" gas
against Skripal in the UK and after failing to kill Skripal, these stupid Russians decided to
try the very same gas, only "improved", and they failed again: Navalnyi is quite alive and
well, thank you! Then there is this: according to the imperial propaganda machine, Novichok
was so horribly dangerous, that the Brits had to use full biosuits to investigate the alleged
poisoning of Skripal. They also said that they would completely destroy the dangerous Skripal
home (though they never did that). The self same propaganda machine says that the Novichok
used on Navalnyi was a more powerful, improved version. Okay. Then try to answer this one:
why did the Russians NOT put on biosuits, why did not a single passenger suffer from any side
effects (inside a closed aircraft cabin!)? How is it that this super-dooper Novichok not only
failed to kill Navalnyi (who, allegedly, ingested it!) but also failed to even moderately
inconvenience anybody from the many people Navalnyi was surrounded by on that day?
I could continue to deconstruct all this nonsense, but that would take pages. I will mention
two thing though:
First, the Russians have requested any and all evidence available to the Germans and to the
Organization for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons – but they got
absolutely nothing in return. Yet the EU is demanding an investigation (which is already under
way in Russia anyway!) as if the Russians did not want the exact same!
After being exposed
to an improved Novichok and after weeks in coma in intensive care, here is Navalnyi trotting
down stairs feeling great
Second, Navalnyi apparently has an immunity to otherwise deadly Russian biological agents,
just take a look at him on this post-Novichok photo:
[By the way, the first time around the Brits also never gave the Russians any information,
nevermind any kind of evidence. Apparently, to hide some super-secret secrets. Yeah,
right!]
If you have ever wondered why Syrian jihadists, or so-called 'moderate opposition', got
support from the woke liberal West, a recent leak by Anonymous reveals it's because Western
governments funded this propaganda.
In the end, it is the sheer childishness of the propaganda which amazes me most, not that
our rulers lie about other countries – I have always known that. But somehow there was a
kernel of truth around which the web of lies was spun, for example about life in the old Soviet
Union.
I began to realise the scope of Western ability to literally invent the most baseless lies
only in the run-up to the Iraq War in 2003, and only because I knew more about Iraq than any
politician in Britain or America and ten times more than the average made-up telly-dolly
chuntering through their auto-cued war propaganda. The women presenters weren't any better.
This all came flooding back to me when I received an email from Anonymous earlier this week
and then read Ben Norton's excellent analysis of it all in The GrayZone.
If anyone ever wondered how the hordes of head-chopping throat-cutting heart-eating
gay-murdering women-hating 'Jihadists' of the Syrian War ever managed to get a fair press in a
'woke' liberal West that gets hot under the lace collar about JK Rowling novels, the answers
are all in
the Anonymous leak . The principle answer is that you, the taxpayer, paid for it.
That's right. The blizzard of 'White Helmets' (who made it right up to the Oscars to thank
everyone who'd helped them except those that had helped them the most), "chemical-weapons
attacks" and all the paraphernalia of a newly "moderate opposition" in Syria – was all
paid for by YOU. Millions of pounds of British taxpayers' money was revealed to have been spent
secretly on UK support for the throat-cutting coalition of chaos, which for a decade massacred
its way across Syria wearing a snow-white Western beard of respectability.
It would appear that while the US (or rather its milk-cows in the Gulf) was paying for the
lethal-weapons, perfidious Albion was doing what it does best – lying through its teeth
whilst making those being lied to, pay for the privilege. Now that – thanks to the leaks
– we know this, it should put us on guard for the next one. Yet somehow it doesn't, at
least not for the purveyors of the news.
The Lazarus-like resurrection (and photo-shoot) of Russia's opposition figure and Western
darling Alexey Navalny after yet another alleged Novichok (believed to be 5-8 times more toxic
than VX nerve agent) attack without so much as a tracheostomy to show for it is swallowed whole
in yet another anti-Russian public relations offensive.
Grown sane men call my television show to talk about 'concentration camps' in China in
which, we are told, "a million Uighur Muslims" are being held and forcibly sterilised. This is
despite the allegations being largely based on studies backed by the American government and
statements by Western media favourite, German researcher Adrian Zenz. Zenz, who is part of the
Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, a US-backed advocacy group,
believes that he is "led by God" on his "mission" against China. Meanwhile, according to China's
official statistics the Uighur population in Xinjiang province increased by over 25 percent
between 2010 and 2018, while the Han Chinese rose by only two percent.
The lying industry may be the only sector of the Western economies still in full production.
No need for furlough or bounce-back loans. The lie-machines never still. No smoke is usually
detected from their chimneys, but inside, their pants are well and truly on fire.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
That the Steele dossier was potentially based on the words of a Russian spy should have been
a red flag against its use. It seems that the FBI had not informed the FISA court about the
dubious sourcing of the dossier allegations.
Igor Danchenko, the premier sub-source for the Steele dossier, had
earlier worked for the Democrat affiliate Brookings Institute:
New information strikes the strongest blow yet at the foundations of the Russian collusion
narrative. April 4, 2019: A protestor outside the White House demanding the release of the full
Mueller Report. (By
bakdc/Shutterstock)
In a September 24th letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC),
Attorney General Bill Barr
revealed that the "primary sub-source" for the Steele dossier was the subject of an FBI
counterintelligence investigation in 2009. The source's Russian ties had been called into
question, and the individual was considered a possible national security threat, according to
Attorney General Barr's letter. This sub-source has elsewhere been identified as
Russian national Igor Danchenko.
This latest revelation in the Russiagate saga lands just over a month before the election,
chipping away further at one of the main lines of criticism that many on the left have leveled
against President Trump -- and bolstering suggestions from the president's own camp that the
FBI and other executive agencies engaged in substantial misconduct during the transition period
in 2016. Allegations contained in the Steele dossier justified FISA warrants against Trump
campaign advisor Carter Page and inspired many of the collusion claims that have been floated
in the four years since Trump's election victory.
The attorney general's letter attributes the finding to a now-declassified footnote in the
inspector general's report on the dubious FISA warrants. The footnote reports that the
individual later identified as Christopher Steele's primary source was under FBI investigation
from 2009 to 2011; the investigation was terminated because the subject "had apparently left
the United States."
The FBI found that Danchenko had been in contact with two known Russian intelligence
officers in 2005 and 2006. In his exchanges with one of these contacts, the Steele sub-source
openly expressed his desire to join the Russian diplomatic service. All of this was known to
the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane team as early as December 2016 -- five months before Robert
Mueller was even appointed to investigate collusion charges originating from Danchenko.
A few other interesting details:
Specifically, the FBI received reporting indicating a research fellow for an influential
foreign policy advisor in the Obama Administration was at a work-related event in late 2008
when they were approached by another employee of the think tank ("the employee"). The
employee reportedly indicated that if the two individuals at the table "did get a job in the
government and had access to classified information" and wanted "to make a little extra
money," the employee knew some people to whom they could speak. According to the research
fellow, there was no pretext to the conversation; the employee had not been invited to the
table
And if that weren't enough, "one interviewee did note that the Primary Sub-source
persistently asked about the interviewee's knowledge of a particular military vessel." Real
subtle there, Igor.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.411.1_en.html#goog_956560325 Ad ends in 52s
Next Video × Next Video J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker, Pro-family
Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019 Cancel Autoplay is paused
It now seems likely that the panic about foreign influence which swept over our politics for
four years rested on the word of not just a Russian spy, but the worst Russian spy of all time.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Declan Leary is the Collegiate Network Fellow at The American Conservative and a
graduate of John Carroll University. His work has been published at National Review ,
Crisis, and elsewhere.
Thank you for the links, very interesting. I've seen several of the pics of Navalny, the
heads look edited in, a bit too big, not quite aligned. This all seems very amateruish, like
the Belorussian coup attempt. I'll bet they are connected more than we know.
I don't believe a bit of it. I haven't seem any evidence of life for Navalny except some not
very convincing pictures.
The video of Ms Pevchickh is interesting too, she is very animated, works hard to get her
point across.
If you allow she was part of a plot to get him "poisoned", lots of new questions pop up:
did Navalny know, was he in on it? Was this supposed to tie in with the Belarus unrest, a
distraction, something else? Who talked Merkel into going along and how? Is Heiko Maas really
that dumb he thought this was going to work?
"... On rules based disorder and the capitulation of Merkel and her BND lapdogs to the 'hate Russia' fulminations of the UKUSA morons. I see that the German Parliament has NOT TAKEN its red pills these days and is reluctant to swallow the BS. ..."
On rules based disorder and the capitulation of Merkel and her BND lapdogs to the 'hate
Russia' fulminations of the UKUSA morons. I see that the German Parliament has NOT TAKEN its
red pills these days and is reluctant to swallow the BS. It would be satisfying to see
the collective wisdom of the Parliament to exceed that of the BND. But then that is a low
bar.
If all the energy wasted on peddling Russiagate had instead been used to push real
political alternatives to Trump's programs the Democrats and their voters would likely be in
a better position.
The Ds defeated that possibility when they conspired to derail Sanders and promote
Clinton. As a result, Obama's legacy is Trump. But there was a Deep State faction pulling
Obama's strings that's likely supporting the attempt to foment a domestic Color Revolution,
yet for the life of me I can't see why as all the grifters are getting billions--unless--it's
perceived that Trump's stalled their imperialist projects or stopped what they hoped to
accomplish via JCPOA. In other words, we need a better motive for Russiagate than the mere
disruption of Trump's administration.
The Nexus is Ukraine, where the DNC, Obama and others were heavily involved with corruption,
money into their pockets and money laundered for campaign uses, illegally brought back into
the US.
It was never Russia or Russians. It was always the Podesta-Clinton-Obama operatives and
their true believers in FBI and DOJ, working with the Russophobes in NGOs and the State
Dept.
The desperation as Trump became a real possible President and then an actual elected
President was to cover their crimes in Ukraine and the illegal actions to spy on Trump and
set up Trump campaign associates.
The difficult call now is how high up do the present investigators have cover to save the
institutions of the FBI and DOJ? A real take down would go to Obama, Biden, Clapper, Comey,
Brennan, Podesta, Clinton and all their lieutenants. It would collapse the CIA, State, FBI,
DOJ, and all the lying experts on Russia who perjured to Congress.
Red Ryder gets it -- Ukraine is the specific catalyst, linked to the New Cold War against
Russia and the corruption of the Democrats involved in that conflict.
There is also Flynn and his dirt on Obama's Syria/ISIS policy -- remember his Al Jazeera
interview about Obama's "wilful decision" to ignore DIA reports on ISIS. Flynn knows the US
and its allies had some kind of links to ISIS and Nusra Front (Al Qaeda) in Syria.
And there is also the more general concern, raised by Karlof1, about the Presidency and
the empire.
I found this barb delivered by Lavrov during his presser with Zarif I linked to on the open
thread to be very curious when thought about in the context of Russiagate:
"The fact that the United States has threatened to impose sanctions on those who defy the
American interpretation of the current situation serves as further proof of Washington's
desire to move like a bull in a china shop, putting ultimatums to everyone and punishing
everyone indiscriminately because, in my view, the incumbent US administration has lost
its diplomatic skills almost for good ." [My Emphasis]
Red Ryder @8 & profk @10 connect Ukraine and the outing of the Empire's role in the
creation of Daesh. Yes, it seems much is related to Russia's Phoenix-like rise and outwitting
the Empire's buffoons beginning in 2013 that's generated the above behavior noted by Lavrov.
If TrumpCo does get a second term, unless the entire foreign policy team is dumped and
replaced, its agenda will go nowhere other than further into the hole they've dug for
themselves over the past 20 years--almost every nation is now against Bush's USA as many now
know who the terrorists really are and where they live.
What if the goal of 2016 election was to set up the 2020 American color revolution? If so
Trump needed to win. Obama and the FBI did the groundwork here at home. There is some debate
if the first Trump dossier was actually the second one to cover for the Cody Shearer one that
was given to Strobe Talbot to give to Christopher Steele. Still it had the same goal as to
foster doubt about the legitimacy of 2016 that is currently culminating with the gun toting,
fire bombing hissy fit of the children of liberal privilege. Now if those blasted supreme
righties would just show up, and the whole thing can go really hot like it did in Ukraine,
Libya, Egypt, almost Syria, and any country I might be forgetting. Notice the Trump
administration is parroting the left's white supremacist conspiracy. Its all really bad
theater, but does anyone really care the crumbing infrastructure and the looming economic
collapse when you can instead root for your team. Yes, I am guilty of the later too. Added
bonus we already have a twofer of enemies (Russian and China) for yet another elitist war.
I very doubt that it was "Russiagate" who make it difficult for Trump to pursue the policies
he had been advocating during his election campaign...In fact, "Russiagate" has long ago been
debunked and we have not seen Trump worrying a bit about the average American Joe, most
flagrant during this pandemic...I doubt he would had behaved different were the "Russiagate"
to have never existed..
Simply, electoral "promises" almost never are fullfilled in the already dating decades
neoliberal order, both from the right or the "alleged" liberal left...
On the same grounds, we could affirm then that conspiracy theories about Obama´s
birth place made it difficult for Obama to pursue the policies he had been advocating during
his election campaign....
That Trump has ties to Russian oligarchs is, to my view, out of doubt for anyone following
a bit some writers who use to deeply research their analyses out there like John Helmer....
That these oligarchas had anything to do, in this respect, with the Kremlin, it is doubtful,
but highly likely related to business shenanigans amongst them and Trump & Co...related
to illegal bribes and money laundering...
What have been largely proved is that Trump and his administration have been using big
data management corporations and social networks engineering to manipulate elections and give
coups eveywhere ( as the thorough research I posted at the Week in Review leaves in evidence
it happened in several countries in Latin America , which leads us to suspect that they would
not resist the desire to use the same methods in the US...before...and after the 2016
elections...having Bannon ad chief of campaign and then as chief of staff in 2016 so as that
does not add for tranquility, with what legal methods is respected for achieving whatever
goal..as the last events have clearly showed...
It was during Trump´s mandate that the war on Yemen continued towards total
erradication of Yemenis, especially of Shia belief, by indiscriminate bombing and blockade of
essential goods...that Qasem Soleimani was murdered without any justified reason...that NATO
started a cheeky build up in Russian borders who remained still free of it...that the US
withdrew from most international agreements leaving US/Russia, US/Iran, US/LatinAmerican
relations at its lowest levels, by underminig any remaining trust...Trump reinstated and made
even harsher sanctions against everybody who was not already a "puppet regime", including
Venezuela, Cuba, Argentina, Russia, Iran, China, and, even looping the loop, against puppet
governments in the EU...
I very doubt it was Russiagate which kept him from releasing his tax records as requested
by governance transparecny, returning the ammounts of money defrauded in the "University
Loans" affair, clarifying his ties to Epstein network, stopping sowing hatred and divide
amongst US population, build the most world wide network of far-right extremists since post
WWII around the world but especially in Europe to undermine what of "democracy" remains left,
labeled and declared as "terrorists" any political party abroad who does not go along and
oppose his puppet government´s corrupt policies anywhere, lit the Middle East on fire
by continuously provoking Iran, Lebanon, Syria, sent his regime envoys to the EU to twist arm
so that the European countries dedicate more budget to buy provedly ineffective arms from the
US when the money is most needed for socio-economic and health issues in the middle of a
pandemic, not to mention the requisition of health supplies´ cargos in the very Chinese
tarmac which had been previously ordered and bought by European countries which needed them
urgently, criminalized, and tried to label them as second cathegory citizens, a great part of
US population of non-white foreign descent through whose hard work and shameful labor
conditions US thrived along all these decades, well, you name it, the list would be almost
for a book...or two...
To blame all this mess on "Russiagate" is, well, in the best case, underestimating the
readership here...
Oh please, b: "legal jeopardy", don't make me laugh. It's been four years . The whole
political part of Trump's career he's been under the tutelage of mafia consigliere Roy Cohn.
Even better known, he's flown on the Lolita Express, and the FBI has a trove of videos etc
from Epstein's safe (hmm, what else does the latter have in common with Roy Cohn besides the
Trump connection). Bottom line, he's a deeply compromised individual who's concluded long
ago, and correctly, that he's in over his head and better off just playing along. He's had no
reservations appointing professional Russophobes like Fiona Hill; in fact, which of his
appointees has not been a Cold Warrior besides perhaps T-Rex, who was a mere Venezuela
hawk because of some old Exxon bad blood, and who was quickly ditched anyway. Even now, his
own FBI director spouts RussiaGate red meat, and the Donald is doing squat about it.
What does it all matter to Trump? He doesn't have a good name to clear. He didn't run for
president expecting to win, let alone to carry out this or that specific program. This
Vale Tudo carnival atmosphere clearly suits him: if his opponents can make baseless
accusations, so can he. If they can expect to skate beyond some meaningless fall guys, so can
he. To actually uphold the law--it's just not how he rolls.
Had he mostly contented himself with playing president on TV and enjoying the perks of the
office, and understood you can't just let a pandemic kill off your own voters, all would've
been dandy. But, predictably, his ego got the better of him, and he just had to be the
statesman who was finally going to bring China to heel. Again, merely tweeting about it
could've been ignored, but by appointing an array of rabid ideologues who went to work on
"decoupling", he's sided with a Deep State which will hate him regardless, against
Corporate America which went into China to, you know, make money. In this way, he's made
himself enemies a Republican can ill afford; combine this with his personal style (or lack of
it), and just about nobody has his back any more. So the machine goes about purging this
alien body from its system.
when do the American people get to investigate Truman, Ike, John McCain, JFK, Johnson, Bush,
Obama, FBI, Trump, 9/11, CIA, invasion of Iraq, wall street, the US Treasury, the military,
Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and the like..?
,==He did it==> he did not do it, <=someone else did it, ==>avoids the basic
problem:
America has a government that
a.) conducts wars to protect the economic interest of its favored few.
b.) uses law , to grant feudal lords wealth creating by extracting bits of wealth from
Americans.
c.) conducts nearly all its affairs in classified secret..
d.) is un accountable for the money it spends.
e.) is un accountable for the genocides it conducts in foreign lands.
f.) has two crime families which divide and conquer the citizens to control all election
outcomes
g.) has given to private bankers, its power to print money, control the economy, and tax the
people.
h.) has not adhered to the Bill of Rights or the un amended constitution.
i.) refuses to require private media to speak only the truth.
j.) Refuses to comply with and orto enforce the 1st and 4th amendment<=papers and effects
t/b secure
expand this list as you like
and
Americans have
a.) no access to the USA. <= 3 votes, insolation of state or voting district,
out 527 positions don't get it & none for the President
b.) must pay to the USA taxes and have no input as to how such taxes are collected or
used,
c.) must register their presence to the USA with id numbers
d.) must obey USA laws which Americans had no say in writing, or passing.
e.) must endure foreign wars and domestic programs that serve no legitimate domestic
interest.
expand this list as you like.
You are onto something there...I do not recall whose US think tank analyse I read about US
youth tending ideologically to the left...the same could be said of any youth around the
world after they have been left without future prospect and past opportunities to rise
through the social ladder by rampant savage neoliberal capitalism...
I said at the time that the Ukrainian experiment of 2014 was a general dressed rehearsal
for a future planned authoritarian fascist rule in most of the world, especially the West,
once the prospects, already known by the elites, of collapsing capitalism are obvious for the
general public and cause the consequent uprising..It is in this context that the pandemic and
its sudden impoverishing outcome fits, along with the "orchestrated" violent riots at various
locations, to justify martial law...
Notice that "rewritting of history of WWII" in favor of fascism is a feature of any US
administration since the fall of the USSR...
Past days I read that Roger Stone, former Trump advisor, if i am not wrong also implied in
a corruption case, advised Trump to declare martial law after winning in Novemeber...It is in
that context that all the noise we have been hearing all these past months about the riots,
militias, coups, and so on fit...What we have not heard about is about hundreds of thousands
of evictions, inacabable line ups for food banks, and the total socio-economic disaster more
than anything willingly built by TPTB...
Recal that they "built their own reality, and when you are catching up with that reality,
they build another one"...
It is difficult to teach old chickenhawk a new tricks. Looks like she is a real "national
security parasite" and will stay is this role till the bitter end.
"America's world management, NATO, the European Union and the construction of establishments and
alliances the US constructed after World War II have taken a hit." took hit because of the crisis of neoliberalism
not so much because of Russia resistance to the USA neoliberal domination and unwillingness to became a vassal state a la EU
states, Japan and GB.
Her hostile remark confirms grave mistake of allowing immigrants to occupy high position in the US foreign policy hierarchy.
They bring with themselves "ancient hatred"
Only a blind (or a highly indoctrinated/brainwashed) person is unable to see where all these neocon policies are leading...
Notable quotes:
"... America's world management, NATO, the European Union and the construction of establishments and alliances the US constructed after World War II have taken a hit ..."
"... "They lost the entire US political class ..."
Fiona Hill, the National Security Council's senior director for European and Russian affairs
till 2019, says divisions are rising inside the Kremlin over the knowledge of persevering with
a "dirty tricks" marketing campaign that's had combined outcomes and will now face diminishing
returns.
On the one hand, Russia's 2016 affect operations succeeded past the Kremlin's wildest goals.
The US-dominated, unipolar world that Putin has lengthy railed in opposition to is now not.
America's world management, NATO, the European Union and the construction of establishments and
alliances the US constructed after World War II have taken a hit. "On that ledger, wow, yes,
basically over-fulfilled the plan," mentioned Hill.
At the identical time, getting caught in the act of making an attempt to sabotage US
democracy has proved pricey. "They lost the entire US political class and politicized ties so that the whole future of
US-Russia relations now depends on who wins in November," she mentioned.
Following a long line of very arrogant american imperial "negotiators", mr oblivion
billingslea used standard "negotiating" techniques like
(a) accusing the other side of crimes Americans have committed first and forever, eg,
extreme lying, bad faith argumentation, military aggression, foreign government security
breaching, assassination and poisoning [as in american presidents and independent thinkers],
and of course, electoral cheating;
(b) putting the opponent in the "negotiation process" on the defensive or back foot by
stating false news allegations amplified by the media controlled by the american empire;
(c) offering nothing useful or commitable to be done by the empire, and yet
"magnanimously" demanding the moon as opponents' concessions, eg, russian, iranian and
chinese nuclear weapons limits, but not for nato's development and deployment, and; (d) after
making impossible demands, the imperials accuse the opponents of hostility and unwillingness
to "negotiate".
The russians can skillfully agree by stating that they only require the americans to
reduce their nukes to 320 pieces like china, and in less than five years.
This is why it is very important for sovereign nations to read the guidebook, called the
"idiot's guide on running the american empire", and developing deep and lasting
solutions.
As for the other american imperial military "advantages", eg, constellation of
"aggression" satellites, andrei forgot to mention that these can be shot or burned down in
minutes easily by russia, china and even iran, as these stations cannot hide or run away in
earth orbits.
Replenishment of weapons and military supplies after 3 months is rather doomed as the
cheap, mass production and manufacturing facilities do not exist. Which must be re-created
somehow but now
American lands are the targets. Much, Much Different Than WW2 !!
And of course, russia can always nuke down the USA and its vassal countries, and thus
permanently ruin their economies for a decade or more, they don't know how to run defense --
this was always the fatal weakness of all bullies - if they'll have enough time to "learn
it"... let's see... I doubt this.
Let's see americans try to start and conduct a nuclear war after too many spy, internet
and gps satellites are shot down. Russia can even do this today using conventional
explosives, and the world will be shocked how helpless the american military and economy can
be made even without using russian nukes.
There are countries still immune to the numerous american imperial diseases that are
already documented daily in zerohedge postings. The better countries still have lots of
parents telling their kids to study and work hard so they can have better lives than their
ancestors.
In oregon and california, they teach unemployable kids to burn something or somebody
sometime before dinner.
CdVision • 11 hours ago
I was about to say that what now comes out of the US & Trump's mouth in particular, is
Orwellian. But that credits it with too much gravitas. The true comparison is Alice in
Wonderland:
"Words mean whatever I want them to mean".
Reminiscence of the Future.. ( http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2020/09/russia-steals-everything.html)
Russia "Steals Everything" !! (Not just China, oops... ???!!!!)
And Jesus Christ was an American and was born in Kalamazoo, MI. It is a well-known fact. So
Donald Trump, evidently briefed by his "utterly competent and crushingly precise aids", knows
now that too! !!! LOL
> US President Donald Trump claims that Russia developed hypersonic weapons after
allegedly stealing information from the United States.
> According to him, "Russia received this information from the Obama administration,"
Moscow "stole this information." Trump said that "Russia received this information and then
created" the rocket, reports TASS.
> "We have such advanced weapons that President Xi, Putin and everyone else will envy
us. They do not know what we have, but they know that it is something that no one has ever
heard of. "
->We are the foremost and always number one. Everything is invented only by us, the
rest can only either steal, or be gifted with our developments for good behavior. This
situation is eternal, unchanging, everyone lags behind American Tikhalogii at least 50 years
(the time frame was chosen so that even a 20-year-old would lose heart, "what's the point of
trying to catch up, it won't work anyway, in my lifetime"). It was, is, and will be, this is
the natural course of events.
All this is delivered in the format of the classic Sunday sermon of the American
provincial Protestant church, coding the parishioners for further deeds and actions. And it
worked effectively, creating in some basalt confidence "we are better because we are better",
in others - "I don't mind anything for joining this radiant success, I'm ready for anything,
I'll go for any hardships and crimes, if only There".
Only now it worked. In a situation where the frequency of pronouncing such mantras is more
and more, emotions are invested in them too, but in fact everyone understands that this is
what autohypnosis does not work.
The poor have stolen from the United States, if you look at it, literally everything. And
5G and the superweapon of the gods. Moreover, a pearl with a characteristic handwriting is
not copy / paste, but move / paste, you bastards. Therefore, the United States does not even
have any traces of developments left - the guys just sit in an empty room, shrug their hands,
"here we have a farm of mechanical killer dolls, with the faces of Mickey Mouse overexposed,
and now look - traces of bast shoes and candy wrappers from "Korkunov" only, ah-ah-ah, well,
something like that, ah. "
At the same time, there are no cases of sabotage, espionage - whole projects were simply
developed, developed, brought to a working product, and then the hob - and that's it, and
disappeared. And this became noticeable only after years. And all the persons involved are
like "wow, wow."
Psychiatric crazy fool of the head, no less.
But due to the fact that all of the above theses are driven very tightly into the template
for the perception of the world, both those who voiced these theses and the listeners are
satisfied.
Because the post-American post-hegemonic world is not terrible because in some ratings
another country will be higher there, and Detroit will never be rebuilt "as it was". It is
scary because it is not clear how to live for people who had no support in the form of global
goals, faith, philosophy of life, and all this was replaced by narcissism on the basis of
"successful success is my second self".
This means that the moment when this issue has to be resolved must be delayed to the last.
Leaving the whole topic on the plane "we were offended, we are offended, we were dishonest,
which means we have the right to any action" is not a bad move.
It's a pity that it doesn't really affect the essence of what is happening.
Somewhat a side note, but has some relevance. The West has used against Russia the same
memes and tropes the German Nazis used against Jews, the Soviet Union, and Slavic
peoples. The great Jewish conspiracy to destroy German is being regurgitated as Putin
wants to destroy American democracy. But the second half the Nazi attack was the Jews wanted
to destroy European civilization, and not just Germany. This is where the crap about "rules
based order" comes in. Some also used the term "liberal democracies". Same theme: Russian
wants to destroy the entirety of the Western order--not just making sure Hillary lost the
election (and now Biden).
But here is the thing. The West with American leadership looks at this struggle over a
rules based order as a life and death struggle. It is not just about economic competition and
dominance. The underlying propaganda base is rather deadly.
"... Accompanying this overwhelmingly dominant political and economic ideology was an American geopolitical vision equally grandiose in ambition and equally blind to the lessons of history. This was summed up in the memorandum on "Defence Planning Guidance 1994-1999," drawn up in April 1992 for the Bush Senior administration by Under-Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis "Scooter" Libby ..."
"... In the early 2000s, when its influence reached its most dangerous height, military and security elites would couch it in the terms of "full spectrum dominance." ..."
"... Bhadrakumar describes how the 'west', through its own behavior, created a mighty block that now opposes its dictates. He concludes ..."
"... Quintessentially, Russia and China contest a set of neoliberal practices that have evolved in the post-World War 2 international order validating selective use of human rights as a universal value to legitimise western intervention in the domestic affairs of sovereign states. On the other hand, they also accept and continuously affirm their commitment to a number of fundamental precepts of the international order -- in particular, the primacy of state sovereignty and territorial integrity, the importance of international law, and the centrality of the United Nations and the key role of the Security Council. ..."
"... The rules are follow the dictates of our western neo-colonial institutions like the World Bank, the IMF et all. ..."
"... Its a pretty simple concept backed by the attack dog of the US military. ..."
"... 'Rules based order' was always a euphemism for exceptionalism of one kind or another. The term was invented to avoid having to say 'rule of law', which invited criticism because even the most minimal amount of law (such as Geneva conventions, ICC etc) was rejected in practice and in policy by the leading members of the actually existing world order. ..."
"... Rumor says the "Wolfowitz Doctrine" also envisioned the balkanization of Russia (the document is still classified, but it leaked to a NYT journalist at the time, who published a report on it). ..."
"... It is not over in the sense that the West hasn't given up in its attempts to take over the world. But as the "exceptionalist" western countries decline, they will go even crazier and crazier and there will be full blown hysteria. ..."
"... In this sense, the rule based order will be over as there will be only disorder and animalistic, crazed western rage and bullying. The West is like a trapped animal. It will start pouncing, raging and snarling like a wild animal. This is the real nature of the West. A hungry wild animal that needs to feed. ..."
"... But behind the liberal mask, there are hateful eyes and gnashing teeth, and hunger and greed for other people's resources. ..."
"... Expressed in words, the West's face says "I'm the best and you are nothing! Give me your stuff! And this is how it will forever be!" ..."
"... As Putin has said, the US is no longer agreement capable. ..."
"... Instead of bringing Russia into the Western liberal democracies (with the threat of major nuclear war now drastically reduced) the now Anglo-Zionist Empire just looted it. ..."
"... Actually the Trump Administration has done far more against Russia than all US administrations from the last 30 years. Do not listen what they say, look at what they do. Right now the US in a full blown Cold War with Russia with ever increasing attacks ..."
"... Rules based international order .... the U.S. functions as the the Supreme Court for the U.N. , 'we have invoked snapback sanctions and extended the arms embargo on Iran indefinitely and are enforcing it'. UN, 'but your vote failed'. ..."
"... Rules based International Order is the dog whistle for global private finance controlled economies. It is sad that we are in a civilization war with China/Russia about who runs international finance going forward and yet there is no discussion of the subject but instead all sorts of proxy conflicts. ..."
"... The US is not just facing relative decline -- the fact that others are catching up in key ways. The US is also facing absolute decline -- the fact that it is suffering a degradation of capacities and is losing competitive battles in key areas. Examples of absolute decline include the Russian and Chinese military-technological revolutions based on anti-ship and hypersonic missiles and air defense systems; Chinese 5G; China's demonstrative success in suppressing COVID and its overall manufacturing power; the declining quality of life for most Americans; and the collapse of American institutional competence. ..."
"... Related to this, we can't separate these dynamics from the political economy of the states in question. China, in particular, is showing that an interventionist state, with high levels of public ownership, is essential to qualitative power, human security, and economic and social development. ..."
"... Psssst, learning Russian is easier than Chinese and we already know a few Russian words, such as novichok. ..."
"... Russia after the Cold War was a shambles and today it remains a weak economy with a limited role on the world stage, concerned mainly with retaining some of its traditional areas of influence. China is a vastly more formidable competitor. If the US (and the UK, if as usual we tag along) approach the relationship with Beijing with anything like the combination of arrogance, ignorance, greed, criminality, bigotry, hypocrisy and incompetence with which western elites managed the period after the Cold War, then we risk losing the competition and endangering the world. [my emphasis] ..."
"... It is not over in the sense that the West hasn't given up in its attempts to take over the world. ..."
"... The contest between the Empire and the upstarts is not over by a long shot. What the West HAS lost is the "inevitability" argument. But for the upstarts to actually prevail in their "multi-lateral" vision, they have to actually entice countries to join them despite threats and intimidation from the Empire. ..."
"... The Empire's power-elite KNOW that Russia, China, and allies of Russia-China don't want to be subject to their "rules-based order". The Empire is actively working to undermine, subvert, and divide the countries that oppose it. While also securing their own territories/population via intimidation and propaganda. ..."
"... On rules based disorder and the capitulation of Merkel and her BND lapdogs to the 'hate Russia' fulminations of the UKUSA morons. I see that the German Parliament has NOT TAKEN its red pills these days and is reluctant to swallow the BS. ..."
"... My late father as an army officer prosecuted Japanese war criminals for their atrocities now the Anglo-Zionists are the pre-eminent war criminals and their leaders loudly proclaim "our values" as a pathological and propagandistic form of projection. Is it possible they are unaware of their blatant hypocrisy ? ..."
"... There is no "international law" and no "international order." There is only relative power. And when those powers clash, as seems inevitable, the world is in for a major nuclear war, and probably preceded by several more regional wars. Meanwhile, the US internally is collapsing into economic disaster, social unrest, political and social oppression, infrastructure failure, and medical disasters. We'll probably be in martial law sometime between November 3 and January 21 if not beyond that period, just for starters. ..."
"... America's "Rules-Based International Order" is a Goebbelsian euphemism for a Lies-Based Imperial Order, led by the USA and its war criminal allies (aka the self-styled Free World). ..."
"... The true nature of this America-led order is exposed by the USA's war of aggression against Iraq (which violated international law and had no United Nations sanction) and its decades-long War on Terrorism, which have murdered hundreds of thousands of people and maimed, immiserated, or refugeed millions of more people. ..."
"... The Empire is very much alive and dangerous. Ask Iran, ask Syria, as the Palestinians, ask the Russians, ask the Chinese. Ask numerous African nations. Even Pangloss was not so stupidly naive. ..."
"... quite right. 'Rules based order' was always a euphemism for exceptionalism of one kind or another. ie US and its "allies" is basically asking the rest of the world to finance their (the US et al) version of a welfare state. ..."
"... China and rest of the worlds foreign central banks stopped growing their foreign exchange reserves (on net) in 2014 leaving the US in a sort of limbo. ..."
"... "Major powers maintaining cooperation, at least not engaging in Cold War-style antagonism, is the important foundation of world peace. China is committed to maintaining cooperation among major powers, as well as being flexible in the balance of interests acceptable to all parties. The problem is the Trump administration is hysterically shaping decoupling and confrontation between Beijing and Washington, and has been mobilizing more forces to its side at home and abroad. Those US policymakers are deliberately splitting the world like during the Cold War. ..."
"... The first 'Cold War' was entirely contrived. The US knew the Soviet Union was weak and had no agenda beyond maintaining security and its own reconstruction after WW2. There was no threat of a Western European invasion, or of the USSR spreading revolution globally. All that Cold War ideology is a lie. And the same lying is taking place about China today. No difference. ..."
"... It's good to see discussion here of the nefarious role of the American far-right neocon warmongers in the State Department, intelligence services and military leadership just before the turn of the new century. What I have never seen clearly explained, however, is the connection between these very dangerous forces and the equally cynical and reactionary Israeli politicians and the Mossad, as well as Saudi Arabian officials. ..."
The 'western' countries, i.e. the United States and its 'allies', love to speak of a 'rules based international order'
which they say everyone should follow. That 'rules based order' is a way more vague concept
than the actual rule of law:
The G7 is united by its shared values and commitment to a rules based international order.
That order is being challenged by authoritarianism, serious violations of human rights,
exclusion and discrimination, humanitarian and security crises, and the defiance of
international law and standards.
As members of the G7, we are convinced that our societies and the world have reaped
remarkable benefits from a global order based on rules and underscore that this system must
have at its heart the notions of inclusion, democracy and respect for human rights,
fundamental freedoms, diversity, and the rule of law.
That the 'rules based international order' is supposed to include vague concepts of
'democracy', 'human rights', 'fundamental freedoms', 'diversity' and more makes it easy to
claim that this or that violation of the 'rules based international order' has occurred. Such
violations can then be used to impose punishment in the form of sanctions or war.
That the above definition was given by a minority of a few rich nations makes it already
clear that it can not be a global concept for a multilateral world. That would require a set of
rules that everyone has agreed to. We already had and have such a system. It is called
international law. But at the end of the cold war the 'west' began to ignore the actual
international law and to replace it with its own rules which others were then supposed to
follow. That hubris has come back to bite the 'west'.
Anatol Lieven's recent piece, How
the west lost , describes this moral defeat of the 'west' after its dubious 'victory' in
the cold war:
Accompanying this overwhelmingly dominant political and economic ideology was an American
geopolitical vision equally grandiose in ambition and equally blind to the lessons of
history. This was summed up in the memorandum on "Defence Planning Guidance 1994-1999," drawn
up in April 1992 for the Bush Senior administration by Under-Secretary of Defence Paul
Wolfowitz and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and subsequently leaked to the media. Its central
message was:
...
While that 1992 Washington paper spoke of the "legitimate interests" of other states, it
clearly implied that it would be Washington that would define what interests were legitimate,
and how they could be pursued. And once again, though never formally adopted, this "doctrine"
became in effect the standard operating procedure of subsequent administrations. In the early
2000s, when its influence reached its most dangerous height, military and security elites
would couch it in the terms of "full spectrum dominance." As the younger President Bush
declared in his State of the Union address in January 2002, which put the US on the road to
the invasion of Iraq: "By the grace of God, America won the Cold War A world once divided
into two armed camps now recognizes one sole and pre-eminent power, the United States of
America."
But that power has since failed in the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, during the 2008
financial crisis and now again in the pandemic. It also created new competition to its role due
to its own behavior:
On the one hand, American moves to extend Nato to the Baltics and then (abortively) on to
Ukraine and Georgia, and to abolish Russian influence and destroy Russian allies in the
Middle East, inevitably produced a fierce and largely successful Russian nationalist
reaction. ...
On the other hand, the benign and neglectful way in which Washington regarded
the rise of China in the generation after the Cold War (for example, the blithe decision to
allow China to join the World Trade Organisation) was also rooted in ideological arrogance.
Western triumphalism meant that most of the US elites were convinced that as a result of
economic growth, the Chinese Communist state would either democratise or be overthrown; and
that China would eventually have to adopt the western version of economics or fail
economically. This was coupled with the belief that good relations with China could be
predicated on China accepting a so-called "rules-based" international order in which the US
set the rules while also being free to break them whenever it wished; something that nobody
with the slightest knowledge of Chinese history should have believed.
The retired Indian ambassador M.K. Bhadrakumar touches on the same points in an excellent
series about the new Chinese-Russian alliance:
Bhadrakumar describes how the 'west', through its own behavior, created a mighty block that
now opposes its dictates. He concludes:
Quintessentially, Russia and China contest a set of neoliberal practices that have evolved in
the post-World War 2 international order validating selective use of human rights as a
universal value to legitimise western intervention in the domestic affairs of sovereign
states. On the other hand, they also accept and continuously affirm their commitment to a
number of fundamental precepts of the international order -- in particular, the primacy of
state sovereignty and territorial integrity, the importance of international law, and the
centrality of the United Nations and the key role of the Security Council.
While the U.S. wants a vague 'rules based international order' China and Russia emphasize an
international order that is based on the rule of law. Two recent comments by leaders from China
and Russia underline this.
China firmly supports the United Nations' central role in global affairs and opposes any
country acting like boss of the world, President Xi Jinping said on Monday.
...
"No country has the right to dominate global affairs, control the destiny of others or keep
advantages in development all to itself," Xi said.
Noting that the UN must stand firm for justice, Xi said that mutual respect and equality
among all countries, big or small, is the foremost principle of the UN Charter.
No country should be allowed to do whatever it likes and be the hegemon or bully, Xi said.
"Unilateralism is a dead end," he said.
...
International laws should not be distorted or used as a pretext to undermine other countries'
legitimate rights and interests or world peace and stability, he added.
The Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov went even further by outright rejecting the 'western rules' that the 'rules
based international order' implies:
Ideas that Russia and China will play by sets of Western rules under any circumstances are
deeply flawed , Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an interview with New
York-based international Russian-language RTVI channel.
"I was reading our political scientists who are well known in the West. The following idea
is becoming louder and more pronounced: it is time to stop applying Western metrics to our
actions and stop trying to be liked by the West at any cost . These are very reputable people
and a rather serious statement. It is clear to me that the West is wittingly or unwittingly
pushing us towards this analysis. It is likely to be done unwittingly," Lavrov noted.
"However, it is a big mistake to think that Russia will play by Western rules in any case,
just like thinking this in terms of China."
As an alliance China and Russia have all the raw materials, energy, engineering and
industrial capabilities, agriculture and populations needed to be completely independent from
the 'west'. They have no need nor any desire to follow dubious rules dictated by other powers.
There is no way to make them do so. As M.K. Bhadrakumar concludes
:
The US cannot overwhelm that alliance unless it defeats both China and Russia together,
simultaneously. The alliance, meanwhile, also happens to be on the right side of history.
Time works in its favour, as the decline of the US in relative comprehensive national power
and global influence keeps advancing and the world gets used to the "post-American century."
---
P.S.
On a lighter note: RT , Russia's state sponsored international TV station, has recently
hired Donald Trump
(vid). He will soon host his own reality show on RT . The working title is reportedly:
"Putin's Apprentice". The apprenticeship might give him a chance to learn how a nation that has
failed can be resurrected to its former glory.
Posted by b on September 22, 2020 at 17:59 UTC | Permalink
The Liberal International Order or Pax Americana are synonyms for The
Rules Based Order. The plan that was followed for years was the outline given by Zbigniew
Brzezinski and the Trilateral Commission in The Grand Chessboard to "contain" the ambition of
Russia, China, and Iran over their interest to expand into Central Asia and the Middle East.
Brzezinski changed
in 2016, so did Kissinger, Brzezinski wrote that it was time to make peace and to integrate
with Russia, China and Iran. But the elites had changed by then, newer people had taken
over and no longer followed Brzezinski.
The rules are follow the dictates of our western neo-colonial institutions like the World
Bank, the IMF et all. We will own you and you will do what we say and those are the rules.
Any challenge to our authority will lead to war, economic ruin or both.
Its a pretty simple concept backed by the attack dog of the US military.
'Rules based order' was always a euphemism for exceptionalism of one kind or another.
The term was invented to avoid having to say 'rule of law', which invited criticism
because even the most minimal amount of law (such as Geneva conventions, ICC etc) was
rejected in practice and in policy by the leading members of the actually existing world
order.
Rumor says the "Wolfowitz Doctrine" also envisioned the balkanization of Russia (the document
is still classified, but it leaked to a NYT journalist at the time, who published a report on
it).
It is not over in the sense that the West hasn't given up in its attempts to take over the
world. But as the "exceptionalist" western countries decline, they will go even crazier and
crazier and there will be full blown hysteria.
In this sense, the rule based order will be over as there will be only disorder and
animalistic, crazed western rage and bullying. The West is like a trapped animal. It will start pouncing, raging and snarling like a wild
animal. This is the real nature of the West. A hungry wild animal that needs to feed.
All the liberalism is just self-congratulation about how exceptionalist it is. It is born
out of narcisism and self-obsession during the "good times" of the West.
But behind the liberal mask, there are hateful eyes and gnashing teeth, and hunger and
greed for other people's resources.
The real face of it is hateful and snarling. And it will be fully exposed during the next
10 years, as the West goes crazy and it becomes a hungry wild animal that desperately needs
to feed.
Expressed in words, the West's face says "I'm the best and you are nothing! Give me your
stuff! And this is how it will forever be!"
Countries need to stay out from the wild animal and carry a big stick just in case, until
it succumbs from its internal hatreds and contradictions.
As Putin has said, the US is no longer agreement capable. As b. outlines. the US elites no
longer follow the rule of law. This is even true within the US. The US inherited the role
formerly played by the British Empire after WW2.
The national security apparatus of both the
US and the Soviet Union kept the Cold War going. Notice how soon after JFK was assassinated
Khrushchev was deposed. Gorbachev rightly stopped the Soviets superpower regime. As Dmitri Orlov points out - Empire hollowed out the Soviet Union and he sees it doing the same to the
US.
Instead of bringing Russia into the Western liberal democracies (with the threat of major
nuclear war now drastically reduced) the now Anglo-Zionist Empire just looted it. The life
expectancy of Russians fell 7 years in a decade until rescued by Putin.
It can now be seen
that the Nixon-Kissinger opening up to China was not to gain access to its large market
potential but to gain access to hundreds of millions of cheap, disciplined, and educated
workers. The elites starting in the 70s became greedier. Jet travel,electronic communication,
and computers allowed the outsourcing of manufacture.
The spread of air conditioning allowed
even the too hot south to be a location. First in the US as the factories began their march
through the non union southern states onto Mexico. Management from the north could now live
in air conditioned houses, drive air conditioned cars and work in air conditioned offices.
The 70s oil inflation led to stagnation as the unionized labor were powerful enough to get
cost of living raises. With the globalization of labor union power in the US has been
destroyed. As Eric X Li points out China's one party rule actually changes policies easier
than the Western democracies.
So China's government hasn't joined in with the West in just
creating wealth for the top 1% and debt for the real economy.
As b. pointed out, the Anglo
Zionist policies created the mutual benefit partnership of Russia and China. The Chinese belt
and road initiative appears to be intent on creating a large trading zone that could benefit
those involved. The US is just using sanctions and the military to turn sovereign functioning
countries that don't go along with it into failed states and their infrastructure turned to
rubble
Now, the US is forced into puppeteering the UN in order to maintain the illusion of the
'rules based order,' even as it slides further and further away from any meaningful
international cooperation:
Fortunately for the world, the United States took responsible action to stop this from
happening. In accordance with our rights under UNSCR 2231, we initiated the snapback process
to restore virtually all previously terminated UN sanctions, including the arms embargo. The
world will be safer as a result.
The United States expects all UN Member States to fully comply with their obligations
to implement these measures. In addition to the arms embargo, this includes restrictions
such as the ban on Iran engaging in enrichment and reprocessing-related activities, the
prohibition on ballistic missile testing and development by Iran, and sanctions on the
transfer of nuclear- and missile-related technologies to Iran, among others. If UN Member
States fail to fulfill their obligations to implement these sanctions, the United States is
prepared to use our domestic authorities to impose consequences for those failures and ensure
that Iran does not reap the benefits of UN-prohibited activity.
Actually the Trump Administration has done far more against Russia than all US
administrations from the last 30 years. Do not listen what they say, look at what they
do. Right now the US in a full blown Cold War with Russia with ever increasing attacks.
Pompeo talks more or less continually about "China's bullying behaviour". To me it is
wonderful that he can say this with a straight face. (Perhaps it is a result of his lessons
in the CIA on "how to lie better".)All the countries that have engaged with China have
benefitted from it, whether as salesmen or as recipients of aid or loans at advantageous
rates. The countries that have engaged with America have mostly (All?) lost. (The fifty+
countries invaded and wrecked since WW2 or the NATO "allies" or the countries attacked with
sanctions.) Either their economies were destroyed or billions upon billions of dollars were
paid to the US MIC. The NATO member countries have got what from their membership? Formerly,
they had "Protection" from an imaginary Soviet threat, more recently "Protection" from an
equally imaginary Russian threat! Some bargain, that!
Rules based international order .... the U.S. functions as the the Supreme Court for the
U.N. , 'we have invoked snapback sanctions and extended the arms embargo on Iran
indefinitely and are enforcing it'. UN, 'but your vote failed'.
U.S, 'we have the right to seize cargo between any two countries transported in
international waters based on U.S. federal appeals court decision even though the transaction
in no way involves the U.S. We call this Freedom of Navigation and why we need to have
aircraft carriers in the South China Sea and Arabian Gulf'
Rules based International Order is the dog whistle for global private finance controlled
economies.
It is sad that we are in a civilization war with China/Russia about who runs international
finance going forward and yet there is no discussion of the subject but instead all sorts of
proxy conflicts.
Thanks for the posting b as it gets to the core myths around the global private finance
jackboot on the neck of countries in the West.
The US is not just facing relative decline -- the fact that others are catching up in key
ways. The US is also facing absolute decline -- the fact that it is suffering a degradation
of capacities and is losing competitive battles in key areas. Examples of absolute decline
include the Russian and Chinese military-technological revolutions based on anti-ship and
hypersonic missiles and air defense systems; Chinese 5G; China's demonstrative success in
suppressing COVID and its overall manufacturing power; the declining quality of life for most
Americans; and the collapse of American institutional competence.
Related to this, we can't separate these dynamics from the political economy of the states
in question. China, in particular, is showing that an interventionist state, with high levels
of public ownership, is essential to qualitative power, human security, and economic and
social development.
Capitalism might enrich a few, but it is the primary cause of America's relative and
absolute decline.
US and allied military analysts have been talking over the last year or so of the need to
enter a single focus and total "wartime" posture throughout our societies, with all financial
and industrial output directed to the "war". This has influenced the information/ propaganda
efforts, but also the uptick in military manoeuvres around Taiwan and renewed NATO pressure
directed at Russia (including the recent provocative B52 flights). Don't think Russia/China
can be tricked into over-reacting, but some kind of loss-of-life military confrontation may
be what the rules-based side is looking for as the population at large will probably not
accept a "wartime sacrifice" regimen without such.
Whilst Russia and China are creating a truly new, unique and creative alliance and a
market of everything, in Australia the "authorities" are sicking their police dogs on poor
grannies sitting on park benches. This image of five brainless armed state goons in a show of
force over two quiet little grannies really puts things into perspective. It must be that New
World Order that Soros and puppets always talked about.
Psssst, learning Russian is easier than Chinese and we already know a few Russian words,
such as novichok.
The post scriptum stopped the clock for me. Has our host slipped into our drink there a
profound prophecy, disguised as jesting?
Many agree something big will happen (break?) soon, possibly with the elections. The other
thing is the Americans' ability to change course, drop all baggage, and run off in a new,
even the opposite direction with unfettered enthusiasm (and ferocity). No people has a
greater capacity for almost instant renewal, once it chooses to.
I also notice that the spoof takes good aim at The Donald's peculiarities, though in a
fair and human way. The proverbial Russian warmth, or a humorous invitation?
Meanwhile, I enjoy my newfound optimism in these dark times. Thanks b!
Thanks b and on Anatol Lieven in the Prospect story (fairy story?)...
Russia after the Cold War was a shambles and today it remains a weak economy with a limited
role on the world stage, concerned mainly with retaining some of its traditional areas of
influence. China is a vastly more formidable competitor. If the US (and the UK, if as usual
we tag along) approach the relationship with Beijing with anything like the combination of
arrogance, ignorance, greed, criminality, bigotry, hypocrisy and incompetence with which
western elites managed the period after the Cold War, then we risk losing the
competition and endangering the world. [my emphasis]
Lieven simply does not see it. Has it ever occurred to Lieven that colonialism just might
be rejected by both Russia and China and that there might be no competition? Does Lieven
watch too much football?
What is it that endangers the world in Lieven's petite cortex? This verbose Lieven
tosh is littered with fancy sentences trawled from here and there but always presented to us
from a narrow dimensional mind with limited analysis and seemingly zero interrogation.
again:- "then we risk losing the competition and endangering the world"...
So Lieven thinks the current behaviour of the US hegemon and its collaborator the UK is
innocuous? These were the two nations that blithely squandered the "peace dividend" from the
end of cold war as he describes and have led us to this time of perpetual war. A perpetual
war that he does not mention, does not allude to, does not treat as an important driver
behind the current global mistrust and disengagement from the USUK drive for global
dominance.
Lieven is putting lipstick on his pig and screaming about losing the competition to the
imagined wolf outside his prison.
It is not over in the sense that the West hasn't given up in its attempts to take over
the world.
I agree. The contest between the Empire and the upstarts is not over by a long shot. What the West HAS lost is the "inevitability" argument. But for the upstarts to actually
prevail in their "multi-lateral" vision, they have to actually entice countries to join them
despite threats and intimidation from the Empire.
_________________________________
Passer by @Sep22 20:15 #14
Right now the US in a full blown Cold War with Russia with ever increasing attacks.
Yes. We still see the narratives like of Trump as Putin-lover despite the debunking of
Russiagate and the clear evidence of Cold War tensions. The incessant propaganda reeks of
desperation.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
Some seem to think that the Empire is cornered.
Aha! We've got you now, you scoundrels!
LOL.
The Empire's power-elite KNOW that Russia, China, and allies of Russia-China don't want to
be subject to their "rules-based order". The Empire is actively working to undermine,
subvert, and divide the countries that oppose it. While also securing their own
territories/population via intimidation and propaganda.
On rules based disorder and the capitulation of Merkel and her BND lapdogs to the 'hate
Russia' fulminations of the UKUSA morons. I see that the German Parliament has NOT TAKEN its
red pills these days and is reluctant to swallow the BS. It would be satisfying to see the
collective wisdom of the Parliament to exceed that of the BND. But then that is a low bar.
"For our part, we more than once described a balanced and mutually acceptable framework
for future agreements in this sphere during our contacts with the American negotiators. Aware
of the difficulties on the path forward in light of how widely different our approaches are,
we proposed extending the New START as it was originally signed.
"We do not want any unilateral advantages, but we will not make any unilateral concessions
either. A deal may be possible if the United States is ready to coordinate a new document on
the basis of the balance of interests, parity and without expecting Russia to make unilateral
concessions. But this will take time. We can have time to do this if the treaty is
extended."
As predicted, the Outlaw US Empire makes an offer it knows will be refused so it can then
blame Russia for being an unreliable negotiating partner--a trick we've all seen before.
I agree. The contest between the Empire and the upstarts is not over by a long shot.
What the West HAS lost is the "inevitability" argument. But for the upstarts to actually
prevail in their "multi-lateral" vision, they have to actually entice countries to join them
despite threats and intimidation from the Empire.
Yes, the big question remaining is to predict what will happen and when. This is what the
real deal is. And I'm sure they are working on that in the Intel agencies. It can certainly be predicted that the US and the EU will be significantly weaker in 2030
that today. Will this be enough is the question.
We now have some new information about US long term health as published by CBO. Very
interesting numbers.
They predict lower population growth and lower GDP growth for the US than previously
estimated, as well as higher debt rates. US federal debt is to reach 195 % of GDP by 2050 under best case scenario.
Analysts also seem to agree that the Covid 19 crisis further weakened the US vis a vis
China, as the Chinese economy significantly outperformed almost everyone else this year, more
than expected before the crisis.
I will also mention two important recent numbers. This year:
1. China, for the first time, became the biggest trading partner for the EU, beating the
US.
2. China's retail market overtook the one of the US.
Posted by: vk | Sep 22 2020 19:05 utc | 4 -- "....Eurasia is where most of human civilization
lives, it's the "World Island" - the world island not in the military sense, but in the
economic sense. Every path to human prosperity passes through Eurasia - that's why the USA
can't "let it alone" in the first place, while the reverse is not true, that is, Eurasia can
give to the luxury of letting the Americas alone."
Excellent observation, VK.
Even if the World Island (thanks for your formulation) trades with itself, within itself,
there is sufficient mass to last a century, during which the arrogantly exceptional West
might just wake up from their Century of Humiliation.
Meanwhile, inertia alone will ensure that the West forgets that their vaunted
"civilisation" was fed, watered, enriched by the Silk Route that came from the East -- from
the Middle Kingdom (China) and from the Middle East (which is "middle", as you pointed out
above, because all wealth passes through that region).
Yes there are rules which are observed more by their breach than their observance: The Geneva
Conventions. Just ask Julian Assange.
I find it incredible that the Anglo-Zionist captive nations can sign, ratify, incorporate
into domestic law and then sign the additional protocol, making themselves high contracting
parties, which requires them to report all and any breaches to Geneva, then ignore all the
above commitments. One of these commitments includes educating their citizens on the basic
provisions of the conventions. Again they haven't bothered, that could expose their hypocrisy
to the public.
Even the bandit statelet signed but I am yet to see just one example of its application in
the seventy plus years of its barbaric and bloodthirsty occupation of Palestine.
Interestingly, the conventions prohibit the occupied from signing away one iota of their
territory to the occupier. So much for what Claude Pictet's Commentary to the Fourth Geneva
Convention calls "alleged annexations." This book is available from the ICRC.
My late father as an army officer prosecuted Japanese war criminals for their atrocities
now the Anglo-Zionists are the pre-eminent war criminals and their leaders loudly proclaim
"our values" as a pathological and propagandistic form of projection. Is it possible they are
unaware of their blatant hypocrisy ?
It seems the New World Order has some familiar and unsurprising antecedents:
Anatol Lieven comes from an educated and cultured family in Britain's upper middle class
layer. His older siblings - he is the youngest of five children - include a High Court judge
(Dame Natalie Lieven), a Cambridge University professor / historian (Dominic Lieven) and a
psychologist / linguistics researcher (Elena Lieven). They haven't done badly for a family from the old Baltic German
aristocratic elite that used to serve the Russian empire as administrators for the
Livonia governorate.
The British Lievens might see themselves as gatekeepers and interpreters of what the
ruling classes desire (or appear to desire) and communicate that down to us. Hence their
positions in intellectual and academic occupations - no engineers, technicians or academics
in the physical or biological sciences among their number.
Anatol Lieven is right though about "competition", in the sense I believe he is using it:
it is "competition" for supposed global leadership and influence as only the British and
Americans understand it. Life as British and American elites understand it is the annual
football competition writ large; there can only be one winner and the worst position to be in
is second place and every other place below it. Never mind that what Russia and China have in
mind is a vision of the world with multiple and overlapping leadership roles dispersed among
nations according to various criteria: this ideal is simply too much for the Anglosphere
elites to understand, let alone digest and accept.
Still, I wonder why Anatol Lieven is teaching in a university in Qatar of all places.
Family influence and reputation must only go so far.
if you aren't at least a little prepared for a
disruption in critical supplies, and choose instead to waste time commenting on online
forums, it won't matter how up to date you are on "rules based international order" vs.
"international law". at that point the reality will be something like this: if you aren't
holding it, you don't have it, and if you can't defend it, you won't be keeping it for long.
Got that absolutely right.
There is no "international law" and no "international order." There is only relative
power. And when those powers clash, as seems inevitable, the world is in for a major nuclear
war, and probably preceded by several more regional wars. Meanwhile, the US internally is
collapsing into economic disaster, social unrest, political and social oppression,
infrastructure failure, and medical disasters. We'll probably be in martial law sometime
between November 3 and January 21 if not beyond that period, just for starters.
This month is National Preparedness Month. I recommend watching the following videos from
well-known "preppers" who have been warning about this stuff for years.
And this one from The Urban Prepper, an IT guy who is exceptionally well organized and
logical in his videos. I recommend subscribing to his channel. He avoids most of the
excessive "doom and gloom" hype that afflicts a lot of prepper channels and is oriented more
about urban survival than "backwoods bushcraft" since most people live in cities. Prepping 101: Prepping
Architecture Diagram for Gear Organization
And if you don't watch anything else, watch this one from Canadian Prepper - he's
absolutely right in this one and it specifically applies to the barflies here: What is Really Going
On? Its WORSE Than You Think
Meanwhile, inertia alone will ensure that the West forgets that their vaunted "civilisation"
was fed, watered, enriched by the Silk Route that came from the East -- from the Middle
Kingdom (China) and from the Middle East (which is "middle", as you pointed out above,
because all wealth passes through that region).
Posted by: kiwiklown | Sep 22 2020 23:41 utc | 39
Oh, and this one from Canadian Prepper in which he muses about whether and why we actually
*want* the SHTF situation to occur. This one would resonate with a lot of the commentary here
about the social malaise and the psychological reasons for it. Maybe nothing really new for
some, but definitely relevant.
Still, I wonder why Anatol Lieven is teaching in a university in Qatar of all places.
Family influence and reputation must only go so far.
Thank you that backgrounder explains a lot. Perhaps like Englanders before him he finds
Qatar, safe and rewarding PLUS mounds of finest hashish and titillating company. From my
understanding it is a grotesque abuser of human rights and everyone has a price.
America's "Rules-Based International Order" is a Goebbelsian euphemism for a Lies-Based
Imperial Order, led by the USA and its war criminal allies (aka the self-styled Free World).
The true nature of this America-led order is exposed by the USA's war of aggression
against Iraq (which violated international law and had no United Nations sanction) and its
decades-long War on Terrorism, which have murdered hundreds of thousands of people and
maimed, immiserated, or refugeed millions of more people. These crimes against humanity have
been justified by Orwellian American lies about "Weapons of Mass Destruction," "fighting
terrorism," or the curious events of Sept. 11th.
This America "Rules-Based" order is one drenched in the blood of millions of people--even
as it sanctimoniously disguises itself behind endless propaganda about defending liberal
democracy or the rule of law.
Truly, America and its allies can take their malignant Rules-Based Disorder back to Hell,
where they all belong.
"Thus your "side note" has no "relevance" whatsoever."
You sound like some podunk UN official from a podunk country trying to impress a waitress
in a NYC bar. The Empire is very much alive and dangerous. Ask Iran, ask Syria, as the
Palestinians, ask the Russians, ask the Chinese. Ask numerous African nations. Even Pangloss
was not so stupidly naive.
Thank you - YES that is the answer and always has been PLUS there will be no pipeline from
Iran through Afghanistan to Pakistan and on to China. There will be NO overland pipeline or
rail route to sound the death knell to the maritime mafia.
Please vote for trump 2020. no president destroy America from inside like what trump did. The goal is to accelerate American empire destruction and grip in this world.
What better way to put such clown along his circus in white house. he will make a mess of everything and will definitely bring
America down
i hope he win 2020 and America explode into civil war and chaos. With America destroyed internally , they wont have time to invade
Venezuela or Iran
Remember , if Biden win 2020 , American foreign policy will revert into normalcy that means
seeking alliance with EU and 5 eyes in a more meaningful way , aka giving them preferential
treatment on trade..
all that to box in china and russia , reenable TPP , initiate the delayed venezuela overt
invasion other than covert
this is dangerous for the whole world , not that it will save US in the long run but it
will increase real shooting conflict with china and russia.. So focus on trump victory in 2020 , the more controversial the win the better , lets push america into chaos
I appreciate the time and thought that goes into a post like this; all without a popup ad
trying to sell me ANOTHER item I just bought via Amazon, in spite of the fact that I am among
the least likely to want another right now. Voice of reason crying in the wilderness and all
that.
The rule The Capitalist Ogres promote as the heart of Civilization is simply the age-old
Golden Rule. Those with the gold, make the rules.
@ptb quite right.
'Rules based order' was always a euphemism for exceptionalism of one kind or another. ie US and its "allies" is basically asking the rest of the world to finance their (the US
et al)
version of a welfare state.
as US et al can no longer fund their own unaffordable welfare promises made to their own
electorates, they have to call on the rest of the world to do so (China has been effectively
funding the US budget deficit since they entered the WTO.
and the EU (mainly Germany) was doing the same before China's entry into WTO)
China and rest of the worlds foreign central banks stopped growing their foreign exchange
reserves (on net) in 2014
leaving the US in a sort of limbo.
Well, you're sorta correct; it was all those nations including China that bought Outlaw US
Empire debt. China certainly knows better now and for almost a decade now it's purchases--and
those of the rest of the world -- of said debt have declined to the point where a huge crisis
related to the debt pyramid threatens all those aside from the 1% living within the Outlaw US
Empire. The Judo involved was very instructive.
"Trump's UN
address censured" headlines Global Times article that reviews yesterday's UNGA.
Domestic BigLie Media didn't like what it heard from Trump:
"Commenting on the US' performance, many Western media tended to view US as being
'isolated,' and its unilateral efforts 'widely derided....'
"Some US media outlets cannot stand Trump's accusations. A WSJ report said many Democrats
blamed Trump for "isolating the US and diluting American influence in the WHO or other
bodies."
It went on to say Trump's threat of withdrawal is often used as leverage to "influence
partner countries, or get allies to pay more for shared defense."
"Some US media linked Trump's address to his widely blamed effort to re-impose sanctions
on Iran, saying his address came as 'UN members push back against Washington,' AP
reported.
"Wednesday's Washington Post article reported that the Trump administration walked on a
'lonely path' at the UN where the US attacked WHO, and embarked on the 'widely derided'
effort to snap back Iran sanctions.
"A week before the UN General Assembly, US media NPR predicted that the US 'appeared to be
isolated' at this year's General Assembly, saying that Trump's 'America First' agenda left
him out of sync with America's traditional allies as it has a long record of pulling out of
international agreements, including one meant to tackle the world's climate crisis."
So, Trump's attack on China's environmental record was beyond hypocritical and ought to be
termed psychopathic prevarication. The best comment from the article well describes the
Trumptroll @53:
"'Trump's smears and attacks against China were apparently aimed at campaigning for his
reelection. Only his die-hard fans - those who do not care about truth but support him -
will buy his words ,' Ding Yifan, a researcher at the Institute of World Development of
the Development Research Center of the State Council, told the Global Times." [My
Emphasis]
And isn't that really the basic issue--the truth? 75 years of lies by the Outlaw US Empire
to cover it's continuous illegalities and subversion of its own fundamental law while killing
and displacing tens of millions of people. Guardian of the Free World my ass! More like
Guardian of the Gates of Hell.
Yes, I'm biased, but anyone seeking truth and invoking the Rule of Law would find themselves
at odds with the Outlaw US Empire. Today's Global Times Editorial makes
the following key observations:
"Major powers maintaining cooperation, at least not engaging in Cold War-style antagonism,
is the important foundation of world peace. China is committed to maintaining cooperation
among major powers, as well as being flexible in the balance of interests acceptable to all
parties. The problem is the Trump administration is hysterically shaping decoupling and
confrontation between Beijing and Washington, and has been mobilizing more forces to its side
at home and abroad. Those US policymakers are deliberately splitting the world like during
the Cold War.
"The impulse to promote a cold war is the ultimate version of unilateralism, and shows
dangerous and mistaken arrogance that the US is almighty. Everyone knows that the US is
declining in its competitiveness under the rules-based international system the US itself
initiated and created. It wants to build a new system more beneficial to itself, and allow
the US to maintain its advantage without making any effort. This is simply impossible."
My research is pointing me to conclude the First Cold War was contrived so the Outlaw US
Empire could impose privately owned finance and corporations and the political-economies
connected to them upon the world lest the collective forces that were the ones to actually
defeat Fascism gain control of their national governments and shape their political-economies
into the public/collectively owned realm where the benefits would flow to all people instead
of just the already powerful. That's also the intent of imposing a Second Cold War. Some seem
to think there's no ideological divide at play, but as I've ceaselessly explained there most
certainly is, thus the intense demonization of both Russia and China--the Strategic
Competition also is occurring in the realm of Ideas. And the only tools available for the
Outlaw US Empire to use are lies, since the truths involved would encourage any neutral
nation to join the Win-Win vision of China and Russia, not the Zero-sum bankruptcy pushed by
the Parasites controlling the Empire.
@ karlof1 | Sep 23 2020 15:56 utc | 84 and forward with the links and quotes...thanks
I do like the confirmation Pepe quote, thanks
It is sad to understand that much of the US population does not have the mental clarity to
see that Trump is no different than Biden when it comes to fealty to the God of Mammon. Way
too many Americans think that replacing Trump with Biden will make things all better.
The end of the rules based international order/global private finance cannot end soon
enough, IMO
Thanks for your reply! As I discussed with the Missus last night, IMO only the people
regaining control over the federal government can rescue themselves from the multiple
dilemmas they face--the most pressing being the Debt Bomb and control of the monetary and
fiscal systems by private entities as exemplified by the Federal Reserve and Wall Street,
both of which employ the Financial Parasites preying on the nation's body-politic. Undoing
all the past wrongs requires both Congress and the Executive be captured by The People who
can then write the laws to end the wrongs while arresting and prosecuting those responsible
for the last 20+ years of massive fraud. The biggest components would be ending the Federal
Reserve, Nationalizing all the fraudster banks, writing down the vast majority of debt, and
disbanding NATO thus ending the overseas empire. Those are the most fundamental steps
required for the USA to avoid the coming calamity brought about by the Neoliberals. I also
have finally developed my thesis on where, why and how that philosophy was developed and put
into motion.
The first 'Cold War' was entirely contrived. The US knew the Soviet Union was weak and had
no agenda beyond maintaining security and its own reconstruction after WW2. There was no
threat of a Western European invasion, or of the USSR spreading revolution globally. All that
Cold War ideology is a lie. And the same lying is taking place about China today. No
difference.
The key issues for the US were:
1. it needed western european capitalist states to buy US manufactured exports. Those
states had to remain capitalist and subordinate to the US, i.e. to avoid what Acheson called
'neutralism' in world politics.
2. the US wanted gradual decolonization of the British and French empires so that US firms
could access markets and resources in those same territories. but the US feared revolutionary
nationalism in the colonies and the potential loss of market access by the former colonial
powers, which would need resources from the post-colonial world to rebuild after WW2.
The key event which cemented the 'Cold War' in Europe was the division of Germany, which
Carolyn Eisenberg shows was entirely an American decision, in her important book, Drawing the
Line.
The driving force of all this, though, was the economic imperatives of US capitalism. The
US needed to restore and save capitalism in Western Europe and Japan, and the Cold War was
the ideological framework for doing so. The Cold War ideology also allowed the US to frame
its meddling in Korea, Guatemala, Iran, etc.
The late historian Gabriel Kolko wrote the best analyses of these issues. His work is much
better than the New Left 'revisionist' US historians.
I agree with your recap and second your appraisal of Gabriel Kolko. Eisenberg's work
somehow escaped my view but will no longer thanks to your suggestion.
But I see more to it all as the First Cold War had to occur to promote the
financialization of the USA's industrial Capitalism which began within the USA in 1913 and
was abruptly interrupted by the various market crashes, the failure of the international
payments system and subsequent massive deflation and Great Depression. A similar plan to
outsource manufactures to its colonies and commonwealth and financialize its economy was
began in the UK sometime after the end of the US Civil War. At the time in England, the
school of Classical Political-Economists and their political allies (CPE) were attempting to
rid the UK and the rest of Europe of the last vestiges of Feudalism that resided in the
Rentier and Banking Classes, the former being mostly populated by Royalty and its
retainers. Land Rent was the primary source of their income while it was the stated intent of
the CPE to change the tax burden from individuals and businesses to that of Land Rent and
other forms of Unearned Income. That movement came swiftly on the heels of the abolition of
the Slave Trade which was a vast source of Royal income. Recognizing this threat to the basis
of their wellbeing, the Royals needed to turn the tables but in such a manner where their
manipulation was secret because of the vast popularity of the CPE's agenda. Thus began the
movement to discredit the CPE and remove their ideas from discourse and later completely from
the history of political-economy. And there was another problem--German Banks and their
philosophy inspired by Bismarck to be totally supportive of German industry, which provided
the impetus for its own colonial pursuits primarily in Africa.
Within that paragraph is my thesis for the rise of Neoliberalism, much of which Dr. Hudson
documents but hasn't yet gotten to/revealed the root cause of the counter revolution against
the CPE. IMO, that reactionary movement underlies far more, particularly the growing
animosity between the UK and Germany from 1875 to 1914. As Eisenberg's research proves,
there's much more past to be revealed that helps to resolve how we arrived at the times we
now face.
Indeed, as Hudson and Max Keiser ask: Why pay taxes at all since the Fed can create all
the credit required. I've written about the pros and cons of Secession here before which are
quite similar to those existing in 1861. In Washington for example, how to deal with all the
Federal property located there. Just as Ft. Sumter didn't belong to South Carolina, the many
military bases there don't belong to Washington. Trying to seize it as the South Carolinians
attempted in 1861 merely creates the casus belli sought by Trump. Now if you could get the
vast majority of the military stationed in Washington to support your cause, your odds of
resisting would greatly improve.
IMO, trying to regain public control over the Federal government would be much easier.
Thank you brother karlof1, YES, the minotaur indeed but where is Theseus and Ariadne when
we need them? Please don't tell me that Biden and Harris are the 'chosen ones' - that would mock the
legend and prove that the gods are truly crazy :))
It seems to me that a review is required, that we need to turn back the clock to an earlier
analysis whose veracity has only been boosted by subsequent events. So here from
2011: "On November 3, 2011, Alan Minsky interviewed me on KPFK's program, 'Building a
Powerful Movement in the United States' in preparation for an Occupy L.A. teach-in." Here's a
brief excerpt to remind people what this is all about:
"Once people realize that they're being screwed, that's a pre-revolutionary situation.
It's a situation where they can get a lot of sympathy and support, precisely by not doing
what The New York Times and the other papers say they should do: come up with some neat
solutions. They don't have to propose a solution because right now there isn't one –
without changing the system with many, many changes. So many that it's like a new
Constitution. Politics as well as the economy need to be restructured. What's developing now
is how to think about the economic and political problems that are bothering people. It is
not radical to realize that the economy isn't working. That is the first stage to realizing
that a real alternative is needed. We've been under a radical right-wing attack – and
need to respond in kind. The next half-year probably will be spent trying to spell out what
the best structure would be."
It's good to see discussion here of the nefarious role of the American far-right neocon
warmongers in the State Department, intelligence services and military leadership just before
the turn of the new century. What I have never seen clearly explained, however, is the
connection between these very dangerous forces and the equally cynical and reactionary
Israeli politicians and the Mossad, as well as Saudi Arabian officials.
Like many others, I
have been slowly won over to the position that the attacks of 9-11, and especially the
totally unprecedented collapses of the three WTC towers, could only have been caused by the
precisely timed explosion of previously installed demolition materials containing nanothermite. But if one accepts that position the immediately subsequent question is "Who
planned and carried out the attacks?" Many people have claimed it was the Mossad, others that
it was the Mossad in concert with the US neocons etc., -- many of whom were Israeli/US dual
citizens -- but even now, so many years after the horrific events, I can find no coherent
account of how such conspirators, or any others for that matter, might actually have carried
out WTC building demotions. Do any of you know of sources on the matter that have made good
progress on connecting the dots and explaining what precisely happened -- the easier part --
and how exactly it was carried out, by whom, and how they have managed to get away with it
for all this time?
Lieven: If the US (and the UK, if as usual we tag along) approach the relationship with
Beijing with anything like the combination of arrogance, ignorance, greed, criminality,
bigotry, hypocrisy and incompetence with which western elites managed the period after the
Cold War, then we risk losing the competition and endangering the world.[my emphasis]
Uncle Tungsten: Lieven simply does not see it. Has it ever occurred to Lieven that
colonialism just might be rejected by both Russia and China and that there might be no
competition? Does Lieven watch too much football?
What is it that endangers the world in Lieven's petite cortex?
-------
It is clear to me that Tungsten does not understand Lieven because Lieven does not cross all
t's and dot all i's. There can be two reasons for Lieven style: (1) a British style, leaving
some conclusions to the reader, it is not elegant to belabor the obvious (2) Lieven works in
a pro-Western feudal state and that particular piece appeared in a neo-liberal outfit where
it is already a clear outlier toward (what I see as) common sense. Neo-liberals view
themselves as liberals, "tolerating a wide spectrum of opinion", but with clear limits about
the frequency and content for the outliers of their tolerance.
Back to "endangering the world", how "loosing competition to China" can result in huge
mayhem? I guess that Tungsten is a little dense here. The sunset of Anglo-Saxon domination
can seem like the end of the world for the "members" of that domination. But a longer
historical perspective can offer a much darker vision of the future. First, there is a clash
of two blocks, one with superior industrial production, domination of markets of assorted
goods -- both as importer and exporter, etc, the other with still superior military
technology and combative spirit.
Recall (or check) the situation in east Asia ca. 1240 AD. One of the major power was Song
China, after a calamitous defeat roughly 300 years later, diminished Song China succeeded in
developing all kinds of practical and beautiful goods and vibrant commerce while having quite
inept military. The second major power was the Mongols. You can look up the rest.
USA stresses the military types of pressures, and seeing its position slipping too far,
they may resort to a series of gigantic "provocations" -- from confiscation of property by
fiat, like they did to Venezuela, to piracy on open seas, no cargoes can move without their
approval and tribute, from there things can escalate toward nuclear war.
More generally, western decline leads to decrease of wealth affecting the lower classes
first but gradually reaching higher, enmity toward competitors, then hatred, such processes
can have dire consequences.
Importantly, these are speculations, so stopping short of spelling them out is reasonable.
However, give some credit to Lieven for "the combination of arrogance, ignorance, greed,
criminality, bigotry, hypocrisy and incompetence with which western elites managed the period
after the Cold War".
On the rule-based world order. Scattered thoughts.
The article by Lieven was good in one aspect: it at least mentioned the crazy economic
template aka imho 'religion' that lead to a part of this mess. For the rest, hmm. The 'rules based international order' was always pretty much a phoney scaffold, used for
presentation to hide, cover up, legitimised many goings on (after WW2 I mean.)
Like a power-point extolling xyz product, with invented or 'massaged' charts and all.,
with tick boxes for what it positive or followed. (Fairness, Democracy, etc. etc. as
'Natural' 'Organic' etc. Total BS.)
In these kinds of discussions I am always reminded of the 'rights of the child' which in
CH are taught in grade 3-5, with a boiled down text, logo type pix, etc. It is very tough on
teachers, and they often only pretend to push the content. There are many immigrant children
in CH and the natives know that the 'rights' are not respected and not just in 'jungles'
(anarchist / animalistic hot spots) as they say. The kids go nuts - as they still more or
less believe that they 'have a voice' as it called -- the parents follow the kids, lotsa
troubles. OK, these are aspirations - but 'democracy' (purposely used as a calling card
following advice from a well-know ad agency..) is so as well. And presenting aspirations that
can't possibly be achieved in any way, when not a smiley joke about meeting God or flying to
Mars, and is socially important, is not well received.
Anyway, since the invasion of Iraq (totally illegal according to any standards) leading to
the biggest demos in the world ever, a loud indignant cry, which invasion the UN condoned,
ppl (in my experience, in CH, F, It) no longer have a shred of belief in 'international
rules'. Which of course makes them more 'nationalist' in the sense of acting in the
community, close at hand, as the Intl order is a shit-scene.
"... In pretending to be the statesman to bring China to heel, this gangster of a statesman manifested the loss of diplomatic skill almost for good. ..."
"... The scheme smells of rotten fish and there's an attempt to deflect attention from the real problem which centers on a corrupt 'secret society' of jurists. The right waves its hands in our faces while the left plunges the knives in our backs. Who are Donald Trump's handlers? ..."
A number of recent document releases shine new lights on 'Russiagate'. That conspiracy
theory, peddled by the Obama administration, the Democratic Party aligned media and 'deep
state' actors opposed to President Trump, alleged that Trump was in cahoots with Russia. The
disinformation campaign had the purpose of sabotaging his presidency.
To some extend it has worked as intended. But due to the legal investigation of the whole
affair much more is now known about those who conspired against Trump. Some of them are likely
to end up in legal jeopardy.
Some of those are the agents under FBI director Comey who used the easily debunked Steele
dossier, paid for by the Democratic party, to gain a FISA court warrants that allowed them to
spy on the Trump campaign. It now turns out that the main source for the dossier they used was
a shady actor who the FBI
had earlier investigated for an alleged connection to Russian intelligence:
The primary sub-source for the Steele dossier was the subject of an earlier
counterintelligence investigation by the FBI, and those facts were known to the Crossfire
Hurricane team as early as December 2016, according to newly released records from the
Justice Department that were first reported by CBS News.
The timing matters because the dossier was first used two months earlier, in October 2016,
to help secure a surveillance warrant for former Trump campaign aide Carter Page, and then
used in three subsequent surveillance renewals.
"Between May 2009 and March 2011, the FBI maintained an investigation into the individual
who later would be identified as Christopher Steele's Primary Sub-source," the two page FBI
memo states. "The FBI commenced this investigation based on information by the FBI indicating
that the Primary Sub-source may be a threat to national security."
That the Steele dossier was potentially based on the words of a Russian spy should have been
a red flag against its use. It seems that the FBI had not informed the FISA court about the
dubious sourcing of the dossier allegations.
Igor Danchenko, the premier sub-source for the Steele dossier, had
earlier worked for the Democrat affiliate Brookings Institute:
Danchenko worked at the time as a Russia analyst for the Brookings Institution, a prominent
liberal foreign policy think tank.
An employee of the think tank said that another employee, seemingly Danchenko, told others
that if they got jobs in the government and obtained classified security clearances, they
might be put them in touch with people so they could "make a little extra money."
"The coworker did express suspicion of the employee and had questioned the possibility
that the employee might actually be a Russian spy," the FBI memo says.
Danchenko may or may not have been a Russian spy. But the fact the FBI had once opened a
full counter-intelligence investigation of him which was never concluded shines a very bad
light on the dossier peddlers.
Shortly before Trump was inaugurated the Obama administration released an 'Intelligence
Community Assessment', concocted by hand-selected agents under CIA director John Brennan, that
claimed that Russia hade preferred Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. That had never made
sense. Clinton was a well known factor to the Kremlin while Trump was a wild card that
potentially would cause chaos - which is what he ended up doing. It only now turns out that
several CIA analysts had come to that conclusion but that there thinking was excluded from the published analysis :
Former CIA Director John Brennan personally edited a crucial section of the intelligence
report on Russian interference in the 2016 election and assigned a political ally to take a
lead role in writing it after career analysts disputed Brennan's take that Russian leader
Vladimir Putin intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump clinch the White House ,
according to two senior U.S. intelligence officials who have seen classified materials
detailing Brennan's role in drafting the document.
The explosive conclusion Brennan inserted into the report was used to help justify
continuing the Trump-Russia "collusion" investigation, which had been launched by the FBI in
2016. It was picked up after the election by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who in the end
found no proof that Trump or his campaign conspired with Moscow.
The Obama administration publicly released a declassified version of the report -- known
as the "Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent
Elections (ICA)" -- just two weeks before Trump took office, casting a cloud of suspicion
over his presidency. Democrats and national media have cited the report to suggest Russia
influenced the 2016 outcome and warn that Putin is likely meddling again to reelect
Trump.
The ICA is a key focus of U.S. Attorney John Durham's ongoing investigation into the
origins of the "collusion" probe. He wants to know if the intelligence findings were juiced
for political purposes.
Around the same time the ICA was written FBI agents involved in the anti-Trump investigation
were messaging each other about Russiagate issues. A
new release of parts of their conversations is
quite damaging :
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents tasked by fired former Director James Comey to
take down Donald Trump during and after the 2016 election were so concerned about the
agency's potentially illegal behavior that they purchased liability insurance to protect
themselves less than two weeks before Trump was inaugurated president, previously hidden FBI
text messages show. The explosive new communications and internal FBI notes were disclosed in
federal court filings today from Sidney Powell, the attorney who heads Michael Flynn's legal
defense team.
...
The new disclosures made by DOJ also show that the FBI used so-called national security
letters (NSLs) to spy on Flynn's finances. Unlike traditional subpoenas, which require
judicial review and approval before authorities can seize an innocent person's property and
information, NSLs are never independently reviewed by courts. One of the agents noted in a
text message that the NSLs were just being used as a pretext by FBI leadership to buy time to
find dirt on Flynn after the first investigation of him yielded no derogatory
information.
...
In one series of texts sent the same day as the infamous Jan. 5 Oval Office meeting between
Obama, Biden, Comey, Sally Yates, and Susan Rice , one agent admits that "Trump was right"
when he tweeted that the FBI was delaying his briefings as incoming president so they could
cook up evidence against him. As The Federalist first reported last May, that Jan. 5 meeting
was the key to understanding the entire anti-Trump operation run out of Obama's FBI.
"The 'Intelligence' briefing on so-called 'Russian hacking' was delayed until Friday,
perhaps more time needed to build a case," Trump tweeted on January 3. "Very strange!"
Brennan's 'Intelligence Community Assessment' was published on January 5. The White House
round also led to a renewal of the investigation of Trump's incoming National Security Advisor
General Michael Flynn. That investigation, codenamed 'razor', had had no results and was
supposed to be closed. The FBI agents did not like the White House plans at all:
"So razor is going to stay open???" an agent wrote on Jan. 5.
"[Y]ep," another FBI agent responded. "[C]rimes report being drafted."
"F," the first agent wrote back.
"[W]hat's the word on how [Obama's] briefing went?" one agent asked, referring to the Jan.
5 meeting.
"Dont know but people here are scrambling for info to support certain things and its a mad
house," an FBI agent responded.
"[J]esus," an agent wrote back. "[T]rump was right. [S]till not put together . why do we
do this to ourselves. [W]hat is wrong with these people[?]
Last but not least the Durham investigation into the FBI's operation against Trump released
a
protocol of an interview with an FBI agent who was
involved in the investigation against General Flynn and in the later Mueller investigation
against Trump:
A 13-page summary of an interview with Flynn case agent William Barnett, made public in a
court filing by prosecutors just before midnight Thursday, [..] revealed that the veteran
agent harbored deep doubts and skepticism about the merits of the investigation into Flynn's
potential ties with Russia -- at least in its early stages -- and questioned the Mueller
team's tactics in the broader probe of the Trump campaign's contacts with Russians, known as
Crossfire Hurricane.
Though Barnett said he repeatedly expressed those doubts to colleagues and superiors --
and says he feared groupthink and a "get Trump" attitude was driving the investigation
forward -- he continued to be included in the work of Mueller's attorneys during sensitive
interviews.
All together those releases by the Justice Department and the new reports again demonstrate
that there was no legit Russiagate and no reason to investigate the Trump campaign. It was all
a conspiracy theory concocted to make it more difficult for Trump to pursue the policies he had
advocated during his election campaign.
It was even more than that. Mike Whitney is right in calling it an illicit coup
attempt. Obama, his éminence grise John Brennan, and all those willing minions who were
part of it should be in jail.
If all the energy wasted on peddling Russiagate had instead been used to push real political
alternatives to Trump's programs the Democrats and their voters would likely be in a better
position.
Posted by b on September 25, 2020 at 16:52 UTC |
Permalink
The significance of the FBI opening a counterintelligence file on Danchenko based on one item
of gossip depends entirely upon how many such files it opens on such evidence. The
significance of the file staying open depends on how quickly the FBI closes such files. My
knowledge, such as it is, is that the FBI is quick to open "investigations" on any evidence,
including simple gossip and habitually leaves them open to provide an opening for later
pursuit (i.e., a serious investigation) if it wishes. That is, the claim the source is
tainted is very weak. The added conclusion that a tainted source cannot provide correct
information means essentially no informant subject to a possible criminal charge should serve
as motive for an investigation. This is an absurdity, indulged as special pleading for Trump.
The argument reduces to, "Danchenko" is a Russian, thus may be a Russian spy. This kind of
nonsense is what many Democrats rely on, ironically.
The claim that of course it would make no sense for Putin et al. to favor Trump because
Clinton was a "known quantity" is shameless nonsense. If the quantity known is a relentless
hostility, even the unknown Trump would promise the chance of a more favorable US foreign
policy. There are two further points here. First, the tacit admission that Putin didn't get a
favorable outcome from Trump concedes all claims about Trump's less warlike, more pacific
foreign policy are more shameless nonsense. Second, the phony logic offered to defend Trump
proves Trump has always had significant support in the so-called Deep State. Brennan may have
had other motives in editing this BS out, but no one will ever prove it wasn't dropped
because it was blatantly stupid pro-Trump twaddle.
Similarly, the breathless report of January 5 meeting ignores how James Comey, a man
notorious for intervening in the election by announcing yet another nothingburger
investigation into email servers, was part of the meeting. It simply was not a meeting of
Obama conspirators. The indignant comments by disloyal FBI agents merely concedes again that
the supposed Deep State conspiracy was also in favor of Trump. I have no idea why Deep State
conspirators favoring Trump would buy liability insurance against being charged with
conspiring *against* Trump. Pretending their actions were justified by the pro-Democratic
Party faction of the Deep State could easily impel them to make things look better. I would
really like to see the actual terms of the policy, though. I suspect it was meant to cover
their asses if they were called out by their boss Comey for violating confidentiality,
playing partisan politics on the job, all manner of illegal and immoral acts.
The inclusion of a vocal Trump defender in the Mueller investigation of Flynn ("at least
in the early stages...") is not, *not,* *NOT,* an indication of hanky panky. It is evidence
of an honest investigation. Though hardly conclusive evidence, trying to pretend it is proof
of the opposite is a shameless perversion of reason.
Trumpery, Trumpery, Trumpery.
Even the seemingly high-minded conclusion about pushing real political alternatives to
Trump's programs fails to merit respect. There is only a limited amount of disagreement on
policy issues between Trump (and his Republic Party---not a democracy!---tail) and the
Democratic Party. Trumpery about how there is a real difference of principle driving the Deep
State conspiracy is unbelievable even when spouting more Trumpery.
PS Real evidence for Obama's anti-Trump campaign would be about how he encouraged Clinton to
contest Trump's loss of the vote. She had vastly more ground for refusing to concede than
Trump does. And unlike this BS, this anti-Trump campaign doesn't violate any laws or even
regulations. It would even be a principled stand for majority rule. Every single person who
upheld the legitimacy of minority rule because, Electoral College, is dedicated to Trump's
legitimacy. Rube Goldberg conspiracy theories purporting to show Trump is a victim of the
Deep State determined to fight his salvation of humanity are refuted by this alone.
True enough. Luckily for us, that was just the beginning of their increasingly bizzare
behavior. It's been quite a show so far, and they haven't even finished figuring out how to
hang this election yet...
More to come, surely.
Good article B.
Thanks again.
So we are to believe that Russia can't kill their targets and that the US Deep State can't
prevent an unwanted "populist" from being President despite the ease of manipulating the USA
money-driven selection of a President?
Really?
Well, it was NOT an "anti-Trump campaign". It was an anti-Russia campaign flavored with
"Trump is a populist!" sweetener.
Because the US Deep State WANTED to initiate a new McCarthyism AND to elect MAGA
Nationalist Trump.
Obama himself was a Deep-State approved faux populist Presidential stooge that
conducted secret wars and betrayed his 'base' to advance the interests of the establishment.
Trump is merely the Republican Obama.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
The US Presidency is the lynchpin of the Empire. No true "populist outsider" will EVER be
allowed to occupy that office.
It's difficult to fathom why smart people can't see this.
If all the energy wasted on peddling Russiagate had instead been used to push real
political alternatives to Trump's programs the Democrats and their voters would likely be in
a better position.
The Ds defeated that possibility when they conspired to derail Sanders and promote
Clinton. As a result, Obama's legacy is Trump. But there was a Deep State faction pulling
Obama's strings that's likely supporting the attempt to foment a domestic Color Revolution,
yet for the life of me I can't see why as all the grifters are getting billions--unless--it's
perceived that Trump's stalled their imperialist projects or stopped what they hoped to
accomplish via JCPOA. In other words, we need a better motive for Russiagate than the mere
disruption of Trump's administration.
The Nexus is Ukraine, where the DNC, Obama and others were heavily involved with corruption,
money into their pockets and money laundered for campaign uses, illegally brought back into
the US.
It was never Russia or Russians. It was always the Podesta-Clinton-Obama operatives and
their true believers in FBI and DOJ, working with the Russophobes in NGOs and the State
Dept.
The desperation as Trump became a real possible President and then an actual elected
President was to cover their crimes in Ukraine and the illegal actions to spy on Trump and
set up Trump campaign associates.
The difficult call now is how high up do the present investigators have cover to save the
institutions of the FBI and DOJ? A real take down would go to Obama, Biden, Clapper, Comey,
Brennan, Podesta, Clinton and all their lieutenants. It would collapse the CIA, State, FBI,
DOJ, and all the lying experts on Russia who perjured to Congress.
Red Ryder gets it -- Ukraine is the specific catalyst, linked to the New Cold War against
Russia and the corruption of the Democrats involved in that conflict.
There is also Flynn and his dirt on Obama's Syria/ISIS policy -- remember his Al Jazeera
interview about Obama's "wilful decision" to ignore DIA reports on ISIS. Flynn knows the US
and its allies had some kind of links to ISIS and Nusra Front (Al Qaeda) in Syria.
And there is also the more general concern, raised by Karlof1, about the Presidency and
the empire.
I have been reading and nodding in agreement with Mike Whitney since his work started showing
up on counterpunch. Does counterpunch still feature his work? My guess is not. Mike Whitney
is a full-blown unapologetic Trump-defender and has consistently and very clearly shown that
the recent BLM and urban riots are entirely funded and sewn by Democratic-party alligned
elite.
I'm glad b can agree with some things the above writer has put-forth. I wonder if b knows
about the den of vipers brooding here at the bar, spouting off about white-supremacists and
other fictions designed to obfuscate the clear and present danger to our duly-elected POTUS
and to render his supporters as racist fascists.
I wish b would just come out and say it. There is a real difference btw the two options on
Nov. 3. Yes, both parties are elites and not in any way to be given cart blanche with our
trust, but only one party has proven that it has attempted to usurp our democracy, infiltrate
and hijack and make partisan the checks and balances of our government and FBI, and call 50%
of the population "deplorables."
My only question to the idiots still holding onto their noble quest of dethroning POTUS
because he is immoral: what do you think will happen after? At some point it becomes
imperative for you to think about that and wonder if DJT really is the only one standing btw
the people and utter tyranny.
I found this barb delivered by Lavrov during his presser with Zarif I linked to on the open
thread to be very curious when thought about in the context of Russiagate:
"The fact that the United States has threatened to impose sanctions on those who defy the
American interpretation of the current situation serves as further proof of Washington's
desire to move like a bull in a china shop, putting ultimatums to everyone and punishing
everyone indiscriminately because, in my view, the incumbent US administration has lost
its diplomatic skills almost for good ." [My Emphasis]
Red Ryder @8 & profk @10 connect Ukraine and the outing of the Empire's role in the
creation of Daesh. Yes, it seems much is related to Russia's Phoenix-like rise and outwitting
the Empire's buffoons beginning in 2013 that's generated the above behavior noted by Lavrov.
If TrumpCo does get a second term, unless the entire foreign policy team is dumped and
replaced, its agenda will go nowhere other than further into the hole they've dug for
themselves over the past 20 years--almost every nation is now against Bush's USA as many now
know who the terrorists really are and where they live.
What if the goal of 2016 election was to set up the 2020 American color revolution? If so
Trump needed to win. Obama and the FBI did the groundwork here at home. There is some debate
if the first Trump dossier was actually the second one to cover for the Cody Shearer one that
was given to Strobe Talbot to give to Christopher Steele. Still it had the same goal as to
foster doubt about the legitimacy of 2016 that is currently culminating with the gun toting,
fire bombing hissy fit of the children of liberal privilege. Now if those blasted supreme
righties would just show up, and the whole thing can go really hot like it did in Ukraine,
Libya, Egypt, almost Syria, and any country I might be forgetting. Notice the Trump
administration is parroting the left's white supremacist conspiracy. Its all really bad
theater, but does anyone really care the crumbing infrastructure and the looming economic
collapse when you can instead root for your team. Yes, I am guilty of the later too. Added
bonus we already have a twofer of enemies (Russian and China) for yet another elitist war.
I very doubt that it was "Russiagate" who make it difficult for Trump to pursue the policies
he had been advocating during his election campaign...In fact, "Russiagate" has long ago been
debunked and we have not seen Trump worrying a bit about the average American Joe, most
flagrant during this pandemic...I doubt he would had behaved different were the "Russiagate"
to have never existed..
Simply, electoral "promises" almost never are fullfilled in the already dating decades
neoliberal order, both from the right or the "alleged" liberal left...
On the same grounds, we could affirm then that conspiracy theories about Obama´s
birth place made it difficult for Obama to pursue the policies he had been advocating during
his election campaign....
That Trump has ties to Russian oligarchs is, to my view, out of doubt for anyone following
a bit some writers who use to deeply research their analyses out there like John Helmer....
That these oligarchas had anything to do, in this respect, with the Kremlin, it is doubtful,
but highly likely related to business shenanigans amongst them and Trump & Co...related
to illegal bribes and money laundering...
What have been largely proved is that Trump and his administration have been using big
data management corporations and social networks engineering to manipulate elections and give
coups eveywhere ( as the thorough research I posted at the Week in Review leaves in evidence
it happened in several countries in Latin America , which leads us to suspect that they would
not resist the desire to use the same methods in the US...before...and after the 2016
elections...having Bannon ad chief of campaign and then as chief of staff in 2016 so as that
does not add for tranquility, with what legal methods is respected for achieving whatever
goal..as the last events have clearly showed...
It was during Trump´s mandate that the war on Yemen continued towards total
erradication of Yemenis, especially of Shia belief, by indiscriminate bombing and blockade of
essential goods...that Qasem Soleimani was murdered without any justified reason...that NATO
started a cheeky build up in Russian borders who remained still free of it...that the US
withdrew from most international agreements leaving US/Russia, US/Iran, US/LatinAmerican
relations at its lowest levels, by underminig any remaining trust...Trump reinstated and made
even harsher sanctions against everybody who was not already a "puppet regime", including
Venezuela, Cuba, Argentina, Russia, Iran, China, and, even looping the loop, against puppet
governments in the EU...
I very doubt it was Russiagate which kept him from releasing his tax records as requested
by governance transparecny, returning the ammounts of money defrauded in the "University
Loans" affair, clarifying his ties to Epstein network, stopping sowing hatred and divide
amongst US population, build the most world wide network of far-right extremists since post
WWII around the world but especially in Europe to undermine what of "democracy" remains left,
labeled and declared as "terrorists" any political party abroad who does not go along and
oppose his puppet government´s corrupt policies anywhere, lit the Middle East on fire
by continuously provoking Iran, Lebanon, Syria, sent his regime envoys to the EU to twist arm
so that the European countries dedicate more budget to buy provedly ineffective arms from the
US when the money is most needed for socio-economic and health issues in the middle of a
pandemic, not to mention the requisition of health supplies´ cargos in the very Chinese
tarmac which had been previously ordered and bought by European countries which needed them
urgently, criminalized, and tried to label them as second cathegory citizens, a great part of
US population of non-white foreign descent through whose hard work and shameful labor
conditions US thrived along all these decades, well, you name it, the list would be almost
for a book...or two...
To blame all this mess on "Russiagate" is, well, in the best case, underestimating the
readership here...
Oh please, b: "legal jeopardy", don't make me laugh. It's been four years . The whole
political part of Trump's career he's been under the tutelage of mafia consigliere Roy Cohn.
Even better known, he's flown on the Lolita Express, and the FBI has a trove of videos etc
from Epstein's safe (hmm, what else does the latter have in common with Roy Cohn besides the
Trump connection). Bottom line, he's a deeply compromised individual who's concluded long
ago, and correctly, that he's in over his head and better off just playing along. He's had no
reservations appointing professional Russophobes like Fiona Hill; in fact, which of his
appointees has not been a Cold Warrior besides perhaps T-Rex, who was a mere Venezuela
hawk because of some old Exxon bad blood, and who was quickly ditched anyway. Even now, his
own FBI director spouts RussiaGate red meat, and the Donald is doing squat about it.
What does it all matter to Trump? He doesn't have a good name to clear. He didn't run for
president expecting to win, let alone to carry out this or that specific program. This
Vale Tudo carnival atmosphere clearly suits him: if his opponents can make baseless
accusations, so can he. If they can expect to skate beyond some meaningless fall guys, so can
he. To actually uphold the law--it's just not how he rolls.
Had he mostly contented himself with playing president on TV and enjoying the perks of the
office, and understood you can't just let a pandemic kill off your own voters, all would've
been dandy. But, predictably, his ego got the better of him, and he just had to be the
statesman who was finally going to bring China to heel. Again, merely tweeting about it
could've been ignored, but by appointing an array of rabid ideologues who went to work on
"decoupling", he's sided with a Deep State which will hate him regardless, against
Corporate America which went into China to, you know, make money. In this way, he's made
himself enemies a Republican can ill afford; combine this with his personal style (or lack of
it), and just about nobody has his back any more. So the machine goes about purging this
alien body from its system.
when do the American people get to investigate Truman, Ike, John McCain, JFK, Johnson, Bush,
Obama, FBI, Trump, 9/11, CIA, invasion of Iraq, wall street, the US Treasury, the military,
Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and the like..?
,==He did it==> he did not do it, <=someone else did it, ==>avoids the basic
problem:
America has a government that
a.) conducts wars to protect the economic interest of its favored few.
b.) uses law , to grant feudal lords wealth creating by extracting bits of wealth from
Americans.
c.) conducts nearly all its affairs in classified secret..
d.) is un accountable for the money it spends.
e.) is un accountable for the genocides it conducts in foreign lands.
f.) has two crime families which divide and conquer the citizens to control all election
outcomes
g.) has given to private bankers, its power to print money, control the economy, and tax the
people.
h.) has not adhered to the Bill of Rights or the un amended constitution.
i.) refuses to require private media to speak only the truth.
j.) Refuses to comply with and orto enforce the 1st and 4th amendment<=papers and effects
t/b secure
expand this list as you like
and
Americans have
a.) no access to the USA. <= 3 votes, insolation of state or voting district,
out 527 positions don't get it & none for the President
b.) must pay to the USA taxes and have no input as to how such taxes are collected or
used,
c.) must register their presence to the USA with id numbers
d.) must obey USA laws which Americans had no say in writing, or passing.
e.) must endure foreign wars and domestic programs that serve no legitimate domestic
interest.
expand this list as you like.
You are onto something there...I do not recall whose US think tank analyse I read about US
youth tending ideologically to the left...the same could be said of any youth around the
world after they have been left without future prospect and past opportunities to rise
through the social ladder by rampant savage neoliberal capitalism...
I said at the time that the Ukrainian experiment of 2014 was a general dressed rehearsal
for a future planned authoritarian fascist rule in most of the world, especially the West,
once the prospects, already known by the elites, of collapsing capitalism are obvious for the
general public and cause the consequent uprising..It is in this context that the pandemic and
its sudden impoverishing outcome fits, along with the "orchestrated" violent riots at various
locations, to justify martial law...
Notice that "rewritting of history of WWII" in favor of fascism is a feature of any US
administration since the fall of the USSR...
Past days I read that Roger Stone, former Trump advisor, if i am not wrong also implied in
a corruption case, advised Trump to declare martial law after winning in Novemeber...It is in
that context that all the noise we have been hearing all these past months about the riots,
militias, coups, and so on fit...What we have not heard about is about hundreds of thousands
of evictions, inacabable line ups for food banks, and the total socio-economic disaster more
than anything willingly built by TPTB...
Recal that they "built their own reality, and when you are catching up with that reality,
they build another one"...
Right on money, man! I can't help but chuckle and recall a quote from Agatha Christie's
A Mirror Crack'd : "Yes, you can see her. You seem to-understand her very well." Here,
change 'her' to 'him' and you pretty much summed up how Trump stumbling into that house on
Penn Ave. and his antics in office since. In pretending to be the statesman to bring China to
heel, this gangster of a statesman manifested the loss of diplomatic skill almost for
good.
Chances are he stands a good chance of stumbling into the same office again in Nov. Heaven
help the US of A in diplomacy for the next four years.
Old and Grumpy @14: "What if the goal of 2016 election was to set up the 2020 American
color revolution?"
But to what end? If you can control the outcome of the election sufficiently to pick the
winner, then what point does a color revolution serve? You put a candidate in office just so
that you can then remove him with a coup? This just injects tremendous expense and
uncertainty into the management of the empire.
I realize that there are some who are deeply invested in the notion that the establishment
wanted a Trump win, despite all of the opposition from them that Trump ended up facing, but
it makes no sense. PNAC , the former
roadmap for the empire, is now all but dead and the establishment is grudgingly falling in
line behind the hail-mary play of a "Great Reset" . Most of the empire's proxies in
Syria have been wiped out, the US influence in Libya is likewise mostly gone, and Myanmar is
slipping away. Venezuela is still holding their own against the empire. The "Pivot to
Asia" is spinning in place and going nowhere fast, and Russia and China are
diplomatically outmaneuvering the US before the eyes of the rest of the world. This is
definitely not where the elites wanted things to end up four years after 2016.
The efforts to foster a color revolution in the US are just signs of panicked desperation.
It is not what they were aiming for in 2016.
Assuming your question is rhetorical, no it isn't. My question is whether or not the FISA
court is culpable in this event. While we repeat the mantra that the FBI didn't inform the
court about the dubious source, it is apparent to me the court failed in proper diligence.
The scheme smells of rotten fish and there's an attempt to deflect attention from the real
problem which centers on a corrupt 'secret society' of jurists. The right waves its hands in
our faces while the left plunges the knives in our backs. Who are Donald Trump's
handlers?
"recent BLM and urban riots are entirely funded and sewn by Democratic-party alligned
elite."
Prove it. Perhaps you're confusing the DNC BLM national organization withe the autonomous
BLM actions in the streets. Two very different animals.
Your problem is that you still think the two parties are separate entities. There is only
one party in this country, the Property Party, and it has two right wings, the Democrats and
the Republicans.
"At some point it becomes imperative for you to think about that and wonder if DJT really
is the only one standing btw the people and utter tyranny."
Only morons wonder about such things. No one here wants to read your delusional Qanon/MAGA
bullshit.
The fact that large part of population consider Democratic leadership criminal and anther
part Trump administration criminal is a new factor in 2020 elections. Look like neoliberal Dems
made another blunder in unleashing American Maidan in those circumstances.
Thanks to Judge Emmet Sullivan refusing the DOJ's request to drop the Michael Flynn case, a
cache of explosive documents has now been released to the public revealing that at least one
FBI agent on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team thought the case was a politically motivated
"dead end," and others bought professional liability insurance as their bosses were continuing
the investigation based on " conspiracy theories. "
In one case, FBI agent William J. Barnett said
during a Sept. 17 interview that he believed Mueller's prosecution of Flynn was part of an
attitude to "get Trump," and that he didn't want to pursue the Trump-Russia collusion
investigation because it was "not there" and a "dead end," according to
Fox News .
Barnett, during his interview, detailed his work at the FBI, and his assignment to the
bureau's original cases against Flynn and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.
Barnett said the Flynn investigation was assigned the code name "Crossfire Razor," which was
part of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation -- the bureau's code name for the original
Trump-Russia probe.
Barnett told investigators that he thought the FBI's Trump-Russia probe was "opaque" and
"with little detail concerning specific evidence of criminal events."
" Barnett thought the case theory was 'supposition on supposition,'" the 302 stated, and
added that the "predication" of the Flynn investigation was "not great, " and that it "was
not clear" what the "persons opening the case wanted to 'look for or at.'"
After six weeks of investigating, Barnett said he was "still unsure of the basis of the
investigation concerning Russia and the Trump campaign working together , without a specific
criminal allegation." -
Fox News
When Barnett approached agents about what they thought the 'end game' was with Flynn -
suggesting they interview the former National Security Adviser "and the case be closed unless
derogatory information was obtained," he was cautioned not to conduct an interview, as it may
tip Flynn off that he was under investigation.
"Barnett still did not see any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the
Russian government," the 302 states. "Barnett was willing to follow any instructions being
given by the deputy director as long as it was not a violation of the law."
Insurance over "conspiracy theories"?
Another revelation from documents in the Flynn case comes in the form of text messages
released on Thursday in which agents bought liability insurance, fearing they would be sued
over an investigation into Flynn based on "conspiracy theories."
"We all went and purchased professional liability insurance," one analyst texted on Jan. 10,
2017 - 10 days before Trump was inaugurated, according to
Just The News .
"Holy crap," responded a colleague. "All of the analysts too?"
"Yep," replied the first analyst. "All the folks at the Agency as well."
"Can I ask who are the most likely litigators?" responded a colleague. "As far as
potentially suing y'all."
"Haha, who knows .I think the concern when we got it was that there was a big leak at DOJ
and the NYT among others was going to do a piece," the first analyst texted back.
NEVER
MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The explosive messages were attached to a new filing by Flynn's attorney Sidney Powell,
who argued to the court that is considering dismissing her client's guilty plea that the
emails show "stunning government misconduct" and "wrongful prosecution."
A hearing is scheduled for next Tuesday.
" There was no case against General Flynn ," Powell wrote in the new motion. " There was
no crime. The FBI and the prosecutors knew that. This American hero and his entire family
have suffered for four years from public abuse, slander, libel, and all means of defamation
at the hands of the very government he pledged his life to defend." -
Just The News
Thanks to Judge Sullivan's hatred of Flynn, the world now knows how much more corrupt the
Mueller investigation was.
ay_arrow
novictim , 1 minute ago
"We all went and purchased professional liability insurance," one analyst texted on
Jan. 10, 2017 - 10 days before Trump was inaugurated, according to
Just The News .
Ok.
BUT NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THESE PROTECTORS OF THE CONSTITUTION BLEW THE WHISTLE.
None of these FBI agents seeing egregious abuse of power by the FBI leveled at a
decorated Lt. Gen. had the moral fortitude to stand up and say "NO!". They all hated Trump
so much that they simply bought protection insurance for themselves.
FIRE ALL OF THEM.
play_arrow
J J Pettigrew , 2 minutes ago
A soft coup attempt...
does this qualify as "swaying an election"? Like the 2018 election that gave the House
to the Dems and Pelosi her power?
Or is this an attempt to flip an election from 2016?
They always accuse others of that which they themselves are guilty...ALWAYS. At least
they let us know what they are up to. Like who is in bed with Russian oligarchs.....Hunter
gets the 3.5 million
play_arrow
Everybodys All American , 6 minutes ago
Judge Sullivan has no choice. If he does not drop this case now then he is in serious
violation of the law in a big time way. Anything is possible from this idiot but he will be
impeached and removed if he does not dismiss this case for sure now.
lay_arrow
whackedinflorida , 8 minutes ago
It has been fairly obvious that if Sullivan refused to dismiss the case and insists on
having a hearing, a large amount of government misconduct would ultimately be disclosed.
Leftists are willing to believe anything if it fits their narrative, and ignore second
order effects of what they do. By the end of this, the charges against Flynn will be
dismissed (or he will be pardoned), and the prosecutors will be the ones facing the justice
system. Its almost as if Sullivan is doing Trump's bidding.
Show More Replies
otschelnik , 10 minutes ago
To start going up the food chain as to how this ****show got started we need to know a
couple of pieces of information which the deep state is jealously hiding from us:
1) WHO WERE THE CONTRACTORS ACCESSING THE NSA DATABASE? This will draw a straight line
back to the Democrat party.
2) WHO WERE THE FBI AGENTS TAKING LIABILITY INSURANCE? These are the same as USSR NKVD
henchmen shooting kulaks and political prisoners in the back of the head.
ay_arrow
Fabelhaft , 8 minutes ago
Flynn's courage reduces Mueller's battlefield manner to the shell-shocked infirmaries of
WW1.
lay_arrow 1
Aubiekong , 16 minutes ago
If we lived in a country of law and order. The democratic leadership would all be in
prison along with all those involved in the "investigation".
gaaasp , 32 minutes ago
When can Flynn speak freely?
turbojarhead , 26 minutes ago
I think you nailed it-Flynn cannot interview due to his legal case-the man who knows
where ALL the bodies are buried, SPECIFICALLY in the Iran deal. It ALMOST seems like
Sullivan-maybe at the behest of others-has been desperate to keep Flynn from being able to
speak up for 4 years...
Maxter , 1 minute ago
It doesn't make much sense that Flynn knows where all the bodies are buried but never
told the Trump team before all this mess.
So they say he has been discharged now, but not where he is. He said in the beginning he
wanted to go home. I'm guessing he won't do that yet. In the picture he looks spooked, as
one can easily understand. I think this whole thing with Navalny since he left the Russian
hospital is fake, theater, sort of like Boris Johnson's bout with COVID19, which I think
was also fake.
Thank you and I bet he IS spooked. It is possible that he was expatriated without his
consent and that he knew what the consequences would be if he ever tried to leave apart from
this fiasco. The scenes back at the hotel and the loose lipped egotistical rants from his
English minder, Pevchikh and also the BBC are just one enormous debacle.
Read John Helmer's multiple
posts on this entire story and it smells like a rats nest of intrigues to set him up
or (a more remote possibility) to extricate him.
One thing is certain, if he tries to return to Russia the British bulldog will kill
him. Time will tell.
... According to [Sosnovsky], the photo of Navalny with his wife on the balcony makes one
think about his whereabouts. Sosnovsky, who is well acquainted with the architecture of
Berlin, drew attention to the strange urban landscape in the corner of the picture. He
pointed out that the Charite building does not have balconies with such a view, as it is
located in the central part of Berlin with a completely different architecture.
To confirm his words in practice, Sosnovsky personally went to the Charite and walked
around the building with a camera. He drew attention to the construction work near the
clinic (it would probably have gotten into the blogger's photo), as well as the complete
absence of journalists and security. All of this confirmed Sosnovsky's suspicions about
Navalny's absence from the Charité.
In addition to the cityscape, the journalist had questions about the can with
cigarette butts on Navalny's balcony. Sosnovsky called such an object impossible in an
elite medical institution in Germany with patients of this level. If all the cigarettes in
the frame were smoked by Navalny himself, this raises even more questions about his
"diagnosis" and the conclusions of German doctors.
The journalist notes that all the shots with Navalny after he emerged from the coma are
static and "inanimate." Sosnovsky, a person with a medical education and a practicing
doctor, calls this understandable, pointing to the possibility of identifying the signs of
specific diseases and influences by movements, speech and other dynamic manifestations. For
example, after a tracheostomy (artificial windpipe), a person often has voice problems.
"Any video and audio makes it possible with a high degree of probability to calculate
where and how it was done. It is much more difficult from a photo. And if they hide from us
the opportunity to determine the location and diagnosis, this is very indicative,"
Sosnovsky said on the air of Soloviev Live.
Earlier, Navalny demanded that Russia return his clothes , in which the blogger was
hospitalized in Omsk. However, Navalny's associates had previously written that all of his
belongings were transferred to his wife, and some of the items that the blogger touched and
used could be taken out by Maria Pevchikh, a suspect in his poisoning."
I have seen the photo of Navalny walking down a staircase with no help and a second photo
of Navalny and his wife Julia out on a balcony at the hospital where he is (supposedly?)
staying with the can of cigarette butts placed near the bottom of the sliding door. I had my
doubts about Navalny being in hospital even before I saw the Sosnovsky article - would a
hospital allow a patient just out of a coma to walk around by himself, especially down the
stairs, or allow him to smoke cigarettes? Would a hospital even have balconies attached to
patients' wards?
Colm O'Toole @ 26, Uncle Tungsten @ 32, David G @ 33:
I am also sad to hear of Andre Vltchek's passing. He used to be an occasional contributor
to Off-Guardian.org.
His death is being treated as suspicious by Turkish police authorities. I myself am rather
puzzled by the decision to travel overnight by car from Samsun to Istanbul, given his state
of health (according to the report that Colm O'Toole linked to) and the length of the car
journey (about nine hours) when he could have travelled by plane.
When intelligence honchos became politicians the shadow of Lavrentiy Beria emerge behind
them. while politization of FBI create political police like Gestapo, politization of CIA is much
more serious and dangerous. It creates really tight control over the country by shadow
intelligence agency. In a sense CIA and the cornerstone of the "deep state"
Former CIA Director John Brennan personally edited a crucial section of the intelligence
report on Russian interference in the 2016 election and assigned a political ally to take a
lead role in writing it after career analysts disputed Brennan's take that Russian leader
Vladimir Putin intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump clinch the White House,
according to two senior U.S. intelligence officials who have seen classified materials
detailing Brennan's role in drafting the document.
John Brennan, left, with Robert Mueller in 2013: The CIA director's explosive conclusion in
the ICA helped justify continuing Trump-Russia "collusion" investigations, notably Mueller's
probe as special counsel. AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews
The explosive conclusion Brennan inserted into the report was used to help justify
continuing the Trump-Russia "collusion" investigation, which had been launched by the FBI in
2016. It was picked up after the election by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who in the end
found no proof that Trump or his campaign conspired with Moscow.
The Obama administration publicly released a declassified version of the report -- known as
the "Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent Elections
(ICA)" -- just two weeks before Trump took office, casting a cloud of suspicion over his
presidency. Democrats and national media have cited the report to suggest Russia influenced the
2016 outcome and warn that Putin is likely meddling again to reelect Trump.
The ICA is a key focus of U.S. Attorney John Durham's ongoing investigation into the origins
of the "collusion" probe. He wants to know if the intelligence findings were juiced for
political purposes.
RealClearInvestigations has learned that one of the CIA operatives who helped Brennan draft
the ICA, Andrea Kendall-Taylor, financially supported Hillary Clinton during the campaign and
is a close colleague of Eric Ciaramella,
identified last year by RCI as the Democratic national security "whistleblower" whose
complaint led to Trump's impeachment, ending in Senate acquittal in January.
John Durham: He is said to be using the long-hidden report on the drafting of the ICA as a
road map in his investigation of whether the Obama administration politicized intelligence.
Department of Justice via AP
The two officials said Brennan, who openly supported Clinton during the campaign, excluded
conflicting evidence about Putin's motives from the report , despite objections from some
intelligence analysts who argued Putin counted on Clinton winning the election and viewed Trump
as a "wild card."
The dissenting analysts found that Moscow preferred Clinton because it judged she would work
with its leaders, whereas it worried Trump would be too unpredictable. As secretary of state,
Clinton tried to "reset" relations with Moscow to move them to a more positive and cooperative
stage, while Trump campaigned on expanding the U.S. military, which Moscow perceived as a
threat.
These same analysts argued the Kremlin was generally trying to sow discord and disrupt the
American democratic process during the 2016 election cycle. They also noted that Russia tried
to interfere in the 2008 and 2012 races, many years before Trump threw his hat in the ring.
"They complained Brennan took a thesis [that Putin supported Trump] and decided he was
going to ignore dissenting data and exaggerate the importance of that conclusion, even though
they said it didn't have any real substance behind it," said a senior U.S intelligence
official who participated in a 2018 review of the spycraft behind the assessment, which
President Obama ordered after the 2016 election.
He elaborated that the analysts said they also came under political pressure to back
Brennan's judgment that Putin personally ordered "active measures" against the Clinton campaign
to throw the election to Trump, even though the underlying intelligence was "weak."
Adam Schiff: Soon after the Democrat took control of the House Intelligence Committee, its
review of the drafting of the intelligence community assessment was classified and locked in a
Capitol basement safe. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
The review, conducted by the House Intelligence Committee, culminated in a lengthy report
that was classified and locked in a Capitol basement safe soon after Democratic Rep. Adam
Schiff took control of the committee in January 2019.
The official said the committee spent more than 1,200 hours reviewing the ICA and
interviewing analysts involved in crafting it, including the chief of Brennan's so-called
"fusion cell," which was the interagency analytical group Obama's top spook stood up to look
into Russian influence operations during the 2016 election.
Durham is said to be using the long-hidden report, which runs 50-plus pages, as a road map
in his investigation of whether the Obama administration politicized intelligence while
targeting the Trump campaign and presidential transition in an unprecedented investigation
involving wiretapping and other secret surveillance.
The special prosecutor recently interviewed Brennan for several hours at CIA headquarters
after obtaining his emails, call logs and other documents from the agency. Durham has also
quizzed analysts and supervisors who worked on the ICA.
A spokesman for Brennan said that, according to Durham, he is not the target of a criminal
investigation and "only a witness to events that are under review." Durham's office did not
respond to requests for comment.
The senior intelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss
intelligence matters, said former senior CIA political analyst Kendall-Taylor was a key member
of the team that worked on the ICA. A Brennan protégé, she donated hundreds of
dollars to Clinton's 2016 campaign, federal records show. In June, she gave $250 to the Biden
Victory Fund.
Andrea Kendall-Taylor: A Brennan protégé, she donated hundreds of dollars to
Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, and recently defended the ICA in a
"60 Minutes" interview . "60 Minutes"/YouTube
Kendall-Taylor and Ciaramella entered the CIA as junior analysts around the same time and
worked the Russia beat together at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va. From 2015 to 2018,
Kendall-Taylor was detailed to the National Intelligence Council, where she was deputy national
intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia. Ciaramella succeeded her in that position at NIC,
a unit of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that oversees the CIA and the
other intelligence agencies.
It's not clear if Ciaramella also played a role in the drafting of the January 2017
assessment. He was working in the White House as a CIA detailee at the time. The CIA declined
comment.
Kendall-Taylor did not respond to requests for comment, but she recently defended the ICA as
a national security expert in a CBS "60 Minutes" interview on Russia's election activities,
arguing it was a slam-dunk case "based on a large body of evidence that demonstrated not only
what Russia was doing, but also its intent. And it's based on a number of different sources,
collected human intelligence, technical intelligence."
But the secret congressional review details how the ICA, which was hastily put together over
30 days at the direction of Obama intelligence czar James Clapper, did not follow longstanding
rules for crafting such assessments. It was not farmed out to other key intelligence agencies
for their input, and did not include an annex for dissent, among other extraordinary departures
from past tradecraft.
Eric Ciaramella: The Democratic national security "whistleblower," whose complaint led to
President Trump's impeachment, was a close colleague of Kendall-Taylor. It's not clear if
Ciaramella also played a role in the drafting of the January 2017 assessment.
whitehouse.gov
It did, however, include a two-page annex summarizing allegations from a dossier compiled by
former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. His claim that Putin had personally
ordered cyberattacks on the Clinton campaign to help Trump win happened to echo the key finding
of the ICA that Brennan supported. Brennan had
briefed Democratic senators about allegations from the dossier on Capitol Hill.
"Some of the FBI source's [Steele's] reporting is consistent with the judgment in the
assessment," stated the appended summary, which the two intelligence sources say was written
by Brennan loyalists.
"The FBI source claimed, for example, that Putin ordered the influence effort with the aim
of defeating Secretary Clinton, whom Putin 'feared and hated.' "
Steele's reporting has since been discredited by the Justice Department's inspector general
as rumor-based opposition research on Trump paid for by the Clinton campaign. Several
allegations have been debunked, even by Steele's own primary source, who confessed to the FBI
that he ginned the rumors up with some of his Russian drinking buddies to earn money from
Steele.
Former FBI Director James Comey told the Justice Department's watchdog that the Steele
material, which he referred to as the "Crown material," was incorporated with the ICA because
it was "corroborative of the central thesis of the assessment "The IC analysts found it
credible on its face," Comey said.
Christopher Steele: His dossier allegations were summarized in a two-page annex to the
ICA, but dissenting views about the Kremlin's favoring Hillary Clinton over Trump were
excluded. Victoria Jones/PA via AP
The officials who have read the secret congressional report on the ICA dispute that. They
say a number of analysts objected to including the dossier, arguing it was political innuendo
and not sound intelligence.
"The staff report makes it fairly clear the assessment was politicized and skewed to
discredit Trump's election," said the second U.S. intelligence source, who also requested
anonymity.
Kendall-Taylor denied any political bias factored into the intelligence.
"To suggest that there was political interference in that process is ridiculous," she
recently told NBC News.
Her boss during the ICA's drafting was CIA officer Julia Gurganus. Clapper tasked Gurganus,
then detailed to NIC as its national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia, with
coordinating the production of the ICA with Kendall-Taylor.
They, in turn, worked closely with NIC's cybersecurity expert Vinh Nguyen, who had been
consulting with Democratic National Committee cybersecurity contractor CrowdStrike to gather
intelligence on the alleged Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer
system. (CrowdStrike's president has
testified he couldn't say for sure Russian intelligence stole DNC emails, according to
recently declassified transcripts.)
Durham's investigators have focused on people who worked at NIC during the drafting of the
ICA, according to recent published reports.
No Input From CIA's 'Russia House'
The senior official who identified Kendall-Taylor said Brennan did not seek input from
experts from CIA's so-called Russia House, a department within Langley officially called the
Center for Europe and Eurasia, before arriving at the conclusion that Putin meddled in the
election to benefit Trump.
"It was not an intelligence assessment. It was not coordinated in the [intelligence]
community or even with experts in Russia House," the official said. "It was just a small
group of people selected and driven by Brennan himself and Brennan did the editing."
The official noted that National Security Agency analysts also dissented from the conclusion
that Putin personally sought to tilt the scale for Trump. One of only three agencies from the
17-agency intelligence community invited to participate in the ICA, the NSA had a lower level
of confidence than the CIA and FBI, specifically on that bombshell conclusion.
The official said the NSA's departure was significant because the agency monitors the
communications of Russian officials overseas. Yet it could not corroborate Brennan's preferred
conclusion through its signals intelligence. Former NSA Director Michael Rogers, who has
testified that the conclusion about Putin and Trump "didn't have the same level of sourcing and
the same level of multiple sources," reportedly has been cooperating with Durham's probe.
The second senior intelligence official, who has read a draft of the still-classified House
Intelligence Committee review, confirmed that career intelligence analysts complained that the
ICA was tightly controlled and manipulated by Brennan, who previously worked in the Obama White
House.
N
Brennan's tight control over the process of drafting the ICA belies public claims the
assessment reflected the "consensus of the entire intelligence community." His unilateral role
also raises doubts about the objectivity of the intelligence.
In his defense, Brennan has pointed to a recent Senate Intelligence Committee report that
found "no reason to dispute the Intelligence Community's conclusions."
"The ICA correctly found the Russians interfered in our 2016 election to hurt Secretary
Clinton and help the candidacy of Donald Trump," argued committee Vice Chairman Mark Warner,
D-Va.
"Our review of the highly classified ICA and underlying intelligence found that this and
other conclusions were well-supported," Warner added.
"There is certainly no reason to doubt that the Russians' success in 2016 is leading them
to try again in 2020, and we must not be caught unprepared."
Brennan, ex-Obama homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco and ex-national intelligence
director James Clapper, interviewed by Nicolle Wallace of MSNBC, right, at a 2018 Aspen
Instutute event. Aspen
Institute
However, the report
completely blacks out a review of the underlying evidence to support the Brennan-inserted
conclusion, including an entire section labeled "Putin Ordered Campaign to Influence U.S.
Election." Still, it suggests elsewhere that conclusions are supported by intelligence with
"varying substantiation" and with "differing confidence levels." It also notes "concerns about
the use of specific sources."
Adding to doubts, the committee relied heavily on the closed-door testimony of former Obama
homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco, a close Brennan ally who met with Brennan and his
"fusion team" at the White House before and after the election. The extent of Monaco's role in
the ICA is unclear.
Brennan last week pledged he would cooperate with two other Senate committees investigating
the origins of the Russia "collusion" investigation. The Senate judiciary and governmental
affairs panels recently gained authority to subpoena Brennan and other witnesses to
testify.
Several Republican lawmakers and former Trump officials are clamoring for the
declassification and release of the secret House staff report on the ICA.
"It's dynamite," said former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz, who reviewed the staff report while
serving as chief of staff to then-National Security Adviser John Bolton.
"There are things in there that people don't know," he told RCI.
"It will change the dynamic of our understanding of Russian meddling in the election."
However, according to the intelligence official who worked on the ICA review, Brennan
ensured that it would be next to impossible to declassify his sourcing for the key judgment on
Putin. He said Brennan hid all sources and references to the underlying intelligence behind a
highly sensitive and compartmented wall of classification.
He explained that he and Clapper created two classified versions of the ICA – a highly
restricted Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information version that reveals the sourcing,
and a more accessible Top Secret version that omits details about the sourcing.
Unless the classification of compartmented findings can be downgraded, access to Brennan's
questionable sourcing will remain highly restricted, leaving the underlying evidence
conveniently opaque, the official said.
The ICA is a key focus of U.S. Attorney John Durham's ongoing investigation into the
origins of the "collusion" probe. He wants to know if the intelligence findings were
juiced for political purposes.
No, you think? We fought all of WWII in less time than it takes to make the first
indictments of these ******* traitors. And that assumes they will happen EVENTUALLY,
which they won't.
lay_arrow
NoDebt , 1 hour ago
Used to be it would take somewhere from a couple months to a couple years for
conspiracy theory to be proven conspiracy fact around here.
Now it's four years and counting. Pretty soon it will be a decade or more. Then....
who really cares? Once you've successfully stretched something out that long who really
gives a **** anyway?
If the government finally admitted that Oswald didn't really shoot JFK and that it was
some CIA ***** from the grassy knoll, would you really care at this point? If the
government admitted that there really were aliens in Area 51, would your world really be
rocked by that revelation at this point? Something a little more contemporary, you say?
Fine. What about WTC 7? If conspiracy theories were all confirmed on that one would you
really have a hard time sleeping tonight?
On a long enough timeline everyone stops giving a **** about the truth.
y_arrow
Md4 , 2 hours ago
" The explosive conclusion Brennan inserted into the report was used to help justify
continuing the Trump-Russia "collusion" investigation, which had been launched by the FBI
in 2016. It was picked up after the election by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who in
the end found no proof that Trump or his campaign conspired with Moscow."
While wasting thirty million dollars...and two focking years of our
lives...
ay_arrow
NoDebt , 1 hour ago
It's not even done yet, man. Clock is still running. Four years and counting, end to
end. If Trump gets a second term, eight years, minimum. And as he leaves office they will
still be threatening indictments "any day now". And nobody will even remember why any of
this started, nor care.
I already don't care.
4 play_arrow
Politinaut , 46 minutes ago
Brennan and all of those involved, must pay.
z530 , 57 minutes ago
Unless the classification of compartmented findings can be downgraded, access to
Brennan's questionable sourcing will remain highly restricted, leaving the underlying
evidence conveniently opaque, the official said.
Complete 100% ********. Trump can declassify anything he wants, at anytime, for any
reason. If I were him, I would order everything related to Crossfire declassified
tomorrow, sit back and watch the fireworks.
y_arrow
wee-weed up , 1 hour ago
Brennan is TRUE deep-state scum.
My most fervent desire is to see that holier-than-thou...
lyin' Obozo-Hitlery protector, frog marched...
straight to prison on national TV...
And then forced to sing like a Canary.
1 play_arrow
Md4 , 1 hour ago
"He explained that he and Clapper created two classified versions of the ICA – a
highly restricted Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information version that reveals the
sourcing, and a more accessible Top Secret version that omits details about the
sourcing.
Unless the classification of compartmented findings can be downgraded, access to
Brennan's questionable sourcing will remain highly restricted, leaving the underlying
evidence conveniently opaque, the official said."
One of the most important objectives going forward from all this... has to be the
dismantling of the whole apparatus of security classification.
All of it must be overhauled and restructured.
We simply cannot have a regime of intelligence security so rigorous, as to be clearly
used as a means of tyrannizing the very nation it's supposed to serve.
No enemy on earth is worth that...
play_arrow
bkwaz4 , 1 hour ago
Rational people have always understood that any Russian or Chinese meddling in the
2016 election was done to get Hillary elected so that influence could be purchased
through the Clinton Foundation.
The criminals involved need to be executed.
ay_arrow
Max21c , 1 hour ago
So its the usual situ of all lies and distortions and more lies on top of still more
lies... all more lies made up by the secret police and Washington Gestapo...
ay_arrow
St. TwinkleToes , 1 hour ago
It's a small circle of friends at CIA with Brennan protégé, Andrea
Kendall-Taylor and NSA with Eric Ciaramella, the Democratic national security
"whistleblower," who are sleeping with their bosses for advancement and or given head
service to closet LGBTiQNPWXYZ government heads.
Their job literally "sucks" in order to exist.
_arrow
mikka , 2 hours ago
When this sort of thing happens in Russia, China etc., there is a purge, because the
country is more important than its actors. Not in USSA: because of the so called
"democracy", the usurpers get away with it, allowing them not only to survive but also to
try again when conditions improve.
lay_arrow
Max21c , 31 minutes ago
It is interesting to see some of the criminal activities of the rats, vermin, and scum
in the CIA Gestapo & FBI Gestapo and Pentagon Gestapo possibly coming to light... One
or two rays of light and all the cockroaches in the criminal gangs of "national security"
and the state security apparatus of the banana republic and police state start scurrying
about in a frenzy for awhile...
3 play_arrow
Max21c , 47 minutes ago
Notice how all these Nazis and NeoNazis such as Brennan, Steele, Clapper, Schiff,
Warner, Lisa Monaco, Andrea Kendall-Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, James Comey, Julia Gurganus,
Vinh Nguyen, Obama, Biden, Clinton are all elite gangsters, crooks, criminals and
hoodlums with ties to the Ivy League, CNN, MSNBC, CBS 60 Minutes, the Aspen Institute,
the secret police community, the Gestapo community, the intelligence community, the CFR,
Elite Think Tanks, the puppet press and official media and numerous other parts of the
criminal underworld of Washingtonian and their secret police & NeoNazi Gestapo...
They're all just gangsters like in any third world banana republic and police state...
just like all the rest of the goons and thugs and criminals in Washington DC..
y_arrow
GoldHermit , 58 minutes ago
If Brennan is not public enemy number one, he's certainly in the top 5.
Max21c , 45 minutes ago
Washington DC runs thick with animals and gangsters just like Brennan... he's common
to the criminal culture of the US government and the criminal culture and criminal nature
of US government officials and Washingtonians... They're all the same and they're all
Nazis and NeoNazis... US elites and Washingtonians are no different than the Soviet KGB,
East German Stasi, Nazi Gestapo or Nazi Waffen SS... just a pack of criminals the rob,
terrorize and persecute people... US government is just one big criminal network and
crime syndicate... all they do is rob people, cheat people, persecute people and
terrorize people... It's a Washingtonian thing and a US government thing...
play_arrow
rtb61 , 1 hour ago
Of course the Russian government favoured the Clintons, they had a ton of evidence of
corruption on them, they released that tape to prove it to them. They know every single
little thing the Klinton Krime Klan did in the Ukraine, everything, they had them cold,
anything they wanted the Clintons would have complied, they still would of course have
demanded to be paid.
Right now both China and Russia prefer the Clinton Corporation Party, they are much
easier to pay off. Too many heads in the Republican Party, too many pay offs, much easier
with the Clinton Foundation Party, the party the Klinton Krime Klan sold to the
corporations, calling it the Democrats is a lie, it is the Clinton Foundation Party,
selling governments to the highest bidder not just yours but with regime change any
country you choose.
It all keeps coming out for political theatre but yet, no even a hint of an arrest let
alone an actual prosecution. Good for votes from the stupids I suppose.
2 play_arrow
williambanzai7 , 1 hour ago
Brennan is a moron. A moron who takes orders from a gaggle of Marxists and a Former
Nazi.
TahoeBilly2012 , 1 hour ago
His little fake aristocratic tone is hilarious. As if a muslim Irish American was some
sort of delicate flower.
y_arrow 1
Patmos , 14 minutes ago
Tragically ironic how the CIA has in large part become the thing it was at least in
theory supposed to help protect against: Tyranny.
2 play_arrow
Soloamber , 34 minutes ago
Isn't it ironic that a report covering a political coup on a presidential campaign and
subsequent attack on an
elected President can't be divulged because it is considered "political ".
Durham reports to Barr and they know the truth will never come to light if Biden wins
.
What they choose to ignore is they work for and are obligated to protect the public
interest .
Not the Democrats , not the Republicans .
It's either that or they are just protecting their old boy netwirk .
Take your pick .
ay_arrow
Md4 , 2 hours ago
"The Obama administration publicly released a declassified version of the report --
known as the "Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian Activities and Intentions in
Recent Elections (ICA)" -- just two weeks before Trump took office, casting a cloud of
suspicion over his presidency. Democrats and national media have cited the report to
suggest Russia influenced the 2016 outcome and warn that Putin is likely meddling again
to reelect Trump.
The ICA is a key focus of U.S. Attorney John Durham's ongoing investigation into the
origins of the "collusion" probe. He wants to know if the intelligence findings were
juiced for political purposes."
Or... outright lies known by Blo to be lies?
Sounds like conjured red meat deliberately fed to the leftist House machine...
1 play_arrow
ComradePuff , 10 minutes ago
When I was getting my masters in 2017 at MGIMO, my instructors were as often diplomats
and politicians as they were professors. One, a member of Duma, told us that it was funny
they way the Americans were spinning the collusion angle, because the general consensus
at the Kremlin was that Clinton was preferable to Trump as she was known and they
understood how to deal with her, while Trump seemed like a loose cannon. I was the only
American in the class (in the whole school at that point) and he was not even talking to
me, so clearly this was just general knowledge here.
edit: The CIA must suck at their jobs if there was disagreement, because I learned
that in the first week without using a single bribe, rent boy, honey trap or fake
mustache. That or the CIA just lies, as they do with everything else. Most likely a mix
of both.
y_arrow
amanfromMars , 40 minutes ago
Have you ever thought on what kind of vital explosive intelligence, on the extremely
precarious state of the certainly not United States of America, the likes of a Russia or
a China receives whenever they can freely read, listen and see any/all of the fabricated
tales and phantom trails fed to media main streams ...... for, of course, they would know
immediately whenever such is reported and widely shared, it be wilfully untrue and
decidedly designedly false ..... and they be confronted by weak pathological liars in
international executive offices of a failed state, or a rapidly failing state in well
self-publicised terminal decline ..... for a fast approaching resulting death by suicide
‽ .
And what does it also tell one and all about the equally perverse and parlous state of
the national intelligence quotient of Five Eyes allies, whenever they be by virtue of
either their unquestioning support or deafening silence on such matters, no more than
co-conspirators on a similar sinister path.
Are they themselves incapable of better thinking for greater tinkering? Do they need
it to be freely provided by ..... well, what would they be? Private Contractors/Pirate
Operations/Alien Facilities/Out of this World Utilities?
You can surely be in no doubt that they certainly need something radically different,
considering the plain enough, destructive path that they be currently on, using what they
presently have.
play_arrow
Soloamber , 48 minutes ago
Clintons . They already had a business relationship .
Clintons pay to play was well known .
Strange how "donations " have dropped 90% after she blew the election .
ay_arrow
Mini-Me , 2 hours ago
When does Durham get off his arse and do his damn job?
US President Donald Trump said the FBI targeted him for a "coup" after newly released
documents showed that federal agents bought liability insurance over fears their handling of
the Trump-Russia probe could lead to legal trouble.
The new documents were disclosed in a
federal court filing on Thursday by Sidney Powell, defense attorney for former Trump
adviser Michael Flynn. Seizing on the new release, the president ran a victory lap at a
campaign rally in Florida, telling the crowd the FBI had been "caught" attempting a
"coup."
"Today a trove of text messages was released from FBI agents involved in the Russian
witch hunt. You gotta see this," Trump said, reading out a headline from the
Federalist .
These people are scum. They were trying to do a coup. And we've caught them before that, we
caught them spying on our nation Never forget: they are coming after me because I'm fighting
for you.
The documents, which largely consist of text messages between unnamed federal agents, reveal
that both FBI and CIA personnel purchased professional liability insurance days before Trump
took office, fearing that illicit media leaks at the Department of Justice could result in
lawsuits against many involved in the first leg of the Trump-Russia investigation – then
known by its FBI codename, "Crossfire Hurricane."
"We all went and purchased professional liability insurance," one agent said in a
text on January 10, 2017, some 10 days before Trump's inauguration.
"Holy crap. All the analysts too?" another agent said, prompting the first to reply
"Yep. All the folks at the Agency as well" – an apparent reference to the
CIA.
When the first agent was asked who might be filing lawsuits, he responded: "Haha, who
knows I think [the] concern when we got it was that there was a big leak at DOJ and the [New
York Times] among others was going to do a piece."
The thought was if that piece comes out, and Jan 20th comes around the new [attorney
general] might have some questions then yada yada yada we all get screwed.
The messages also indicate that the FBI's separate investigation into Michael Flynn, then
Trump's national security advisor, was kept alive long after senior figures in the bureau
ordered the probe closed, finding no "derogatory information" on Flynn. While one agent
expressed relief in early November 2016 that the Flynn probe – named "Crossfire
Razor" – was ordered shut, that order had been overturned by January 2017, bureau
personnel said in the messages.
Other texts show agents discussing the use of National Security Letters (NSLs) as a pretext
to 'buy time' and drag out the investigation, allowing the FBI to continue digging into Flynn's
finances with little judicial oversight, despite prior "traces" turning up
"nothing."
Flynn was forced to resign as national security advisor in 2017 and later charged for
misleading the FBI about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, with whom he was
accused of discussing US sanctions on Russia prior to Trump's swearing-in as president. The DOJ
has since ordered Flynn's case closed after prior document dumps revealed misconduct at the
bureau, Flynn's judge has refused to comply with
the order.
Among other revelations, the new messages also show that some agents believed FBI officials
running the Trump-Russia investigation were biased in favor of then-Democratic candidate
Hillary Clinton, even hoping she would win the 2016 race.
"Doing all this election research – I think some of these guys want a Clinton
presidency," the agent said, prompting another to respond that "they seem to respect
that they know what they are gonna get."
"Haha, really. Instead of a wild card like Trump," the first agent said.
The FBI documents were not the only blockbuster publication on Thursday. A new DOJ memo made
public by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) suggests the FBI was aware that a primary
source for Christopher Steele – a former British intelligence operative hired by the
Clinton team to compile dirt on Trump in an infamous "dossier" – was the subject
of a counter-intelligence investigation in 2009. Despite deeming the source a potential Russian
spy, the bureau relied on Steele's dossier to obtain warrants to spy on the Trump campaign,
disregarding the questionable origins of his so-called intelligence.
The dossier compiled by British spy Christopher Steele, paid through the firm Fusion GPS by
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, was used by the FBI to obtain a warrant to spy on
Trump campaign aide Carter Page in October 2016, prior to the presidential election. The
warrant was renewed after Donald Trump got elected president and finally expired sometime in
late 2017.
In a redacted,
two-page memo made public on Thursday by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), the US
Department of Justice reveals that Steele's "primary sub-source" (PSS) had been under
FBI investigation in 2009 as a possible Russian agent. The FBI team going after Trump
("Crossfire Hurricane") became aware of this in December 2016 and interviewed the PSS in
January 2017 – then renewed the Page FISA warrant three more times anyway.
"In December 2016, the CROSSFIRE HURRICANE team identified the Primary Sub-source used by
Christopher Steele and, at that time, became familiar with the 2009 investigation. The
CROSSFIRE HURRICANE team interviewed the Primary Sub-source over the course of three sequential
days in January 2017. At that time, the 2009 investigation remained closed. The 2009
investigation remains closed to this day," says the DOJ memo.
The reason the FBI had closed the investigation, as the memo reveals, was that the PSS had
left the US in September 2010. The FBI said "consideration would be given to re-opening the
investigation in the event" the person returned to the US. For whatever reason, though the
PSS did return at some point, the investigation was never reopened.
While the DOJ memo does not name the PSS, some enterprising internet sleuths fingered him in
July as one Igor Danchenko. His attorney Mark E. Schamel confirmed the identification to the
New York
Times a day after RT reported on it. Danchenko had worked as a researcher for the Brookings
Institution until 2010. This lines up with the memo saying he was working at a think tank in
Washington, DC when some coworkers suspected him of being a "Russian spy."
The FBI's investigation came up with nothing much beyond a September 2006 "contact with a
known Russian intelligence officer," and him being "very familiar" with a
"Washington, DC–based Russian officer."
Flimsy as that seems now, it was a lot more than they ever had on Carter Page. It didn't
help that FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith had altered evidence to make Page look like a foreign
agent, when he in fact was not. In August, Clinesmith pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of
making a false statement.
When he sent over the memo to Graham, Attorney General Bill Barr wrote that additional
classified information that "bears upon the FBI's knowledge concerning the reliability" of the
Steele dossier may be declassified by the Director of National Intelligence soon, as it won't
interfere with the criminal investigation conducted by US Attorney John Durham.
The Steele Dossier has been the keystone of 'Russiagate' – the manufactured scandal
accusing Trump of having ties or "colluding" with Russia during the 2016 election – from
the very beginning. It had already emerged that the "Crossfire Hurricane" team had interviewed
Danchenko in January 2017 and established that the Dossier was fabricated, but proceeded to use
it to spy on Trump, framing Carter Page as a Russian agent anyway. At the time, they
already knew that Danchenko had been under FBI investigation as a suspected Russian agent
– but it didn't seem to bother them in the least.
Simply put, this means Crossfire Hurricane team members – such as former agent
Peter Strzok and his paramour Lisa Page, as well as FBI director James Comey and his deputy
deputy Andrew McCabe, ought to have some explaining to do.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Thos intelligence nets are becoming more and more sophisticated. They essentially represent a
hidden political force that influences the elections.
From comments: "This is so convoluted and Byzantine and no one is offering documentation,
just allegations."
Notable quotes:
"... Rarely in the news, however, is the role played by Israeli cybersecurity startups in the creation of the Russiagate narrative itself. Incubated within the Israeli military apparatus and benefiting from an uninterrupted stream of billions in U.S. taxpayer dollars, these "private Mossads" have been present behind the scenes throughout the numerous Russia-related scandals fomented by the mainstream press to sow partisan discord among the American electorate and line the pockets of network executives. ..."
"... The Senate's inquiries uncovered a consistent thread of IDF-linked cybersecurity firms and intelligence assets coordinating and facilitating meetings between the coterie of Russian characters that make up the Russiagate universe and the Trump campaign, including protagonists like Guccifer 2.0, the hacker who released Hilary Clinton's infamous emails to Wikileaks via a cell phone registered in Israel. ..."
"... "These guys came out of the military intelligence army unit, and it's like coming out with a triple Ph.D. from MIT. The amount of knowledge these guys have in terms of cybersecurity, cyber-intelligence [is] just so beyond what you could get [with] a normal education that it's just unique there are hundreds and hundreds of Israeli start-up companies that the founders are guys who came out of this unit." ..."
"... Michael Flynn, who was himself also working in an advisory capacity with the "consortium of cyber-spy companies run by former Israeli intelligence officers" known as the NSO Group, that is comprised of several of the Israeli startups summoned before the committee for voluntary, closed-door testimony. ..."
"... One of the NSO companies questioned by the Senate committee in relation to Russian interference, Psy-Group, is currently under investigation in California, where it was caught red-handed actually trying to rig a local election for a paying customer. ..."
"... Butina's former lover, Paul Erickson joked about being a CIA asset and had built a phony reputation as a man of staunch moral Christian values. Erickson worked for several Republican campaigns dating back to the late '80s, including a stint as national policy director for Pat Buchanan's '92 White House run. He first achieved international notoriety as Mobutu Sese Seko's lawyer, reportedly accepting a $30,000 lobbying contract to obtain a U.S. visa for the African despot, which was ultimately denied. ..."
"... It was Erickson's long-standing ties to the NRA and the organization's former president David Keene, which set the stage for the Maria Butina story as a Russian infiltrator looking for " access to U.S. political organizations ." Erickson had worked with Keene as a registered foreign agent since the 1990s and formed part of the NRA's efforts to forge closer ties to Israel since at least 2011. ..."
"... A con-artist by most accounts, Erickson is described by a Republican legislator as "the single biggest phony I've ever met in South Dakota politics." South Dakota was where Yale-educated Erickson came up in the political arena and where he's left a long trail of burned business associates and friends. In 2019, Erickson pled guilty to wire fraud and money laundering , admitting he had bilked 78 people of $2.3 Million over 22 years and was sentenced this past July to seven years in federal prison. ..."
A Senate investigation reveals that a consortium of Israeli hacking and surveillance firms
coordinated and facilitated meetings between Trump campaign operatives and Russia during the
2016 campaign, but they don't really want to talk about it.
Alleged Russian interference in the 2020 presidential election is headline news, once again,
as a Ukrainian lawmaker is charged by the Trump administration "in a sweeping plot to sow
distrust in the American political process," reports the Associated Press.
Microsoft also made claims that it detected "hacking attempts targeting U.S. political
campaigns, parties and consultants" by agents from Russia, China, and Iran. In a September 10
blog
post , Microsoft's Tom Burt, Corporate Vice President of Customer Security & Trust,
listed three groups from each region that Microsoft "observed" carrying out their cyber
operations.
Rarely in the news, however, is the role played by Israeli cybersecurity startups in the
creation of the Russiagate narrative itself. Incubated within the Israeli military apparatus
and benefiting from an uninterrupted stream of billions in U.S. taxpayer dollars, these
"private Mossads" have been present behind the scenes throughout the numerous Russia-related
scandals fomented by the mainstream press to sow partisan discord among the American electorate
and line the pockets of network executives.
Evidence of their activities has been exposed -- though not pursued -- in the latest volume
of a U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee investigation on Russian interference in the 2016
presidential election, which shows how then-candidate Donald Trump personally embarked on a
parallel campaign on behalf of Israel to block a UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements
in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Originally
submitted by Egypt, UNSCR 2334 strips Israeli settlements
beyond the 1967 borders of any "
legal validity " in the eyes of the international community and brands them a "flagrant
violation under international law." Russia, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, had
refused all of the advances made by Trump's operatives to use its veto power against the
measure, and Trump himself would
prevail upon Egyptian President al-Sisi -- whom Trump calls his "
favorite dictator " -- to
withdraw the declaration . Together with Israeli pressure, UNSCR 2334 seemed destined to
languish in obscurity as Egypt
acquiesced and delayed the vote to "permit them to conduct an additional meeting of the
Arab League's foreign ministers to work on the resolution's wording."
The Senate's inquiries uncovered a consistent thread of IDF-linked cybersecurity firms
and intelligence assets coordinating and facilitating meetings between the coterie of Russian
characters that make up the Russiagate universe and the Trump campaign, including protagonists
like Guccifer 2.0, the hacker who
released Hilary Clinton's infamous emails to Wikileaks via a cell phone registered in
Israel.
George Birnbaum, a former chief of staff to Benjamin Netanyahu and GOP operative, told the
committee how Trump aide Rick Gates had inquired about using "Israeli technology" to collect
dirt on opponent Hillary Clinton at a March 2016 meeting, explaining to the senators what would
be so attractive about Israeli companies, specifically:
"These guys came out of the military intelligence army unit, and it's like coming out
with a triple Ph.D. from MIT. The amount of knowledge these guys have in terms of
cybersecurity, cyber-intelligence [is] just so beyond what you could get [with] a normal
education that it's just unique there are hundreds and hundreds of Israeli start-up companies
that the founders are guys who came out of this unit."
The unit Birnbaum is referring to is the IDF's Unit 8200, where these "hundreds and
hundreds" of tech startups are born right in the bowels of the Israeli national security state
and propagate throughout the world and the United States, in particular.
Described as " private Mossads "
for hire, many of the Israeli hacking and surveillance firms that moved behind the scenes,
brokering meetings between Trump's people and Russian oligarchs like Oleg Deripaska during the
height of the so-called Russian "collusion," were working through a "key middle man" with close
ties to then-Trump National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, who was himself also working
in an advisory capacity with the "consortium of cyber-spy companies run by former Israeli
intelligence officers" known as the NSO Group, that is comprised of several of the Israeli
startups summoned before the committee for voluntary, closed-door testimony.
While the American public was fed one Russophobic scandal after another, and Robert Mueller
held court in the press for two years straight, no one -- especially Mueller -- was paying
attention to this perverse network of Israeli surveillance companies who operated the virtual
scaffold upon which the Russiagate narrative was being constructed and whose fellow Unit 8200
graduates in other subsectors of the cybersecurity industry are deeply ensconced in highly
questionable activities surrounding the coming 2020 election.
THE NSO GROUP
The NSO
Group gained notoriety when it was identified as the developer of Pegasus, the iPhone
spyware that
was found installed on slain Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi's phone in the days leading
up to his gruesome death. NSO's cell phone tracking technology has been associated with other
ghastly events, such as the scandal involving Pegasus in Mexico, where a team of international
investigators looking into the disappearance of 43 students in Ayotzinapa was targeted by the
spyware, as well as Mexican
journalists and their families.
One of the NSO companies questioned by the Senate committee in relation to Russian
interference, Psy-Group, is currently under investigation in California, where it was
caught red-handed
actually trying to rig a local election for a paying customer. Another, Circles, was
founded by a former Israeli intelligence officer and is "known for covertly intercepting phone
calls, text messages, and tracking locations of unaware citizens," according to a report by
Forensic News .
In 2018, Haaretz published
an expose on the company disclosing the extent to which Circles and the Israeli espionage
industry is helping "world dictators hunt dissidents and gays," among other nefarious
opportunities available in the "global commerce" of surveillance technologies.
An NSO rep peddles software services at annual European Police Congress in Berlin, April 28,
2020. Hannibal Hanschke | Reuters
The middle man the Senate investigation identified is Walter Soriano; singled out for his
association with several Russian oligarchs like Oleg Deripaska and Dmitry Rybolovlev, who
bought
Trump's West Palm Beach mansion in 2008. The Senate report accuses Soriano and Israeli
cybersecurity companies of coordinating "between the Trump Campaign and Russia," but fails to
pursue the matter beyond that.
The UN resolution denouncing Israeli settlements would pass on December 23, 2016, after four
temporary Security Council members, Malaysia, New Zealand, Senegal, and Venezuela reportedly
took matters into their own hands and moved the vote forward. UNSCR 2334 became official as
a result of a historic breach of established pro-Israel policy by the United States, which
abstained from the vote. Widely reported as Obama's "
parting shot " to Netanyahu and the incoming administration, the passing of the resolution
went against Obama's own record of using U.S.' veto power to banish similar
proposals .
President-elect Donald Trump would take office in a matter of weeks and the Mueller
investigation kicked off the barrage of Russophobic content peddled over the digital airwaves
night after night. Stories like
Maria Butina's were plastered all over the media to buttress the Russiagate
narrative.
THE LEGEND OF MARIA BUTINA
Butina's former lover, Paul Erickson joked
about being a CIA asset and had built a phony reputation as a man of staunch moral
Christian values. Erickson worked for several Republican campaigns dating back to the late
'80s, including a stint as
national policy director for Pat Buchanan's '92 White House run. He first achieved
international notoriety as Mobutu Sese Seko's lawyer, reportedly accepting a $30,000 lobbying
contract to obtain a U.S. visa for the African despot, which was ultimately denied.
It was Erickson's long-standing ties to the NRA and the organization's former president
David Keene, which set the stage for the Maria Butina story as a Russian infiltrator looking
for "
access to U.S. political organizations ." Erickson had
worked with Keene as a registered foreign agent since the 1990s and formed part of the
NRA's efforts to forge
closer ties to Israel since at least 2011.
Prosecutors would paint Butina as a seductress, ensnaring Erickson in a "duplicitous
relationship," but it was the cunning GOP operative who first spotted Butina during a 2013
trip to Moscow with Keene. Butina and Erickson would meet again in Israel one year later
where they would begin their 'love affair' during which he would become "integral to Butina's
activities," assisting the Russian gun enthusiast "in developing relationships with individuals
and organizations involved in U.S. politics," according to the Senate Intelligence
Committee.
Maria Butina poses for a photo at a shooting range in Moscow, April 22, 2012. Pavel Ptitsin
| AP
A con-artist
by most accounts, Erickson is
described by a Republican legislator as "the single biggest phony I've ever met in South
Dakota politics." South Dakota was where Yale-educated Erickson came up in the political arena
and where he's left a long trail of burned business associates and friends. In 2019, Erickson
pled guilty to
wire fraud and money laundering , admitting he had bilked 78 people of $2.3 Million over 22
years and was sentenced this past July to
seven years in federal prison.
The NRA has been forging ties to the Israeli security state for years now. In 2013, Trump's
former National Security Adviser, John Bolton, joined a delegation of 30 in Jerusalem for a
10-day tour of Israel's police institutions. The honorary NRA member stated on that
occasion, that Israel could "serve as a model for American security." The legend of Maria
Butina, itself, was seeded in Israel that same year when an "obscure" Israeli gun-rights group
posted on
Facebook that she had announced to have signed a cooperation agreement with the NRA
and "neighboring countries" to promote gun rights at a meeting with its members.
Butina would meet with Erickson and Keene two weeks later in Moscow, along with Alexander
Torshin, former deputy governor of Russia's central bank and lifetime NRA member. Torshin, who
has been targeted by U.S. sanctions, traveled with Butina to the United States to "discuss
U.S.-Russian economic relations" in April 2015. The pair met with several senior American
officials, like Federal Reserve vice chairman and former Israel central bank chief, Stanley
Fischer; the Treasury undersecretary for international affairs, Nathan Sheets and others in a
meeting "
moderated " by AIG CEO Maurice "Hank" Greenberg. The details of the high-level meeting, two
months before Donald Trump made his announcement to run for president, have never been made
public.
Feature photo | Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., speaks during a Senate Judiciary Committee
business meeting to consider authorization for subpoenas relating to the Crossfire Hurricane
investigation, the code name for the counterintelligence investigation undertaken by the FBI in
2016 and 2017 into links between Trump and Russian officials, June 11, 2020. Carolyn Kaster |
AP
Raul Diego is a MintPress News Staff Writer, independent photojournalist, researcher,
writer and documentary filmmaker.
I always said it was Israeli influence not Russian. How obvious can it get. But we have
Trump constantly kissing the Israeli ass while being kicked in the teeth and Congress bending
over backwards pedaling lies about Russia for Israeli benefit.
Is there anyone on our side in DC?
Ok, so we have the israelis, synonymous with deep state, responsible for wtc '93, wtc
9/11, the arab spring, the afghan conflict, the iraq conflict, problems with Iran, training
antifa/blm, equipping and training the messican cartels, the farc, and tupac amaru. Being the
worlds controlling supplier of MDMA. As well as giving U.S. technology to the chinese, and
direct involvement with the release of covid 19. And hiring osama bin laden to build a
highway in the sudan, then embezzling $800 million from bin ladens project, and blaming it on
the U.S. It's time for the world to put their collective heads back into where the sun does
shine.
A satirical video using "deepfake" technology to show US President Donald Trump as coming to
work for RT after the November election was taken very seriously by 'Russiagate' peddlers at
the Daily Beast and the Lincoln Project.
"... Cohen had the courage to take on the entire ruling elites of this country and their messianic supremacist ideology by himself, almost completely alone. ..."
"... He opposed the warmongering nutcases during the Cold War, and he opposed them again when they replaced their rabid hatred of the Soviet Union with an even more rabid hatred of everything Russian. ..."
First, he was a man of immense kindness and humility . Second, he was a man of total
intellectual honesty . I can't say that Cohen and I had the same ideas or the same reading of
history, though in many cases we did, but here is what I found so beautiful in this man: unlike
most of his contemporaries, Cohen was not an ideologue , he did not expect everybody to agree
with him, and he himself did not vet people for ideological purity before offering them his
friendship.
Even though it is impossible to squeeze a man of such immense intellect and honesty into any
one single ideological category, I would say that Stephen Cohen was a REAL liberal , in the
original, and noble, meaning of this word.
I also have to mention Stephen Cohen's immense courage . Yes, I know, Cohen was not deported
to GITMO for his ideas, he was not tortured in a CIA secret prison, and he was not rendered to
some Third Word country to be tortured there on behalf of the USA. Stephen Cohen had a
different kind of courage: the courage to remain true to himself and his ideals even when the
world literally covered him in slanderous accusations, the courage to NOT follow his fellow
liberals when they turned PSEUDO-liberals and betrayed everything true liberalism stands for.
Professor Cohen also completely rejected any forms of tribalism or nationalism, which often
made him the target of vicious hatred and slander, especially from his fellow US Jews (he was
accused of being, what else, a Putin agent).
Cohen had the courage to take on the entire ruling elites of this country and their
messianic supremacist ideology by himself, almost completely alone.
Last, but most certainly not least, Stephen Cohen was a true peacemaker , in the sense of
the words of the Holy Gospel I quoted above. He opposed the warmongering nutcases during the
Cold War, and he opposed them again when they replaced their rabid hatred of the Soviet Union
with an even more rabid hatred of everything Russian.
I won't claim here that I always agreed with Cohen's ideas or his reading of history, and I
am quite sure that he would not agree with much of what I wrote. But one thing Cohen and I
definitely did agree on: the absolute, number one, priority of not allowing a war to happen
between the USA and Russia. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Stephen Cohen dedicated
his entire life towards this goal.
first "met" Steve through
his
1977 essay
"Bolshevism and Stalinism." His cogent, persuasive, revisionist argument that there are always alternatives in
history and politics deeply influenced me. And his seminal biography,
Bukharin
and the Bolshevik Revolution
, challenging prevailing interpretations of Soviet history, was to me, and many, a model of
how biography should be written: engaged and sympathetically critical.
At the time, I was too accepting of conventional wisdom. Steve's work -- and soon, Steve himself -- challenged me to be
critical-minded, to seek alternatives to the status quo, to stay true to my beliefs (even if they weren't popular), and to ask
unpopular questions of even the most powerful. These are values I carry with me to this day as editorial director of
The
Nation
, which Steve introduced me to (and its editor, Victor Navasky) and for which he wrote a column ("Sovieticus") from
1982 to 1987, and many articles and essays beginning in 1979. His last book,
War
with Russia?
was a collection of dispatches (almost all posted at
thenation.com
)
distilled from Steve's weekly radio broadcasts -- beginning in 2014–on
The
John Batchelor Show
.
T
he experiences we shared in Moscow beginning in 1980 are in many ways my life's most meaningful. Steve introduced me
to realms of politics, history, and life I might never have experienced: to Bukharin's widow, the extraordinary Anna
Mikhailovna Larina, matriarch of his second family, and to his eclectic and fascinating circle of friends -- survivors of the
Gulag, (whom he later wrote about in
The
Victims Return
) dissidents, and freethinkers -- both outside and inside officialdom.
From 1985 to 1991, when we lived frequently in Moscow, we shared the intellectual and political excitement, the hopes and the
great achievements of those
perestroika
years.
We later developed a close friendship with Mikhail Gorbachev, a man we both deeply admired as an individual and as a political
leader who used his power so courageously to change his country and the world. Gorbachev also changed our lives in several
ways.
Our marriage coincided with
perestroika
.
In fact, Steve spent the very first day after our wedding, our so-called honeymoon, at the United Nations with Gorbachev and
the news anchor Dan Rather (Steve was consulting for CBS News at the time). Then, on our first anniversary, in 1989, we were
with President Bush (the first) and Gorbachev on Malta when they declared the end of the Cold War. And we think of our
daughter, Nika, now 29 years old, as a
perestroika
baby
because she was conceived in Russia during the Gorbachev years, made her first visit to Moscow in July 1991 and since then has
been back some 40 times. In a moving moment, a year after Raisa Maksimovna died, Gorbachev remarked to Steve that our marriage
and partnership reminded him of his with Raisa because we too seemed inseparable.
Steve has often regretted that many of the Russian friends he made after 1985 did not know about his earlier Moscow life. He
first visited the Soviet Union in 1959. But it was those pre-
perestroika
years,
1975 to 1982, that gave Steve what he once told me was his "real education. Not only in Russian society but in Russian
politics, because I began to understand the connection between trends in society, trends in the dissident movement, and trends
in the nomenklatura." They were "utterly formative years for me."
They also informed his writings, especially his pathbreaking book
Rethinking
the Soviet Experience
, which was published at the very time Gorbachev came to power. "There was a lot of tragedy," Steve
used to say, "but also a lot of humor and warmth when people had little more that personal friendships and ideas to keep them
company." From 1980, when I first traveled to Moscow with Steve, to 1982 when neither of us could get a visa (until 1985 when
Gorbachev became leader), we lived in that Russia, spending many nights in friends' apartments and kitchens drinking into the
night, and listening to uncensored, often pessimistic, thinking about the present and future of Russia.
I later became Steve's collaborator in smuggling
samizdat
manuscripts
out of Russia to the West, and bringing
samizdat
books
back to Russia and distributing them. By the time I joined him, Steve had managed to send dozens of such books to Moscow, and
satisfying friends with a selection ranging from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Varlam Shalamov, George Orwell, and Robert Conquest
to the
Kama
Sutra
and, of course, the
samizdat
version
of Steve's own book on Bukharin. I learned from Steve that one had to keep forbidden documents and manuscripts on one's person
at all times, knowing that the KGB frequently searched apartments and hotel rooms. At a certain point, Steve's shoulder bag
became so heavy that he developed a hernia on his right side. After surgery, he started carrying his bag on his left side, but
developed a second hernia there, as well. He liked to say that the worst the KGB ever did to him was to cause him two hernias!
In fact, it was
samizdat
manuscripts
that first brought us together. In 1978, Steve heard that I had a diplomatic passport, which would have exempted me from a
customs search, and was about to travel to Moscow. (At the time my father was the United States representative to the United
Nations in Geneva.) Through a mutual friend, Steve asked if I would bring out
samizdat
documents
being held for him in Moscow. I would have been happy to do so, but Steve had been misinformed. I didn't have a diplomatic
passport.
S
teve could sometimes seem like a tough guy, but those who won his trust knew he was a person of great generosity,
loyalty, and kindness. He was known in our New York City neighborhood on the Upper West Side as an impresario/organizer and
longtime supporter of basketball tournaments for local, often poor, kids. In the United States and Russia, Steve mentored and
supported young scholars. In the last decade, he set up fellowships for young scholars of Russian history at the several
universities where he'd he studied and taught: Indiana University, Princeton, New York University, and Columbia. He lent his
support to the establishment of Moscow's State Museum of the History of the Gulag -- and to its young director and team.
Life with Steve was never boring. He was supremely independent, the true radical in our family, unfailingly going to the root
of the problem. He spoke his mind. He had a CD with a dozen variations of "My Way" -- from Billy Bragg to Frank Sinatra. And as
The
Chronicle of Higher Education
subtitled its 2017 profile of Steve, he "was the most controversial Russia expert in
America."
SUPPORT PROGRESSIVE JOURNALISM
If you like this article, please give today to help fund
The
Nation
's work.
Through all our years together, Steve was my backbone, fortifying me for the battles
Nation
editors
must wage (often with their own writers, sometimes including Steve!), and giving me the personal and political courage to do
the right thing. But never more so than when we entered what might be called the "Russiagate era."
While Steve liked to say it's healthy to rethink, to have more questions than answers, there was a wise consistency to his
political analysis. For example, as is clear from his many articles in
The
Nation
in these last decades, he unwaveringly opposed American Cold War thinking both during the Cold War and since the
end of the Soviet Union. He was consistent in his refusal to sermonize, lecture, or moralize about what Russia should do. He
preferred to listen rather than preach, to analyze rather than demonize.
This stance was no recipe for popularity, which Steve professed to care little about. He was courageous and fearless in
continuing to question the increasingly rigid orthodoxies about the Soviet Union and Russia. But in the last months, such
criticism did take its toll on him. Along with others who sought to avert a new and more dangerous Cold War, Steve despaired
that the public debate so desperately needed had become increasingly impossible in mainstream politics or media. Until his
death he'd been working on a short article about what he saw as the "criminalization of détente." The organization he
established, the American Committee on East-West Accord, tried mightily to argue for a more sane US policy toward Russia.
He fared better than I often did confronting the controversies surrounding him since 2014, in reaction to his views on
Ukraine, Putin, election interference, and more. Positions he took often elicited slurs and scurrilous attacks. How many times
could he be labeled "Putin's puppet"? "Putin's No.1 American apologist"? Endlessly, it seemed. But Steve chose not to respond
directly to the attacks, believing -- as he told me many times when I urged him to respond -- that they offered no truly substantive
criticism of his arguments, but were merely ad hominem attacks. What he did write about -- he was increasingly concerned about
the fate of a younger generation of scholars -- was the danger of smearing those who thought differently about US policy toward
Russia, thereby silencing skeptics and contributing to the absence of a needed debate in our politics, media, and academy.
M
ikhail Gorbachev often told Steve how deeply influenced he was by his writings, especially his biography of Bukharin.
Steve first met Gorbachev in 1987 at the Soviet Embassy in Washington. It was a reception for America's "progressive
intelligentsia" -- which Steve found funny, because he considered himself a maverick and didn't like labels. But he was there
that day, and within a few minutes a Kremlin aide told Steve that the general secretary wanted to talk to him. Minutes later,
Mikhail Sergeevich approached and asked Steve, assuming the author of Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution must be eminent
and of a "serious" age: "
Deistvitelno
[really] -- you
wrote the book, or was it your father?"
Steve finally achieved that "serious" age Gorbachev spoke of! But his heart, spirit and mind remained youthful till the very
end. Maybe it's because of his love of Jerry Lee Lewis's rock and roll, or New Orleans blues or Kentucky bluegrass, or his
passion for basketball (shared with our daughter Nika and his 16-year-old grandson, Lucas), or his quest for a good anecdote
(his annual anecdote lectures at Princeton and later NYU drew large crowds). Maybe it's because we continued our walks in
nearby Riverside Park for as long as was possible -- walks full of loving and spirited argument and talk. Perhaps it's because,
while Steve was a very serious person, he didn't take himself seriously.
O
n Saturday, Mikhail Gorbachev sent these words about Steve:
Dear Katrina,
Please accept my sincere condolences on Steve's
passing. He was one of the closest people to me in his views and
understanding of the enormous events that occurred in the late 1980s in Russia and changed the world.
Steve was a brilliant historian and a man of
democratic convictions. He loved Russia, the Russian intelligentsia, and
believed in our country's future.
I always considered Steve and you my true
friends. During perestroika and all the subsequent years, I felt your
understanding and unwavering support. I thank you both.
Dear Katrina, I feel deep sympathy for your
grief and I mourn together with you and Nika.
Blessed memory for Steve.
I embrace you,
Mikhail Gorbachev
19.09.20
F
or 40 years, Steve was my partner, companion, co-conspirator, best friend, fellow traveler, mentor, husband (for 32
years), co-author. I will be forever grateful to him for introducing me to
The
Nation
, to Russia, for a life that has been full of shared adventure, friendship and passion, and for our beloved
daughter, Nika.
MOST POPULAR
1
Katrina vanden Heuvel
TWITTER
Katrina
vanden Heuvel is editorial director and publisher of
The
Nation
, America's leading source of progressive politics and culture. She served as editor of the magazine from 1995 to
2019.
Herbert Weiner
says:
September 22, 2020 at 11:53 pm
My condolences for the passing of Stephen who fought the post Cold War policies against Russia with a balanced analysis--so
contradictory to the intellectuals who gloat in our victory and are unrealistic to the "threat" posed by Russia which desperately
needs peace and friendship with the West and, especially, us.
He has shown that you can criticism and condemn Stalinism
while also condemning our anti-Soviet policies. He walked that tightrope which I applaud. May his memory be a blessing.
Erwin Borda
says:
September 22, 2020 at 10:44 pm
Dear Katrina, at this time of America's political confusion, pain and intellectual despair, the lost of Steve is really big.
He has been a source of inspiration to many, and the true defender of Russia in the middle of political adversity. Steve being an
intellectual giant always exposed his ideas in a humble and honest way. What a lost for America and for the world!
Rest in Peace Steve! And for you Katrina and Nika my most sincere condolences!
God Bless you all!
Valera Bochkarev
says:
September 22, 2020 at 8:56 am
Boots, Applebaums, Kristols and Joffes of this world will come and go as specks of dirt clogging up our civilization while never
measuring up to courageous moral and intellectual giants like Professor Cohen. His intellect, insight and humility will always be
a shining beacon for those that have high hopes for humanity. Rest in peace, Steve Cohen. You've led a righteous and honorable
life, Sir.
Pierre Guerlain
says:
September 22, 2020 at 2:43 am
I started reading Steve's articles in connection with the conspiracy theory that Russiagate is and then I watched many videos of
him in interviews. I came to admire such a courageous man who was slandered by people who knew nothing, nothing about Russia, the
country Steve knew so well but also nothing about geopolitics, international relations and the tricks of intel services. Always
competent and with a gift for clear exposition, Steve warned about what is one of the gravest dangers: war with Russia. I too
admired Gorbachev and saw how he was hoodwinked by people who unknowingly prepared Putin's rise. A great courageous thinker is
gone and we miss him.
Ann Wright
says:
September 21, 2020 at 7:53 pm
I admired Steve's perspective from 1992 when I was in the second group that wasIn the US Embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan and two
years later with the Us Embassy in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan for two years from 1994-1996. I've been back to Russia twice in the past
three years and
I agree totally with His view of the stupidity of another Cold War!!!
John Stewart
says:
September 21, 2020 at 5:12 pm
Katrina, thank you so much for sharing your thoughts. I took two courses with Professor Cohen at Princeton in 1973 and 1974, and
he was without question the best lecturer I had in seven years of higher education. He became my intellectual mentor, although I
was too shy to ever really talk with him. I graduated in Politics and Russian Studies in 1977, and he was an inspiration. I am
especially saddened by his death because I have been thinking of picking up Russian studies soon when I retire and I wanted his
advice on where I should do a Masters degree, with whom, and what topics needed someone to pick up. He was a great man, and a
voice of sense about Russia. He will be greatly missed.
John Connolly
says:
September 21, 2020 at 3:10 pm
Dear Katrina: Thank You for this personal sharing of Your life with Stephen Cohen; and sincere condolences to You, Nika and
Lucas.
I really appreciate Your clarity and candor about the unique position Steve occupied in the academic, intellectual and political
firmament ... never completely clear to me until Your explication. Steve regularly engaged and sometimes enraged me with some of
his positions -- some of them seeming to me ill-considered defenses of cloddish Stalinist bureaucrats or malevolent Russian
authoritarians ... but I read everything he wrote in 'The Nation' and anywhere else I came across him. As a longtime Trotskyist/
Socialist I could find plenty to argue about with Brother Cohen, but also found great appreciation for the fact that
almost
no one else was currently thinking and writing about Russia or the Soviet experience with the rigor, insight, depth of experience
and skill that Stephen owned and shared with us all.
It goes without saying he will be missed by You his dearest and closest
ones; but he will be sorely missed too by those of us in Your extended 'Nation' Family, and the Progressive millions he so widely
taught and influenced to 'think different'.
When Vladimir Putin got charge of Russia, there was no sign that he would do better than the
drunk he had replaced. An ex KGB officer seemed like a choice more driven by nostalgia rather
than ideology, but Putin had many more assets going for him than first met the eyes:
patriotism, humanism, a sense of justice, cunning ruse, a genius economist friend named Sergey
Glazyev whom openly despised the New World Order, but above all, he embodied the reincarnation
of the long lost Russian ideology of total political and economical independence. After a few
years spent at draining the Russian swamp from the oligarchs and mafiosis that his stumbling
predecessor had left in his trail of empty bottles, Vlad rolled his sleeves and got to
work.
Because his opponents had been looting the planet for 250 years through colonization insured
by a military dominance, Vlad knew that he had to start by building an invincible military
machine. And he did. He came up with different types of hypersonic missiles that can't be
stopped, the best defensive systems on the planet, the best electronic jamming systems, and the
best planes. Then to make sure that a nuclear war wouldn't be an option, he came up with stuff
which nightmares are made of, such as the Sarmat, the Poseidon and the Avangard, all
unstoppable and able to destroy any country in a matter of a few hours.
Putin said that Russia is the only country in the world that has hypersonic weapons even
though its military spending is a fraction of the U.S. military budget. Russian Defense
Minister Sergei Shoigu, left, and Chief of General Staff of Russia Valery Gerasimov, right,
attend the meeting.
With a new and unmatched arsenal, he could proceed to defeat any NATO force or any of its
proxies, as he did starting in September 2015 in Syria. He proved to every country that
independence from the NWO banking system was now a matter of choice. Putin not only won the
Syrian war, but he won the support of many New World Order countries that suddenly switched
sides upon realizing how invincible Russia had become. On a diplomatic level, it also got
mighty China by its side, and then managed to protect independent oil producers such as
Venezuela and Iran, while leaders like Erdogan of Turkey and Muhammad Ben Salman of Saudi
Arabia decided to side with Russia, who isn't holding the best poker hand, but the whole deck
of cards.
Ending in the conclusion that Putin now controls the all-mighty oil market, the unavoidable
energy resource that lubricates economies and armies, while the banksters' NATO can only watch,
without any means to get it back. With the unbelievable results that Putin has been getting in
the last five years, the New World Order suddenly looks like a house of cards about to crumble.
The Empire of Banks has been terminally ill for five years, but it's now on morphine, barely
realizing what's going on.
Tragedy and hope
Since there is no hope in starting WW3 which is lost in advance, the last banzai came out of
the bushes in the shape of a virus and the ensuing media creation of a fake pandemic. The main
focus was to avoid a catastrophic hyperinflation of the humongous mass of US dollar that no one
wants anymore, to have time to implement their virtual world crypto-currency, as if the
chronically failing bankers still have any legitimacy to keep controlling our money supplies.
It seemed at first that the plan could work. That's when Vlad took out his revolver to start
the Russian roulette game and bankers blew their brains out upon the pressure on the
trigger.
He called a meeting with OPEC and killed the price of oil by refusing to lower Russia's
production, taking the barrel to under 30 dollars. Without any afterthought and certainly even
less remorse, Vlad killed the costly Western oil production. All the dollars that had been
taken out of the market had to be re-injected by the Fed and other central banks to avoid a
downslide and the final disaster. By now, our dear bankers are out of solutions.
... ... ..
The New World Order is facing the two most powerful countries on the planet, and this fake
pandemic changed everything. It showed how desperate the banksters are, and if we don't want to
end up with nuclear warheads flying in both directions, Putin and Trump have to stop them
now.
Terminate the BIS, the World Bank, the IMF, the European Central bank, the EU, NATO, now.
Our world won't be perfect, but it might get much better soon.
Easter resurrection is coming. This might get biblical.
"... The blogger Caitlin Johnstone accurately states that these most of these mainstream corporate journalists are really *narrative managers* in that their primary role is to peddle the official narrative of the US corporate/political establishment for any given topic. ..."
"... I would add that the managing editors of these "journalists"/narrative managers would be more honestly described as "handlers," to use the parlance of spooks. ..."
"... Waste of time. They control the media. The Internet may have lots of influence, but it still does not set "consensus reality" - that remains with the MSM. The MSM issues one coordinated narrative. The Internet is all over the place. Without one coordinated narrative, you can't set "reality". ..."
"... In addition, those who issue the narrative and control the MSM have the power. People want to believe those in power, due to cognitive dissonance - otherwise they'd have to accept that everyone ruling their lives is a corrupt liar. The electorate may *say* they understand that their rulers are corrupt - but they can't act* on that realization without compromising their own internal belief systems. So again, waste of time to try ..."
snake , Sep 22 2020 0:59 utc | 22 can we not invent a method that can counter this tactic of using propaganda to control
the narrative?
1) Hack them. Release their planning documents, emails, phone calls, etc. showing how the scam was set up.
2) Waste of time. They control the media. The Internet may have lots of influence, but it still does not set "consensus reality"
- that remains with the MSM. The MSM issues one coordinated narrative. The Internet is all over the place. Without one coordinated
narrative, you can't set "reality".
3) In addition, those who issue the narrative and control the MSM have the power. People want to believe those in power, due to
cognitive dissonance - otherwise they'd have to accept that everyone ruling their lives is a corrupt liar. The electorate may *say*
they understand that their rulers are corrupt - but they can't act* on that realization without compromising their own internal belief
systems. So again, waste of time to try.
Well....as always, and especially if it involves anything even remotely relating to 'Russia', or Iran, or whatever adversarial
operational target of the day might be -- one can reliably count on our very own "Izvestia on the Hudson" to faithfully execute
their officially sanctioned nation security state propaganda mission by dutifully steno-graphing as much dis/mis-information as
their NSA/CIA/Pentagon handlers request (require) from them.
It was a shock on arriving at the New York Times in 2004, as the paper's movie editor, to realize that its editorial dynamic
was essentially the reverse. By and large, talented reporters scrambled to match stories with what internally was often called
"the narrative." We were occasionally asked to map a narrative for our various beats a year in advance, square the plan with
editors, then generate stories that fit the pre-designated line.
Reality usually had a way of intervening. But I knew one senior reporter who would play solitaire on his computer in the
mornings, waiting for his editors to come through with marching orders. Once, in the Los Angeles bureau, I listened to a visiting
National staff reporter tell a contact, more or less: "My editor needs someone to say such-and-such, could you say that?"
The bigger shock came on being told, at least twice, by Times editors who were describing the paper's daily Page One meeting:
"We set the agenda for the country in that room.
The blogger Caitlin Johnstone accurately states that these most of these mainstream corporate journalists are really *narrative
managers* in that their primary role is to peddle the official narrative of the US corporate/political establishment for any given
topic.
I would add that the managing editors of these "journalists"/narrative managers would be more honestly described as "handlers,"
to use the parlance of spooks.
In fact, it would be apt to described venerable institution of journalism itself as an intelligence operation.
@snake | Sep 22 2020 0:59 utc | 22 can we not invent a method that can counter this tactic of using propaganda to control the
narrative?
1) Hack them. Release their planning documents, emails, phone calls, etc. showing how the scam was set up.
2) Waste of time. They control the media. The Internet may have lots of influence, but it still does not set "consensus
reality" - that remains with the MSM. The MSM issues one coordinated narrative. The Internet is all over the place. Without one
coordinated narrative, you can't set "reality".
3) In addition, those who issue the narrative and control the MSM have the power. People want to believe those in power,
due to cognitive dissonance - otherwise they'd have to accept that everyone ruling their lives is a corrupt liar. The electorate
may *say* they understand that their rulers are corrupt - but they can't act* on that realization without compromising their own
internal belief systems. So again, waste of time to try.
Those sneaky Russians are well aware Biden is doing a good enough job of subverting his
own campaign.
They know he, like his opponent, offers no relief from the constant militarism and forever
wars that the American public is fed up with.
They know he, like his opponent, is corrupt and represents corporate interests and that
the American public sees him as out of touch and incapable of offering anything in terms of
substantive change.
They know that so long as Biden doesn't offer any kind of viable alternative to the status
quo his candidacy is going to be weak and ineffectual and that there isn't much of anything
they could do that could possibly enhance that effect.
So, they're content to sit back and let nature take its course. In other words, they
realize the best way to interfere in the American elections... is by NOT interfering with
them.
And how could the Americans possibly counter such a strategy? The deviousness is off the charts. Damn those Russians!
The rapid onset of a mysterious illness that almost killed Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny last week and ultimately led to his
emergency airlifting to Germany for treatment while in a medically induced coma immediately prompted widespread speculation
from the Western media that the authorities had tried to poison him, but it's unrealistic to imagine such a scenario since
there are several compelling reasons why the government wouldn't ever want to harm him as well as some relevant arguments for
why the West wants their targeted audience across the world to think otherwise.
The Mysterious Illness
The
Western media has been captivated by the curious case of Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny after the rapid onset of a mysterious
illness almost killed him while he was mid-flight from Siberia to Moscow to
face
charges of slander
after calling a World War II veteran a "traitor" earlier this summer for supporting amendments to the
constitution. Navalny was ultimately airlifted to Germany for treatment while in a medically induced coma at his
wife's
request
. Private individuals
footed
the bill
, and the authorities
didn't
object
to his departure. Prior to that, the Russian doctors shared their
preliminary
diagnosis
that his illness was caused by a "metabolic disorder" which might have been triggered by a "sharp drop in blood
sugar". They also
confirmed
that
"no poisons or traces of poison have been found in his system", which is why a law enforcement source told
TASS
that
"There are no grounds for opening a criminal case, no crime elements have been identified." An
industrial
chemical
was found on his hands and clothes during testing, but the Omsk Regional Office of the Interior Ministry is of
the belief that "it may have appeared after contact with plastic glass".
Assassination Speculations
Those are the facts as they objectively exist at the moment of this article's publication on 24 August, but the political
context of the case has fueled speculation about foul play. The
most
popular theory
is that he was poisoned after drinking a cup of tea that was
handed
to him by his aide
while waiting for his flight at the airport. Staff at the cafe in question that were interviewed by
police said that they
didn't
know anything
about the incident, and the business has since
closed
.
Despite the Russian doctors
concluding
that
there were "no toxicological substances that could have been described as a poison" in his system, the Western media has
speculated that he was poisoned as part of a Kremlin plot. This narrative builds upon the unproven stories of the past two
decades, especially the recent Skripal case from two years ago, alleging that President Putin personally orders his critics
across the world to be poisoned as punishment for bruising his ego. Despite being ridiculous to countenance for any objective
observer, it nevertheless advances the information warfare narrative that the Russian leader is a "dangerous dictator" who
must be stopped by all means possible.
Navalny's Real Role In Russian Society
This politically self-serving depiction of events relies on its targeted audience's ignorance of Russian domestic politics
since those who are aware of everyday realities there know better than to imagine such a scenario. Navalny isn't the
"opposition leader" that he's portrayed as abroad, but is more like an investigative blogger and protest organizer than
anything else. His ethno-nationalist views only appeal to the extreme right-wing fringe of society, though Westerners are
generally unaware of them since their media mostly only focuses on his occasional liberal rhetoric and regular criticism of
the authorities. While his racial beliefs are politically dangerous in terms of threatening to unravel the cosmopolitan
country's unity, they're not an electoral threat considering how unpopular they are, hence why the ruling United Russia party
isn't too concerned about him. Navalny wouldn't even be that well-known at home had he not repeatedly broken the law by
organizing unauthorized rallies, provocations which always receive disproportionate attention from his Western media allies.
Exaggerating his political importance is therefore nothing more than a Western infowar tactic.
The "Pressure Valve"
This presumably irks the government, but it in no way threatens it. If anything, the authorities have come to accept the role
that Navalny plays in society as a "pressure valve" for people's frustration with corruption and other related issues. They're
used to his antics by now, and he's regarded as the "devil that they know". His departure from the scene would actually be
counterproductive since it might open up the opportunity for an even more radical individual to replace him, one who's much
less "manageable" and might dangerously stir up ethno-nationalist tensions in society under the cover "anti-corruption"
rhetoric. Since he's so highly regarded in the West as a result of their long-running infowar, they know that they'd
immediately be suspected if anything happened to him. This in turn, as is presently on display as a result of his mysterious
medical crisis, could then be twisted into even more devious infowar narratives against their country such as the current one
speculating that the authorities tried to assassinate him. They'd never do anything of the sort, but all that matters is that
the West's targeted audience believes this false claim after being preconditioned for years to accept it.
Different Infowar Targets, Different Intended Outcomes
The
non-Russian audience is having their negative views about the country reinforced by the "
media
circus
" surrounding Navalny's mysterious illness, and their governments might potentially use the incident as a pretext
for tightening the sanctions regime against Russia, and especially against specific individuals who they might eventually
claim were linked to what's being wrongly portrayed as an "assassination attempt". As for the targeted Russian audience, the
West might hope that this incident could spark another wave of protests in Moscow along the lines of the ongoing ones in the
Far Eastern city of Khabarovsk and the Belarusian capital of Minsk. That wouldn't be for the purpose of overthrowing the
government which is completely unrealistic, but simply to cause some more trouble for it. The German doctors'
forthcoming
prognosis
will be crucial in determining the scenario trajectory since they'll either reaffirm the findings of their
Russian counterparts and predictably lead to this manufactured scandal blowing over or possibly challenge them under pressure
from Western intelligence agencies and thus exacerbate the situation.
The
ambulance that transported Alexei Navalny to Charite Mitte Hospital Complex in Berlin, Germany August 22, 2020
Scenario Forecasting
There are no credible reasons to doubt the Russian doctors' preliminary prognosis that Navalny's medical emergency was caused
by a sharp drop in his blood-sugar levels, but their German counterparts might publicly allege a different version of events.
Should that happen, then it's almost certain that Western governments will claim that he was poisoned at the behest of
President Putin, threaten to impose more sanctions against Russia (most likely targeted ones), and naturally grant Navalny
political asylum. Russia would predictably object to that series of events considering the fact that its doctors concluded
that there were no poisons found in his system, which would lead to yet another layer of tension in Russia-West relations. Not
only that, but since Navalny is currently being treated in Germany, intense pressure might be put upon the authorities by
domestic politicians and their American patrons to politicize the final leg of Nord Stream II's construction by potentially
delaying it as "punishment to Putin". That would be an unfortunate twist to the situation, but one that definitely can't be
ruled out after taking into account just how badly the US wants to sabotage that project.
Concluding Thoughts
As
it stands, it looks like Navalny really did experience a genuine medical emergency, one which was naturally occurring and not
the result of any foul play. Neither the Russian authorities nor foreign intelligence agencies attempted to assassinate him,
but the German doctors might be pressured by Western intelligence agencies to contradict their counterpart's findings in order
to provoke a fake crisis in Russia-West relations, one which could then potentially be leveraged to put interfere with the
final stage of Nord Stream II's construction. Regardless of how this incident ends, one thing's for certain, and it's that
Navalny's mysterious illness was politicized before there were any grounds to do so. The Western media has an interest in
making it seem like President Putin ordered his assassination because of his bruised ego, but this is ridiculous to
countenance since Navalny fulfills a useful role in Russian society by functioning as a "pressure valve" for people's
frustration with corruption and other related issues. The last thing that the Kremlin would ever do is harm him since all
Russian authorities already know that their government would immediately be suspected if something happened to him.
Unfortunately in his brilliant analysis of USA-Russia relations Stephen Cohen never pointed out that the USA policy toward
Russia is dictated by the interests of maintaining global neoliberal empire and the concept of "Full Spectrum Dominance" which was
adopted by the USA neoliberal elite after the collapse of the USSR.
Like British empire the USA neoliberal empire is now overextended, metropolia is in secular stagnation with deterioration
standard of living of the bottom 80% of population, so the USA under Trump became more aggressive and dangerous on the international
arena. Trump administration behaves behaves like a cornered rat on international arena.
Notable quotes:
"... On Friday, 18 September, professor Steve Cohen passed away in New York City and we, the "dissident" community of Americans standing for peace with Russia – and for peace with the world at large – lost a towering intellectual and skillful defender of our cause who enjoyed an audience of millions by his weekly broadcasts on the John Batchelor Show, WABC Radio. ..."
"... from the start of the Information Wars against Russia during the George W. Bush administration following Putin's speech at the Munich Security Conference in February 2007, no voice questioning the official propaganda line in America was tolerated. Steve Cohen, who in the 1990s had been a welcome guest on U.S. national television and a widely cited expert in print media suddenly found himself blacklisted and subjected to the worst of McCarthyite style, ad hominem attacks. ..."
"... the opposition to Steve was led by experts in the Ukrainian and other minority peoples sub-categories of the profession who were militantly opposed not just to him personally but to any purely objective, not to mention sympathetic treatment of Russian leadership in the territorial expanse of Eurasia. ..."
"... Almost no one outside our 'dissident' community is concerned about the possibility of Armageddon in say two years' time due to miscalculations and bad luck in our pursuing economic, informational and military confrontation with Russia and China. ..."
"... My point in this discussion is that in the last decade of his life Stephen Cohen became one of the nation's most fearless and persistent defenders of the right to Free Speech. ..."
"... It was forced upon him by The New York Times, The Washington Post and other major media who pilloried him or blacklisted him over his unorthodox, unsanctioned, nonconformist views on the "Putin regime." It was forced upon him by university colleagues who sought to deny his right to establish graduate school fellowships in Russian affairs bearing his name and that of his mentor at Indiana University, Professor Tucker. ..."
"... In the face of vicious personal attacks from these McCarthyite forces, in the face of hate mail and even threats to his life, Steve decided to set up The American Committee and to recruit to its governing board famous, patriotic Americans and the descendants of the most revered families in the country. In this he succeeded, and it is to his credit that a moral counter force to the stampeding bulls of repression was erected and has survived to this day. ..."
On Friday, 18 September, professor Steve Cohen passed away in New York City and we, the
"dissident" community of Americans standing for peace with Russia – and for peace with
the world at large – lost a towering intellectual and skillful defender of our cause who
enjoyed an audience of millions by his weekly broadcasts on the John Batchelor Show, WABC
Radio.
A year ago, I reviewed his latest book, War With Russia? which drew upon the
material of those programs and took this scholar turned journalist into a new and highly
accessible genre of oral readings in print. The narrative style may have been more relaxed,
with simplified syntax, but the reasoning remained razor sharp. I urge those who are today
paying tribute to Steve, to buy and read the book, which is his best legacy.
From start to finish, Stephen F. Cohen was among America's best historians of his
generation, putting aside the specific subject matter that he treated: Nikolai Bukharin, his
dissertation topic and the material of his first and best known book; or, to put it more
broadly, the history of Russia (USSR) in the 20 th century. He was one of the very
rare cases of an historian deeply attentive to historiography, to causality and to logic. I
understood this when I read a book of his from the mid-1980s in which he explained why Russian
(Soviet) history was no longer attracting young students of quality: because there were no
unanswered questions, because we smugly assumed that we knew about that country all that there
was to know. That was when our expert community told us with one voice that the USSR was
entrapped in totalitarianism without any prospect for the overthrow of its oppressive
regime.
But my recollections of Steve also have a personal dimension going back six years or so when
a casual email correspondence between us flowered into a joint project that became the launch
of the American Committee for East West Accord (ACEWA). This was a revival of a
pro-détente association of academics and business people that existed from the mid-1970s
to the early 1990s, when, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the removal of the
Communist Party from power, the future of Russia in the family of nations we call the
'international community' seemed assured and there appeared to be no further need for such an
association as ACEWA.
I hasten to add that in the original ACEWA Steve and I were two ships that passed in the
night. With his base in Princeton, he was a protégé of the dean of diplomats then
in residence there, George Kennan, who was the leading light on the academic side of the ACEWA.
I was on the business side of the association, which was led by Don Kendall, chairman of
Pepsico and also for much of the 1970s chairman of the US-USSR Trade and Economic Council of
which I was also a member. I published pro-détente articles in their newsletter and
published a lengthy piece on cooperation with the Soviet Union in agricultural and food
processing domains, my specialty at that time, in their collection of essays by leaders in the
U.S. business community entitled Common Sense in U.S.-Soviet Trade .
The academic contingent had, as one might assume, a 'progressive' coloration, while the
business contingent had a Nixon Republican coloration. Indeed, in the mid-1980s these two sides
split in their approach to the growing peace movement in the U.S. that was fed by opposition in
the 'thinking community' on university campuses to Ronald Reagan's Star Wars agenda. Kendall
shut the door at ACEWA to rabble rousing and the association did not rise to the occasion, so
that its disbanding in the early '90s went unnoticed.
In the re-incorporated American Committee, I helped out by assuming the formal obligations
of Treasurer and Secretary, and also became the group's European Coordinator from my base in
Brussels. At this point my communications with Steve were almost daily and emotionally quite
intense. This was a time when America's expert community on Russian affairs once again felt
certain that it knew everything there was to know about the country, and most particularly
about the nefarious "Putin regime." But whereas in the 1970s and 1980s, polite debate about the
USSR/Russia was entirely possible both behind closed doors and in public space, from the
start of the Information Wars against Russia during the George W. Bush administration following
Putin's speech at the Munich Security Conference in February 2007, no voice questioning the
official propaganda line in America was tolerated. Steve Cohen, who in the 1990s had been a
welcome guest on U.S. national television and a widely cited expert in print media suddenly
found himself blacklisted and subjected to the worst of McCarthyite style, ad hominem
attacks.
From my correspondence and several meetings with Steve at this time both in his New York
apartment and here in Brussels, when he and Katrina van der Heuvel came to participate in a
Round Table dedicated to relations with Russia at the Brussels Press Club that I arranged, I
knew that Steve was deeply hurt by these vitriolic attacks. He was at the time waging a
difficult campaign to establish a fellowship in support of graduate studies in Russian affairs.
It was touch and go, because of vicious opposition from some stalwarts of the profession to any
fellowship that bore Steve's name. Allow me to put the 'i' on this dispute: the opposition
to Steve was led by experts in the Ukrainian and other minority peoples sub-categories of the
profession who were militantly opposed not just to him personally but to any purely objective,
not to mention sympathetic treatment of Russian leadership in the territorial expanse of
Eurasia. In the end, Steve and Katrina prevailed. The fellowships exist and, hopefully,
will provide sustenance to future studies when American attitudes towards Russia become less
politicized.
At all times and on all occasions, Steve Cohen was a voice of reason above all. The problem
of our age is that we are now not only living in a post-factual world, but in a post-logic
world. The public reads day after day the most outrageous and illogical assertions about
alleged Russian misdeeds posted by our most respected mainstream media including The New
York Times and The Washington Post . Almost no one dares to raise a hand and
suggest that this reporting is propaganda and that the public is being brainwashed. Steve did
exactly that in War With Russia? in a brilliant and restrained text.
Regrettably today we have no peace movement to speak of. Youth and our 'progressive' elites
are totally concerned over the fate of humanity in 30 or 40 years' time as a consequence of
Global Warming and rising seas. That is the essence of the Green Movement. Almost no one
outside our 'dissident' community is concerned about the possibility of Armageddon in say two
years' time due to miscalculations and bad luck in our pursuing economic, informational and
military confrontation with Russia and China.
I fear it will take only some force majeure development such as we had in 1962 during the
Cuban Missile Crisis to awaken the broad public to the risks to our very survival that we are
incurring by ignoring the issues that Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Princeton and New
York University was bringing to the airwaves week after week on his radio program.
Postscript
In terms of action, the new ACEWA was even less effective than its predecessor, which had
avoided linking up with the peace movement of the 1980s and sought to exert influence on policy
through armchair talks with Senators and other statesmen in Washington behind closed doors of
(essentially) men's clubs.
However, the importance of the new ACEWA, and the national importance of Stephen Cohen lay
elsewhere.
This question of appraising Stephen Cohen's national importance is all the more timely given
that on the day of his death, 18 September, the nation also lost Supreme Justice Ruth Ginsburg,
about whose national importance no Americans, whether her fans or her opponents, had any
doubt.
My point in this discussion is that in the last decade of his life Stephen Cohen became
one of the nation's most fearless and persistent defenders of the right to Free Speech. It
was not a role that he sought. It was thrust upon him by the expert community of international
affairs, including the Council on Foreign Relations, from which he reluctantly resigned over
this matter.
It was forced upon him by The New York Times, The Washington Post and other major media
who pilloried him or blacklisted him over his unorthodox, unsanctioned, nonconformist views on
the "Putin regime." It was forced upon him by university colleagues who sought to deny his
right to establish graduate school fellowships in Russian affairs bearing his name and that of
his mentor at Indiana University, Professor Tucker.
In the face of vicious personal attacks from these McCarthyite forces, in the face of
hate mail and even threats to his life, Steve decided to set up The American Committee and to
recruit to its governing board famous, patriotic Americans and the descendants of the most
revered families in the country. In this he succeeded, and it is to his credit that a moral
counter force to the stampeding bulls of repression was erected and has survived to this
day.
[If you found value in this article, you should be interested to read my latest collection
of essays entitled A Belgian Perspective on International Affairs, published in
November 2019 and available in e-book, paperback and hardbound formats from amazon, barnes
& noble, bol.com, fnac, Waterstones and other online retailers. Use the "View Inside" tab
on the book's webpages to browse.]
It was all about Full Spectrum Domination. McFaul is not intellectual, he is a propagandist. Actually mediocre, obnoxious
propagandist. In like Professor Cohen, intellectually he is nothing with academic credentials.
The level and primitivism lies about Ukraine would name any serious academic flash. It was about encircling
Russia.
McFaul was behind Magnitsky which in best conspiracy tradition raises questions whether he works for MI6? We now know who
Browder was and suspicious that he was Magnitsky killer or facilitator/financer (by hiring the jail doctor who traded Magnitsky)
are very strong in view of "cui bono" question.
Notable quotes:
"... He is definitely not at the same level as Stephen F.Cohen. This is very alarming for the US, that people like him could have any power decision on Foreign Policy, and could explain the slow decline of the USA. ..."
"... McFaul is intellectually incoherent and disingenuous. Cohen wasted him ..."
"... We all know the truth... US economy heavily dependent on producing weapons and ammunition ..."
"... Mc Faul is clearly not supposed to have been in the positions of power, where he was. Something is fundamentally wrong with America. I think there is a crisis of personnel. Where are all these incredibly smart, high IQ people Harvard, Princeton, and the Ivy Leagues are supposedly pumping out? ..."
McFaul is definitely not an academic, but much more a mediocre high civil servant. He is
also very post modern in his approach. He is here to sell his book, not to argue ideas. He is
incapable of building a rhetorical argument, and of having any political vision or strong
analytical intelligence.
He is definitely not at the same level as Stephen F.Cohen. This is
very alarming for the US, that people like him could have any power decision on Foreign
Policy, and could explain the slow decline of the USA.
Confronted to people like Putin who is
obviously an Old fashion politician like de Gaulles or Churchill, the Cold War can only lead
us to catastrophe.
Great facts from Prof. Cohen. Faulty logic from McFaul ("you cannot use those
variables..."). McFaul will not get far in understanding Russia with this twisted approach,
ie pretending like nothing (NATO, missile treaty, regime changes) happens.
Very informative debate! I think McFaul has only contributed to the new cold war with the
treaties he helped write and the ill-informed advice he provided to the neoconservative Obama
administration. Mr. Stephen Cohen is brilliant and I only wish he was more influential in
shaping today's foreign policy. Though thankfully, McFaul is also no longer influential in
shaping U.S. foreign policy.
Very low from McFaul. Bringing personal attacks on him from social media as "facts" and
"arguments" ("McFaul is a pedophile") . This not a level of academic argument from McFaul. He
is no match to Cohen.
It's so easy to understand! Russia is doing same thing usa will do when china starts to
open military bases in latin America. Its not hard to imagine and in decade or to you will
not have to imagine you will have that reality. Many Latin America countries will be interconnected with china with economic and military
agreements than one day they will try to
brig Mexico in China's sphere of influence if they refuse china can let's say "help" opposition
to come in power and sign everything China wants.
I would like to see what American "experts"
will say. How many of them will think that Mexico as a sovereign natio have right to sign any
agreement it wants maybe even Russia can open military base and bring nuclear weapons to
border of USA. So what it's their democratic right, isn't it?
1:13:33 - 1:13:58 I swear by the
all-powerful Albert Einistine that you are lying AND YOU KNOW IT. Russians said A BILLION
times that U.S.A slowly but SURELY preparing for what they called "a calamitous war" by
moving its lethal weapons nearer and nearer to the Russian territories.
We all know the
truth... US economy heavily dependent on producing weapons and ammunition but the very very
very main reason [for harassing Russia and the rest of world] is because the Rothschild
family wants GLOBAL DOMINATION. SOLD FACT (ask ANY Russian intelligence officer about it and
you will see what i mean).
I have read Professor Cohen's last two works ("Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives" and
"War with Russia?") and found them very informative and persuasive, but seeing him here
expanding upon his key arguments is even more rewarding.
He shouldn't have to be brave to
hold to his position, given his reputation as a scholar, but regrettably he is made to appear
out of step with the critical mass of opinion makers who see more value promoting conflict
with Russia than working towards a sensible accommodation.
I'm not an "expert" from Stanford, but as I recall the USSR imploded and the US [CIA etc]
was totally surprised -so called pundits and experts in the US did not see it coming, then
the next thing we get is US mainstream media claimed victory in the cold war, just blanket
assertions that US won the cold war because the US is virtuous and clean and good, and we did
it by the clear superiority of US way of life or some such crap.
Charles Krauthammer, for
example. Now so called media and historians try to convince us that Reagan lead disarmament,
but as I recall he blocked it at most points, for example, it was Gorbachev not Reagan who
was out front and did all the leading at Reykjavik, and Reagan threw away Gorbachev's
historic offer to totally disarm on the grounds that Star Wars was a more important priority,
on Richard Perle's advice.
Now we are seeing something similar under Trump in which the US is
again uninterested in peace and far more interested in wars by proxies and drones and global
hegemony and control running the 7 seas and space to boot.
Michael Foley is a liar of course US was involved I was me in US Army force and my friends
used to travel to Georgia way before 2008 and of course everybody knows 2008 Russia and
Georgia went to war with each other but our soldiers US government soldiers were teaching
Georgians fighting with the NATO forces and all orange resolutions and Geo like him involved
in Overturning government was famous Victoria Nuland
Interesting debate and I hope Cohen is right, and is not the first of its kind. But still
the FIRST EVER free debate about the New Cold War in the United States is (so far) still on
Youtube. While listening to the two professors I found myself noting the difference in the
presentation of facts from a career oriented politician/academic who is influenced by a
forced narrative (McFaul) and one (Cohen) who is an academic historian who is in dissent and
can speak freely (he is retired).
Keep in mind that Prof. McFaul has a career to worry about.
It shows a LOT! Here we can see how political pressure can influence a debate. McFaul is
still quite deserving of accolades for his courage to even say what he did in this debate.
And note how much free speech is missing in American society in the fact that this sort of
thing is very difficult to achieve in a collapsed democracy. Note also that McFaul also stuck
to "the Narrative" big lies like the so-called Crimea "annexation" when he would have known
the truth of it....There are other examples. Americans are denied the fact that the public
vote taken in Crimea was over 90% IN FAVOUR of joining Russia (again). This fact is simply
too large for McFaul to be unaware of and yet most Americans are wallowing in this fake news.
Or censored omissions. FWIW, Galearis
Prof. McFaul is a partisan. He bases his opinion of detailed facts, so detailed that he
misses the bigger picture. The bigger picture is that he claims to be a sovereigns, but
only when it comes to the US sovereignty. How about Russia's sovereignty?
Or Ukraine's whose
government has been toppled by a (among others) US sponsored coup? How about Syria
sovereignty? He furthers the view that the US had a fair posture towards Russia, which is
not. This is also demonstrated by his personal deep dislike of Putin, which is something that
both a real statesman or a real scholar should not influence opinions and actions.
McFaul's
perspective is also flawed by the conflation of his (and Obama's) wishes and reality: that is
that they don't like Putin and think to deal with Russia as if Putin was not there,
but he is. You deal with the reality, not with your wishes. Putin is legitimate and strong
Russia's president, whether McFaul likes him or not. A real respect for sovereignty demands
respect for the head of the state you deal with. You don't question his legitimacy, as well
as they don't questioned Clinton's, Bush's, Obama or Trump legitimacy. His point of view is
that everything goes on in the world should have the US sanction, otherwise is not good.
This
is imperial hubris, this is arrogance. This flaws his opinion in so far everything is
measured upon american likes and dislikes. THis is not statesmanship, this is not
scholarship, this is partisanship. He is also intellectually dishonest because he confuses a
debate on right and wrong, which should be based on certain assumptions, with a debate on
party interests, which has nothing to do with right and wrong, and is based on different
assumptions. Indeed he is the less fit person in a debate on responsibility for the New Cold
War because he was involved in its development and acquisition.
Partisanship is admitted, but
shouldn't be disguised as neutrality or given any relevance just because of knowledge of
technical details he knows - much of them are, frankly, irrelevant. His points are weak and
inconsistent with geopolitical and a realist view of the international relations, they are
biased by universal-liberal ideology, they are US-centric, he forgets too many essential
points about the whole story. For instance he talks about the missed chance for Russian
democracy (here a debate about what democracy is: his assumption is that the US democracy is
.... please, don't make me laugh), but he doesn't mention that Soviet people voted in
referenda and overwhelmingly wanted the USSR to keep on existing, but he forgets this
"detail".
He forgets how the so much beloved Elcin sent the tanks against the parliament,
many people were killed, how he allowed the pillaging of Russian people and resources by
criminal oligarchs (many of them happily hosted by the UK and presented as political
dissidents), and how the Russian 1996 were HEAVILY rigged and meddled by the US in order to
reconfirm Elcin as a president. He complains about Putin being appointed by Elcin out of
nothing. Well I can't recall any American complaints at that time, maybe because they thought
he could be an alcoholic puppet like Elcin and that was clearly something the US liked and
supported. So what about Obama (fake) words about wishing a strong Russia?
Obama spoke
derogatory words about Russia. The only American interests about Russia is that is a militarily and strategically weak provider of cheap natural resources and that is not in tne
position of competing for anything. I will stop here, although I could write pages and pages
about McFlaws .... ooops! McFaul's inconsistency both as a scholar and even more as a
statesman's advisor, but the debate was among a great intellectual with a clear vision of the
world, and a small professor taken with insignificant details and too much love for Obama and
blind believe in liberal universal ideology.
Mc Faul is clearly not supposed to have been in the positions of power, where he was.
Something is fundamentally wrong with America. I think there is a crisis of personnel. Where
are all these incredibly smart, high IQ people Harvard, Princeton, and the Ivy Leagues are
supposedly pumping out?
Prof. Cohen astonishing realpolitik ingenuity when asked "what the security interests of
Ukraine and Georgia are" ( 1:16:21 ) unveils to me his
understanding of politics as kind of imperialistic chess game where the US stands against the
USSR (or RF for that matter). I have experienced the same feelings from his other debates (I
remember one memorable at Munk Debates in 2015) - as if the historic fears, desires and
dreams (of NATO or EU membership as the only effective shield against Russian military power)
of so many ex-soviet countries means absolutely nothing - as if they were mere puppets of US
"regime". As though the legitimate wishes of these sovereign countries means nothing at all.
He is so surprised by that question he suddenly can't retrieve even the definition of what
security interests of a country actually means - a rather strange quality in a historian.
Ultimately he comes up with "they should make peace with their neighbors" - say this to
countries that were along their history subjects of Soviet violent repression, military
invasions, ethnic genocides and such. "I don't think Russian is a threat to them". Absolutely
ridiculous.
This Michael McFaul individual is such severe laughing-stock completely out of touch with
reality. Stephen Cohen's version of the "new cold war" is much closer to reality and we
should not forget the nefarious entities that pull the strings in D.C. U.S. covert
involvement throughout eastern Europe and especially the Ukraine is more than evident. Putin
and Russia in general is not stupid and see right through U.S. covert meddling on Russia's
border. And those "peaceful demonstrators" in Syria that MacFaul dearly praises are mere
agents of the CIA/Mossad complex. Where are they now?
Monroe doctrine doesn't care about the democratic rights of countries in the western
hemisphere to enter into any alliance or partnership with USA's rival. Also, there's still no
evidence of Russian hacking which is basis of their religion of RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA !
Sure, since in Ukraine you guys didn't push money in mysterious organisations that would
support the "democratic" narrative. I don't like NATO in my country and I see nato presence
as an existential threat for Russia! Look back at the Cuba crisis it's exactly the SAME! You
no good morally and ethically corrupt poor excuses of mouth pieces
Either that Faul person is delusional or he is outright lying - Did Turkey not get
threatened with sanctions when they decided to trade with Russia on anti missile weapons.
You know Obama is a straight faced liar . Furthermore , we genocided innocent Christians
and Muslims in three countries and created a diaspora of migrants to Europe. So , we are
supposed to believe that all those PhDs did not foresee that , most people think that it was
your intentional outcome all along . So it goes now in Venezuela. Mcfaul is one of many who
just carry the water and carry out orders . It's almost as if , the powers that be want the
USA to fall . Because they can not be this stupid .
Call Cohen tells the truth the other guy just lying a United States started that whole
thing in Syria they backed up Isis they backed up all the terrorists and because they want to
split the country up and give Israel that major part of it cuz they want the natural
resources the oil out of there and everything else because that's what they do everywhere
they go they want a natural Resorts and they don't care how many people they kill
You know Obama is a straight faced liar . Furthermore , we genocided innocent Christians
and Muslims in three countries and created a diaspora of migrants to Europe. So , we are
supposed to believe that all those PhDs did not foresee that , most people think that it was
your intentional outcome all along . So it goes now in Venezuela. Mcfaul is one of many who
just carry the water and carry out orders . It's almost as if , the powers that be want the
USA to fall . Because they can not be this stupid .
Prof. McFaul is a partisan. He bases his opinion of detailed facts, so detailed that he
misses the bigger picture. The bigger picture is that he claims to be a sovereignist, but
only when it comes to the US sovereignty. How about Russia's sovereignity? Or Ukraine's whose
government has been toppled by a (among others) US sponsored coup? How about Syria
sovereignty? He furthers the view that the US had a fair posture towards Russia, which is
not. This is also demonstrated by his personal deep dislike of Putin, which is something that
both a real statesman or a real scholar should not influence opinions and actions. McFaul's
perspective is also flawed by the conflation of his (and Obama's) wishes and reality: that is
that they donì't like Putin and think to deal with Russia as if Putin was not there,
but he is. You deal with the reality, not with your wishes. Putin is legitimate and strong
Russia's president, whether McFaul likes him or not. A real respect for sovereignty demands
respect for the head of the state you deal with. You don't question his legitimacy, as well
as they don't questioned Clinton's, Bush's, Obama or Trump legitimacy. His point of view is
that everything goes on in the world should have the US sanction, otherwise is not good. This
is imperial hubris, this is arrogance. This flaws his opinion in so far everything is
measured upon american likes and dislikes. THis is not statesmanship, this is not
scholarship, this is partisanship. He is also intellectually dishonest because he confuses a
debate on right and wrong, which should be based on certain assumptions, with a debate on
party interests, which has nothing to do with right and wrong, and is based on different
assumptions. Indeed he is the less fit person in a debate on responsibility for the New Cold
War because he was involved in its development and acutisation. Partisanship is admitted, but
shouldn't be disguised as neutrality or given any relevance just because of knowledge of
technical details he knows - much of them are, frankly, irrelevant. His points are weak and
inconsistent with geopolitical and a realist view of the international relations, they are
biased by universal-liberal ideology, they are US-centric, he forgets too many essential
points about the whole story. For instance he talks about the missed chance for Russian
democracy (here a debate about what democracy is: his assumption is that the US democracy is
.... please, don't make me laugh), but he doesn't mention that Soviet people voted in
referenda and overwhelmingly wanted the USSR to keep on existing, but he forgets this
"detail". He forgets how the so much beloved Elcin sent the tanks against the parliament,
many people were killed, how he allowed the pillaging of Russian people and resources by
criminal oligarchs (many of them happily hosted by the UK and presented as political
dissidents), and how the Russian 1996 were HEAVILY rigged and meddled by the US in order to
reconfirm Elcin as a president. He complains about Putin being appointed by Elcin out of
nothing. Well I can't recall any American complaints at that time, maybe because they thought
he could be an alcoholic puppet like Elcin and that was clearly something the US liked and
supported. So what about Obama (fake) words about wishing a strong Russia? Obama spoke
derogatory words about Russia. The only American interests about Russia is that is a
militarly and strategically weak provider of cheap natural resources and that is not in tne
position of competing for anything. I will stop here, although I could write pages and pages
about McFlaws .... ooops! McFaul's inconsistency both as a scholar and even more as a
statesman's advisor, but the debate was among a great intellectual with a clear vision of the
world, and a small professor taken with insignificant details and too much love for Obama and
blind believe in liberal universal ideology.
Mc Faul is clearly not supposed to have been in the positions of power, where he was.
Something is fundamentally wrong with America. I think there is a crisis of personnel. Where
are all these incredibly smart, high IQ people Harvard, Princeton, and the Ivy Leagues are
supposedly pumping out?
I won't, for a second, try to justify the expansion of N.A.T.O. up to the borders of
Russia. But I simply cannot get past the belief that the N.A.T.O. expansion was fueled by a
(not implausible) fear that a non-Soviet Russia would eventually try to surround its borders
with Moscow-friendly governments, just as Stalin did before, during, and after WWII. Russia
has been invaded from the west so many times that the lingering fear of it is almost in the
Russian people's genetic code. What the rest of the world sees as Soviet & post-Soviet
Russian paranoia and expansionism could plausibly be seen by the Russians as a prudent
precaution against further western aggression. I don't AGREE with this, but I can imagine how
the Russian psyche might be so inclined. I don't agree with the N.A.T.O. expansion, but I can
also see how western paranoia about Russian expansionism would fuel the resulting western
"encroachment". Ask people in Latvia, Lithuania & Estonia (and, for that matter, Finland)
who were alive in WWII if their fear of Russian expansion is based in reality, or is merely
paranoia. Be prepared for "VERY STRONG" answers.
Why does 'our' US/Euro left leave me a pronounced impression that they have some special
axe grinding on Russia? Is my take on this wrong? And try as I may to ignore it, my gut
reaction to our younger author is highly unfavorable. I shall re-watch tomorrow hoping to
listen more obectively.
Prof. Cohen astonishing realpolitik ingenuity when asked "what the security interests of
Ukraine and Georgia are" ( 1:16:21 ) unveils to me his
understanding of politics as kind of imperialistic chess game where the US stands against the
USSR (or RF for that matter). I have experienced the same feelings from his other debates (I
remember one memorable at Munk Debates in 2015) - as if the historic fears, desires and
dreams (of NATO or EU membership as the only effective shield against Russian military power)
of so many ex-soviet countries means absolutely nothing - as if they were mere puppets of US
"regime". As though the legitimate wishes of these sovereign countries means nothing at all.
He is so surprised by that question he suddenly can't retrieve even the definition of what
security interests of a country actually means - a rather strange quality in a historian.
Ultimately he comes up with "they should make peace with their neighbors" - say this to
countries that were along their history subjects of Soviet violent repression, military
invasions, ethnic genocides and such. "I don't think Russian is a threat to them". Absolutely
ridiculous.
This Michael McFaul individual is such severe laughing-stock completely out of touch with
reality. Stephen Cohen's version of the "new cold war" is much closer to reality and we
should not forget the nefarious entities that pull the strings in D.C. U.S. covert
involvement throughout eastern Europe and especially the Ukraine is more than evident. Putin
and Russia in general is not stupid and see right through U.S. covert meddling on Russia's
border. And those "peaceful demonstrators" in Syria that MacFaul dearly praises are mere
agents of the CIA/Mossad complex. Where are they now?
I think it's fair to say that the US won the cold war, the eastern block was broke, there
soviet union was a nightmare for humanity, the west was seen as a bright light and it was. So
let's put aside propaganda, ask anyone from the eastern block and they will tell you that
what Russia created was a genocide. Just look how fast all of those counties jumped to enter
NATO. Soviet union collapsed. It's a very nice discussion and I learn a lot from this, there
are a lot of things that US and Russia could have done to prevent another cold war, I think
what we are with is with a belief in human wisdom, if there is any left.
"... There is no chance of mending relations and even less of achieving some security partnership between US and Russia. The rift will only keep on widening as US political and financial elites are growing increasingly desperate (and thus even more aggressive) while Russia abandons its attempts to please the haters and moves its focus on to its future prospective partners who have genuine interest in cooperating with Russia and achieving common goals.... including opposing the common enemy if you like! Well at least I hope so: the only reason why US wish to get closer to Russia would be to stab it in the back... one more time! ..."
Speaking as an Independent, I say that our country, the USA, has engineered past confilcts and wars in order to feed the military
industrial complex. Not so much that it results in a nuke-shooting war, but in a regular non-nuke shooting war. The solution?
Send the sons and daughters of the politicians into direct combat, every time they approve another war. That should keep things
a bit more peaceful.
Professor Cohen is this nation's most objective and therefore most valuable thinker on Russia! The charge that his views are
"not patriotic" is a compliment rather than the insult they intended. A scholar's views are only valuable to the public and, more
importantly, policy makers, if they are OBJECTIVE!!! Which is to say that he follows the FACTS wherever they lead!
Any "discussion" with no mention of the supranational central bank cartel is intentional deceptive omission. The "brass ring"
is forced use of petro-dollars. The central bank stock holders and bankers loaning all dollars into existence as national debt,
do not care who owns land. They care who pays off national debts and interest on debt. Civil war is their racket. There are no
sovereign nations. No genuine nations that create their medium of exchange publicly. No national people. Just participants in
an extortion or its victims. The "Elite" collect on money they created as loans in their central banking accounts. All others
are only human numbers assigned billing addresses.
Welcome to the New World Order ....where Multinational corporations rule & their profits are what are most important..... NOT
nation states it's the 99.9% against the .01% and they use MSM propaganda & fear to control the DUMB masses thinking
I just discovered John Batchelor Show on which Cohen has a guest spot- I just was drawn to this man's thinking, probably because
I had made up my mind about Russia during the Ukraine crises. Seeing the US has ruin every country we have gone into- I'm on Russia's
side, especially where Russia and Ukraine has a history, on that side of the world.
38:49 - Apologies for the somewhat Utopian
question here. I agree with everything Cohen has said, but regarding cause of jihadist terrorism ( ie implosion of the economies
in the region), does it make sense to discuss primarily this game of terrorist whack a mole (bombing, invading and crushing Jihadist
insurgencies)? Is there any point in talking about a pro active policy of recreating sustainable, stable economies in the region?
What would that even look like?
Not very many average Americans would be able to easily access and watch this. Average Americans still consume mainly mainstream
media. Too bad, because this lecture would have opened their eyes and have blown up their brain-contaminated minds by the CNN,
the New York Times and alike.
I agree wholeheartedly Loane. Have always been extremely impressed with and appreciative of Cohen's carefully & thoughtfully
considered contribution. We in the US have gone a bit off the deep end when it comes to this deeply embedded belief in exceptionalism
and superiority, and have been extremely rude to much of the rest of the world in the process. It amazes me how patient Russia
has been with us, waiting for us to come around to a more sober understanding of the world we live in today. I have to conclude
that what we are experiencing here in the US is a perennial phenomenon that comes with the end of all empires throughout history,
the mission creep of over-extending resources and the big one, seemingly blind hubris.
There is no chance of mending relations and even less of achieving some security partnership between US and Russia. The rift
will only keep on widening as US political and financial elites are growing increasingly desperate (and thus even more aggressive)
while Russia abandons its attempts to please the haters and moves its focus on to its future prospective partners who have genuine
interest in cooperating with Russia and achieving common goals.... including opposing the common enemy if you like! Well at least
I hope so: the only reason why US wish to get closer to Russia would be to stab it in the back... one more time!
NATO'S reason to exist ended when the Warsaw Pact was demolished. It was created to confront the socialist Warsaw Pact but
today ALL of the members of the pact are part of NATO, except Russia. So why is it still operating? Who are they confronting?
They are a bunch of bureaucrats looking for a reason to stay employed in an organization that lost its excuse to be. However,
their behavior has gone from increasing security to actually becoming a menace to trigger a nuclear war to destroy life on earth.
It will take a Republican President to turn our relationships with hostile nations around. For some irrational reasoning, the
current administration refuses negotiation with it's enemies. Somehow this is going to create understanding. and a less dangerous
world. I don't see a continuation of this Administrations policy anything but reckless . I am assuming this policy has been one
determined through Clinton, and will remain so. Clinton has said on a number of occasions, it is the Obama Administration's policies
that will be hers as well. As an ex cold warrior, who has spent a lot of time chasing Soviet boomers in the North Atlantic, I
am not willing to gamble my children and grand children's lives . It is a dangerous and ego driven pissing match. Let us start
talking , This administration and families can climb into their luxury nuclear bomb proof bunkers...... My family and most Americans
don't have that luxury.
Dr. Cohen, so Putin gave the Northern Alliance to the USA after 911 to bludgeon Afghanistan for hiding Bin Laden? Paul Craig
Robert, David Ray Griffin and a growing list of Americans believe 911 was a total bamboozle. If that is true which it looks increasingly
like it was, does that mean Putin was playing along with the our Reichstag fire? What does that make Putin? NATO should have been
totally remade after 1986, but it wasn't and we simply missed a huge opportunity not for worldwide U.S. hegemony, but for a new
umbrella of security by super powers in alliance. Obviously, the proliferation of ethno-religious groups was in Putin's mind when
he welcomed us into Afghanistan, but damn it man, tell people EXACTLY why we and the Russians want to be in the Golden Crescent
besides the extraction of minerals.
Julia Ioffe is a joke -- she is essentially a typical "national security parasite" and of the level that surprisingly, is
lower that Max Boor, although previously I thought this is impossible. Julia Ioffe is very typical of the anti-Russian thinking
in the West.
This incessant Russophobia constantly being trumpeted by the Washington militarist imperialists must stop. It's putting the
world on the brink of nuclear war.
Stephen Cohen's a godsend along with a handful of the other intellectuals out there speaking and writing the truth that penetrates
the miasma of disinformation, half-truths and exaggerations emanating from the state-corporate nexus in the American mass media.
Cohen, along with John Pilger, James Petras, Robert Parry, Michael Parenti, John Pilger, Eva Bartlett, Diana Johnstone and
Paul Craig Roberts must be read widely in order for folks to get a grasp of where the Washington imperialist ruling class is driving
the world.
at 25:40 he just destroys her totally. what
a point he made, amazing!! "thank you professor" the guy on the left wants to end Cohen's carnage of the so called experts. Cohen
made minced meat out of em. Fact after fact...stonewalled em both. Listen to her, ISIS doesn't have nuke's, she obviously doesn't
have a clue.
Cohen is always cogent and convincing. One area I wish some historian would look into is how "Russia-gate" is not echoing Cold
War themes, but echoing themes from the German Nazis in particular their belief about a great Jewish conspiracy against Europe.
Even Putin recently remarked on all these accusations: "It reminds me of anti-Semitism, A dumb man who can't do anything would
blame the Jews for everything." Look at how Putin is drawn and pictured on major outlets. The NYTimes blamed resistance to TPP
on Putin.
The Russians like the Jews are behind every social problem. Popular culture shows and speaks of Russia in the same way Nazi
propagandists wrote about Russia.
Undermining Western liberal democracies, Jews were compared to spiders catching people in the webs. Same with Putin. Pick up
Hitler's speech after the invasion of the Soviet Union justifying it., Echos? Accidental rhetoric of conspiracies ?
"to look past a long list of transgressions and abuses..." this is what I absolutely hate about America, they are all so stupid
and ignorant to their own countries misdeeds it is unbelievable, infuriating beyond belief. The US is currently fighting 7 wars
simultaneously, which it all started itself under false pretences and hid the real reason beneath a thick layer of BS propaganda
and misinformation.
The secession of Crimea is the least egregious event of the entire conflicts history. The EU and US have pumped billions of
dollars into the coup which took place weeks before the Crimean referendum, on the 20th of February 2014, 2 weeks prior to that,
an intercepted phone conversation between Victoria Nuland (Assistant Secretary of State of the United States to Europe) and Geoffrey
Pyatt (US Ambassador to the Ukraine) was leaked on February 4th, 2014. In this phone conversation, they describe key positions
within the Ukrainian government being filled by Klitshko and Yatz... fast forward a few weeks, who do we see? Klitsh and Yatz!
It was the most obvious sponsored coup in history.
Putin snatched the Crimean peninsula from NATO, who wanted to seize Russias military harbour in Sevastopol (which the Russians
have used to supply Syria, this was one and a half years before they entered the conflict directly, apart from being a very important
strategic harbour in general), by suggesting a referendum to the local government and they accepted.
Why? Because they were ethnic Russians and knew who gained power in Kiev, the neo-Nazi, Bandera-worshipping OUN, which the
US has nourished, supported and developed for the last 100 years within the Ukrainian territory. These Nazis hate Russians, they
have a deep seeded hatred of all things Russian which has been indoctrinated and drilled into them by the CIA for decades, the
first thing they did after seizing power was to demote the Russian language from the official list of languages of the Ukraine.
They have since honoured Ukrainian Nazi-collaborators from WWII by erecting statues, renaming streets, creating new holidays
etc. This is just one example of US misinformation and propaganda, nothing they say accurately describes the truth, nothing, not
one thing has it's bases in reality. Be it about Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and what have you, it's all lies and propaganda
to mask their intentions.
North Korea is another example. North Korea is a hornets nest they kick once in a while to scare the Japanese and South Koreans
into tolerating US occupation longer. Everything North Korea does is a direct response to threats and intimidations by the US.
They staged a drill off the coast of North Korea which they called "Decapitation" for F's sake.
They have ratcheted up the tension again these past few months to sneak in their THAAD weapons stations, before the new President
was chosen. And these THAAD systems have absolutely nothing to do with North Korea, it's against China and Russia, North Korea
is a pretext.
The still active war, which has merely been under a seize fire for decades, against North Korea, could have been ended before
there was colour television, but the US needs North Korea to exist in order to justify their occupation of S.Korea and Japan.
And by the way, the CrowdStrike guy testified in 2017 that there was ZERO PROOF that the Russians hacked the DNC, but Schiff
hid that for 2 years until John Ratcliff threatened to declassify it, then Schiff's sorry ass released the interviews. So, this
man was 100 percent right, there is ZERO PROOF the Russians or anyone hacked the DNC. Its a damned lie, and it was always a lie.
As usual, the journalists and leftist have nothing to offer- no facts, no forensic evidence, no truth. Only speculation hyperbole
and hysteria. I don't believe Russia are the good guys but give me a break in all this crap!
why did cohen tell everyone even potential 'terrorists' that there is too much of exactly what 'terrorists' wish to get their
hands on in the former soviet states?!!? if he is 'so afraid' of 'terrorism...' WHY did he say THAT?!!? not very bright... or
perhaps he is FOS. idk?! wth?! SMH. maybe e is trying to inform people who r not 'terrorists,' so that people know n can figure
out how to address the issues...?
Yet, for any terrorists who wanted to know how to get materials he spoke of, now they may know a region where they could potentially
go to attain the materials... maybe in 'terrorists' circles they all know this already? it just seems concerning, is all...
Beth Lemmon, 2 years ago (edited)
Love Stephen Cohen, he is spot on and right about most if not all points, he's fair, wicked smart and sober minded. However
he isn't right about POTUS Trump. If anyone has been watching this type of discourse about world geopolitics it looks like the
NWO wants wars to depopulate the earth, set up a OWG and a utopia. It's so blatantly obvious to those who are honest and not ideologically
possessed.
They recruit their stupid Antifa army and zombie possessed minions to do their dirty work in the streets. They want send our
amazing military to do the fighting wars that are just to feed the MIC, and does nothing for America's good.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God
"... In a world that is increasingly confusing and awash with propaganda, Cohen's death is a
blow to humanity's desperate quest for clarity and understanding. ..."
Stephen F Cohen, the renowned American scholar on Russia and leading authority on US-Russian
relations, has died of lung cancer at the
age of 81.
As one of the precious few western voices of sanity on the subject
of Russia while everyone else has been frantically flushing their brains down the toilet,
this is a real loss. I myself have cited Cohen's expert analysis many times in my own work, and
his perspective has played a formative role in my understanding of what's really going on with
the monolithic cross-partisan manufacturing of consent for increased western aggressions
against Moscow.
In a world that is increasingly confusing and awash with propaganda, Cohen's death is a blow
to humanity's desperate quest for clarity and understanding.
I don't know how long Cohen had cancer. I don't know how long he was aware that he might not
have much time left on this earth. What I do know is he spent much of his energy in his final
years urgently trying to warn the world about the rapidly escalating danger of nuclear war,
which in our strange new reality he saw as in many ways completely unprecedented.
The last of the many books Cohen authored was 2019's
War
with Russia? , detailing his ideas on how the complex multi-front nature of the post-2016
cold
war escalations against Moscow combines with Russiagate and other factors to make it in
some ways more dangerous even than the most dangerous point of the previous cold war.
"You know it's easy to joke about this, except that we're at maybe the most dangerous moment
in US-Russian relations in my lifetime, and maybe ever," Cohen told The Young Turks in 2017. "And the reason is that we're
in a new cold war, by whatever name. We have three cold war fronts that are fraught with the
possibility of hot war, in the Baltic region where NATO is carrying out an unprecedented
military buildup on Russia's border, in Ukraine where there is a civil and proxy war between
Russia and the west, and of course in Syria, where Russian aircraft and American warplanes are
flying in the same territory. Anything could happen."
Cohen repeatedly points to the most likely cause of a future nuclear war: not one that is
planned but one which erupts in tense, complex situations where "anything could happen" in the
chaos and confusion as a result of misfire, miscommunication or technical malfunction, as
nearly
happened many times during the last cold war.
"I think this is the most dangerous moment in American-Russian relations, at least since the
Cuban missile crisis," Cohen told Democracy
Now in 2017. "And arguably, it's more dangerous, because it's more complex. Therefore, we
-- and then, meanwhile, we have in Washington these -- and, in my judgment, factless
accusations that Trump has somehow been compromised by the Kremlin. So, at this worst moment in
American-Russian relations, we have an American president who's being politically crippled by
the worst imaginable -- it's unprecedented. Let's stop and think. No American president has
ever been accused, essentially, of treason. This is what we're talking about here, or that his
associates have committed treason."
"Imagine, for example, John Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis," Cohen added. "Imagine
if Kennedy had been accused of being a secret Soviet Kremlin agent. He would have been
crippled. And the only way he could have proved he wasn't was to have launched a war against
the Soviet Union. And at that time, the option was nuclear war."
"A recurring theme of my recently published book War with Russia? is that the new Cold War
is more dangerous, more fraught with hot war, than the one we survived," Cohen wrote
last year . "Histories of the 40-year US-Soviet Cold War tell us that both sides came to
understand their mutual responsibility for the conflict, a recognition that created political
space for the constant peace-keeping negotiations, including nuclear arms control agreements,
often known as détente. But as I also chronicle in the book, today's American Cold
Warriors blame only Russia, specifically 'Putin's Russia,' leaving no room or incentive for
rethinking any US policy toward post-Soviet Russia since 1991."
"Finally, there continues to be no effective, organized American opposition to the new Cold
War," Cohen added. "This too is a major theme of my book and another reason why this Cold War
is more dangerous than was its predecessor. In the 1970s and 1980s, advocates of détente
were well-organized, well-funded, and well-represented, from grassroots politics and
universities to think tanks, mainstream media, Congress, the State Department, and even the
White House. Today there is no such opposition anywhere."
"A major factor is, of course, 'Russiagate'," Cohen continued. "As evidenced in the sources
I cite above, much of the extreme American Cold War advocacy we witness today is a mindless
response to President Trump's pledge to find ways to 'cooperate with Russia' and to the
still-unproven allegations generated by it. Certainly, the Democratic Party is not an
opposition party in regard to the new Cold War."
"Détente with Russia has always been a fiercely opposed, crisis-ridden policy
pursuit, but one manifestly in the interests of the United States and the world," Cohen
wrote in another
essay last year. "No American president can achieve it without substantial bipartisan
support at home, which Trump manifestly lacks. What kind of catastrophe will it take -- in
Ukraine, the Baltic region, Syria, or somewhere on Russia's electric grid -- to shock US
Democrats and others out of what has been called, not unreasonably, their Trump Derangement
Syndrome, particularly in the realm of American national security? Meanwhile, the Bulletin of
Atomic Scientists has recently reset its Doomsday Clock to two minutes before
midnight."
And now Stephen Cohen is dead, and that clock is inching ever closer to midnight. The
Russiagate psyop that he predicted would pressure Trump to advance dangerous cold war
escalations with no opposition from the supposed opposition party
has indeed done exactly that with nary a peep of criticism from either partisan faction of
the political/media class. Cohen has for years been correctly
predicting this chilling scenario which now threatens the life of every organism on earth,
even while his own life was nearing its end.
And now the complex cold war escalations he kept urgently warning us about have become even
more complex with the
addition of nuclear-armed China to the multiple fronts the US-centralized empire has been
plate-spinning its brinkmanship upon, and it is clear from the ramping
up of anti-China propaganda since last year that we are being prepped for those aggressions
to continue to increase.
We should heed the dire warnings that Cohen spent his last breaths issuing. We should demand
a walk-back of these insane imperialist aggressions which benefit nobody and call for
détente with Russia and China. We should begin creating an opposition to this
world-threatening flirtation with armageddon before it is too late. Every life on this planet
may well depend on our doing so.
Stephen Cohen is dead, and we are marching toward the death of everything. God help us
all.
People are just now starting to realize that possible alternate path. But the Demoncrats
in the USA must first be put down, politically euthanized, along with their neocon
never-Trump Republican partners. And that cleaning up is on the way. Trump's second term will
be the advancement of the USA-Russia initiative that is so long overdue.
PerilouseTimes , 48 minutes ago
Putin won't let western billionaires rape Russia's enormous natural resources and on top
of that Putin is against child molesters, that is what this Russia bashing is all about.
awesomepic4u , 1 hour ago
Sad to hear this.
What a good man. It is a real shame that we dont have others to stand up to this crazy pr
that is going on right now. Making peace with the world at this point is important. We dont need or
want another war and i am sure that both Europe and Russia dont want it on their turf but it
seems we keep sticking our finger in their eye. If there is another war it will be the last
war. As Einstein said, after the 3rd World War we will be using sticks and stones to fight
it.
Clint Liquor , 44 minutes ago
Cohen truly was an island of reason in a sea of insanity. Ironic that those panicked over
climate change are unconcerned about the increasing threat of Nuclear War.
thunderchief , 41 minutes ago
One of the very few level headed people on Russia.
All thats left are anti Russia-phobic nut jobs.
Send in the clowns.
Stephen Cohen isn't around to call them what they are anymore.
Eastern Whale , 55 minutes ago
cooperate with Russia
Has the US ever cooperated with anyone?
fucking truth , 3 minutes ago
That is the crux. All or nothing.
Mustafa Kemal , 49 minutes ago
Ive read several of his books. They are essential, imo, if you want to understand modern
russian history.
Normal , 1 hour ago
The bankers created the new CCP cold war.
evoila , 19 minutes ago
Max Boot is an effing idiot. Tucker wiped him clean too. It was an insult to Stephen to
even put them on the same panel.
RIP Stephen.
Gary Sick is the equivalent to Stephen, except for Iran. He too is of an era of competence
which is and will be missed as their voices are drowned out by neocon warmongers
thebigunit , 17 minutes ago
I heard Stephen Cohen a number of time in John Bachelor's podcasts.
He seemed very lucid and made a lot of sense.
He made it very clear that he thought the Democrat's "Trump - Russia collusion schtick"
was a bunch of crap.
He didn't sound like a leftie, but I'm sure he never told me the stuff he discussed with
his wife who was editor of the left wing "The Nation" magazine.
Boogity , 9 minutes ago
Cohen was a traditional old school anti-war Liberal. They're essentially extinct now with
the exception of a few such as Tulsi Gabbard and Dennis Kucinich who have both been
ostracized from the Democrat Party and the political system.
"... these "contested election" scenarios we are hearing so much about play perfectly into the Color Revolution framework sketched out Revolver News' first installment in the Color Revolution series. ..."
"... the man who implemented the David Brock blueprint for suing the President into paralysis and his allies into bankruptcy, who helped mainstream and amplify the Russia Hoax, who drafted 10 articles of impeachment for the Democrats a full month before President Trump ever called the Ukraine President in 2018, who personally served as special counsel litigating the Ukraine impeachment, who created a template for Internet censorship of world leaders and a handbook for mass mobilizing racial justice protesters to overturn democratic election results, there is perhaps no man alive with a more decorated resume for plots against President Trump. ..."
"... Indeed, the story of Norm Eisen – a key architect of nearly every attempt to delegitimize, impeach, censor, sue and remove the democratically elected 45th President of the United States ..."
"... In Norm Eisen's case, the "same people same playbook" refrain takes an arrestingly literal turn when one realizes that Norm Eisen wrote a classic Color Revolution regime change manual, and conveniently titled it "The Playbook." ..."
In our report on Never Trump State Department official George Kent, Revolver News first
drew attention to the ominous similarities between the strategies and tactics the United
States government employs in so-called "Color Revolutions" and the coordinated efforts of
government bureaucrats, NGOs, and the media to oust President Trump.
Our recent follow-up to this initial report focused specifically on a shadowy, George
Soros linked group called the Transition Integrity Project (TIP), which convened "war games"
exercises suggesting the likelihood of a "contested election scenario," and of ensuing chaos
should President Trump refuse to leave office. We further showed how these "contested election" scenarios we are hearing
so much about play perfectly into the Color Revolution framework sketched out Revolver News' first installment in the Color
Revolution series.
This third installment of Revolver News' series exposing the Color Revolution against
Trump will focus on one quiet and indeed mostly overlooked participant in the Transition
Integrity Project's biased election "war games" exercise -- a man by the name of Norm
Eisen.
As the man who implemented the David Brock blueprint for suing the President into
paralysis and his allies into bankruptcy, who helped mainstream and amplify the Russia Hoax,
who drafted 10 articles of impeachment for the Democrats a full month before President Trump
ever called the Ukraine President in 2018, who personally served as special counsel
litigating the Ukraine impeachment, who created a template for Internet censorship of world
leaders and a handbook for mass mobilizing racial justice protesters to overturn democratic
election results, there is perhaps no man alive with a more decorated resume for plots
against President Trump.
Indeed, the story of Norm Eisen – a key architect of nearly every attempt to
delegitimize, impeach, censor, sue and remove the democratically elected 45th President of
the United States – is a tale that winds through nearly every facet of the color
revolution playbook. There is no purer embodiment of Revolver's thesis that the very same
regime change professionals who run Color Revolutions on behalf of the US Government in order
to undermine or overthrow alleged "authoritarian" governments overseas, are running the very
same playbook to overturn Trump's 2016 victory and to pre-empt a repeat in 2020. To put
it simply, what you see is not just the same Color Revolution playbook run against Trump, but
the same people using it against Trump who have employed it in a professional capacity
against targets overseas -- same people same playbook.
In Norm Eisen's case, the "same people same playbook" refrain takes an arrestingly
literal turn when one realizes that Norm Eisen wrote a classic Color Revolution regime change
manual, and conveniently titled it "The Playbook."
Just what exactly is President Obama's former White House Ethics Czar (yes, Norm Eisen was
Obama's ethics Czar), his longtime friend since Harvard Law School, who recently partook in
war games to simulate overturning a Trump electoral victory, doing writing a detailed
playbook on how to use a Color Revolution to overthrow governments? The story of Norm Eisen
only gets more fascinating, outrageous, and indispensable to understanding the planned chaos
unfolding before our eyes, leading up to what will perhaps be the most chaotic election in
our nation's recent history.
... ... ...
A deep dive into Eisen's book would exceed the scope of this relatively brief exposé.
It is nonetheless important for us to draw attention to key passages of Eisen's book to
underscore how closely the "Playbook" corresponds to events unfolding right here at home. Indeed, it would not be an exaggeration to say that regime change professionals such as
Eisen simply decided to run the same playbook against Trump that they have done countless
times when foreign leaders are elected overseas that they don't like and want to remove via
extra-democratic means -- "peaceful protests," "democratic breakthroughs" and such. ... ... ...
So, it appears the War on Populism is building
toward an exciting climax. All the proper pieces are in place for a Class-A GloboCap color
revolution , and maybe even civil war. You got your unauthorized Putin-Nazi president, your
imaginary apocalyptic pandemic, your violent identitarian civil unrest, your heavily-armed
politically-polarized populace, your ominous rumblings from military quarters you couldn't
really ask for much more.
OK, the plot is pretty obvious by now (as it is in all big-budget action spectacles, which
is essentially what color revolutions are), but that won't spoil our viewing experience. The
fun isn't in guessing what is going to happen. Everybody knows what's going to happen. The fun
is in watching Bruce, or Sigourney, or "the moderate rebels," or the GloboCap "Resistance,"
take down the monster, or the terrorists, or Hitler, and save the world, or democracy, or
whatever.
Trump represent new "national neoliberalism" platform and the large part of the US neoliberal elite (Clinton gang and large part
of republicans) support the return to "classic neoliberalism" at all costs.
Highly recommended!
The essence of color revolution is the combination of engineered contested election and mass organized protest and civil disobedience
via creation in neoliberal fifth column out of "professionals", especially students as well as mobilizing and put on payroll some useful
disgruntled groups which can be used as a foot soldiers, such as football hooligans. Large and systematic injection of dollars into
protest movement. All with the air cover via domination in a part or all nation's MSM.
He served as US ambassador in Chich Republic from 2011 to 2014. Based on his experience wrote that book
Democracy's Defenders published by The Brookings Institution, a neoliberal think tank, about the role of US embassy in neoliberal
revolution in Czechoslovakia (aka Velvet Revolution of 1989) which led to the dissolution of the country into two. BTW demonstrations
against police brutality were an essential part of the Velvet Revolution
Notable quotes:
"... Same tactics - color revolutions they (Soros, Nuland/Kagan, Eisen, McCain when alive) used to overthrow Orthodox countries in Eastern Europe. Belarus the latest. Ukraine (Orange, Maidan) 2014. Georgia (Rose rev). Serbia, Montenegro. Use young people who have bad sense of history and are more sympathetic to the "West." ..."
This is, without ANY question, one of Tucker's most important segments that he has ever done. IT IS EXTREMELY-RARE THAT
"""they""" ARE EXPOSED, BY-NAME, SO OPENLY AND DIRECTLY, BUT, IT HAPPENED, TONIGHT.
Please bring back Dr. Darren Beattie back. More info. on the color revolutions, Mr. Eisen, crew, and their relationship
to mail in voting fraud and their impact on the 2020 election is needed. If Mr. Eisens methods are to be used in the 2020 election
mass awareness is needed.
This is not about Trump. The endgame of the deep state is to enslave people through social division. The election is a wrestling
match for entertainment.
Sheesh, he looks scared. I hope he's being well protected now. Darren is a very brave man who is trying to tell the citizens
of the US that there is malice aforethought towards the President and this election. It is now not a choice between Republicans
or Democrats, it is a fight between good and evil. I'm sure Trump and his team are aware of the playbook and will do everything
they can to sort this, with God's help. It may get hairy, but trust the plan.
I have a feeling dems will "rig for red" to frame republicans for voter fraud, overlooking the overwhelming amount of voter
fraud in favor of Biden Harris. Causing outrage and calls to remove the President from office and saying Biden actually won.
When he really did not. Be prepared. Stay strong.
Same tactics - color revolutions they (Soros, Nuland/Kagan, Eisen, McCain when alive) used to overthrow Orthodox countries
in Eastern Europe. Belarus the latest. Ukraine (Orange, Maidan) 2014. Georgia (Rose rev). Serbia, Montenegro. Use young people
who have bad sense of history and are more sympathetic to the "West."
american people still don't know and can't understand what's happening and what their government is doing, even right now
it's happening in Belarus, it happened in Ukraine, Venezuela, Hong Kong and etc. and now it's happening in your own country,
wake up people and don't forget who's behind all this - a NGO founded by CIA called NED (National endowment for democracy),
Soros and his NGOs and the deep state.
"... Russian military leaders view the "colour revolutions" as a "new US and European approach to warfare that focuses on creating destabilizing revolutions in other states as a means of serving their security interests at low cost and with minimal casualties. ..."
"... the activities of radical public associations and groups using nationalist and religious extremist ideology, foreign and international nongovernmental organizations, and financial and economic structures, and also individuals, focused on destroying the unity and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, destabilizing the domestic political and social situation -- including through inciting "color revolutions" -- and destroying traditional Russian religious and moral values ..."
Worldwide media use the term Colour Revolution (sometimes Coloured Revolution
) to describe various
related movements that developed in several countries of the former Soviet Union , in the People's Republic of
China and in the Balkans during the early-21st century. The term has
also been applied to a number of revolutions elsewhere, including in the Middle East and in the
Asia-Pacific region,
dating from the 1980s to the 2010s. Some observers (such as Justin Raimondo and Michael Lind ) have called the events a
revolutionary
wave , the origins of which can be traced back to the 1986 People Power Revolution (also known
as the "Yellow Revolution") in the Philippines .
Participants in colour revolutions have mostly used nonviolent resistance , also called
civil resistance .
Such methods as demonstrations, strikes and interventions have aimed to
protest against governments seen as corrupt and/or authoritarian and to advocate democracy , and they have built up
strong pressure for change.
Colour-revolution movements generally became associated with a specific colour or flower as
their symbol. The colour revolutions are notable for the important role of non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) and particularly student activists in organising creative
non-violent resistance .
Such movements have had a measure of success as for example in the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia 's Bulldozer
Revolution (2000), in Georgia 's Rose Revolution (2003) and in Ukraine 's Orange Revolution (2004). In most but not
all cases, massive street-protests followed disputed elections or requests for fair elections
and led to the resignation or overthrow of leaders regarded by their opponents as authoritarian . Some events have been called "colour revolutions", but differ from the
above cases in certain basic characteristics. Examples include Lebanon's Cedar Revolution (2005) and
Kuwait 's Blue Revolution
(2005).
Russia and China share nearly identical views that colour revolutions are the product of
machinations by the United States and other Western powers and pose a vital threat to their
public and national security.
The 1986 People Power Revolution (also
called the " EDSA " or the "Yellow"
Revolution) in the Philippines was the first successful non-violent uprising in the
contemporary period. It was the culmination of peaceful demonstrations against the
rule of
then-President Ferdinand Marcos – all of which
increased after the 1983 assassination of
opposition Senator Benigno S. Aquino,
Jr. A contested snap election on 7 February 1986 and a
call by the powerful Filipino Catholic
Church sparked mass protests across Metro Manila from 22–25 February.
The Revolution's iconic L-shaped Laban sign comes from the Filipino term for
People Power, " Lakás ng Bayan ", whose acronym is " LABAN " ("fight").
The yellow-clad protesters, later joined by the Armed Forces , ousted
Marcos and installed Aquino's widow Corazón as the country's eleventh
President, ushering in the present Fifth
Republic .
Long-standing secessionist sentiment in Bougainville eventually led to conflict with
Papua New Guinea. The inhabitants of Bougainville Island formed the Bougainville
Revolutionary Army and fought against government troops. On 20 April 1998, Papua New
Guinea ended the civil war. In 2005, Papua New Guinea gave autonomy to Bougainville.
in 1989, a peaceful demonstration by students (mostly from Charles University ) was attacked by
the police – and in time contributed to the collapse of the communist government in
Czechoslovakia.
The 'Bulldozer Revolution' in 2000, which led to the overthrow of
Slobodan Milošević . These demonstrations are usually considered to be the
first example of the peaceful revolutions which followed. However, the Serbians adopted an
approach that had already been used in parliamentary elections in Bulgaria (1997) ,
Slovakia (1998) and
Croatia (2000) ,
characterised by civic mobilisation through get-out-the-vote campaigns and unification of
the political opposition. The nationwide protesters did not adopt a colour or a specific
symbol; however, the slogan " Gotov je " (Serbian Cyrillic:
Готов је , English: He is finished
) did become an aftermath symbol celebrating the completion of the task. Despite the
commonalities, many others refer to Georgia as the most definite beginning of the series of
"colour revolutions". The demonstrations were supported by the youth movement Otpor! , some of whose members
were involved in the later revolutions in other countries.
Following the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the
Adjara
crisis (sometimes called "Second Rose Revolution" or Mini-Rose
Revolution ) led to the
exit of Chairman of the Government Aslan Abashidze from office.
Purple
Revolution was a name first used by some hopeful commentators and later picked up by
United States President George W. Bush to describe the coming of
democracy to Iraq following the 2005 Iraqi
legislative election and was intentionally used to draw the parallel with the Orange
and Rose revolutions. However, the name "purple revolution" has not achieved widespread use
in Iraq, the United States or elsewhere. The name comes from the colour that voters' index
fingers were stained to prevent fraudulent multiple voting. The term first appeared shortly
after the January 2005 election in various weblogs and editorials of individuals supportive
of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The term
received its widest usage during a visit by U.S. President George W. Bush on 24 February 2005 to
Bratislava , Slovak
Republic, for a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin . Bush stated: "In recent
times, we have witnessed landmark events in the history of liberty: A Rose Revolution in
Georgia, an Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and now, a Purple Revolution in Iraq."
The Tulip
Revolution in Kyrgyzstan (also sometimes called the "Pink Revolution") was more violent
than its predecessors and followed the disputed 2005 Kyrgyz
parliamentary election . At the same time, it was more fragmented than previous
"colour" revolutions. The protesters in different areas adopted the colours pink and yellow
for their protests. This revolution was supported by youth resistance movement KelKel .
The Cedar
Revolution in Lebanon between February and April 2005 followed not a disputed election,
but rather the assassination of opposition leader Rafik Hariri in 2005. Also, instead of the
annulment of an election, the people demanded an end to the Syrian occupation of
Lebanon . Nonetheless, some of its elements and some of the methods used in the
protests have been similar enough that it is often considered and treated by the press and
commentators as one of the series of "colour revolutions". The Cedar of Lebanon is the symbol of the
country, and the revolution was named after it. The peaceful demonstrators used the colours
white and red, which are found in the Lebanese flag. The protests led to the pullout of
Syrian troops
in April 2005, ending their nearly 30-year presence there, although Syria retains some
influence in Lebanon.
Blue Revolution was a term used by some Kuwaitis to refer to
demonstrations in Kuwait in support of women's suffrage
beginning in March 2005; it was named after the colour of the signs the protesters used. In
May of that year the Kuwaiti government acceded to their demands, granting women the right
to vote beginning in the 2007 parliamentary elections. Since there was
no call for regime change, the so-called "blue revolution" cannot be categorised as a true
colour revolution.
In Belarus, there have been a number of protests against President Alexander Lukashenko , with
participation from student group Zubr . One round of
protests culminated on 25 March 2005; it was a self-declared attempt to emulate the
Kyrgyzstan revolution, and involved over a thousand citizens. However, police severely
suppressed it, arresting over 30 people and imprisoning opposition leader Mikhail Marinich .
A second, much larger, round of protests began almost a year later, on 19 March 2006,
soon after the presidential
election . Official results had Lukashenko winning with 83% of the vote; protesters
claimed the results were achieved through fraud and voter intimidation, a charge echoed
by many foreign governments.
Protesters camped out in October Square in Minsk over the next week, calling variously for
the resignation of Lukashenko, the installation of rival candidate Alaksandar
Milinkievič , and new, fair elections.
The opposition originally used as a symbol the white-red-white former flag of Belarus ; the
movement has had significant connections with that in neighbouring Ukraine, and during
the Orange Revolution some white-red-white flags were seen being waved in Kiev. During
the 2006 protests some called it the " Jeans Revolution " or "Denim
Revolution",
blue jeans being considered a symbol for freedom. Some protesters cut up jeans into
ribbons and hung them in public places. It is
claimed that Zubr was responsible for coining the phrase.
Lukashenko has said in the past: "In our country, there will be no pink or orange, or
even banana revolution." More recently he's said "They [the West] think that Belarus is
ready for some 'orange' or, what is a rather frightening option, 'blue' or ' cornflower blue '
revolution. Such 'blue' revolutions are the last thing we need". On
19 April 2005, he further commented: "All these coloured revolutions are pure and simple
banditry."
In Myanmar (unofficially called Burma), a series of anti-government protests were
referred to in the press as the Saffron Revolution
after Buddhist monks ( Theravada Buddhist monks normally
wear the colour saffron) took the vanguard of the protests. A previous, student-led
revolution, the 8888
Uprising on 8 August 1988, had similarities to the colour revolutions, but was
violently repressed.
The opposition is reported to have hoped for and urged some kind of Orange revolution,
similar to that in Ukraine, in the follow-up of the 2005 Moldovan
parliamentary elections , while the Christian
Democratic People's Party adopted orange for its colour in a clear reference to the
events of Ukraine.
A name hypothesised for such an event was "Grape Revolution" because of the abundance
of vineyards in the country; however, such a revolution failed to materialise after the
governmental victory in the elections. Many reasons have been given for this, including a
fractured opposition and the fact that the government had already co-opted many of the
political positions that might have united the opposition (such as a perceived
pro-European and anti-Russian stance). Also the elections themselves were declared fairer
in the OSCE election monitoring reports than had been the case in other countries where
similar revolutions occurred, even though the CIS monitoring mission strongly condemned
them.
Green Movement is a term widely used to describe the 2009–2010
Iranian election protests . The protests began in 2009, several years after the main
wave of colour revolutions, although like them it began due to a disputed election, the
2009 Iranian
presidential election . Protesters adopted the colour green as their symbol because it
had been the campaign colour of presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi , whom many
protesters thought had won the elections .
However Mousavi and his wife went under house arrest without any trial issued by a
court.
The Kyrgyz Revolution of 2010 in
Kyrgyzstan (also sometimes called the "Melon Revolution") led to the
exit of President Kurmanbek Bakiyev from office. The
total number of deaths should be 2,000.
Jasmine Revolution was a widely used term for the
Tunisian
Revolution . The Jasmine Revolution led to the exit of President Ben Ali from office and
the beginning of the Arab Spring .
Lotus Revolution was a term used by various western news sources to describe the
Egyptian Revolution of 2011
that forced President Mubarak to step down in 2011 as part of the Arab Spring , which followed the Jasmine
Revolution of Tunisia. Lotus is known as the flower representing resurrection, life and the
sun of ancient Egypt. It is uncertain who gave the name, while columnist of Arabic press,
Asharq Alawsat, and prominent Egyptian opposition leader Saad Eddin Ibrahim claimed to name
it the Lotus Revolution. Lotus Revolution later became common on western news source such
as CNN. Other names,
such as White Revolution and Nile Revolution, are used but are minor terms compare to Lotus
Revolution. The term Lotus Revolution is rarely, if ever, used in the Arab world.
In February 2011, Bahrain was also affected by protests in Tunisia and Egypt. Bahrain
has long been famous for its pearls and Bahrain's speciality. And there was the Pearl
Square in Manama, where the demonstrations began. The people of Bahrain were also
protesting around the square. At first, the government of Bahrain promised to reform the
people. But when their promises were not followed, the people resisted again. And in the
process, bloodshed took place (18 March 2011). After that, a small demonstration is taking
place in Bahrain.
An anti-government protest started in Yemen in 2011. The Yemeni people sought to resign
Ali Abdullah Saleh as the ruler. On 24 November, Ali Abdullah Saleh decided to transfer the
regime. In 2012, Ali Abdullah Saleh finally fled to the United States(27 February).
A call which first appeared on 17 February 2011 on the Chinese language site Boxun.com in the United States
for a "Jasmine revolution" in the People's Republic of China and repeated on social
networking sites in China resulted in blocking of internet searches for "jasmine" and a
heavy police presence at designated sites for protest such as the McDonald's in central
Beijing, one of the 13 designated protest sites, on 20 February 2011. A crowd did gather
there, but their motivations were ambiguous as a crowd tends to draw a crowd in that area.
Boxun experienced a denial of service attack
during this period and was inaccessible.
Protests started on 4 December 2011 in the capital, Moscow against the results of the parliamentary
elections, which led to the arrests of over 500 people. On 10 December, protests erupted in
tens of cities across the country; a few months later, they spread to hundreds both inside
the country and abroad. The name of the Snow Revolution derives from December - the month
when the revolution had started - and from the white ribbons the protesters wore.
Many analysts and participants of the protests against President of Macedonia Gjorge
Ivanov and the Macedonian
government refer to them as a "colourful Revolution", due to the demonstrators throwing
paint balls of different colours at government buildings in Skopje , the capital.
In 2018, a peaceful revolution was led by
member of parliament Nikol Pashinyan in opposition to the
nomination of Serzh
Sargsyan as Prime Minister of Armenia ,
who had previously served as both President of Armenia and prime
minister, eliminating term limits which would have otherwise
prevented his 2018 nomination. Concerned that Sargsyan's third consecutive term as the most
powerful politician in the government of Armenia gave him too much political influence,
protests occurred throughout the country, particularly in Yerevan , but demonstrations in solidarity with
the protesters also occurred in other countries where Armenian diaspora live.
During the
protests, Pashinyan was arrested and detained on 22 April, but he was released the
following day. Sargsyan stepped down from the position of Prime Minister, and his
Republican Party decided to
not put forward a candidate. An interim
Prime Minister was selected from Sargsyan's party until elections were held, and protests
continued for over one month. Crowd sizes in Yerevan consisted of 115,000 to 250,000 people
at a time throughout the revolution, and hundreds of protesters were arrested. Pashinyan
referred to the event as a Velvet Revolution. A vote was
held in parliament, and Pashinyan became the Prime Minister of Armenia.
Many have cited the influence of the series of revolutions which
occurred in Central and Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s, particularly the
Velvet Revolution
in Czechoslovakia in 1989. A
peaceful demonstration by students (mostly from Charles University ) was attacked by the
police – and in time contributed to the collapse of the communist government in
Czechoslovakia. Yet the roots of the pacifist floral imagery may go even further back to the
non-violent Carnation Revolution of Portugal in
April 1974, which is associated with the colour carnation because carnations were worn, and the 1986 Yellow Revolution in
the Philippines where demonstrators offered peace flowers to military personnel manning
armoured tanks.
Student movements
The first of these was Otpor! ("Resistance!") in the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia, which was founded at Belgrade University in October 1998 and
began protesting against Miloševic' during the Kosovo War . Most of them were already veterans
of anti-Milošević demonstrations such as the 1996–97 protests
and the 9 March
1991 protest . Many of its members were arrested or beaten by the police. Despite this,
during the presidential campaign in September 2000, Otpor launched its " Gotov je " (He's finished) campaign that
galvanised Serbian discontent with Miloševic' and resulted in his defeat.
Members of Otpor have inspired and trained members of related student movements including
Kmara in Georgia, Pora in
Ukraine, Zubr in Belarus and
MJAFT! in Albania. These
groups have been explicit and scrupulous in their practice of non-violent resistance as advocated
and explained in Gene
Sharp 's writings. The massive
protests that they have organised, which were essential to the successes in the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia, Georgia and Ukraine, have been notable for their colourfulness and use
of ridiculing humor in opposing authoritarian leaders.
Critical analysis
The analysis of international geopolitics scholars Paul J. Bolt and Sharyl N. Cross is that
"Moscow and Beijing share almost indistinguishable views on the potential domestic and
international security threats posed by colored revolutions, and both nations view these
revolutionary movements as being orchestrated by the United States and its Western democratic
partners to advance geopolitical ambitions."
Russian
assessment
According to Anthony Cordesman of the Center for
Strategic and International Studies , Russian military leaders view the "colour revolutions" as a "new US and
European approach to warfare that focuses on creating destabilizing revolutions in other states
as a means of serving their security interests at low cost and with minimal casualties."
Government figures in Russia , such as Defence Minister
Sergei Shoigu (in
office from 2012) and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (in office from 2004), have
characterised colour revolutions as externally-fuelled acts with a clear goal to influence the
internal affairs that destabilise the economy, conflict with the law and represent a new form of warfare. Russian President
Vladimir Putin has
stated that Russia must prevent colour revolutions: "We see what tragic consequences the wave
of so-called colour revolutions led to. For us this is a lesson and a warning. We should do
everything necessary so that nothing similar ever happens in Russia".
The 2015 presidential decree The Russian Federation's National Security Strategy (
О Стратегии
Национальной
Безопасности
Российской
Федерации ) cites "foreign sponsored
regime change" among "main threats to public and national security," including
the activities of radical public associations and groups using nationalist and religious
extremist ideology, foreign and international nongovernmental organizations, and financial
and economic structures, and also individuals, focused on destroying the unity and
territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, destabilizing the domestic political and
social situation -- including through inciting "color revolutions" -- and destroying
traditional Russian religious and moral values
Chinese view
Articles published by the Global Times , a state-run nationalist tabloid, indicate that Chinese
leaders also anticipate the Western powers, such as the United States, using "color revolutions" as a means to undermine the one-party state. An article published on 8 May 2016 claims: "A
variation of containment seeks to press China on human rights and democracy with the hope of
creating a 'color revolution.'" A 13 August 2019
article declared that the 2019 Hong Kong extradition
bill protests were a colour revolution that "aim[ed] to ruin HK 's future."
The 2015 policy white paper "China's Military Strategy" by the State Council
Information Office said that "anti-China forces have never given up their attempt to
instigate a 'color revolution' in this country."
Azerbaijan
A number of movements were created in Azerbaijan in mid-2005, inspired by the examples
of both Georgia and Ukraine. A youth group, calling itself Yox! (which means No!), declared its opposition to
governmental corruption. The leader of Yox! said that unlike Pora or Kmara , he wants to change not just the leadership,
but the entire system of governance in Azerbaijan. The Yox movement chose green as its colour.
The spearhead of Azerbaijan's attempted colour revolution was Yeni Fikir ("New Idea"), a
youth group closely aligned with the Azadlig (Freedom) Bloc of opposition political parties.
Along with groups such as Magam ("It's Time") and Dalga ("Wave"), Yeni Fikir deliberately
adopted many of the tactics of the Georgian and Ukrainian colour revolution groups, even
borrowing the colour orange from the Ukrainian revolution.
In November 2005 protesters took to the streets, waving orange flags and banners, to protest
what they considered government fraud in recent parliamentary elections. The Azerbaijani colour revolution finally fizzled out with the police riot on 26
November, during which dozens of protesters were injured and perhaps hundreds teargassed and
sprayed with water cannons.
On 5 February 2013, protests began in Shahbag and later spread to other parts of
Bangladesh following
demands for capital punishment for Abdul Quader Mollah , who had been
sentenced to life imprisonment, and for others convicted of war crimes by the International
Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh . On that
day, the International Crimes
Tribunal had sentenced Mollah to life in prison after he was convicted on five of six
counts of war crimes . Later
demands included banning the Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami party
from politics including election and a boycott of institutions supporting (or affiliated with)
the party.
Protesters considered Mollah's sentence too lenient, given his crimes. Bloggers and online activists called for additional protests at Shahbag.
Tens of thousands of people joined the demonstration, which gave rise to protests across the
country.
The movement demanding trial of war criminals is a protest movement in Bangladesh, from 1972
to present.
Belarus
In Belarus , there have
been a number of protests against President Alexander Lukashenko , with
participation from student group Zubr . One round of protests
culminated on 25 March 2005; it was a self-declared attempt to emulate the Kyrgyzstan
revolution, and involved over a thousand citizens. However, police severely suppressed it,
arresting over 30 people and imprisoning opposition leader Mikhail Marinich .
A second, much larger, round of protests began almost a year later, on 19 March 2006, soon
after the presidential election
. Official results had Lukashenko winning with 83% of the vote; protesters claimed the results
were achieved through fraud and voter intimidation, a charge echoed by many foreign
governments.
Protesters camped out in October Square in Minsk over the next week, calling variously for the
resignation of Lukashenko, the installation of rival candidate Alaksandar Milinkievič ,
and new, fair elections.
The opposition originally used as a symbol the white-red-white former flag of Belarus ; the movement has had
significant connections with that in neighbouring Ukraine, and during the Orange Revolution
some white-red-white flags were seen being waved in Kiev. During the 2006 protests some called
it the " Jeans
Revolution " or "Denim Revolution", blue
jeans being considered a symbol for freedom. Some protesters cut up jeans into ribbons and hung
them in public places. It is
claimed that Zubr was responsible for coining the phrase.
Lukashenko has said in the past: "In our country, there will be no pink or orange, or even
banana revolution." More recently he's said "They [the West] think that Belarus is ready for
some 'orange' or, what is a rather frightening option, 'blue' or ' cornflower blue ' revolution. Such 'blue'
revolutions are the last thing we need". On 19
April 2005, he further commented: "All these colored revolutions are pure and simple
banditry."
In Burma (officially called Myanmar), a series of anti-government protests were referred to
in the press as the Saffron Revolution after
Buddhist monks ( Theravada Buddhist monks normally wear
the colour saffron) took the vanguard of the protests. A previous, student-led revolution, the
8888 Uprising on 8
August 1988, had similarities to the colour revolutions, but was violently
repressed.
A call which first appeared on 17 February 2011 on the Chinese language site Boxun.com in the United States for
a "Jasmine revolution" in the People's Republic of China and repeated on social networking
sites in China resulted in blocking of internet searches for "jasmine" and a heavy police
presence at designated sites for protest such as the McDonald's in central Beijing, one of the 13
designated protest sites, on 20 February 2011. A crowd did gather there, but their motivations
were ambiguous as a crowd tends to draw a crowd in that area.
Boxun experienced a denial of service attack during
this period and was inaccessible.
In the 2000s, Fiji suffered numerous coups. But at the same time, many Fiji citizens
resisted the military. In Fiji, there have been many human rights abuses by the military.
Anti-government protesters in Fiji have fled to Australia and New Zealand. In 2011, Fijians
conducted anti Fijian government protests in Australia. On 17 September
2014, the first democratic general election was held in Fiji.
In 2015, Otto
Pérez Molina , President of Guatemala, was suspected of corruption. In Guatemala City,
a large number of protests rallied. Demonstrations took place from April to September 2015.
Otto Pérez
Molina was eventually arrested on 3 September. The people of Guatemala called this event
"Guatemalan Spring".
Moldova
The opposition is reported to have hoped for and urged some kind of Orange revolution,
similar to that in Ukraine, in the follow-up of the 2005 Moldovan
parliamentary elections , while the Christian
Democratic People's Party adopted orange for its colour in a clear reference to the events
of Ukraine.
A name hypothesised for such an event was "Grape Revolution" because of the abundance of
vineyards in the country; however, such a revolution failed to materialise after the
governmental victory in the elections. Many reasons have been given for this, including a
fractured opposition and the fact that the government had already co-opted many of the
political positions that might have united the opposition (such as a perceived pro-European and
anti-Russian stance). Also the elections themselves were declared fairer in the OSCE election
monitoring reports than had been the case in other countries where similar revolutions
occurred, even though the CIS monitoring mission strongly condemned them.
On 25 March 2005, activists wearing yellow scarves held protests in the capital city of
Ulaanbaatar , disputing
the results of the 2004 Mongolian
parliamentary elections and calling for fresh elections. One of the chants heard in that
protest was "Let's congratulate our Kyrgyz brothers for their revolutionary spirit. Let's free
Mongolia of corruption."
An uprising commenced in Ulaanbaatar on 1 July 2008, with a peaceful meeting in protest of
the election of 29 June. The results of these elections were (it was claimed by opposition
political parties) corrupted by the Mongolian People's Party (MPRP).
Approximately 30,000 people took part in the meeting. Afterwards, some of the protesters left
the central square and moved to the HQ of the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party –
which they attacked and then burned down. A police station was also attacked. By the night
rioters vandalised and then set fire to the Cultural Palace (which contained a theatre, museum
and National art gallery). Cars torching, bank
robberies and looting were reported. The
organisations in the burning buildings were vandalised and looted. Police used tear gas, rubber
bullets and water cannon against stone-throwing protesters. A 4-day
state of emergency was installed, the capital has been placed under a 2200 to 0800 curfew, and
alcohol sales banned, rioting not
resumed. 5 people
were shot dead by the police ,
dozens of teenagers were wounded from the police firearms and disabled and
800 people, including the leaders of the civil movements J. Batzandan, O. Magnai and B.
Jargalsakhan, were arrested. International
observers said 1 July general election was free and fair.
In 2007, the Lawyers' Movement started in Pakistan with the aim of restoration
of deposed judges. However, within a month the movement took a turn and started working towards
the goal of removing Pervez Musharraf from power.
The liberal opposition in Russia is represented by several parties and
movements.
An active part of the opposition is the Oborona youth movement. Oborona
claims that its aim is to provide free and honest elections and to establish in Russia a system
with democratic political competition. This movement under the leadership of Oleg
Kozlovsky was one of the most active and radical ones and is represented in a number of
Russian cities. During the elections of 8 September 2013, the movement contributed to the
success of Navalny in Moscow and other opposition candidates in various regions and towns
throughout Russia. The "oboronkis" also took part with other oppositional groups in protests
against fraud in the Moscow mayoral elections.
Since the 2012 protests, Aleksei Navalny mobilised with support of
the various and fractured opposition parties and masses of young people against the alleged
repression and fraud of the Kremlin apparatus. After a strong
campaign for the 8 September elections in Moscow and the regions, the opposition won remarkable
successes. Navalny reached a second place in Moscow with surprising 27% behind Kremlin-backed
Sergei Sobyanin
finishing with 51% of the votes. In other regions, opposition candidates received remarkable
successes. In the big industrial town of Yekaterinburg, opposition candidate Yevgeny Roizman received the majority
of votes and became the mayor of that town. The slow but gradual sequence of opposition
successes reached by mass protests, election campaigns and other peaceful strategies has been
recently called by observers and analysts as of Radio Free Europe "Tortoise Revolution"
in contrast to the radical "rose" or "orange" ones the Kremlin tried to prevent.
The opposition in the Republic of Bashkortostan has held protests demanding
that the federal authorities intervene to dismiss Murtaza Rakhimov from his position as
president of the republic, accusing him of leading an "arbitrary, corrupt, and violent" regime.
Airat
Dilmukhametov , one of the opposition leaders, and leader of the
Bashkir National Front , has said that the opposition movement has been inspired from the
mass protests of Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan. Another
opposition leader, Marat
Khaiyirulin , has said that if an Orange Revolution were to happen in Russia, it would
begin in Bashkortostan.
From 2016 to 2017, the candlelight protest was going on in South Korea with the aim to force the ousting
of President Park
Geun-hye . Park was impeached and removed from office, and new presidential
elections were held.
In Uzbekistan , there
has been longstanding opposition to President Islam Karimov , from liberals and Islamists.
Following protests in 2005, security forces in Uzbekistan carried out the Andijan massacre that successfully
halted country-wide demonstrations. These protests otherwise could have turned into colour
revolution, according to many analysts.
The revolution in neighbouring Kyrgyzstan began in the largely ethnic Uzbek south, and
received early support in the city of Osh . Nigora
Hidoyatova , leader of the Free
Peasants opposition party, has referred to the idea of a peasant revolt or 'Cotton
Revolution'. She also said that her party is collaborating with the youth organisation
Shiddat , and that she
hopes it can evolve to an organisation similar to Kmara or Pora. Other nascent
youth organisations in and for Uzbekistan include Bolga
and the freeuzbek
group.
When groups of young people protested the closure of Venezuela's RCTV television station in June 2007, president
Hugo Chávez
said that he believed the protests were organised by the West in an attempt to promote a "soft
coup" like the revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia. Similarly,
Chinese authorities claimed repeatedly in the state-run media that both the 2014 Hong Kong protests
– known as the Umbrella Revolution – as well as
the 2019–20 Hong Kong
protests , were organised and controlled by the United States.
In July 2007, Iranian state television released footage of two Iranian-American prisoners,
both of whom work for western NGOs, as part of a documentary called "In the Name of Democracy."
The documentary purportedly discusses the colour revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia and accuses
the United States of attempting to foment a similar ouster in Iran.
Other
examples and political movements around the world
The imagery of a colour revolution has been adopted by various non-revolutionary electoral
campaigns. The 'Purple Revolution' social media campaign of Naheed Nenshi catapulted his platform from 8%
to become Calgary's 36th Mayor. The platform advocated city sustainability and to inspire the
high voter turn out of 56%, particularly among young voters.
In 2015, the NDP of Alberta earned a majority
mandate and ended the 44-year-old dynasty of the Progressive
Conservatives . During the campaign Rachel Notley 's popularity gained momentum,
and the news and NDP supporters referred to this phenomenon as the "Orange Crush" per the
party's colour. NDP parodies of Orange flavoured Crush soda logo became a popular meme on
social media.
"... One NGO called the Transatlantic Democracy Working Group (TDWG) was bold or reckless enough to draw the parallels between the Color Revolution in Belarus and the events playing out against Trump explicitly ..."
"... Now, would the reader care to take a guess as to who runs the Transatlantic Democracy Working Group? If you guessed Norm Eisen, you would be correct. ..."
In our report on Never
Trump State Department official George Kent , Revolver News first drew attention
to the ominous similarities between the strategies and tactics the United States government
employs in so-called "Color Revolutions" and the coordinated efforts of government bureaucrats,
NGOs, and the media to oust President Trump.
Our recent follow-up to this initial report focused specifically on a shadowy, George Soros
linked group called the Transition Integrity Project (TIP), which convened "war games"
exercises suggesting the likelihood of a "contested election scenario," and of ensuing chaos
should President Trump refuse to leave office. We further showed how these "contested election"
scenarios we are hearing so much about play perfectly into the Color Revolution framework
sketched out Revolver News' first installment in the Color Revolution series.
This third installment of Revolver News ' series exposing the Color Revolution
against Trump will focus on one quiet and indeed mostly overlooked participant in the
Transition Integrity Project's biased election "war games" exercise -- a man by the name of
Norm Eisen.
As the man who implemented the David Brock blueprint for
suing the President into paralysis and his
allies into bankruptcy , who helped mainstream and amplify the Russia Hoax, who drafted
10 articles of impeachment for the Democrats a full month before President Trump ever
called the Ukraine President in 2018 , who personally served as special counsel
litigating the Ukraine impeachment, who created a template for Internet censorship of world
leaders and a handbook for mass mobilizing racial justice protesters to overturn democratic
election results, there is perhaps no man alive with a more decorated resume for plots against
President Trump.
Indeed, the story of Norm Eisen – a key architect of nearly every attempt to
delegitimize, impeach, censor, sue and remove the democratically elected 45th President of the
United States – is a tale that winds through nearly every facet of the color revolution
playbook. There is no purer embodiment of Revolver's thesis that the very same regime
change professionals who run Color Revolutions on behalf of the US Government in order to
undermine or overthrow alleged "authoritarian" governments overseas, are running the very same
playbook to overturn Trump's 2016 victory and to pre-empt a repeat in 2020. To put it simply,
what you see is not just the same Color Revolution playbook run against Trump, but the same
people using it against Trump who have employed it in a professional capacity against targets
overseas -- same people same playbook.
In Norm Eisen's case, the "same people same playbook" refrain takes an arrestingly literal
turn when one realizes that Norm Eisen wrote a classic Color Revolution regime change manual,
and conveniently titled it "The Playbook."
Just what exactly is President Obama's former White House Ethics Czar ( yes, Norm Eisen
was Obama's ethics Czar ), his longtime friend since Harvard Law School, who recently
partook in war games to simulate overturning a Trump electoral victory, doing writing a
detailed playbook on how to use a Color Revolution to overthrow governments? The story of Norm
Eisen only gets more fascinating, outrageous, and indispensable to understanding the planned
chaos unfolding before our eyes, leading up to what will perhaps be the most chaotic election
in our nation's recent history.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -
"I'd Rather Have This Book Than The Atomic Bomb"
Before we can fully appreciate the significance of Norm Eisen's Color Revolution manual "The
Playbook," we must contextualize this important book in relation to its place in Color
Revolution literature.
As a bit of a refresher to the reader, it is important to emphasize that when we use the
term "Color Revolution" we do not mean any general type of revolution -- indeed, one of the
chief advantages of the Color Revolution framework we advance is that it offers a specific and
concrete heuristic by which to understand the operations against Trump beyond the accurate but
more vague term "coup." Unlike the overt, blunt, method of full scale military invasion as was
the case in Iraq War, a Color Revolution employs the following strategies and tactics:
A "Color Revolution" in this context refers to a specific type of coordinated attack that
the United States government has been known to deploy against foreign regimes, particularly
in Eastern Europe deemed to be "authoritarian" and hostile to American interests. Rather than
using a direct military intervention to effect regime change as in Iraq, Color Revolutions
attack a foreign regime by contesting its electoral legitimacy, organizing mass protests and
acts of civil disobedience, and leveraging media contacts to ensure favorable coverage to
their agenda in the Western press.
[Revolver]
This combination of tactics used in so-called Color Revolutions did not come from nowhere.
Before Norm Eisen came Gene Sharp -- originator and Godfather of the Color Revolution model
that has been a staple of US Government operations externally (and now internally) for decades.
Before Norm Eisen's "Playbook" there was Gene Sharp's classic "From Dictatorship to Democracy,"
which might be justly described as the Bible of the Color Revolution. Such is the power of the
strategies laid out by Sharp that a Lithuanian defense minister once said of Sharp's preceding
book (upon which Dictatorship to Democracy builds) that "I would
rather have this book than the nuclear bomb."
Gene Sharp
It would be impossible to do full justice to Gene Sharp within the scope of this specific
article. Here are some choice excerpts about Sharp and his biography to give readers a taste of
his significance and relevance to this discussion.
Gene Sharp, the "Machiavelli of nonviolence," has been fairly described as "the most
influential American political figure you've never heard of."
1 Sharp, who passed away in January 2018, was a beloved yet "mysterious" intellectual
giant of nonviolent protest movements , the "father of the whole field of the study of
strategic nonviolent action."
2 Over his career, he wrote more than twenty books about nonviolent action and social
movements. His how-to pamphlet on nonviolent revolution, From Dictatorship to
Democracy , has been translated into over thirty languages and is cited by protest
movements around the world . In the U.S., his ideas are widely promoted through activist
training programs and by scholars of nonviolence, and have been used by nearly every major
protest movement in the last forty years .
3 For these contributions, Sharp has been praised by progressive heavyweights like Howard
Zinn and Noam Chomsky, nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize four times, compared to Gandhi,
and cast as a lonely prophet of peace, champion of the downtrodden, and friend of the left .
4
Gene Sharp's influence on the U.S. activist left and social movements abroad has been
significant. But he is better understood as one of the most important U.S. defense
intellectuals of the Cold War, an early neoliberal theorist concerned with the supposedly
inherent violence of the "centralized State," and a quiet but vital counselor to
anti-communist forces in the socialist world from the 1980s onward.
In the mid-1960s, Thomas Schelling, a Nobel Prize-winning nuclear theorist, recruited
29-year-old Sharp to join the Center for International Affairs at Harvard , bastion of the
high Cold War defense, intelligence, and security establishment. Leading the so-called "CIA
at Harvard" were Henry Kissinger, future National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy, and future
CIA chief Robert Bowie. Sharp held this appointment for thirty years. There, with Department
of Defense funds, he developed his core theory of nonviolent action: a method of warfare
capable of collapsing states through theatrical social movements designed to dissolve the
common will that buttresses governments, all without firing any shots. From his post at the
CIA at Harvard, Sharp would urge U.S. and NATO defense leadership to use his methods against
the Soviet Union. [Nonsite]
We invite the reader to reflect on the passages in bold, particularly their potential
relevance to the current domestic situation in the United States. Sharp's book and strategy for
"non violent revolution" AKA "peaceful protests" has been used to undermine or overthrow target
governments all over the world, particularly in Eastern Europe.
Gene's color revolution playbook was of course especially effective in Eastern Bloc
countries in Eastern Europe:
Finally, there is no shortage of analysis as to the applicability of Sharp's methods
domestically within the USA in order to advance various left wing causes. This passage
specifically mentions the applicability of Sharp's methods to counter act Trump.
Ominous stuff indeed. For readers who wish to read further, please consult
the full Politico piece from which we have excerpted the above highlighted passages. There
is also a fascinating documentary on Sharp instructively titled "
How to Start a Revolution ."
This is all interesting and disturbing, to say the least. In its own right it would suggest
a compelling nexus point between the operations run against Trump and the Color Revolution
playbook. But what does this have to do with our subject Norm Eisen? It just so happens that
Eisen explicitly places himself in the tradition of Gene Sharp, acknowledging his book "The
Playbook" as a kind of update to Sharp's seminal "Dictatorship to Democracy."
And there we have it, folks -- Norm Eisen, former Obama Ethics Czar, Ambassador to
Czechoslovakia during the "Velvet Revolution," key counsel in impeachment effort against Trump,
and participant in the ostensibly bi-partisan election war games predicting a contested
election scenario unfavorable to Trump -- just happens to be a Color Revolution expert who
literally wrote the modern "Playbook" in the explicitly acknowledged tradition of Color
Revolution Godfather Gene Sharp's "From Dictatorship to Democracy."
Before we turn to the contents of Norm Eisen's Color Revolution manual, full title "The
Democracy Playbook: Preventing and Reversing Democratic Backsliding," it will be useful to make
a brief point regarding the term "democracy" itself, which happens to appear in the title of
Gene Sharp's book "From Dictatorship to Democracy" as well.
Just like the term "peaceful protestor," which, as we pointed out in our George Kent essay
is used as a term of craft in the Color Revolution context, so is the term "democracy" itself.
The US Government launches Color Revolutions against foreign targets irrespective of whether
they actually enjoy the support of the people or were elected democratically. In the case of
Trump, whatever one says about him, he is perhaps the most "democratically" elected President
in America's history. Indeed, in 2016 Trump ran against the coordinated opposition of the
establishments of both parties, the military industrial complex, the corporate media,
Hollywood, and really every single powerful institution in the country. He won, however,
because he was able to garner sufficient support of the people -- his true and decisive power
base as a "populist." Precisely because of the ultra democratic "populist" character of Trump's
victory, the operatives attempting to undermine him have focused specifically on attacking the
democratic legitimacy of his victory.
In this vein we ought to note that the term "democratic backsliding," as seen in the
subtitle of Norm Eisen's book, and its opposite "democratic breakthrough" are also terms of art
in the Color Revolution lexicon. We leave the full exploration of how the term "democratic" is
used deceptively in the Color Revolution context (and in names of decidedly
anti-democratic/populist institutions) as an exercise to the interested reader. Michael McFaul,
another Color Revolution expert and key anti-Trump operative somewhat gives the game away in
the following tweet in which the term "democratic breakthrough" makes an appearance as a better
sounding alternative to "Color Revolution:"
Most likely as a response to Revolver News' first Color Revolution article on State
Department official George Kent, former Ambassador McFaul issued the following tweet as a
matter of damage control:
Being a rather simple man from a simple background, McFaul perhaps gave too much of this
answer away in the following explanation (now deleted).
Trump has lost the Intelligence Community. He has lost the State Department. He has lost the military. How can he continue to
serve as our Commander in Chief ?
With this now-deleted tweet we get a clearer picture of the power bases that must be
satisfied for a "democratic breakthrough" to occur -- and conveniently enough, not one of them
is subject to direct democratic control. McFaul, Like Eisen, George Kent, and so many others,
perfectly embodies Revolver's thesis regarding the Color Revolution being the same
people running the same playbook. Indeed, like most of the star never-Trump impeachment
witnesses, McFaul has been an ambassador to an Eastern European country. He has supported
operations against Trump, including impeachment. And, like Norm Eisen, he has actually
written
a book on Color Revolutions (more on that later).
Norm Eisen's The Democracy Playbook: A Brief Overview:
A deep dive into Eisen's book would exceed the scope of this relatively brief exposé.
It is nonetheless important for us to draw attention to key passages of Eisen's book to
underscore how closely the "Playbook" corresponds to events unfolding right here at home.
Indeed, it would not be an exaggeration to say that regime change professionals such as Eisen
simply decided to run the same playbook against Trump that they have done countless times when
foreign leaders are elected overseas that they don't like and want to remove via
extra-democratic means -- "peaceful protests," "democratic breakthroughs" and such.
First, consider the following passage from Eisen's Playbook:
If you study this passage closely, you will find direct confirmation of our earlier point
that "democracy" in the Color Revolution context is a term of art -- it refers to anything they
like that keeps the national security bureaucrats in power. Anything they don't like, even if
elected democratically, is considered "anti-democratic," or, put another way, "democratic
backsliding." Eisen even acknowledges that this scourge of populism he's so worried about
actually was ushered in with "popular support," under "relatively democratic and electoral
processes." The problem is precisely that the people have had enough of the corrupt ruling
class ignoring their needs. Accordingly, the people voted first for Brexit and then for Donald
Trump -- terrifying expressions of populism which the broader Western power structure did
everything in its capacity to prevent. Once they failed, they viewed these twin populist
victories as a kind of political 9/11 to be prevented by any means necessary from recurring.
Make no mistake, the Color Revolution has nothing to do with democracy in any meaningful sense
and everything to do with the ruling class ensuring that the people will never have the power
to meddle in their own elections again.
The passage above can be insightfully compared to the passage in Gene Sharp's book noting
ripe applications to the domestic situation.
It is instructive to compare the passage in Eisen's Color Revolution book to the passage in
Michael McFaul's Color Revolution book
First off, it is absolutely imperative to look at every single one of the conditions for a
Color Revolution that McFaul identifies. It is simply impossible not to be overcome with the
ominous parallels to our current situation. Specifically, however, note condition 1 which
refers to having a target leader who is not fully authoritarian, but semi-autocratic. This
coincides perfectly well with Eisen's concession that the populist leaders he's so concerned
about might be "illiberal" but enjoy "popular support" and have come to power via "relatively
democratic electoral processes."
Consulting the above passage from McFaul's book, we note that McFaul has been perhaps the
most explicit about the conditions which facilitate a Color Revolution. We invite the reader to
supply the contemporary analogue to each point as a kind of exercise.
A semi-autocratic regime rather than fully autocratic
An unpopular incumbent (note blanket negative coverage of Trump, fake polls)
A united and organized opposition (media, intel community, Hollywood, community groups,
etc)
Enough independent media to inform citizens of falsified vote (see full court press in
media pushing contested election narrative, social media censorship)
A political opposition capable of mobilizing tens of thousands or more demonstrators to
protest electoral fraud ( SEE BLACK LIVES MATTER AND ANTIFA )
On point number four, which is especially relevant to our present situation, Eisen has an
interesting thing to say about the role of a contested election scenario in the Orange
Revolution, arguably the most important Color Revolution of them all.
Finally, let's look at one last passage from Norm Eisen's Color Revolution "Democracy
Playbook" and cross-reference it with McFaul's conditions for a Color Revolution as well as the
situation playing out right now before our very eyes:
A few things immediately jump out at us. First, the ominous instruction: "prepare to use
electoral abuse evidence as the basis for reform advocacy." Secondly, we note the passage
suggesting that opposition to a target leader might avail itself of "extreme institutional
measures" including impeachment processes, votes of no confidence, and, of course, the good
old-fashioned "protests, strikes, and boycotts" (all more or less peaceful no doubt).
By now the Color Revolution agenda against Trump should be as plain as day. Regime change
professionals like McFaul, Eisen, George Kent, and others, who have refined their craft
conducting color revolutions overseas, have taken it upon themselves to use the same tools, the
same tactics -- quite literally, the same playbook -- to overthrow President Trump. Yet again,
same people, same playbook.
We conclude this study of key Color Revolution figure Norm Eisen by exploring his
particularly proactive -- indeed central role -- in effecting one of the Color Revolution's
components mentioned in the Eisen Playbook -- impeachment.
-- -- -- –
The Ghost of Democracy's Future
We mentioned at the outset of this piece that Norm Eisen is many things -- a former Obama
Ethics Czar (but of course), Ambassador to Czechoslovakia, participant in the now notorious
Transition Integrity Project, et cetera. But he earned his title as "legal hatchet man" of the
Color Revolution for his tireless efforts in promoting the impeachment of President Trump.
The litany of Norm Eisen's legal activity cited at the beginning of this piece bears
repeating.
As the man who implemented the David Brock blueprint
for suing the President into paralysis and his
allies into bankruptcy , who helped mainstream and amplify the Russia Hoax, who drafted
10 articles of impeachment for the Democrats a full month before President Trump ever
called the Ukraine President in 2018 , who personally served as DNC co-counsel for
litigating the Ukraine impeachment
If that resume doesn't warrant the title "legal hatchet man" we wonder what does? We
encourage interested readers or journalists to explore those links for themselves. By way of
conclusion, it simply suffices to note that much of Eisen's impeachment activity he conducted
before there was any discussion or knowledge of President Trump's call to the Ukrainian
President in 2018 -- indeed before the call even happened. Impeachment was very clearly a
foregone conclusion -- a quite literal part of Norm Eisen's Color Revolution playbook -- and it
was up to people like Eisen to find the pretext, any pretext.
Despite their constant invocation of "democracy" we ought to note that transferring the
question of electoral outcomes to adversarial legal processes is in fact anti-Democratic -- in
keeping with our observation that the Color Revolution playbook uses "democracy" as a term of
art, often meaning the precise opposite of the usual meaning suggesting popular support.
Perhaps the most important entry in Eisen's entry is the first, that is, Eisen's
participation in the infamous David Brock blueprint on how to undermine and overthrow the Trump
presidency.
The Washington Free Beacon attended the retreat and obtained David Brock's
private and confidential memorandum from the meeting. The memo, "
Democracy Matters: Strategic Plan for Action ," outlines Brock's four-year agenda to
attack Trump and Republicans using Media Matters, American Bridge, Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) , and Shareblue.
This leaked memo was written before President Trump took office, further suggesting that all
of the efforts to undermine Trump have not been good faith responses to his behavior, but a
pre-ordained attack strategy designed to overturn the 2016 election by any means necessary. The
Color Revolution expert who suggests impeachment as a tactic in his Color Revolution "playbook"
was already in charge of impeachment before Trump even took office -- -Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is run by none other than Norm Eisen.
But the attempt to overturn the 2016 election using Color Revolution tactics failed. And so
now the plan is to overthrow Trump in 2020, hence Norm Eisen's noted participation in the
Transition Integrity Project. Looking around us, one is forced to ask the deeply uncomfortable
question, "transition into what?"
To conclude, we would like to call back to a point we raised in the first piece in our color
revolution series. In this piece, we noted that star Never Trump impeachment witness George
Kent just happens to be running the Belarus desk at the State Department. Belarus, we argued,
with its mass demonstrations egged on by US Government backed NGOS, its supposed "peaceful
protests" and of course its contested election results all fit the Color Revolution mold
curiously enough.
One NGO called the Transatlantic Democracy Working Group (TDWG) was bold or reckless enough
to draw the parallels between the Color Revolution in Belarus and the events playing out
against Trump explicitly. In response to a remark by a twitter user that the TDWG's remarks
about Belarus suggested parallels to the United States, the TDWG ominously replied:
Now, would the reader care to take a guess as to who runs the Transatlantic Democracy
Working Group? If you guessed Norm Eisen, you would be correct.
Stay tuned for more in Revolver.news' groundbreaking coverage of the Color
Revolution against Trump. Be sure to check out the previous installments in this series.
Vaccine against coronaviruses is a very tricky business as the virus tend to mutate with
time. Still it looks like Russian found some nw avenue to tackle this problem which might be more
efficient then alternatives.
Western reporters to not like to correct their own false reporting. They rather reinforce it
as much as possible. Only when overwhelmed by the facts will they silently admit that they were
wrong in the first place. Here is a prime example of how that's done.
In mid-August we exposed how 'western' media lied about the approval for phase-3 testing of
the Russian Sputnik vaccine against Covid-19. They said that Russia claimed the vaccine was
ready to go population wide. That never was the case.
Russia has not approved a vaccine against Covid-19 and it is not skipping large-scale
clinical trials. The Russia regulator gave a preliminary approval for a vaccine candidate to
start the large-scale clinical trial. [...]
Science Magazine is one of the few media who
got it right : ...
One of the false reports we pointed out was by the New York Times Moscow
correspondent Andrew E. Kramer:
Russia has become the first country in the world to approve a vaccine for the coronavirus,
President Vladimir V. Putin announced on Tuesday, though global health authorities say the
vaccine has yet to complete critical, late-stage clinical trials to determine its safety and
effectiveness.
...
By skipping large-scale clinical trials, the Russian dash for a vaccine has raised widespread
concern that it is circumventing vital steps -- and potentially endangering people -- in
order to score global propaganda points.
Russia had, as we and Science Magazine reported, never the intent to skip
large-scale clinical trials. Kramer made that up.
In new report today Kramer reinforces his previous false and disproven claims to lament
about an alleged slow distribution of the Sputnik vaccine in Russia:
More than a month after becoming the first country to approve a coronavirus vaccine, Russia
has yet to administer it to a large population outside a clinical trial, health officials and
outside experts say.
The approval, which came with much fanfare, occurred before Russia had tested the vaccine
in late-stage trials for possible side effects and for its disease-fighting ability. It was
seen as a political gesture by President Vladimir V. Putin to assert victory in the global
race for a vaccine.
It is not clear whether the slow start to the vaccination campaign is a result of limited
production capacity or second thoughts about inoculating the population with an unproven
product.
The Times author reinforces his own lie that Russia had declared its vaccine ready
for population wide application. It had never done that. The official registration of the
vaccine by the relevant authorities was only a necessary precondition to start the large scale
phase-3 testing of the vaccine. There never was a Russian intent to distribute the vaccine to a
large population without phase-3 testing.
In the bottom third of his long piece Kramer comes near to admitting that. There he
describes that the Sputnik phase-3 testing is now ongoing. That contradicts all of his previous
reporting on the issues though he himself never says that. But even now he is getting the
details wrong:
The trial in Russia began on Sept. 9, and Russian officials have said they expect early
results before the end of the year, though the Gamaleya Institute, the scientific body that
developed the vaccine, has scheduled the trial to continue until May.
That timeline is similar to the testing schedules announced by the three pharmaceutical
companies testing potential vaccines in the United States, AstraZeneca, Moderna and
Pfizer.
...
The Russian late-stage, or Phase 3, clinical trial is being carried out entirely in Moscow,
where 30,000 people will receive the vaccine and 10,000 will get a placebo.
Yevgenia Zubova, a spokeswoman for the Moscow city health department, said in an interview
that the vaccine was available only to trial participants.
Those last two paragraphs, which completely debunk Kramer's original reporting, should have
been at the very top of the piece. They are buried down in paragraph 23 and 24 of a 29
paragraphs story that starts out with an epic repeat of the previously made false claims.
Post-registration clinical trials involving more than 40,000 people in Russia will be
launched in a week starting from August, 24. A number of countries, such as UAE, Saudi
Arabia, Philippines and possibly India or Brazil will join the clinical trials of Sputnik V
locally. [...] Mass production of the vaccine is expected to start in September 2020.
That testing of Sputnik V will also happen outside of Moscow has been confirmed
by recent reports :
Russia's sovereign wealth fund will supply 100 million doses of its potential coronavirus
vaccine to Indian drug company Dr Reddy's Laboratories, the fund said on Wednesday, as Moscow
speeds up plans to distribute its shot abroad.
...
Dr Reddy's, one of India's top pharmaceutical companies, will carry out Phase III clinical
trials of Sputnik-V in India, RDIF said.
It is not Russia that is fudging the testing of its vaccine. It is the Trump administration
that is
planning to do so out of political reasons:
We have the protocols. Now we know how there will very likely be an Emergency Use Approval
(EUA) for a vaccine prior to November 3. The company and political motivations are fully
aligned.
In contrast to the U.S. the Russian testing of its Sputnik vaccine will be -as usual- of
high integrity and will strictly follow the protocols such trials are supposed to follow. In
paragraph 29, the very last one in today's NYT story, the author at last admits as
much :
[W]hen medicines are tested, Russia has an exceptionally good track record on managing
clinical trials , according to a database of U.S. Food and Drug Administration inspections of
clinical trials around the world. The F.D.A. found a lower percentage of trials with problems
in Russia than in any other European country or the United States.
If I get the chance to chose a vaccine for myself I will rather take the one which was
developed by a highly qualified state financed research institution and approved in Russia than
one developed by some profit oriented pharmaceutic conglomerate that is in cahoots with a
politicized regulator under the Trump administration.
Posted by b on September 20, 2020 at 12:12 UTC |
Permalink
If I get the chance to chose a vaccine for myself I will rather take the one which was
developed by a highly qualified state financed research institution and approved in Russia
than one developed by some profit oriented pharmaceutic conglomerate that is in cahoots
with a politicized regulator under the Trump administration.
To top it off, Gamaleya's vaccine simply has the better science behind it. It uses two
human adenoviruses, in opposition to the single chimpanzee adenovirus used by the AstraZeneca
one (the Chinese one also uses only one adenovirus, but I don't remember if it is human or
chimpanzee).
No other laboratory in the world is using Gamaleya's technology - which it already
dominates. Two American laboratories (Moderna and one more that I forgot the name) are
testing the untried and dangerous mRNA technology. It is very unlikely those two mRNA
vaccines will ever come out to the public; those two labs probably just cashed in their USD 2
billion checks they received from the USG.
This gives force to my original hypothesis: the Anglo-Saxon laboratories are exploiting
exotic technologies for their vaccines because they want something the can patent, thus
charging astronomical prices to the national governments and thus emerge from this pandemic
even richer.
--//--
Speaking of AstraZeneca (Oxford), it released its blueprints yesterday after "public
pressure":
The USG is, behind the scenes (I already posted the link here in the open thread),
extremely worried about this vaccine.
AstraZeneca will try to get what it can get, but the fact is it's game over for them. The
thing here is that the Gamaleya alternative is better and if the USA (where the vaccine
makers will really make money) wants to get political, it will simply opt for one of the many
American vaccines that will come out - ready or not, satisfactory or not - next year. As a
British vaccine, AstraZeneca-Oxford will, at best, have to do with the British market, which
is very tiny for a big pharmaceutical company.
It is better if they just cancel the trials and abandon production.
If I had money I'd fly to Russia for their vaccine. They made theirs for the people and in
Amerika we make it for profits and protect the makes from lawsuits.
To be frank, at this point, ironically, it's Big Pharma's own self-interest that might help
us to counter Trump's lunacy. There are enough anti-vaxxers around for them not to want a
screwed up vaccine and a big scandal that would only comfort the vaxxers and sow mistrust
among the population. They need people to assume vaccines are well done and mostly harmless
if they want to keep making profit with them. Trump is only interested in a victory in the
next few weeks, Pharma business is interested in making profits for the next decades.
That's quite a damning indictment of our Western system, but then 2020 is a milestone, the
threshold beyond which it won't be possible to consider the Western liberal capitalistic
system as the superior one, if not the best one possible - quite the opposite.
The Kramer reporting is highly unusual. Normally the important information should be in the
third paragraph from the end and now it's in the sixth and seventh last.
Anyway, while I agree that this vaccine should be treated as an entirely legitimate effort
I want to add:
- phase 1/2 testing did appear a too lightweight and the article on it in the Lancet has been
criticized by russian scientists (
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/09/08/leading-scientists-question-highly-improbable-russian-vaccine-results-published-in-lancet-a71384).
- one family of vaccines can be more controversial and experimental than another and the
judgement of the testers can take this in account when considering shortcuts.
- One should distinguish what the makers of the vaccine claim with the political
(exaggerated) statements from Putin about it .
- The statements on testing on the Sputnikvaccine have changed over time. In the beginning it
said 2000 people in Russia and it listed 4 more countries(UAE, KSA, Brazil,Mexico). That was
insufficient. Several of these countries have been omitted since, and others have been added.
One can say that the intent to do decent testing was always there but the confirmed planning
was not.
- rollout to large population was impossible anyway at an early stage because the production
capacity was limited.
Kramer is not wrong, he simply lies. In the Relotius media this is standard practice when
covering politically sensitive topics, combined with omissions.
Of course, many well-researched and truthful articles are published in the nyt, faz, nzz etc.
That is exactly what makes these media so refined and what they base their claim to be
quality media on. One lies and distort as little and as targeted as possible.
The Europena and Australian vassals of the USA would not be given a choice to choose the more
authetic option of the vaccine. But Israel would probably opt for the Russian version without
consequence. It's over for the West!
Nobody is saying the Gamaleya vaccine will be the second coming of the polio vaccine.
Whichever COVID-19 vaccine comes out will inevitably be imperfect (in relation to the already
tested and tried vaccines everybody takes nowadays).
Your worries are all legitimate. Indeed, Gamaleya publicly admitted phases 1 and 2 of its
trials has small samples of subjects.
However, you also have to take into account that the science is solid (two human
adenoviruses, a tested and tried technology) and that Gamaleya is the center of excellence in
adenovirus vaccine technology. That's why - and not because it is Russian - we can trust
Gamaleya's vaccine is, given the circumstances (pandemic), reliable. The fact Gamaleya
already dominated the adenovirus technology also explains why it was the first laboratory to
come out with a solution - it simply used a tested and tried method it already dominated,
while the other pharmaceuticals are basically having to relearn how to develop a vaccine
and/or are adventuring in uncharted territory because they want something they can
patent.
So yes, we can search and find defects in Gamaleya's trials - but the strongest argument
in its favor is not the trials, it's the solid science and technology behind it.
Vk and the wabbit - right on. And Thanks to you, B, for this clear and straightforwardly
informative piece (as usual).
Is it any surprise that the NYT uses the usual propaganda format of truth (when it accords
with the ruling elites perspective) and lies (when "reporting on" what is happening in those
"bad hat" countries)? And might I add that NPR and the BBC World Service do exactly the same
thing, boosting the US-UK-NATO worldview (which equals the western
corporate-captitalist-imperialist, oh so exceptional, ruling elites world position) while
denigrating Russia, China, Iran (and now Lukashenko - indeed the Beeb refuses to pronounce
his name properly, always reducing it to the feminine form, and believe me, as born and
raised Brit, that's deliberate) via lies, lies and more lies. And via those weasely words:
"likely," "Highly likely" and so on and on ....
All that this latest vaccine competition (western) will produce is more anti-vaxxers. And
this time round, sensibly so.
Tuyzefot (5): it is common for the NYT to lead with propaganda and bury the facts at the end
of the article.
I noticed it decades ago in articles covering Palestine. I learned to skip whatever was
printed on the front page and immediately jump to the final five paragraphs found deep within
the paper. I guess they print the facts at all there only as a bizarre way of covering their
asses in a feeble attempt at integrity.
The vaccine uses a unique two-vector human adenovirus technology which no-one else in
the world currently has for COVID-19.
[...]
On the surface the Sputnik V trial with 76 participants seems smaller in size compared
to 1,077 people that, for example, AstraZeneca had in its Phase 1-2 studies. However,
the design of the Sputnik V trial was much more efficient and based on better
assumptions.
[...]
The post-registration studies involving more than 40,000 people started in Russia on
August 26, before AstraZeneca has started its Phase 3 trial in the U.S. with 30,000
participants. Clinical trials in Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), the Philippines,
India and Brazil will begin this month. The preliminary results of the Phase 3 trial will
be published in October-November 2020.
[...]
Q.: Why has the Sputnik V vaccine already become eligible for emergency use
registration?
Because of the very positive results of the Phase 1-2 trials and because the human
adenoviral vector-based delivery platform has been proven the safest vaccine delivery
platform over decades including through 75 international scientific publications and in
more than 250 clinical trials.
[...]
Some other companies are using human adenoviral vector-based platforms for their
COVID-19 vaccines. For example, Johnson & Johnson uses only Ad26 vector and China's
CanSino only Ad5 while Sputnik V uses both of these vectors. The work of Johnson &
Johnson and CanSino not only validates the Russian approach but also shows Sputnik V's
advantage as studies have demonstrated that two different vectors produce better
results than one.
[...]
The monkey adenovirus and mRNA vaccines have never been used and approved before and
their research is lagging the proven human adenoviral vector-based platform by at least 20
years. However, their developers have already secured supply contracts worth billions of
dollars from Western governments and may potentially apply for fast-track registration --
while receiving full indemnity at the same time.
At the end of the Q&A, Dmitriev counters his Western colleagues:
Question 1: Are there any long-term studies of mRNA and monkey adenovirus vector-based
technologies for carcinogenic effects and impact on fertility? (Hint: there are none)
Question 2: Could their absence be the reason why some of the leading pharmaceutical
firms making COVID-19 vaccines based on these technologies pushed the countries buying
their vaccines for full indemnification from lawsuits if something goes wrong?
Question 3: Why is Western media not reporting a lack of long term studies for mRNA and
monkey adenoviral vector-based vaccines?
The constant Russia bashing is a disconnect from the truth and the real world.
It is annoying to wade through.
Far more important, it is crippling for a nation if its leadership actually does
disconnect from reality and believe its own fantasy.
Disconnect from reality, belief in convenient fantasy, is exactly how the Democrats went
from losing with Hillary to running again with Hillary II, the same donors and advisers and
influence peddlers pushing the same right wing triangulation by the Democratic Party.
Maybe they can squeak out a win this time. It should not be close.
Far more important, there are things that need doing, things that would win like health
care for all, that they simply won't offer or run on. We are not going to get from them what
we need, we know that, and that is why they again have a squeaker election even against a
joke like Trump.
Perfect example of the free and unfettered press at work. What do you mean we're just a
propaganda rag? See, right down at the bottom, the bit you didn't bother to read down to,
right next to the denture ad, we told the truth. So there! Balanced and accurate reporting!
Trump's "national security" state has managed to kill 200000 by him the autocrat in chief to
come out and tell the truth as he admitted so to Woodward. This fucking American national
security phobia is costing American lives more than all past 70 years of national security
wars.
@JohnH 13 , it was hm, a joke. There is indeed rule of thumb that you have to look fore the
third to last paragraph. I upgraded it into something of a law, which is then violated in
this case.
@vk 10, I wouldn't call it my worries, just that I think B. posted a version which was too
simple and rosy. In the meantime I saw your post 14 which I roughly expected but hadn't read
about yet.
Andrew Kramer's reporting on the Sputnik V vaccine is deliberately written to discredit the
Russians and anything and everything they do, which includes the way they conduct scientific
and medical research (because it's govt-funded, not funded by global pharmaceutical
corporations) and the way they run their healthcare system (not privatised).
First, Kramer says the Kremlin approved the vaccine: this is to set up Moscow and Putin in
particular as rash, so that the supposed "roll-out" of the vaccine can be (secondly)
portrayed as inefficient.
Kramer knows he is lying which is why his piece is long (he knows most NYT readers are
time-poor and want the celebrity news and baseball results) and the most important
information is squeezed into the last two paragraphs of his article.
I tried linking to that Moscow Times article at your link and either I hit a dead end or
the newspaper removed the article, which does not surprise me since that newspaper is as
credible as The New York Times. It used to be given away f o r free in Moscow but I believe
it now exists only as an online paper.
@Jen, you have to remove the last two characters ').' because I omitted a space. The article
in the moscow times is ok and not too alarming. It is also not discrediting the lancet
article. Just raising concerns.
Counter disinformation network can't revive the dead chicken of neoliberal ideology.
Neoliberal elite lost legitimacy and as such has difficulties controlling the narrative.
That's why all this frantic efforts were launched to rectify the situation.
Anti-Russian angle of Atlantic council revealed here quite clearly
The paper's biggest single recommendation was that the United States and EU establish a
Counter-Disinformation Coalition, a public/private group bringing together, on a regular basis,
government and non-government stakeholders, including social media companies, traditional
media, Internet service providers (ISPs), and civil society groups. The Counter-Disinformation
Coalition would develop best practices for confronting disinformation from nondemocratic
countries, consistent with democratic norms. It also recommended that this coalition start with
a voluntary code of conduct outlining principles and agreed procedures for dealing with
disinformation, drawing from the recommendations as summarized above.
In drawing up these recommendations, we were aware that disinformation most often comes from
domestic, not foreign, sources. 8 While Russian and other disinformation players are
known to work in coordination with domestic purveyors of disinformation, both overtly and
covertly, the recommendations are limited to foreign disinformation, which falls within the
scope of "political warfare." Nevertheless, it may be that these policy recommendations,
particularly those focused on transparency and social resilience, may be applicable to
combatting other forms of disinformation.
That's naive take. Wary knows quite a bit about Antifa. Most probably the key people are
iether FBI agents or informants. The problem is that he find Antifa activities politically
useful. That's why he does not want to shut it down. This again put FBI in the role of kingmaker,
like under Comey.
Also don't forget that Brennan faction of CIA is still in power and that means the "deep
state" still is in control like was the case during Mueller investigation.
In May of 2017, President Trump did the right thing and fired FBI Director James Comey, the
individual at the center of the attempt to overturn the 2016 election results. Comey
orchestrated the spying efforts on President Trump and his campaign, which included the FBI
improperly applying for four separate Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court warrants to
eavesdrop on campaign aide Carter Page. He also authorized a politically motivated
investigation into Lt. General Michael Flynn and encouraged the entrapment of Flynn by his FBI
agents in an infamous White House interview.
Clearly, Comey was a disastrous FBI Director; however, the President made a terrible choice
when he replaced him with Christopher Wray, a bureaucrat who has not reformed the agency in any
meaningful way. He also seems to be incapable of identifying the real threats that are facing
the country.
In testimony on Thursday before the House Homeland Security Committee, Wray made a series of
remarkable claims. He stated that Antifa is not a group but is more of "an ideology or maybe a
movement." He also refused to identify Chinese efforts to interrupt the 2020 election and again
focused attention on activities from Russia.
With these remarks, Wray is doing the bidding of the Democrats and following their talking
points. Regarding Antifa violence, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY),
claimed it was a "myth."
Nadler has been in his congressional cocoon for too long. Antifa has been active for several
years, but since the death of George Floyd on May 25, it has intensified its activities around
the country. Millions of Americans have seen the frequent and disturbing video footage of
rioting and looting throughout the country. According to U.S. Congressman Dan Crenshaw (R-TX),
"there have been more than 550 declared riots, many stoked by extremists, Antifa and the BLM
(Black Lives Matter) organization."
In his comments to Wray at the committee meeting, Crenshaw also noted the rioters have done
an extensive amount of damage. He stated that "between one and two billion dollars of insurance
claims will be paid out. That doesn't come close to measuring the actual and true damage to
people's lives, not even close."
Crenshaw is right as many of our urban areas, such as New York, Washington D.C.,
Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland among others have been devastated by a series of violent
protests. In the past few months, scores of monuments have been destroyed, and significant
damage has been done to businesses and public buildings. The group has also attacked innocent
civilians and targeted police officers. As Crenshaw asserted in this rebuttal to Wray, Antifa
matches the definition of a domestic terrorist organization.
The issue surely must be why media like The New York Times (Russia paying Taliban to target
US forces in Afghanistan) and Politico (Iran planning to assassinate US ambassador to South
Africa) continue to repeat the lie over and over even when they have been found out and
everyone around the world is dying of laughter at the continued stupidity. Are the NYT and
Politico stenographers so dense and wrapped up in their own tiny worlds that they are
tone-deaf?
Are the NYT and Politico stenographers so dense and wrapped up in their own tiny worlds
that they are tone-deaf?"
Denial is a BIG river. And we've been living in a make believe world for a long time here.
And finally, it's all they've got left. It's like Vietnam all over again, same bunch of
morons, same mistakes, same wall-to-wall lying. Even a lot of the same players.
The MSM, especially the prestigious outlets, such as the NYT and the WaPo, serve as the main
conduits for U.S. government propaganda. Their prestige makes them especially suited to
receive leaks, which they obediently publish regardless of their veracity. Other outlets
repeat the stories until almost every person who follows the news has been exposed to them.
Reporters working for these outlets know that their careers depend upon maintaining
relationships with sources who will provide them with leaks. Careers taking precedence over
journalistic integrity, they play ball rather than leave the field. It's a brilliant system
that controls the flow of information without formal controls.
What I find amazing is how the American people will believe almost any government statement
without evidence given on news broadcast. Other countries may display the same
characteristic, but not at the same level as Americans. Personally, I find most
unsubstantiated reports as nothing more than Gossip and hearsay until verified by three other
international independent sources; what used to be a basic journalistic standard.
Posted by: Jen | Sep 19 2020 10:59 utc | 3 why media like The New York Times...and
Politico...continue to repeat the lie over and over even when they have been found out and
everyone around the world is dying of laughter
That's their job. And it's the US electorate who are *not* "dying of laughter" - because
they have been brainwashed by that same MSM.
A few years back I read a poll in which something like 77% of the US electorate believe
that Iran has actual nuclear weapons - not just a weapon program, actual nuclear weapons
deployed. This is the results you get from MSM reporting - and that's why they do it. They
are hand in glove with the US government. They are owned by corporations that have defense
contracts - not to mention that wars sell papers and boost broadcast ratings. You remember
that
moron talking about "beautiful US weapons"? You think that is an accident?
Why wouldn't they? After all, deep down, they know they have to invade countries to
survive. Better to do that while sleeping with a clean consciousness.
Ready To Fight Back?
Sign up for Take Action Now and get three actions in your inbox every week.
You will receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support
The
Nation's
journalism. You can read our
Privacy
Policy
here.
T
he US media's three-year obsession with the mostly fictitious allegations of "Russiagate" has all but obscured, even
deleted, important, potentially historic, developments inside that nation itself, still the world's largest territorial
country. One of the most important is the Putin government's decision to invest $300-to-$400 billion of "rainy day" funds in
the nation's infrastructure, especially in its vast, underdeveloped provinces, and on "national projects" ranging from
education to health care and family services to transportation and other technology. If successfully implemented, Russia would
be substantially transformed and the lives of its people significantly improved.
Not surprisingly, however, the plan has aroused considerable controversy and public debate in Russia's policy elite, primarily
for two reasons. The funds were accumulated largely due to high world prices for Russia's energy exports and the state's
budgetary austerity during the decade after Putin came to power in 2000, and they have been hoarded as a safeguard against
Western economic sanctions and/or a global economic depression. (Russia's economic collapse in the Yeltsin 1990s, perhaps the
worst modern-day depression in peacetime, remains a vivid memory for policy-makers and ordinary citizens alike.)
There is also the nation's long, sometimes traumatic, history of "modernization from above," as it is termed. In the late 19th
century, the czarist regime's program to industrialize the country, "to catch up" with other world powers, had unintended
consequences that led, in the accounts of many historians, to the end of czarism in the 1917 revolution. And Stalin's
"revolution from above" of the 1930s, based on the forced collectivization of the peasantry, which at the time accounted for
more than 80 percent of the population, along with very rapid industrialization, resulted in millions of deaths and economic
distortions that burdened Soviet and post-Soviet Russia for decades.
Nor are Russia's alternative experiences of modernization from below inspiring or at least instructive. In the 1920s, during
the years known as the New Economic Policy, or NEP, the victorious Bolsheviks pursued evolutionary economic development
through a semi-regulated market economy. It had mixed -- and still disputed -- results, and it was brutally abolished by Stalin in
1929. Decades later, Yeltsin's "free-market reforms" were widely blamed for the ruination and widespread misery of the 1990s,
which featured many aspects of actual de-modernization.
With all this "living history" in mind, Putin's plan for such large-scale (and rapid) investment has generated the controversy
in Moscow and resulted in three positions within the policy class. One fully supports the decision on the essentially
Keynesian grounds that it will spur Russia's annual economic growth, which has lagged below the global average for several
years. Another opposes such massive expenditures, arguing that the funds must remain in state hands as a safeguard against the
US-led "sanctions war" (and perhaps worse) against Russia. And, as usual in politics, there is a compromise position that less
should be invested in civilian infrastructure and less quickly.
Running through the discussion is also Russia's long history of thwarted implementation of good intentions. To paraphrase a
prime minister during the 1990s,
Viktor
Chernomyrdin
, "We wanted things to turn out for the best, but they turned out as usual." In particular, it is often asked,
what will be the consequences of putting so much money into the hands of regional and other local officials in provinces where
corruption is endemic? How much will be stolen or otherwise misdirected?
Nonetheless, Putin seems to be resolute. He is also insistent that his ambitious plan to transform Russia requires a long
period of international peace and stability. Here again is plain evidence that those in Washington who insist Putin's primary
goal is "to sow discord, divisions, and instability" in the world, especially in the West, where he hopes to find "modernizing
partnerships," do not care about or understand what is actually unfolding inside Russia -- or Putin's vision of his own
historical role and legacy.
Stephen F. Cohen
Stephen F. Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and
Princeton University. A
Nation
contributing
editor, his most recent book,
War
With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate
, is available in paperback and in an ebook edition. His weekly
conversations with the host of
The
John Batchelor Show
, now in their seventh year,
are
available at www.thenation.com
.
Published Sept. 18, 2020
Updated Sept.
19, 2020,
9:37
a.m. ET
Stephen F. Cohen, an eminent historian whose books and commentaries on Russia examined the rise and fall of Communism,
Kremlin dictatorships and the emergence of a post-Soviet nation still struggling for identity in the 21st century, died on
Friday at his home in Manhattan. He was 81.
His wife, Katrina vanden Heuvel, the publisher and part owner of The Nation, said the cause was lung cancer.
From the sprawling conflicts of the 1917 Bolshevik revolution and the tyrannies of Stalin to the collapse of the Soviet
Union and Vladimir V. Putin's intrigues to retain power, Professor Cohen chronicled a Russia of sweeping social upheavals
and the passions and poetry of peoples that endured a century of wars, political repression and economic hardships.
A professor emeritus of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York University, he was fluent in Russian, visited
Russia frequently and developed contacts among intellectual dissidents and government and Communist Party officials. He
wrote or edited 10 books and many articles for The Nation, The New York Times and other publications, was a CBS-TV
commentator and counted President George Bush and many American and Soviet officials among his sources.
In Moscow he was befriended by the last Soviet leader, Mikhail S. Gorbachev, who invited him to the May Day celebration at
Red Square in 1989. There, at the Lenin Mausoleum, Professor Cohen stood with his wife and son one tier below Mr. Gorbachev
and the Soviet leadership to view a three-hour military parade. He later spoke briefly on Russian television to a vast
audience about alternative paths that Russian history could have taken.
Loosely identified with a revisionist historical view of the Soviet Union, Professor Cohen held views that made him a
controversial public intellectual. He believed that early Bolshevism had held great promise, that it had been democratic
and genuinely socialist, and that it had been corrupted only later by civil war, foreign hostility, Stalin's malignancy and
a fatalism in Russian history.
A traditionalist school of thought, by contrast, held that the Soviet experiment had been flawed from the outset, that
Lenin's political vision was totalitarian, and that any attempt to create a society based on his coercive utopianism had
always been likely to lead, logically, to Stalin's state terrorism and to the Soviet Union's eventual collapse.
Professor Cohen was an enthusiastic supporter of Mr. Gorbachev, who after coming to power in 1985 undertook ambitious
changes to liberate the nation's 15 republics from state controls that had originally been imposed by Stalin. Mr. Gorbachev
gave up power as the Soviet state imploded at the end of 1991 and moved toward beliefs in democracy and a market economy.
Image
Mr. Cohen first came to international attention in 1973 with his biography of Lenin's protégé Nikolai Bukharin.
"Stephen Cohen's full-scale study of Bukharin is the first major study of this remarkable associate of Lenin,"
Harrison
Salisbury's wrote in a review
in The Times. "As such it constitutes a milestone in Soviet studies, the byproduct both
of increased academic sophistication in the use of Soviet materials and also of the very substantial increase in basic
information which has become available in the 20 years since Stalin's death."
After Lenin's death, Mr. Bukharin became a victim of Stalin's Moscow show trials in 1938; he was accused of plotting
against Stalin and executed. His widow, Anna Mikhailovna Larina, spent 20 years in exile and in prison camps and campaigned
for Mr. Bukharin's rehabilitation, which was endorsed by Mr. Gorbachev in 1988.
Ms. Larina and Professor Cohen became friends. Given access to Bukharin archives, he found and returned to her the last
love letter that Mr. Bukharin wrote her from prison.
In "Rethinking the Soviet Experience" (1985), Professor Cohen offered a new interpretation of the nation's traumatic
history and modern political realities. In his view, Stalin's despotism and Mr. Bukharin's fate were not necessarily
inevitable outgrowths of the party dictatorship founded by Lenin.
Richard Lowenthal, in a review for The Times, called Professor Cohen's interpretation implausible. "While I do not believe
that all the horrors of Stalinism were 'logically inevitable' consequences of the seizure of power by Lenin and his
Bolshevik Party," Mr. Lowenthal wrote, "I do believe that Stalin's victory over Bukharin was inherent in the structure of
the party's system."
As Professor Cohen and other scholars pondered Russia's past, Mr. Gorbachev's rise to power and his efforts toward glasnost
(openness) and perestroika (restructuring) cast the future of the Soviet Union in a new light, potentially reversing 70
years of Cold War dogma.
Cohen succumbed to lung cancer at his home in Manhattan, on Friday, according to his wife
Katrina vanden Heuvel, who is also the part-owner and publisher of The Nation magazine, where
he worked as a contributing editor.
A native of Kentucky, he was a prolific and prominent scholar in his field, serving as a
professor emeritus of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York University. As a
frequent visitor to Russia, Cohen became well-connected among leading Soviet dissidents,
politicians and thinkers in the 1980s, even befriending Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev.
Cohen also advised former US President George Bush, senior, in the late 1980s, and assisted
Anna Larina, the widow of Nikolai Bukharin, to rehabilitate her husband's name during the
Soviet era. He had earlier written a biography of the journalist and politician, which argued
that had Bukharin succeeded Vladimir Lenin as Bolshevik leader, rather than Joseph Stalin, the
Soviet Union would have enjoyed greater openness, and perhaps even democracy.
Breaking with many American academics and political commentators, Cohen was highly critical
of Washington's approach to Russia following the collapse of the Soviet Union. He warned of the
dangers of NATO expansion and argued that much of the economic devastation seen in Russia
during the 1990s could be traced to bad-faith policies and advice from the United States.
His principled, and patriotic stand, led to smears from members of the think tank racket and
both liberal and neoconservative interventionists, keen to stoke tensions with Moscow. Cohen
was labelled a Putin apologist. He responded by saying that he saw him as being "in the Russian
tradition of leadership, getting Russia back on its feet."
After the election of Donald Trump, Cohen found himself in the crosshairs of the mainstream
media for challenging the now-debunked Russiagate narrative, which he said was being used to
sabotage bilateral relations and trigger a "new Cold War" with Moscow.
The unsubstantiated claim that Trump's presidential campaign "colluded" with the
Kremlin would likely make a US-Russia detente "impossible" and could even help fuel an
actual war between the two nations, Cohen argued. He lamented that Special Counsel Robert
Mueller's probe into the conspiracy theory, which found no evidence of collusion, would do
little to tone down the fiery rhetoric and anonymously sourced media hysteria concerning Russia
and its alleged influence over the US political system.
The author of numerous books and countless articles, Cohen was a frequent guest on RT, where
he often used his air time to sound the alarm over the dangerous state of US-Russia relations,
lamenting that the hostility was both unnecessary and potentially calamitous.
Alice's "curiouser and curiouser" remark in Lewis Carroll's Adventures in Wonderland applies
to dubious twists in the Navalny novichok poisoning hoax.
No evidence or motive links Russia to what happened to him.
Was the August 20 Tomsk, Russia incident made-in-the-USA?
Was Germany pressured, bullied or bribed to go along -- at the expense of its own
self-interest?
Clearly Angela Merkel, other German officials, their Western counterparts, and establishment
media know the claim about Navalny's novichok poisoning is a colossal hoax.
They know that anyone exposed to the toxin, the world's deadliest, would be dead in
minutes.
The same goes for others in close proximity to the exposed individual.
Navalny is very much alive and recovering nearly a month after falling ill.
No one he came in contact with developed novichok poisoning symptoms.
Russian doctors treating him with state-of-the-art equipment and tests found no toxins of
any kind in his system.
They saved his life and stabilized his condition, enabling him to travel to Berlin for
further treatment.
If the Kremlin wanted him dead, he'd have been left untreated in Russia to die.
He's recovering because of heroic treatment by Russian doctors.
On Thursday, elements close to Navalny shifted the fake news novichok poisoning narrative
from tea he drank in the Tomsk, Russia airline terminal to the deadly nerve agent in his hotel
room water bottle.
Are other versions of what happened to him coming ahead?
Claiming novichok traces were found in a hotel water bottle he drank from doesn't pass the
smell test.
The deadly substance in an opened hotel room bottle would likely contaminate and kill anyone
near it.
If, in fact, Navalny was poisoned by novichok in his hotel room overnight, he'd have died in
minutes, clearly not what happened.
The novichok in a hotel room bottle scenario is implausible on its face.
Claiming members of his team entered his hotel room after learning of his illness, found it
uncleaned, and examined everything potentially useful for an investigation -- "recording,
describing, and packing" everything would have exposed them to novichok if it existed by
touching the alleged bottle with the toxin.
Whatever happened to Navalny wasn't from novichok poisoning in a bottle or from any other
source.
On Thursday, Russia's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Moscow's
representative to the OPCW Alexander Shulgin requested copies of files the organization
received from Germany on Navalny's condition, but got no response, adding:
"According to our data Germany and a whole number of (other Western) countries (are)
cultivating the OPCW" with regard to the Navalny incident.
Since he arrived in Berlin for treatment over three weeks ago, Merkel's government
stonewalled Russia by refusing to provide evidence it claims to have about novichok poisoning
because there is none.
On Thursday, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said "(t)here is too much absurdity about this
whole situation to take anyone's word on trust, so we are not going to take anyone's word,"
adding:
"(T)he situation is as follows: the OPCW Technical Secretariat says 'we know nothing. Talk
to the Germans,' and the Germans say 'we know nothing. Talk to the OPCW."
Russian lower house State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin suggested foreign intelligence
responsibility for what happened to Navalny.
On Thursday, majority Russophobic European Parliament (EP) MPs adopted a resolution that
calls for an "immediate launch of an impartial international investigation (sic)" on the
Navalny incident by the EU, its allies, the UN, Council of Europe, and OPCW -- to frame Russia
for what happened to Navalny.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The resolution also calls for (unjustifiably and unlawfully) sanctioning Russia and
suspending Nord Stream 2 construction.
EP resolutions are non-binding. The EP, Council of the European Union, European Council, and
European Commission operate separately from individual member states.
Time and again earlier, they irresponsibly bashed Russia in cahoots with the US, adopting
non-binding resolutions.
According to Zakharova earlier, anti-Russia propaganda is based on "paranoia phobias,
fictitious messages (and) myths."
Interviewed by Radio Sputnik in Moscow, Sergey Lavrov said Western governments want Russia
"punished both for what is happening in Belarus and for the incident with Navalny," adding:
They refuse to fulfill mandated obligations under the European Convention on Legal Aid by
not responding to official requests by the Russian Prosecutor General's Office for documented
information on Navalny's condition.
"Germany says that it cannot tell us anything. They say, go to the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)."
"We went there several times. They say go to Berlin."
"They loudly declare that the fact of poisoning has been established. Except for Russia
nobody could have done it. Admit it."
"All this has already happened with the" fake news Skripals novichok poisoning
incident.
Russia is a valued ally of all world community countries.
Instead of fostering cooperative relations with Moscow, actions by Germany and other EU
countries risk rupturing them.
Were Khodorkovsky or Browder among people involved? To what extent Trump administration and
MI6 were involved? Looks more and more line a bad replay of Skripals poisoning
Notable quotes:
"... Germans and "the whole world", to quote Pompeo, know the truth: Russians simply deny the truth, and the more they deny, the more truthful the accusations appear. And the elephant in the room: Why isn't the poisoned by "Novichok" bullshitting bastard of a US agent dead? And the answer given by the Germans, that is ironic in the extreme: because Russian doctors saved his life in Omsk. ..."
"... There are undeniable advantages to accusations for which no substantiation is offered – as we saw with the Skripals, you can await public comment, identify where you went wrong from scornful rejections of the narrative, and then modify it so that it makes more sense. ..."
"... I hope Germany offers residency to the Navalnys, and that they accept. Russia can't really refuse to let him back in, he's a citizen. But as long as he is there he will cause trouble, and he'll be recharged with all the PR he has received from this latest caper. ..."
"... But it is suggested that Russia is bargaining for his return; the story also expands on Lavrov's recent statements, and introduces a villain in the woodpile I would not have personally suspected: Poland. ..."
"... I recall Lavrov querying the other day Pevchikh's presence in Germany, her refusal to be interviewed by investigators in Omsk and how come she managed to fly to Germany with Navalny? He also said that other supporters of Navalny had also turned up in Germany. ..."
"... I lay a pound to a pinch of shit that Pevchikh is a British agent. ..."
"... Looking good for almost a corpse. COVID-19, a flu virus, is a deadly killer, and Novichok, a deadly nerve agent, is not a killer. ..."
"... Dances with Bears: THE PEVCHIKH PLOT – NAVALNY BOTTLE, LONDON WITNESS FLEE THE SCENE OF THE CRIME, BERLIN TOO http://johnhelmer.net/the-pevchikh-plot-navalny-bottle-london-witness-flee-the-scene-of-the-crime-berlin-too/ ..."
"... I reckon Khordokovsky has a hand in this. He has the same moral compass as dead Berezovsky. None. And he has refused to stick to agreements (keep out of politics). If the British or someone else get fingered for this cunning plan , would they serve him up on a silver platter? Almost certainly so. ..."
"... We certainly did well to focus on Maria Pevchikh as soon as we discovered that in addition to being the one who evaded questioning by Russian authorities by flying out to Germany, she also had British residency. She certainly has become a "person of interest" and could well be the major individual in the plot to incapacitate Navalny and use him to pressure Germany over NSII and Russia over the Belarus unrest. ..."
"... It is still unknown whether Pevchikh is a British citizen. I think she is and probably must be, in fact, for if she is only a visa holder or an applicant for UK citizenship, she could be told by the Home Office to go take a hike if it is proven that she was instrumental in the poisoning plot. ..."
"... Ask Pevchikh! Only she is now probably undergoing debriefing in London at UK Secret Intelligence Services HQ, 85 Albert Embankment. ..."
"... There was considerable risk involved in the deception. I doubt that Navalny went into the deception willingly. There was a very real risk that he could have suffered some brain damage going into the first coma and that's sure to compromise his health in the long term in other ways. ..."
"... More likely it seems a lot of the deception was planned behind Navalny's back and people were waiting for an opportunity to carry it out. It may have been planned years ago for someone else and then switched to Navalny once he was in the Omsk hospital. Julia Navalnaya may have been pushed into demanding that Navalny be transferred to Berlin and while the Omsk hospital doctors were stabilising him for the transfer, the deception then started going into action in Germany. ..."
"... Lavrov smelt a rat several days ago -- last week, I'm sure -- when he stated that suspicions had been aroused by one of Navalny's gang refusing to answer investigators' questions in Omsk and then scarpering off to Germany. ..."
"... I'm quite sure the FSB already knew of Pevchikh's comings and goings between London and Moscow (over 60 flights there and back I read somewhere) and her activities with the Navalny organization. ..."
"... if Washington thinks it can actually halt Nord Stream II – with the understanding that the Russians would probably give up after such a stinging second rebuke – then the sky is the limit, and they will scornfully reject any other solution. The one who stands to get hurt the most is Europe. But I don't think they realize it. ..."
NYT сообщила о
планах
Навального
вернуться в
Россию
15 сентября 2020
NYT has announced Navalney's to return to Russia
15 September 2020
Founder of the Anti-Corruption Foundation, Alexei Navalny, who is undergoing treatment
in Germany, has discussed his poisoning with the German prosecutor and announced that he
plans to return to Russia, The New York Times has reported, citing a source in the German
security forces.
According to the source, Navalny is fully aware of his condition, of what happened and
where he is. In a conversation with the prosecutor, he refused that his case be jointly
investigated by Germany and Russia. Navalny said he planned to return to Russia immediately
after his recovery and continue his mission, the newspaper notes.
I notice that the Navalny fake story has gone off the radar in the Western MSM.
Now there just remain the lies and innuendos fixed in the minds of the sheeple.
Only an investigation by the Germans.
No investigation by the Russians.
Germans and "the whole world", to quote Pompeo, know the truth: Russians simply deny
the truth, and the more they deny, the more truthful the accusations appear. And the elephant
in the room: Why isn't the poisoned by "Novichok" bullshitting bastard of a US agent dead?
And the answer given by the Germans, that is ironic in the extreme: because Russian doctors
saved his life in Omsk.
Other elephants lurking in the shadows:
Why hadn't everyone who had been in contact with the piece of shit, including fellow
passengers on the Tomsk-Moscow flight died?
Where were the hazmat-suit-wearing specialists that should have detoxified the aeroplane
on board of which the Bullshitter threw a wobbler?
So many elephants, all ignored.
Total fabrication.
When the liar returns here, how about arresting him for breach of his bail conditions?
Not technically but absolutely legally he was not allowed to leave the country.
How about arresting him for perverting the course of justice? You can get life for doing
that in the UK!
He refuses to allow the Russian state to investigate his case but he and his controllers
and supporters maintain that the Russian state attempted to murder him with the most deadly
nerve agent known to man -- but it didn't work.
And on the plus side he can sell expensive 'blessed' trinkets to his hamsters help
subsidize his interesting lifestyle. Think holy relics, think Medjigorje, Lourdes
etc.
Навальный,
"Новичок" и
"белая коробка"
13 сентября 2020
Navalny, "Novichok" and the "White Box"
13 September 2020
Why is not a single Berlin doctor ready to personally confirm the announced poisoning
of Navalny?
A Russian patient is recovering in the "White Box" of the Charité hospital.
During the three weeks of Navalny's stay within these walls, no one shouted at the doctors
that they were murderers, no one demanded from them hourly reports on the patient's state of
health. At the beginning of the week, the hospital's press service informs the press that the
personal guest of the Federal Chancellor has been withdrawn from an artificial coma and is
reacting to other people. A couple of days later, "Spiegel" magazine publishes encouraging
information: "More progress has been made. If his health continues to improve, Navalny will
begin to receive more visitors". According to "Bellingcat" and "Der Spiegel", Navalny can
already speak and can probably recall the events that happened before he lost consciousness
on an aeroplane flying from Tomsk to Moscow.
In general, the latest Charité press releases are in clear contradiction to the
horror that the German press had been gathering all week. The already poisoned underpants
have been forgotten, the newspaper "Die Zeit" returns the reader to a famous photograph:
morning in a café at the Tomsk airport, a passenger for the flight to Moscow flight
peers into a cup that he has raised in order to drink out of it. In it,, according to a "Die
" source, is not just a chemical warfare agent from the "Novichok" group: in there is a
"Novichok" on steroids.
"Before this assassination attempt, the world did not know about this poison, which is
said to be even more deadly and dangerous than all known substances from the Novichok group.
Scientists found corresponding traces on the Navalny's hands and on the neck of a bottle from
which he had drunk. This "modified Novichok" allegedly acts more slowly than previous
versions. The Germans assume that one of the FSB agents monitoring Navalny, or an undercover
agent, added drops of poison to his tea or applied a substance to the surface of a cup.
Navalny was supposed to die on board the aircraft", writes "Die Zeit".
Everything is just fine and dandy here: for example, about agents who had to perform
the necessary manipulations with a super-poison in a crowded place. A remarkable and suddenly
appeared bottle -- no bottle was seen in Omsk at all. The story goes on about the fact that,
apart from tea, Navalny did not drink anything. It turns out that those accompanying the
blogger took the bottle out of the plane, hid it, and then transported it to Germany and
handed it to Bundeswehr chemists Concealing evidence is pure criminality. But the most
interesting thing is the super-"Novichok".
After the poisoning of the Skripals in Salisbury (let us recount the usual version of
events that happened there), about 50 more people sought medical help. Houses were taken
apart, pets were destroyed. But here no one except Navalny was hurt: neither the people at
Tomsk airport, nor the fellow travellers with whom he, having the terrible poison in his
hands, took a selfie on a bus, nor the passengers on board the aircraft, and he also touched
things there. Symptoms of poisoning should have appeared amongst the passengers, but they did
not. This should raise questions from the authors of the serious newspaper "Die Zeit", but it
does not. A weapon of mass destruction by any reasoning, but the longer the German press
examines the Navalny case, the more mediaeval and grotesque it becomes. And it works -- you
can see it even from the reaction of quite moderate politicians.
Already a week and a half ago, Merkel announced the results of a toxicological
examination, allegedly carried out in a secret laboratory of the Bundeswehr (yes, Navalny was
poisoned), opponents of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline have intensified their onslaught
against the federal government in order to stop the construction, they say, this is the only
way to punish Russia. At the head of the column are the party leaders of the Greens and those
associates of Merkel who are friendly with Washington and have plans for higher party or
administrative posts after the Chancellor leaves.
These voices were at least heard. In an evening talk show on ZDF, German Foreign
Minister Heiko Maas made it clear that the shutdown of Nord Stream 2 could be one
response.
"We cannot say that since the sanctions do not work, then there is no need to introduce
any. Sometimes we have to put up with the risk of the consequences, thereby saying that we do
not want to live in a world without rules", Maas said.
Now Herr Maas, along with many members of the government and administration and the
Chancellor, lives in a world of very strange rules. Merkel's press secretary Seibert
reiterated that Germany will interact with Russia exclusively at the site of the Organization
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), where all the documents allegedly have
already been sent.
The OPCW Technical Secretariat informed our permanent representative, Alexander
Shulgin, that Berlin had only sent a notification about Navalny's poisoning, a sheet of A4
paper, but there is still nothing that the experts could work on. But the Germans had to
formulate a response to the proposal of the Russian Prosecutor General's Office on exchange
of information: any information about the state of Navalny can be transferred to Russia only
with his permission.
This was the case in 2004. The Charité clinic then diagnosed the presidential
candidate of the Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko with dioxin poisoning -- no one ever saw
documentary evidence. Yushchenko then for 4 years, while he was of interest he was to the
public, promised to show everything, but he never did.
This trick can be repeated again, the main thing is to find the answer to an urgent
task: to inflate the level of confrontation between Russia and Germany, and therefore the
entire West, in order to force the Russian authorities to be as cautious as possible in their
domestic and foreign policy, for example, in the Belarusian direction.
However, the fact that Nord Stream 2, for which the German federal government was ready
to support unto death, suddenly became an instrument of blackmail -- admit the poisoning,
otherwise we can close it down -- openly outraged German business and regional
elites.
"It seems that the verdict has already been given -- there are demands that
construction of the pipeline be stopped. I strongly oppose such measures", said Michael
Kretschmer, Prime Minister of Saxony.
"We have had absolutely trusting cooperation with Russia in the energy sector for 50
years. And even in the most difficult political times, which were probably even more
difficult during the Cold War, we managed to maintain this trust", emphasized Michael Harms,
executive director of Eastern Committee of the German economy.
Even a true transatlantist, the president of the Munich Security Conference Wolfgang
Ischinger, stood up for Nord Stream 2 (and Denmark had joined the renewed US incitement
against it the day before).
Political games will not pass themselves of as force majeure. Investors will go to the
German government for their money. Here you need to think ten times, because along with the
demands of multibillion-dollar compensation, there will definitely be asked unpleasant
questions about the reasons that made the German authorities abandon a project that was
profitable to all sides. So you can go to Navalny's analyses. In a normal court, bureaucratic
excuses will not work. And, by the way, in Germany there are politician-lawyers who can
professionally draw up a claim and conduct a case.
"I want to investigate this. One of the developers of Novichok is in the US. It is
known that many special services have this poison. Of course, the Russian have it as well,
but if Putin did it, then why give Navalny to Germany? So that we can establish all this
here? A crime must have some logic", says Bundestag deputy Gregor Gizi.
The logic that we now see is somehow not German. One gets the impression that the
compassion and humanism of the German politician, brought up on the lessons of the past, are
now being tried out by smart and cynical people who know how to competently fabricate,
substitute and cover their tracks. And not too far away, we already had Britain.
At the end of May 2003, the BBC released material that Prime Minister Blair and his
cabinet had made a decision to enter the war in Iraq based on falsified intelligence. The
person who passed on this information to reporters was David Kelly, a leading chemical
weapons specialist at the British Department of Defence. His speech at the parliamentary
hearings threatened the prime minister, the military and the secret services with big
problems, Hiwever, on July 18, 2003, Kelly was found dead in the woods near his home.
Suicide, the investigation stated, but in 2007, a group of parliamentarians conducted an
unofficial investigation -- there were no legal consequences, but now all British people know
that Kelly was murdered in cold blood.
In 2015, Blair was forced to admit that he lied to citizens about Iraq, and escaped
trial only because no one wanted to get involved with it. Nevertheless, Blair has gone down
in history with this lie. And history is important to remember in order to do it right.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov calls on the Germans to leave emotions and turn on
their brains.
"I hope that these absurd actions will be stopped and Germany, at least for the sake of
the reputation of German punctuality, will fulfill its obligations under the agreement with
the Russian Federation. Moreover, they are demanding an investigation from us, but it turns
out that all those who accompanied Navalny are slowly moving to Germany too. this is very
unpleasant and leads to serious thoughts. Therefore, it is in the interests of our German
colleagues to protect their reputation and provide all the necessary information that would
somehow shed light on their so far absolutely unfounded accusations", Lavrov said.
Another proposal has gone from Moscow to Berlin: to send a Russian investigation team
to Germany in order to jointly study the circumstances of the case, the victim of which is a
Russian citizen. So far, there is no reason to believe that Berlin will respond with
consent.
Some German politicians and almost all the SMS likes to moralize against Russia,
periodically recalling the Stalinist repressions and the GULAG. But now Germany itself
behaves like an investigator during interrogation in the dungeons of the NKVD. Confession is
the queen of proof.*
There are undeniable advantages to accusations for which no substantiation is offered
– as we saw with the Skripals, you can await public comment, identify where you went
wrong from scornful rejections of the narrative, and then modify it so that it makes more
sense.
In this case, people wonder why such a potent nerve agent did not fell Navalny instantly
like a poleaxed ox, before he ever left the terminal, instead of 40 minutes or so into the
flight. Ahhh but this, we later learn, was a specially-modified Novichok, engineered to be
slow-acting. Just what you want in a nerve agent. Hint – no, it isn't. Just like you
don't want it specially engineered to be 'persistent', like that chemical-warfare expert tit
for Bellingcat claimed was the reason the poison daubed on Skripal's doorknob did not wash
away in the rain and was still deadly weeks afterward. You want a nerve agent to quickly and
efficiently kill enemy troops caught in the open and unprotected, and then as quickly degrade
and disperse so your own forces can move in and occupy the objective. The last thing you want
is it hanging about for weeks, or being 'slow-acting' so those troops can come in and wax
your ass and then later fall down dead. One of the first casualties of these silly stories
must be that the agent is 'military grade'. The military would say, if you want to use that
useless shite, spread it yourself – we want nothing to do with it.
navalny Hi, this is Navalny. I miss you all 😍. I still can hardly do
anything, but yesterday I was able to breathe on my own all day. Generally myself. I did not
use any outside help, not even the simplest valve in my throat. I liked it very much. An
amazing, underestimated by many thing. Would totally recommend.
What, no tracheotomy scar?
Why aren't you dead, you wanker?
Thinking about thanking the Omsk doctors who "saved your life" after you had taken a dose
of salts in the aircraft shithouse?
I take it that the kiddie Navalnyites in the above Instagram are all Russian citizens and
part of the Bullshitter's entourage that turned up in Berlin, hot on the heels of their
comatose hero.
So how did they get the documentation that enabled them to leave the Mafia State and enter
Germany, the coronavirus shamdemic notwithstanding?
Yes, they are his children. Navalnaya clearly got permission for their son to travel to
Germany. His daughter has flown in from the USA.
However, the question still remains as regards those Navalnyites who rolled up in Germany
following their leader's private flight there: how did they get the appropriate documentation
to do so at such short notice, not to mention Pevchikh, who flew with the comatose Navalny to
Berlin -- and then vanished?.
Seibert was asked about this and said he knew nothing about her.
Ah, yes; that's a good point. I just assumed the hamsters were blathering from a distance,
as in Russia. I did not realize some of them had turned up in Germany, except for the
mysterious Masha.
I hope Germany offers residency to the Navalnys, and that they accept. Russia can't
really refuse to let him back in, he's a citizen. But as long as he is there he will cause
trouble, and he'll be recharged with all the PR he has received from this latest
caper.
But it is suggested that Russia is bargaining for his return; the story also expands
on Lavrov's recent statements, and introduces a villain in the woodpile I would not have
personally suspected: Poland.
I recall Lavrov querying the other day Pevchikh's presence in Germany, her refusal to
be interviewed by investigators in Omsk and how come she managed to fly to Germany with
Navalny? He also said that other supporters of Navalny had also turned up in
Germany.
I lay a pound to a pinch of shit that Pevchikh is a British agent.
British and other international toxicological experts say that without technical
reporting by the laboratory of the spectrometric composition of the chemical, and without
identifying the compound by the international naming protocol there is no evidence at
all;..
the US Army had recently manufactured its own Novichok types: "A230, A232 and A234 A232
has a CAS number of 2308498-31-7. A230 and A234 have no known CAS numbers."
####
I reckon Khordokovsky has a hand in this. He has the same moral compass as dead
Berezovsky. None. And he has refused to stick to agreements (keep out of politics). If the
British or someone else get fingered for this cunning plan , would they serve him up
on a silver platter? Almost certainly so.
We certainly did well to focus on Maria Pevchikh as soon as we discovered that in
addition to being the one who evaded questioning by Russian authorities by flying out to
Germany, she also had British residency. She certainly has become a "person of interest" and
could well be the major individual in the plot to incapacitate Navalny and use him to
pressure Germany over NSII and Russia over the Belarus unrest.
It is still unknown whether Pevchikh is a British citizen. I think she is and probably
must be, in fact, for if she is only a visa holder or an applicant for UK citizenship, she
could be told by the Home Office to go take a hike if it is proven that she was instrumental
in the poisoning plot.
When Berezovsky got cocky in the UK after a judge there had prevented his being forced to
leave Misty Albion because Berzovsky had persuaded him that were he to return to Mordor, he
would face an unfair trial and his life would be in danger -- the erstwhile "Godfather of the
Kremlin" had arrived in the with a 6-month visitor's visa -- he started bragging to the
"Guardian" that he was organizing with his chums still in the Evil Empire the overthrow of
the tyrant Putin.
The Home Secretary at the time was none other than "Jack" Straw -- another odious pile of
ordure -- who promptly summonsed Berezovsky to the Home Office for an official bollocking. He
was told that if, while resident in the UK, he continued to engage himself with the overthrow
of a foreign head of state, he was out.
Be that as it may, I am quite sure he was working with British state security, as was his
once favoured acolyte Litvinenko.
Litvinenko was poisoned. Berezovsky committed suicide -- they say.
Россия задала
ЕС девять
вопросов об
обвинениях в
ситуации с
Навальным
Постоянное
представительство
России при
Евросоюзе
указало на
ключевые
нестыковки в
версии об
отравлении
Алексея
Навального
15 сентября 2020
Russia has asked the EU nine questions about accusations in the situation with
Navalny
The Permanent Representative of Russia to the European Union has pointed out the key
inconsistencies in the version about the poisoning of Alexei Navalny
15 September 2020
In the eighth question, Russian diplomats drew attention to a bottle of water, on
which, according to Germany, traces of poison had been found: "Not a single surveillance
camera recorded how Navalny drank from a similar bottle at the Tomsk airport [before
departure]. from this bottle earlier or on board the plane, how did this bottle get to
Berlin? "
Ask Pevchikh! Only she is now probably undergoing debriefing in London at UK Secret
Intelligence Services HQ, 85 Albert Embankment.
Navalny, if indeed he was close to death, must now realize he was set up by one of his own
benefactors. What would be his next move? Going back to Russia would make the most sense as
the Russians may actually protect him from another show-assassination and he would have
freedom to prance around to his heart's content.
I don't believe he was ever 'close to death', rather that he was an active part of the
deception. He is a grifting idiot who puffs up like a toad upon being flattered. He could
never win power in Russia legitimately, as he is mostly a figure of contempt in Russia save
for the perennially-discontented children of the liberal elite and the few Americaphiles who
don't know enough to keep their heads down. I believe he played his role by taking something
that would nauseate him but not seriously hurt him, rolling about and screaming, and that the
introduction of the phony 'poison bottle' was with his full knowledge. I wish Russia would
just disown him and tell the Germans they can have him.
However, I could be wrong. We will know from the tone of his remarks when he feels he is
strong enough to once again assume his president-in-waiting role, and starts spouting off
about what happened to him. He is the most likely candidate to be selected to get the
water-bottle narrative back on track, so if he comes out with an explanation for how he drank
from the bottle somewhere there were no surveillance cameras, and noticed a sketchy-looking
guy in a leather jacket and a "Vote For Putin!" T-shirt standing nearby just before he drank,
it will be a pretty good indication that he is as full of shit as ever.
There was considerable risk involved in the deception. I doubt that Navalny went into
the deception willingly. There was a very real risk that he could have suffered some brain
damage going into the first coma and that's sure to compromise his health in the long term in
other ways.
More likely it seems a lot of the deception was planned behind Navalny's back and
people were waiting for an opportunity to carry it out. It may have been planned years ago
for someone else and then switched to Navalny once he was in the Omsk hospital. Julia
Navalnaya may have been pushed into demanding that Navalny be transferred to Berlin and while
the Omsk hospital doctors were stabilising him for the transfer, the deception then started
going into action in Germany.
Lavrov smelt a rat several days ago -- last week, I'm sure -- when he stated that
suspicions had been aroused by one of Navalny's gang refusing to answer investigators'
questions in Omsk and then scarpering off to Germany.
I'm quite sure the FSB already knew of Pevchikh's comings and goings between London
and Moscow (over 60 flights there and back I read somewhere) and her activities with the
Navalny organization.
Perhaps they allowed Navalny to leave for Germany -- with Pevchikh flying out with him, I
may add -- because they knew what was afoot and would later expose the Germans for liars, or
if not that, then for their falling to a sucker punch off the British secret service.
They certainly allowed Pevchikh to leave Russia: she didn't sneak on board Navalny's
private flight.
Just Pevchikh, note, not Navalnaya, who is not a British agent, I'm sure.
Certainly possible – as I say, we will know more from his blabber once he starts
giving interviews, which he lives to do. His tone will have changed considerably if he
believes his erstwhile chums in politics intended to martyr him. Otherwise I read his
expressed desire to return at once to Russia as simply remaining in character – the
selfless hero risking all for freedom and democracy.
I wonder how he will thank the doctors in Omsk for saving his life, as it is generally
acknowledged they did. He cannot go into transports of admiration for their professional
skills, because they claimed to have found no trace of poisoning in his samples. He faces the
choice, then, of simply passing over it without mention, or accusing the people who saved his
life of 'being part of the machine'. Doing either will certainly not increase his popularity
in Russia. And it makes no difference at all how popular he is in the west – something
the west seemingly cannot be taught.
Die Zeit сообщила о
предложении
США от ФРГ по
"Северному
потоку -- 2"
RT на русском, 16
сентября 2020
Die Zeit announced the proposal of the USA from Germany for the "Nord Stream –
2
RT in Russian, September 16, 2020
The German government has offered the United States a deal in exchange for Washington's
waiver of sanctions against Nord Stream 2.
This is reported by the newspaper Die Zeit, citing sources
It is noted that Berlin has expressed its readiness to invest up to € 1 billion in
the construction of two terminals in Germany for receiving liquefied natural gas from the
United States.
"In response, the United States will allow the unhindered completion and operation of
Nord Stream 2", TASS quotes the text of a letter from German Finance Minister Olaf Scholz,
which was sent on August 7 to the head of the US Treasury, Stephen Mnuchin.
In early August, US senators sent a letter to the operator of the German port of
Sassnitz calling for an end to work to support the construction of Nord Stream 2.
Very true about the term "loser" being a harsh insult for Americans. The "loser" tag
starts to be applied to kids in early grade school and only intensifies from that point. The
glorification of success (defined by the level of conspicuous consumption) further sharpens
the divide between losers and winners. Our "feel-good" stories are often about individuals
who were able to transform themselves from "losers" to "winners". American culture is
one-dimensional in that way.
Building an LNG terminal is one thing, buying US LNG is another thing. In addition, I
believe that Russia could provide LNG to Germany as well and likely at a substantially lower
price.
The US may settle for this gesture as it does hold the door open, however slightly, for
future developments to be leveraged by the US to force Germany to reduce or stop gas
purchases from Russia. Having the terminal in place could make a future change in suppliers
more feasible and faster but nevertheless representing an economic disaster for Germany. Lets
call it step 1 in Plan B.
On the other hand any diplomatic/economic success plays well in this presidential erection
year. So a) is it worth it?; b) can they reverse the decision the day after? I assume they
can have their cake and eat it as Brussels is mostly spineless. Borrell can squeal about
Russia, but that's because he can do f/k all about the USA's behavior, being spokeshole and
all
That's what people seem not to get – the decision would not ever be 'reversible'
once Nord Stream II is complete. That pipeline quad alone can carry all of Europe's gas
supply that it receives from Russia. None through Ukraine, not a whiff, if that is Moscow's
will, although the Russians have agreed to transit token amounts, which the Ukrainians say
are not enough to make the system's continued operation viable – without the large
volumes they are accustomed to handling, they will have to progressively begin shutting down,
bypassing and dismantling sections they can no longer afford to maintain.
So long as the pipeline's future remains in doubt, Uncle Sam can sell the philosophical
possibility of supplying Europe with large volumes of cheap LNG via tankers, made desirable
– although it will cost a little more, no getting around that – for political
reasons. Once Nord Stream II is complete, the reality of a reliable supply of cheap pipeline
gas would have to be countered with a concrete offer from the USA; this many cubic meters
times this many Euros. Any housewife can do a cost-benefit analysis at that level. Do you
want to pay more for American gas just because it comes from America? Well, let me think
about it – what are the benefits? Well, it comes from America! What, you mean, that's
it? There would be no possibility the Americans would use their status as a major energy
supplier as leverage to bring about economic or political changes in Europe that they
desired, would there? Well I can't guarantee that.
You know what? I'm okay with Russian gas, thanks just the same. Maybe I'll use the money I
save to buy a Ford – how's that?
Pathetic. After declaring forcefully that American extraterritorial sanctions are illegal
– which, technically, they are, only America has a right to threaten to limit European
trade in America if it wishes; although that, too is illegal under WTO rules – Germany
is now cowering and trying to 'make a deal'. With Trump, in case anyone missed that, whose
'Art of the Deal' consists of destroying the opponent until he is happy to have escaped with
his life, and will never publicly complain about a 'deal' which came out very much to his
disadvantage. Put another way, offering America a 'deal' only highlights that you believe you
are in a weak position, are looking for mercy, and are ripe for the plucking. Germany was
already planning to build the heaviest concentration of LNG terminals in Europe; a far better
strategy would have been to threaten to cancel them all if Uncle Sam did not back off. The
Americans are certainly smart enough to figure out – in about 2.5 seconds – that
more LNG terminals means diddly when Russia can also supply LNG far cheaper than the USA
because it has teensy transport costs by comparison, being much closer. Two more LNG
terminals buys America precisely zero advantage, but the willingness to 'deal' reveals
vulnerability. The only American response to rolling on your back to expose your belly is to
step on your head.
I swear, it is hard to recognize Germany as the country which once frightened the
world.
A Trump counter-offer might be a commitment from Germany to buy X amount of American LNG
at a locked-in price, said amount to be sufficient that extra Nord Stream capacity would not
be utilized. It depends on whether the Americans really think they can actually stop Nord
Stream II, because even that would ultimately be a loser strategy. Unless a term far into the
future were specified, the Americans know that once the pipeline is finished, their product
is no longer competitive and cannot ever be unless it is unprofitable to themselves. They
could satisfy themselves with gutting the Germans for a year or two (if they accepted), but
it would be short-term satisfaction at best. Might be enough to win Trump the election,
though.
But if Washington thinks it can actually halt Nord Stream II – with the
understanding that the Russians would probably give up after such a stinging second rebuke
– then the sky is the limit, and they will scornfully reject any other solution. The
one who stands to get hurt the most is Europe. But I don't think they realize
it.
The Borgias are history. Well, obviously, they ARE history. But now they have been
relegated to the Second Division/Championship (football joke) of Poisoners by Sergei Lavrov
and his chef de cuisine:
Oh look! The Navalnyites have shown a video, shot in Tomsk, of Navalny drinking from the
allegedly poisoned water bottle that earlier nobody had seen or made mention of before it
turned up in Berlin and was sent to the Bundeswehr lab.
Recall that his loud-mouth spokeswoman had from the very start insisted that Navalny had
been poisoned by laced-with-poison tea that he had drunk at Tomsk airport.
Change of story line -- as persistently happened in the Skripal fake.
Video Showing Water Bottle That 'Poisoned' Alexei Navalny Shared by His Team
17 September, 2020: 10:17
That Sputnik headline should read, I think, "shared with his team".
And if that is the case, why didn't his team also start howling and screaming and rolling
around on the deck some time later on board the Tomsk-Moscow flight?
Navalny's companions have reported that they took bottles from a hotel room in
Tomsk
Alexei Navalny's companions have said that a bottle of mineral water, on which German
experts had allegedly found traces of poison from the Novichok group, had been brought from a
hotel room in Tomsk.
On an Instagram, they have posted a video in which, according to them, an hour after
news of Navalny's deteriorating condition, they examine the room and seize all the items
which he had been able to touch.
On August 20, the aeroplane in which Navalny was flying urgently landed in Omsk, from
where the blogger was taken to hospital. On August 21, doctors announced that the main
diagnosis was metabolic disorders.
At the moment, Navalny is in Germany, where he has been taken out of an artificial
coma. German doctors announced that he had been poisoned with substances from the Novichok
group, but did not provide any relevant evidence.
So why didn't the Navalny hamsters, who dutifully sought out the poison bottle and most
certainly handled it, throw wobblers as did Navalny when performing what he thought were the
effects of nerve agent poisoning?
And whom did the hamsters hand the bottle to -- Navalnaya or Pevchikh? And who handled the
bottle after its arrival in Berlin and before the obliging Bundeswehr said it had been dosed
with the most lethal nerve agent (weapons grade) known to man?
Why isn't there a trail of stiffs from Tomsk to Berlin and beyond?
Who's going to believe this shite?
"Why, the whole world knows it's true!" will Imperial Plenipotentiary Pompeus Fattus Arsus
surely say.
One of the developers of Novichok, Leonid Rink, commented on reports that a bottle in
the Tomsk hotel where Alexei Navalny had stayed could [have been] Novichok
[contaminated] .
"This is a situation where no one would have been allowed to touch the bottle -- you
would have died if you had done so. If this had really been the case, then there would have
basically been a deceased person, and everyone who had carried this bottle without gloves and
protection would also have died", he told RIA Novosti.
Ah, but . . . Rink is forgetting that it was a special, delayed action Novichok made to
take effect on "Putin's Fiercest Critic" when he was on board the Tomsk-Moscow flight.
Rink's an old Soviet has-been and knows nothing about the latest developments in
diabolical weaponry that issues forth from secret Orc laboratories.
Maybe the cunning developers have produced a Novichok variant safe to those who have
sinned but fatal (or liable, at least, to provoke a severe tummy upset, occasionally) to the
purest of heart?
I like this idea of the special edition of Novichok with the delayed kick. Maybe we could
call it Brawndo and speculate that the poison only goes into action when it does because the
added electrolytes take time to work to release the poison.
Alexei Navalny's team immediately after his departure from Tomsk airport, went to the
hotel room in that city where he had spent the night, and packed all the items (including
water bottles) so as to deliver them for analysis (of course, not in Russia). A video about
this was posted on the oppositionist's Instagram.
Everything in this story is beautiful. Navalny's supporters were collecting "evidence"
on a case that had not yet happened -- but it was already supposed to have happened? Together
with them, there went a lawyer to the hotel -- he was also at the ready. But why were none of
the "trackers" hurt if on the "evidence", as is said, they found traces of the "Novichok"
military poison? And how did the "people of Navalny" end up in a room where cleaning up
should have been done after the guest's departure? There are other questions as well. Some of
them "KP" asked FSB reserve general Alexander Mikhailov .
And the person shown handling the bottle is wearing gloves – they made sure to show
that. But as others have pointed out, this was well before anyone knew 'an attempt had been
made on the Opposition Leader's life'. What, all Lyosha's shit was still in his hotel room,
towels on the floor, the next day, after he checked out? Pretty crappy service in those
Russian hotels. He didn't even leave Russia for several days, and the first suggestions he
had been poisoned came from his 'press agent', who claimed he had been poisoned with tea at
the airport.
Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Sergei Yerofeyev, a professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey, USA, has spoken about
this.
According to Yerofeyev, Navalny has been nominated for the prize by "a number of
professors from recognized universities who deal with Russia". He did not give specific
names, but noted that there are "great people" amongst the scientists who have nominated
Navalny.
A professor of any university in the world can nominate a candidate for the Nobel Peace
Prize: there are no specific requirements for a candidate. In addition, members of national
governments and parliaments, heads of state and some other categories of persons can nominate
candidates.
The oppositionist will have to fight for the main prize of the planet with venerable
rivals.
This is, first of all, US President Donald Trump, who was nominated by Christian
Tubring-Jedde, a member of the Norwegian parliament from the far-right Libertarian Progress
Party. As the MP said in an interview with Fox News, Donald Trump should be awarded for his
role in concluding an agreement on the full normalization of relations between Israel and the
UAE.
And why not? O'Bummer was awarded the peace prize, wasn't he?
I wonder how the Kiev Post evaluates Navalny's position on the Crimea?
The status of the Crimea is a problem that a new democratic Russia will inherit from
its former government. The Russian position on this problem will be determined by the
recognition of the right of the citizens of the Crimea to determine their own destiny
-- Navalny
20!8
I say give it to him. Let him join the prestigious ranks of Obama, the OPCW, the EU.
I also propose starting a Nobel War Prize, to be awarded to whatever individual or
organization is responsible for the highest body count in a given year. Although that may be
redundant, considering that it would probably be given to the same people as the Peace
Prize.
Ha, ha!! And it all descends into farce, again. Navalny has arrived – he has gone
global, beyond his wildest dreams. The nothing from Wherever He Is From who could not even
break 5% in presidential election polling is now a major star, glittering in the western
firmament. As Saint Lily Tomlin once remarked, no matter how cynical you get, you can never
keep up.
All the west is going to be able to get out of this is the satisfaction of showing its ass
to the neo-Soviets, the way it does when it re-names the street the Russian Embassy is
– or was – located on after some prominent Russian dissident. Beavis and Butthead
level, at best.
That's it! This is a farewell article. A real goodbye to the topic. More precisely,
parting with Navalny as a topic. His political role has been played to the end. And even
lethal doses of Novichok have not caused a mass movement. Furgal's arrest caused an explosion
of civil consciousness in Khabarovsk. The poisoning of Navalny, sending him abroad, the
discovery of Novichok, official accusations from Germany did not cause any rally, no
procession, no movement. No excitement in civic consciousness has occurred and will never
happen.
New Documents Reveal Secret British Efforts To Arm, Assist And Propagandize 'Moderate
Rebels' In Syria
In November 2018 some anonymous people published a number of documents that had been
liberated from a clandestine British propaganda organization, the Integrity Initiative
.
The same group or person who revealed the Integrity Initiative papers has now
released several dozens of documents about another 'Strategic Communication' campaign run by
the British Foreign Office. The current release reveals a number of train and assist missions
for 'Syrian rebels' as well as propaganda operations run in Syria and globally on behalf of the
British government.
Most of the documents are detailed company responses to several solicitations from the
Foreign Office for global and local campaigns in support of the 'moderate rebels' who are
fighting against the Syrian government and people.
The documents lay out large scale campaigns which have on-the-ground elements in Syria,
training and arming efforts in neighboring countries, command and control elements in Jordan,
Turkey and Iraq, as well as global propaganda efforts. These operations were wide spread.
Most of the documents are from 2016 to 2019. They detail the organization of such operations
and also portrait persons involved in these projects. They often refer back to previous
campaigns that have been run from 2011/2012 onward. This is where the documents are probably
the most interesting. They reveal what an immense effort was and is waged to fill the
information space with pro-rebel/pro-Islamist propaganda.
The documents are not about the 'White Helmets' which were a separate British run Strategic
Communication campaign financed by various governments. While the operations described in the
new documents were coordinated with U.S. efforts they do not reference the CIA run campaigns in
Syria which included similar efforts at a cost of $1 billion per year.
The various projects and the detailed commercial offers to implement them from various
notorious companies are roughly described in the above two links. I will therefore refrain from
repeating that here. Some of the documents' content will surely be used in future Moon of
Alabama posts. But for now I will let you rummage through the stash.
Please let us know in the comments of the surprising bits that you might find.
Posted by b on September 18, 2020 at 15:51 UTC |
Permalink
Documents the "war crimes industry" of the UK, and others, as expressed in Libya and Syria.
Assad has indicated he will pursue reparations from the nations that have killed 400,000
citizens, destroyed or stolen his industrial infrastructure (whole factories broken down and
trucked into Turkey).
One reason why the US and UK and France want Assad dead is the tens of billions of dollars
they will have to pay the Syrian people for the genocidal war waged for a decade in order to
kill Assad and break Syria into pieces.
This confirms the UK has essentially kept the same military doctrine it adopted by necessity
in 1945, which is: attach itself to the USA, focus on intelligence, punch above your weight.
Ideologically, they rationalize that by attributing themselves the role of the cultured
province of the USA; "Greece to the USA's Rome".
The British were always fascinated with intelligence/paramilitary forces. In their vision,
it gives you (a nation) an air of sophistication, a civilizing aspect to the nation that
wages this kind of warfare.
After the Suez fiasco of 1956, the UK gave up direct interventions in the Middle East. It
now only intervenes there under the skirt of the USA. Of course, whenever they can, they do
that with their weapon of choice, which is intelligence. So, yeah, these documents don't
surprise me.
Question: I'll start with the hottest topic, Belarus. President of the Republic of Belarus
Alexander Lukashenko visited Bocharov Ruchei. Both sides have officially recognised that change
within the Union State is underway. This begs the question: What is this about? A common
currency, common army and common market? What will it be like?
Sergey Lavrov: It will be the way our countries decide. Work is underway. It relies on the
1999 Union Treaty. We understand that over 20 years have passed since then. That is why, a
couple of years ago, upon the decision of the two presidents, the governments of the Russian
Federation and the Republic of Belarus began to work on identifying the agreed-upon steps that
would make our integration fit current circumstances. Recently, at a meeting with Russian
journalists, President Lukashenko said that the situation had, of course, changed and we must
agree on ways to deepen integration from today's perspective.
The presidential election has taken place in Belarus. The situation there is tense, because
the opposition, backed by some of our Western colleagues, is trying to challenge the election
outcome, but I'm convinced that the situation will soon get back to normal, and the work to
promote integration processes will resume.
Everything that is written in the Union Treaty is now being analysed. Both sides have to
come to a common opinion about whether a particular provision of the Union Treaty is still
relevant, or needs to be revised. There are 31 roadmaps, and each one focuses on a specific
section of the Union Treaty. So, there's clearly a commitment to continue the reform, a fact
that was confirmed by the presidents during a recent telephone conversation. This is further
corroborated by the presidents' meeting in Sochi.
I would not want that country's neighbours, and our neighbours for that matter, including
Lithuania, for example, to try to impose their will on the Belarusian people and, in fact, to
manage the processes in which the opposition is unwittingly doing what's expected of it. I have
talked several times about Svetlana Tikhanovskaya's situation. Clearly, someone is putting
words in her mouth. She is now in the capital of Lithuania, which, like our Polish colleagues,
is strongly demanding a change of power in Belarus. You are aware that Lithuania declared Ms
Tikhanovskaya the leader of the Republic of Belarus, and Alexander Lukashenko was declared an
illegitimate president.
Ms Tikhanovskaya has made statements that give rise to many questions. She said she was
concerned that Russia and Belarus have close relations. The other day, she called on the
security and law-enforcement forces to side with the law. In her mind, this is a direct
invitation to breach the oath of office and, by and large, to commit high treason. This is
probably a criminal offense. So, those who provide her with a framework for her activities and
tell her what to say and what issues to raise should, of course, realise that they may be held
accountable for that.
Question: Commenting on the upcoming meeting of the presidents of Russia and Belarus in
Sochi, Tikhanovskaya said: "Whatever they agree on, these agreements will be illegitimate,
because the new state and the new leader will revise them." How can one work under such
circumstances?
Sergey Lavrov: She was also saying something like that when Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin
went to Belarus to meet with President Lukashenko and Prime Minister Golovchenko. She was
saying it then. Back then, the opposition was concerned about any more or less close ties
between our countries. This is despite the fact that early on during the crisis they claimed
that they in no way engaged in anti-Russia activities and wanted to be friends with the Russian
people. However, everyone could have seen the policy paper posted on Tikhanovskaya's website
during the few hours it was there. The opposition leaders removed it after realising they had
made a mistake sharing their goals and objectives with the public. These goals and objectives
included withdrawal from the CSTO, the EAEU and other integration associations that include
Russia, and drifting towards the EU and NATO, as well as the consistent banning of the Russian
language and the Belarusianisation of all aspects of life.
We are not against the Belarusian language, but when they take a cue from Ukraine, and when
the state language is used to ban a language spoken by the overwhelming majority of the
population, this already constitutes a hostile act and, in the case of Ukraine, an act that
violates its constitution. If a similar proposal is introduced into the Belarusian legal field,
it will violate the Constitution of Belarus, not to mention numerous conventions on the rights
of ethnic and language minorities, and much more.
I would like those who are rabidly turning the Belarusian opposition against Russia to
realise their share of responsibility, and the opposition themselves, including Svetlana
Tikhanovskaya and others – to find the courage to resist such rude and blatant
manipulation.
Question: If we are talking about manipulation, we certainly understand that it has many
faces and reflects on the international attitude towards Russia. Internationally, what are the
risks for us of supporting Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko? Don't you think 26 years
is enough? Maybe he has really served for too long?
Sergey Lavrov: The President of the Republic of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, did say it
might have been "too long." I believe he has proposed a very productive idea –
constitutional reform. He talked about this even before the election, and has reiterated the
proposal more than once since then. President of Russia Vladimir Putin supports this attitude.
As the Belarusian leader said, after constitutional reform, he will be ready to announce early
parliamentary and presidential elections. This proposal provides a framework where a national
dialogue will be entirely possible. But it is important that representatives of all groups of
Belarusian society to be involved in a constitutional reform process. This would ensure that
any reform is completely legitimate and understandable for all citizens. Now a few specific
proposals are needed concerning when, where and in what form this process can begin. I hope
that this will be done, because President Alexander Lukashenko has repeatedly reaffirmed
carrying out this initiative.
Question: Since we started talking about the international attitude towards Russia, let's go
over to our other partner – the United States. The elections in the US will take place
very soon. We are actively discussing this in Russia. When asked whether Russia was getting
ready for the elections in the US at the Paris forum last year, you replied: "Don't worry,
we'll resolve this problem." Now that the US elections are around the corner, I would like to
ask you whether you've resolved it.
Sergey Lavrov: Speaking seriously, of course we, like any other normal country that is
concerned about its interests and international security, are closely following the progress of
the election campaign in the US. There are many surprising things in it. Naturally, we see how
important the Russian issue is in this electoral process. The Democrats are doing all they can
to prove that Russia will exploit its hacker potential and play up to Donald Trump. We are
already being accused of promoting the idea that the Democrats will abuse the mail-in voting
option thereby prejudicing the unbiased nature of voting. I would like to note at this point
that mail-in voting has become a target of consistent attacks on behalf of President Trump
himself. Russia has nothing to do with this at all.
A week-long mail-in voting is an interesting subject in comparing election systems in
different countries. We have introduced three-day voting for governors and legislative assembly
deputies in some regions. You can see the strong criticism it is subjected to, inside Russia as
well. When the early voting in the US lasts for weeks, if not months, it is considered a model
of democracy. I don't see any criticism in this respect. In principle, we have long proposed
analysing election systems in the OSCE with a view to comparing best practices and reviewing
obviously obsolete arrangements. There have been instances in the US when, due to its
cumbersome and discriminatory election system, a nominee who received the majority of votes
could lose because in a national presidential election the voting is done through the Electoral
College process rather than directly by the people. There have been quite a few cases like
that. I once told former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in reply to her grievances
about our electoral system: "But look at your problem. Maybe you should try to correct this
discriminatory voting system?" She replied that it is discriminatory but they are used to it
and this is their problem, so I shouldn't bother.
When the United States accuses us of interference in some area of its public, political or
government life, we suggest discussing it to establish who is actually doing what. Since they
don't present any facts, we simply recite their Congressional acts. In 2014, they adopted an
act on supporting Ukraine, which directly instructed the Department of State to spend $20
million a year on support for Russian NGOs. We asked whether this didn't amount to
interference. We were told by the US National Security Council that in reality they support
democracy because we are wreaking chaos and pursuing authoritative and dictatorial trends
abroad when we interfere in domestic affairs whereas they bring democracy and prosperity. This
idea is deeply rooted in American mentality. The American elite has always considered its
country and nation exceptional and has not been shy to admit it.
I won't comment on the US election. This is US law and the US election system. Any comments
I make will be again interpreted as an attempt to interfere in their domestic affairs. I will
only say one thing that President Vladimir Putin has expressed many times, notably, that we
will respect any outcome of these elections and the will of the American people.
We realise that there will be no major changes in our relations either with the Democrats or
with the Republicans, as representatives of both parties loudly declare. However, there is hope
that common sense will prevail and no matter who becomes President, the new US Government and
administration will realise the need to cooperate with us in resolving very serious global
problems on which the international situation depends.
Question: You mentioned an example where voters can choose one president and the Electoral
College process, another. I even have that cover of Time magazine with Hillary Clinton and
congratulations, released during the election. It is a fairly well-known story, when they ran
this edition and then had to cancel it.
Sergey Lavrov: Even the President of France sent a telegramme, but then they immediately
recalled it.
And these people are now claiming that Alexander Lukashenko is an illegitimate
president.
Question: You mentioned NGOs. These people believe that NGOs in the Russian Federation
support democratic institutions, although it is no secret to anyone who has at least a basic
understanding of foreign and domestic policy that those NGOs act exclusively as institutions
that destabilise the situation in the country.
Sergey Lavrov: Not all of them.
Question: Can you tell us more about this?
Sergey Lavrov: We have adopted a series of laws – on public associations, on
non-profit organisations, on measures to protect people from human rights violations. There is
a set of laws that regulate the activities of non-government organisations on our territory,
both Russian and foreign ones.
Concepts have been introduced like "foreign agent," a practice we borrowed from "the world's
most successful democracy" – the United States. They argue that we borrowed a practice
from 1938 when the United States introduced the foreign agent concept to prevent Nazi ideology
from infiltrating from Germany. But whatever the reason they had to create the concept –
"foreign agent" – the Americans are still effectively using it, including in relation to
our organisations and citizens, to Chinese citizens, to the media.
In our law, foreign agent status, whatever they say about it, does not prevent an
organisation from operating on the territory of the Russian Federation. It just needs to
disclose its funding sources and be transparent about the resources it receives. And even that,
only if it is engaged in political activities. Initially, we introduced a requirement for these
organisations that receive funding from abroad and are involved in political projects to
initiate the disclosure process. But most of them didn't want to comply with the law, so it was
modified. Now this is done by the Russian Ministry of Justice.
Question: Do you think that NGOs are still soft power?
Sergey Lavrov: Of course. In Russia we have about 220,000 NGOs, out of which 180 have the
status of a foreign agent. It's a drop in the ocean. These are probably the organisations,
funded from abroad, that are more active than others in promoting in our public space ideas
that far from always correspond to Russian legislation.
There is also the notion of undesirable organisations. They are banned from working in the
Russian Federation. But there are only about 30 of them, no more.
Question: Speaking about our soft power, what is our concept? What do we offer the world?
What do you think the world should love us for? What is Russia's soft power policy all
about?
Sergey Lavrov: We want everything that has been created by nations and civilisations to be
respected. We believe nobody should impose any orders on anyone, so that nothing like what has
now happened in Hollywood takes place on a global scale. We think nobody should encroach on the
right of each nation to have its historical traditions and moral roots. And we see attempts to
encroach upon them.
If soft power is supposed to promote one's own culture, language and traditions, in exchange
for knowledge about the life of other nations and civilisations, then this is the approach that
the Russian Federation supports in every way.
The Americans define the term "soft power" as an attempt to influence the hearts and minds
of others politically. Their goal is not to promote their culture and language, but to change
the mood of the political class with a view to subsequent regime change. They are doing this on
a daily basis and don't even conceal it. They say everywhere that their mission is to bring
peace and democracy to all other countries.
Question: Almost any TV series out there shows the US president sitting in the Oval Office
saying he's the leader of the free world.
Sergey Lavrov: Not just TV series. Barack Obama has repeatedly stated that America is an
exceptional nation and should be seen as an example by the rest of the world. My colleague Mike
Pompeo recently said in the Czech Republic that they shouldn't let the Russians into the
nuclear power industry and should take the Russians off the list of companies that bid for
these projects. It was about the same in Hungary. He then went to Africa and was quite vocal
when he told the African countries not to do business with the Russians or the Chinese, because
they are trading with the African countries for selfish reasons, whereas the US is establishing
economic cooperation with them so they can prosper. This is a quote. It is articulated in a
very straightforward manner, much the same way they run their propaganda on television in an
unsophisticated broken language that the man in the street can relate to. So, brainwashing is
what America's soft power is known for.
Question: Not a single former Soviet republic has so far benefited from American soft
power.
Sergey Lavrov: Not only former Soviet republics. Take a look at any other region where the
Americans have effected a regime change.
Question: Libya, Syria. We stood for Syria.
Sergey Lavrov: Iraq, Libya. They tried in Syria, but failed. I hope things will be different
there. There's not a single country where the Americans changed the regime and declared victory
for democracy, like George W. Bush did on the deck of an aircraft carrier in Iraq in May 2003,
which is prosperous now. He said democracy had won in Iraq. It would be interesting to know
what the former US President thinks about the situation in Iraq today. But no one will,
probably, go back to this, because the days when presidents honestly admitted their mistakes
are gone.
Question: Here I am listening to you and wondering how many people care about this? Why is
it that no one understands this? Is this politics that is too far away from ordinary people who
are nevertheless behind it? Take Georgia or Ukraine. People are worse off now than before, and
despite this, this policy continues.
Will the Minsk agreements ever be implemented? Will the situation in southeastern Ukraine
ever be settled?
Returning to what we talked about. How independent is Ukraine in its foreign policy?
Sergey Lavrov: I don't think that under the current Ukrainian government, just like under
the previous president, we will see any progress in the implementation of the Minsk agreements,
if only because President Zelensky himself is saying so publicly, as does Deputy Prime Minister
Reznikov who is in charge of the Ukrainian settlement in the Contact Group. Foreign Minister of
Ukraine Kuleba is also saying this. They say there's a need for the Minsk agreements and they
cannot be broken, because these agreements (and accusing Russia of non-compliance) are the
foundation of the EU and the US policy in seeking to maintain the sanctions on Russia.
Nevertheless, such a distorted interpretation of the essence of the Minsk agreements, or rather
an attempt to blame everything on Russia, although Russia is never mentioned there, has stuck
in the minds of our European colleagues, including France and Germany, who, being co-sponsors
of the Minsk agreements along with us, the Ukrainians and Donbass, cannot but realise that the
Ukrainians are simply distorting their responsibilities, trying to distance themselves from
them and impose a different interpretation of the Minsk agreements. But even in this scenario,
the above individuals and former Ukrainian President Kravchuk, who now heads the Ukrainian
delegation to the Contact Group as part of the Minsk process, claim that the Minsk agreements
in their present form are impracticable and must be revised, turned upside down. Also, Donbass
must submit to the Ukrainian government and army before even thinking about conducting reforms
in this part of Ukraine.
This fully contradicts the sequence of events outlined in the Minsk agreements whereby
restoring Ukrainian armed forces' control on the border with Russia is possible only after an
amnesty, agreeing on the special status of these territories, making this status part of the
Ukrainian Constitution and holding elections there. Now they propose giving back the part of
Donbass that "rebelled" against the anti-constitutional coup to those who declared these people
terrorists and launched an "anti-terrorist operation" against them, which they later renamed a
Joint Forces Operation (but this does not change the idea behind it), and whom they still
consider terrorists. Although everyone remembers perfectly well that in 2014 no one from
Donbass or other parts of Ukraine that rejected the anti-constitutional coup attacked the
putschists and the areas that immediately fell under the control of the politicians behind the
coup. On the contrary, Alexander Turchinov, Arseniy Yatsenyuk and others like them attacked
these areas. The guilt of the people living there was solely in them saying, "You committed a
crime against the state, we do not want to follow your rules, let us figure out our own future
and see what you will do next." There's not a single example that would corroborate the fact
that they engaged in terrorism. It was the Ukrainian state that engaged in terrorism on their
territory, in particular, when they killed [Head of the Donetsk People's Republic] Alexander
Zakharchenko and a number of field commanders in Donbass. So, I am not optimistic about
this.
Question: So, we are looking at a dead end?
Sergey Lavrov: You know, we still have an undeniable argument which is the text of the Minsk
Agreements approved by the UN Security Council.
Question: But they tried to revise it?
Sergey Lavrov: No, they are just making statements to that effect. When they gather for a
Contact Group meeting in Minsk, they do their best to look constructive. The most recent
meeting ran into the Ukrainian delegation's attempts to pretend that nothing had happened. They
recently passed a law on local elections which will be held in a couple of months. It says that
elections in what are now called the Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics will be held only
after the Ukrainian army takes control of the entire border and those who "committed criminal
offenses" are arrested and brought to justice even though the Minsk agreements provide for
amnesty without exemptions.
Question: When I'm asked about Crimea I recall the referendum. I was there at a closed
meeting in Davos that was attended by fairly well respected analysts from the US. They claimed
with absolute confidence that Crimea was being occupied. I reminded them about the referendum.
I was under the impression that these people either didn't want to see or didn't know how
people lived there, that they have made their choice. Returning to the previous question, I
think that nobody is interested in the opinion of the people.
Sergey Lavrov: No, honest politicians still exist. Many politicians, including European
ones, were in Crimea during the referendum. They were there not under the umbrella of some
international organisation but on their own because the OSCE and other international agencies
were controlled by our Western colleagues. Even if we had addressed them, the procedure for
coordinating the monitoring would have never ended.
Question: Just as in Belarus. As I see it, they were also invited but nobody came.
Sergey Lavrov: The OSCE refused to send representatives there. Now that the OSCE is offering
its services as a mediator, I completely understand Mr Lukashenko who says the OSCE lost its
chance. It could have sent observers and gained a first-hand impression of what was happening
there, and how the election was held. They arrogantly disregarded the invitation. We know that
the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) is practically wholly
controlled by NATO. We have repeatedly proposed that our nominees work there but they have not
been approved. This contradicts the principles of the OSCE. We will continue to seek a fairer
approach to the admission of members to the organisation, but I don't have much hope for this.
Former OSCE Secretary General Thomas Greminger made an effort with this for the past three
years but not everything depended on him – there is a large bloc of EU and NATO countries
that enjoy a mathematical majority and try to dictate their own rules. But this is a separate
issue.
Returning to Crimea, I have read a lot about this; let me give you two examples. One
concerns my relations with former US Secretary of State John Kerry. In April 2014, we met in
Geneva: me, John Kerry, EU High Representative Catherine Ashton and then Acting Foreign
Minister of Ukraine Andrey Deshchitsa. We compiled a one page document that was approved
unanimously. It read that we, the representatives of Russia, the US and the EU welcomed the
commitments of the Ukrainian authorities to carry out decentralisation of the country with the
participation of all the regions of Ukraine. This took place after the Crimean referendum.
Later, the Americans, the EU and of course Ukraine "forgot" about this document. John Kerry
told me at this meeting that everyone understood that Crimea was Russian, that the people
wanted to return, but that we held the referendum so quickly that it didn't fit into the
accepted standards of such events. He asked me to talk to President Vladimir Putin, organise
one more referendum, announce it in advance and invite international observers. He said he
would support their visit there, that the result would be the same but that we would be keeping
up appearances. I asked him why put on such shows if they understand that this was the
expression of the will of the people.
The second example concerns the recent statements by the EU and the European Parliament to
the effect that "the occupation" of Crimea is a crude violation of the world arrangement
established after the victory in World War II. But if this criterion is used to determine where
Crimea belongs, when the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic joined the UN after WWII in 1945,
Crimea did not belong to it. Crimea was part of the USSR. Later, Nikita Khrushchev took an
illegal action, which contradicted Soviet law, and this led to them having it. But we all
understood that this was a domestic political game as regards a Soviet republic that was the
home to Khrushchev and many of his associates.
Question: You have been Foreign Minister for 16 years now. This century's major foreign
policy challenges fell on your term in office. We faced sanctions, and we adapted to them and
coped with them. Germany said it obtained Alexey Navalny's test results. France and Sweden have
confirmed the presence of Novichok in them. Reportedly, we are now in for more sanctions. Do
you think the Navalny case can trigger new sanctions against Russia?
Sergey Lavrov: I agree with our political analysts who are convinced that if it were not for
Navalny, they would have come up with something else in order to impose more sanctions.
With regard to this situation, I think our Western partners have simply gone beyond decency
and reason. In essence, they are now demanding that we "confess." They are asking us: Don't you
believe what the German specialists from the Bundeswehr are saying? How is that possible? Their
findings have been confirmed by the French and the Swedes. You don't believe them, either?
It's a puzzling situation given that our Prosecutor General's Office filed an inquiry about
legal assistance on August 27 and hasn't received an answer yet. Nobody knows where the inquiry
has been for more than a week now. We were told it was at the German Foreign Ministry. The
German Foreign Ministry did not forward the request to the Ministry of Justice, which was our
Prosecutor General Office's ultimate addressee. Then, they said that it had been transferred to
the Berlin Prosecutor's Office, but they would not tell us anything without the consent of the
family. They are urging us to launch a criminal investigation.
We have our own laws, and we cannot take someone's word for it to open a criminal case.
Certain procedures must be followed. A pre-investigation probe initiated immediately after this
incident to consider the circumstances of the case is part of this procedure.
Some of our Western colleagues wrote that, as the German doctors discovered, it was "a sheer
miracle" that Mr Navalny survived. Allegedly, it was the notorious Novichok, but he survived
thanks to "lucky circumstances." What kind of lucky circumstances are we talking about? First,
the pilot immediately landed the plane; second, an ambulance was already waiting on the
airfield; and third, the doctors immediately started to provide help. This absolutely
impeccable behaviour of the pilots, doctors and ambulance crew is presented as "lucky
circumstances." That is, they even deny the possibility that we are acting as we should. This
sits deep in the minds of those who make up such stories.
Returning to the pre-investigation probe, everyone is fixated on a criminal case. If we had
opened a criminal case right away (we do not have legal grounds to do so yet, and that is why
the Prosecutor General's Office requested legal assistance from Germany on August 27), what
would have been done when it happened? They would have interviewed the pilot, the passengers
and the doctors. They would have found out what the doctors discovered when Navalny was taken
to the Omsk hospital, and what medications were used. They would have interviewed the people
who communicated with him. All of that was done. They interviewed the five individuals who
accompanied him and participated in the events preceding Navalny boarding the plane; they
interviewed the passengers who were waiting for a flight to Moscow in Tomsk and sat at the same
bar; they found out what they ordered and what he drank. The sixth person, a woman who
accompanied him, has fled, as you know. They say she was the one who gave the bottle to the
German lab. All this has been done. Even if all of that was referred to as a "criminal case,"
we couldn't have done more.
Our Western partners are looking down on us as if we have no right to question what they are
saying or their professionalism. If this is the case, it means that they dare to question the
professionalism of our doctors and investigators. Unfortunately, this position is reminiscent
of other times. Arrogance and a sense of infallibility have already been observed in Europe,
and that led to very regrettable consequences.
Question: How would you describe this policy of confrontation? When did it start (I mean
during your term of office)? It's simply so stable at the moment that there seems no chance
that something might change in the future.
Sergey Lavrov: President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly spoken on this topic. I
think that the onset of this policy, this era of constant pressure on Russia began with the end
of a period that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, a time when the West believed it
had Russia there in its pocket – it ended, full stop. Unfortunately, the West does not
seem to be able to wrap its head around this, to accept that there is no alternative to
Russia's independent actions, both domestically and on the international arena. This is why,
unfortunately, this agony continues by inertia.
Having bad ties with any country have never given us any pleasure. We do not like making
such statements in which we sharply criticise the position of the West. We always try to find
compromises, but there are situations where it is hard not to come face to face with one
another directly or to avoid frank assessments of what our Western friends are up to.
I have read what our respected political scientists write who are well known in the West.
And I can say this idea is starting to surface ever stronger and more often – it is time
we stop measuring our actions with the yardsticks that the West offers us and to stop trying to
please the West at all costs. These are very serious people and they are making a serious
point. The fact that the West is prodding us to this way of thinking, willingly or unwillingly,
is obvious to me. Most likely, this is being done involuntarily. But it is a big mistake to
think that Russia will play by Western rules in any case – as big a mistake as like
approaching China with the same yardstick.
Question: Then I really have to ask you. We are going through digitalisation. I think when
you started your diplomatic career, you could not even have imagined that some post on Twitter
could affect the political situation in a country. Yet – I can see your smile – we
are living in a completely different world. Film stars can become presidents; Twitter,
Instagram, or Facebook can become drivers of political campaigns – that happened more
than once – and those campaigns can be successful. We are going through digitalisation,
and because of this, many unexpected people appear in international politics – unexpected
for you, at least. How do you think Russia's foreign policy will change in this context? Are we
ready for social media to be impacting our internal affairs? Is the Chinese scenario possible
in Russia, with most Western social media blocked to avoid their influence on the internal
affairs in that country?
Sergey Lavrov: Social media are already exerting great influence on our affairs. This is the
reality in the entire post-Soviet space and developing countries. The West, primarily the
United States, is vigorously using social media to promote their preferred agenda in just about
any state. This necessitates a new approach to ensuring the national security. We have been
doing this for a long time already.
As for regulating social media, everyone does it. You know that the digital giants in the
United States have been repeatedly caught introducing censorship, primarily against us, China
or other countries they dislike, shutting off information that comes from these places.
The internet is regulated by companies based in the United States, everyone knows that. In
fact, this situation has long made the overwhelming majority of countries want to do something
about it, considering the global nature of the internet and social media, to make sure that the
management processes are approved at a global level, become transparent and understandable. The
International Telecommunication Union, a specialised UN agency, has been out there for years.
Russia and a group of other co-sponsoring countries are promoting the need to regulate the
internet in such a way that everyone understands how it works and what principles govern it, in
this International Union. Now we can see how Mark Zuckerberg and other heads of large IT
companies are invited to the Congress and lectured there and asked to explain what they are
going to do. We can see this. But a situation where it will be understandable for everyone else
and, most importantly, where everyone is happy with it, still seems far away.
For many years, we have been promoting at the UN General Assembly an initiative to agree on
the rules of responsible behaviour of states in the sphere of international information
security. This initiative has already led to set up several working groups, which have
completed their mandate with reports. The last such report was reviewed last year and another
resolution was adopted. This time, it was not a narrow group of government experts, but a group
that includes all UN member states. It was planning to meet, but things slowed down due to the
coronavirus. The rules for responsible conduct in cyberspace are pending review by this group.
These rules were approved by the SCO, meaning they already reflect a fairly large part of the
world's population.
Our other initiative is not about the use of cyberspace for undermining someone's security;
it is about fighting crimes (pedophilia, pornography, theft) in cyberspace. This topic is being
considered by another UNGA committee. We are preparing a draft convention that will oblige all
states to suppress criminal activities in cyberspace.
Question: Do you think that the Foreign Ministry is active on this front? Would you like to
be more proactive in the digital dialogue? After all, we are still bound by ethics, and have
yet to understand whether we can cross the line or not. Elon Musk feels free to make any
statements no matter how ironic and makes headlines around the world, even though anything he
says has a direct bearing on his market cap. This is a shift in the ethics of behaviour. Do you
think that this is normal? Is this how it should be? Or maybe people still need to behave
professionally?
Sergey Lavrov: A diplomat can always use irony and a healthy dose of cynicism. In this
sense, there is no contradiction here. However, this does not mean that while making ironic
remarks on the surrounding developments or comments every once in a while (witty or not so
witty), you do not have to work on resolving legal matters related to internet governance. This
is what we are doing.
The Foreign Ministry has been at the source of these processes. We have been closely
coordinating our efforts on this front with the Security Council Office, and the Ministry of
Digital Development, Communications and Mass Media and other organisations. Russian delegations
taking part in talks include representatives from various agencies. Apart from multilateral
platforms such as the International Telecommunication Union, the UN General Assembly and the
OSCE, we are working on this subject in bilateral relations with our key partners.
We are most interested in working with our Western partners, since we have an understanding
on these issues with countries that share similar views. The Americans and Europeans evade
these talks under various pretexts. There seemed to be an opening in 2012 and 2013, but after
the government coup in Ukraine, they used it as a pretext to freeze this process. Today, there
are some signs that the United States and France are beginning to revive these contacts, but
our partners have been insufficiently active. What we want is professional dialogue so that
they can raise all their concerns and accusations and back them with specific facts. We stand
ready to answer all the concerns our partners may have, and will not fail to voice the concerns
we have. We have many of them.
During the recent visit by German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas to Russia, I handed him a list
containing dozens of incidents we have identified: attacks against our resources, with 70
percent of them targeting state resources of the Russian Federation, and originating on German
territory. He promised to provide an answer, but more than a month after our meeting we have
not seen it so far.
Question: Let me ask you about another important initiative by the Foreign Ministry. You
decided to amend regulations enabling people to be repatriated from abroad for free, and you
proposed subjecting the repatriation guarantee to the reimbursement of its cost to the budget.
Could you tell us, please, is this so expensive for the state to foot this bill?
Sergey Lavrov: Of course, these a substantial expenses. The resolution that provided for
offering free assistance was adopted back in 2010, and was intended for citizens who find
themselves in situations when their life is at risk. Imagine a Russian ambassador. Most of the
people ask for help because they have lost money, their passport and so on. There are very few
cases when an ambassador can actually say that a person is in a life-threatening situation and
his or her life is in danger. How can an ambassador take a decision of this kind? As long as I
remember, these cases can be counted on the fingers of my two hands since 2010, when an
ambassador had to take responsibility and there were grounds for offering this assistance. We
wanted to ensure that people can get help not only when facing an imminent danger (a dozen
cases in ten years do not cost all that much). There were many more cases when our nationals
found themselves in a difficult situation after losing money or passports. We decided to follow
the practices used abroad. Specifically, this means that we provide fee-based assistance. In
most cases, people travelling abroad can afford to reimburse the cost of a return ticket.
This practice is designed to prevent fraud, which remains an issue. We had cases when people
bought one-way tickets knowing that they will have to be repatriated.
Question: And with no return ticket, they go to the embassy?
Sergey Lavrov: Yes, after that they come to the embassy. For this reason, I believe that the
system we developed is much more convenient and comprehensive for dealing with the situations
Russians get into when travelling abroad, and when we have to step in to help them through our
foreign missions.
Question: Mr Lavrov, thank you for your time. As a Georgian, I really have to ask this.
Isn't it time to simplify the visa regime with Georgia? A second generation of Georgians has
now grown up that has never seen Russia. What do you think?
Sergey Lavrov: Georgians can travel to Russia – they just need to apply for a visa.
The list of grounds for obtaining a visa has been expanded. There are practically no
restrictions on visiting Russia, after obtaining a visa in the Interests Section for the
Russian Federation in Tbilisi or another Russian overseas agency.
As for visa-free travel, as you know, we were ready for this a year ago. We were actually a
few steps away from being ready to announce it when that incident happened with the Russian
Federal Assembly delegation to the International Interparliamentary Assembly on Orthodoxy,
where they were invited in the first place, seated in their chairs, and then violence was
almost used against them.
I am confident that our relations with Georgia will recover and improve. We can see new
Georgian politicians who are interested in this. For now, there are just small parties in the
ruling elites. But I believe our traditional historical closeness, and the mutual affinity
between our peoples will ultimately triumph. Provocateurs who are trying to prevent Georgia
from resuming normal relations with Russia will be put to shame.
They are trying to use Georgia the same way as Ukraine. In Ukraine, the IMF plays a huge
role. And the IMF recently decided that each tranche allocated to Ukraine would be
short-term.
Question: Microcredits.
Sergey Lavrov: Microcredits and a short leash that can always be pulled a little.
They are trying to use Georgia the same way. We have no interest in seeing this situation
continue. We did not start it and have never acted against the Georgian people. Everyone
remembers the 2008 events, how American instructors arrived there and trained the Georgian
army. The Americans were well aware of Mikheil Saakashvili's lack of restraint. He trampled on
all agreements and issued a criminal order.
We are talking about taking their word for it. There were many cases when we took their word
for it, but then it all boiled down to zilch. In 2003, Colin Powell, a test tube – that
was an academic version. An attack on Iraq followed. Many years later, Tony Blair admitted that
there had been no nuclear weapons in Iraq. There were many such stories. In 1999, the
aggression against Yugoslavia was triggered by the OSCE representative in the Balkans, US
diplomat William Walker, who visited the village of Racak, where they found thirty corpses, and
declared it genocide of the Albanian population. A special investigation by the International
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia found they were military dressed in civilian clothes. But Mr
Walker loudly declared it was genocide. Washington immediately seized on the idea, and so did
London and other capitals. NATO launched an aggression against Yugoslavia.
After the end of the five-day military operation to enforce peace, the European Union
ordered a special report from a group of invited experts, including Swiss diplomat Heidi
Tagliavini. She was later involved in the Minsk process, and then she was asked to lead a group
of experts who investigated the outbreak of the military conflict in August 2008. The
conclusion was unambiguous. All this happened on the orders of Mikheil Saakashvili, and as for
his excuses that someone had provoked him, or someone had been waiting for him on the other
side of the tunnel, this was just raving.
Georgians are a wise nation. They love life, perhaps the same way and the same facets that
the peoples in the Russian Federation do. We will overcome the current abnormal situation and
restore normal relations between our states and people.
In addition, if you follow the Minister, follow up on this interview with Sputnik
Exclusive: Sergei Lavrov Talks About West's Historical Revisionism, US Election and Navalny
Case
Maria Pevchikh was among the group of six people who accompanied opposition figure and
anti-corruption activist Alexey Navalny on the trip to Siberia that ended with his poisoning .
Now, the Transit Police Department for Russia's Siberian Federal District is claiming that Maria
Pevchikh -- or as they've mistakenly called her, "Marina" Pevchikh -- is refusing to testify.
The department is carrying out a preliminary inquiry into Navalny's hospitalization in Omsk
(Russian police officials have yet to open an actual case over the attack on Navalny).
"Pevchikh, one of [the people] who were with Navalny, [who] resides permanently in Great
Britain, avoided making a statement on August 20. According to the investigation, on August 22,
the citizen in question flew to Germany, as a result it wasn't possible to get a statement from
her. Her whereabouts are currently being established," transit police officials said in a
statement.
The other five people who accompanied Navalny have been questioned. This includes Vladlen
Los, Georgy Alburnov, and Ilya Pakhomov -- employees of Navalny's non-profit, the
Anti-Corruption Foundation, -- as well as his press secretary Kira Yarmysh and cameraman Pavel
Zelensky. The transit police are also looking to establish the whereabouts of other passengers
who were on the same flight from Tomsk to Moscow as Navalny.
Pro-Kremlin media accuse
Pevchikh of 'involvement in Navalny's poisoning'
On September 7, the pro-Kremlin outlet Pravda.ru reported, citing an anonymous
source, that Pevchikh accompanied Navalny on his trip to Siberia "on the instructions of FBK
director Vladimir Ashurkov ," who allegedly came in conflict with Navalny shortly beforehand,
over his decision to
dissolve the FBK . Pravda.ru said Pevchikh was "likely Navalny's poisoner," claiming
that she stayed in the same hotel room as him, but wasn't with him on the plane from Tomsk to
Moscow; instead, she drove to Novosibirsk and then flew from there to Omsk. In addition,
Pravda.ru called Pevchikh "a woman with an opaque life story and very interesting facts
in her biography."
Kremlin-linked catering magnate Evgeny Prigozhin also made
allegations about Pevchikh's possible involvement in Navalny's poisoning via statements from
the press service of his company, Concord (however, the company also claims that Navalny's
press secretary Kira Yarmysh was involved in poisoning him). The pro-government websites
Tsarygrad TV and Putin News made similar claims .
In fact, police officials made no
attempt to contact Maria Pevchikh
According to Meduza's research, Maria Pevchikh studied sociology at Moscow State
University and political science at the London School of Economics, concurrently. She has
worked for the FBK since 2011, and now leads the foundation's research department. Pevchikh
lives in London, but she travels to Russia often. Her job includes gathering materials and
writing scripts for the FBK's investigations.
Prior to Navalny's poisoning, Pevchikh was with him in Tomsk, where his team was filming new
video investigations. According to Meduza's research, all of the group members stayed in
separate rooms at the Xander Hotel. The investigation, Meduza found out, went relatively
smoothly.
When Navalny left Tomsk, a few of the group members stayed behind, including Maria Pevchikh.
After the news broke that Navalny had been poisoned, they all went to Omsk. Meduza found out
that Maria Pevchikh was allowed to leave Russia without any difficulties. Russia's law
enforcement agencies have made no attempt to contact her over the past two weeks, even though
her Russian phone is always on. She was never called in for questioning or interrogation, and
hasn't received a summons. Pevchikh told Meduza that she will be prepared to give detailed
comments at a later date.
Transit police officials plan to seek help from Germany
The Transit Police Department for Russia's Siberian Federal District reports that in
addition to questioning Navalny's companions, the preliminary investigation has established the
route he travelled, as well as the places he visited and stayed in Tomsk and the Tomsk Region.
This includes the Xander Hotel, the restaurant Velvet, a rental apartment, where Navalny's
supporters held a working meeting, and the Vienna Cafe in the Tomsk Airport. According to
police officials, these are the places where Navalny ate and drank, "including wine and
alcoholic cocktails."
Given
medical reports that Navalny has been brought out of his coma, the investigative unit of
the transit police is preparing a request for legal assistance from Germany. The request
includes an application to involve Russia's state investigators in the German investigation of
Navalny's case -- seeking in particular "the opportunity to ask clarifying and additional
questions while retrieving statements."
Russian police say they are searching for a woman who was with Alexey Navalny in Tomsk
before his alleged poisoning, last month. They claim 'Marina Pevchikh,' who left Russia after
refusing to answer police questions.
Investigators said on Friday morning that the woman left for Germany on August 22, when
Navalny was taken to Berlin for treatment at the request of his associates.
However, later the same day, Pevchikh herself apparently spoke and insisted that Russian law
enforcement officials had not tried to contact her, even though her Russian phone is always on.
She added that she was never summoned for interrogations and questioning, nor she did not
receive any summons.
The woman also clarified that her name is Maria, not Marina. She was speaking to Meduza, a
Western state-funded Russian language news site, based in Latvia.
Russian investigators are now looking into the events surrounding Navalny's illness, which
quickly left him incapacitated. The police have researched what he did in Tomsk, including who
he met, where he stayed, and where he ate. The investigation led authorities to Pevchikh, who
they claim previously refused to answer police questions.
"To date, five out of the six citizens who accompanied Navalny during the trip have been
interviewed: Vladlen Los, Georgy Alburov, Ilya Pakhomov, Kira Yarmysh, and Pavel Zelensky,"
said the police department's statement. "Marina Pevchikh, who was with Navalny and
permanently resides in Britain, refused to give her side of the story on August 20. According
to the investigation, on August 22, she flew to Germany, and therefore it was not possible to
question her."
The police note that the investigation is ongoing, and they are also establishing the
whereabouts of passengers who flew on the plane with Navalny.
In response to the incident, officials from NATO and the European Union have demanded that
Russia conducts a "full and transparent" investigation. Despite no conclusion yet being
reached, some have called for Moscow to be sanctioned over the alleged poisoning, which the
Kremlin has called "absurd."
On Wednesday, Russia's Foreign Ministry lodged a formal protest with Germany's ambassador,
calling suggestions of state involvement "unfounded."
Speaking at a press conference in Moscow on Friday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
noted that Navalny's associates are now "slowly beginning to move to Germany," which, in
the context of the country's accusations against the Kremlin, is "very unpleasant."
"It is still in the interests of our German colleagues to protect their reputation and
provide all the necessary information that would somehow shed light on the so-far unfounded
accusations," Lavrov said.
On August 20, Navalny was taken ill on a flight from Tomsk to Moscow. Following an emergency
landing in Omsk, a Siberian city 2,000km east of the capital, he was taken to a local hospital.
The opposition figure was flown to Berlin's Charite clinic two days later, where he is
currently being treated. According to German doctors, Navalny was poisoned with a variant of
the nerve agent family 'Novichok'.
"... Furthermore, Navalny had been in the Charité clinic for a week before it was announced that he had been poisoned by so-called Novichok, and only then after his test samples had been sent from Berlin to the Bundeswehr laboratory in Munich, which declared that "Novichok" had. been found. ..."
"... All this is being done with the objective of driving a wedge between Russia and Germany. And it is succeeding, from the tone set by Lavrov. ..."
"... I do not doubt the French and Swedish found Novichok or whatever the stuff is in Navalny's blood sample; they were meant to find it. That's quite a different thing from finding Navalny was poisoned with it. They have probably tested the bottle, and a blood sample given to them. But if Navalny was actually poisoned with a deadly nerve agent, he should be dead instead of up and about and feeling peckish. ..."
"... I would not be surprised if the Spiez laboratory that tested samples of the Skripals' blood in 2018 had not been asked to test Navalny's blood samples 'cos as any fule knows , that place's computers are chock full of Russian hackers nosing around all their databases, and Russian spies are everywhere in the building, hiding in the ceilings and cupboards and beneath the floorboards they might even be hiding in the kitchen rubbish bins or the incinerator ..."
"... Navalny drank something shitty in the Tomsk-Moscow aircraft toilet, then he performed his dramatics outside the toilet for all to behold, and the "Novichok" contaminated bottle was given to Navalnaya by Pevchikh en route to Berlin. ..."
"... The fundamental thing about this false flag is that the Doctors in Omsk saved Navalnys life. They treated him and ensured that he lived, So the samples the Russian doctors took and their analysis to find a cure for Navlany are the most important factor in all this. They found no evidence of poisoning. German doctors who came to Omsk acknowledged this at the time and discussions were held. ..."
"... Pevchikh attracted attention by the fact that she had flown to Russia from Great Britain for Navalny's "tour", and as soon as the blogger was poisoned, she immediately left the country on the same flight that took Alexey to Germany. By the way, even the blogger's wife was not allowed on board that flight, yet Pevchikh was allowed to do so. She was with him all the way. ..."
French, Swedish labs confirm Navalny poisoned with Novichok
Specialist laboratories in France and Sweden have independently confirmed findings that
Russian dissident Alexei Navalny was poisoned with a chemical agent from the Novichok group,
the German government has said.
Now how about testing the samples of Navalny's blood and tissue that were used in
Omsk?
Chain of possession of samples?
Something added to samples between Omsk and Berlin?
No samples from Russia have been tested in Europe, samples that were tested in Omsk by US
manufactured, state of the art spectroscopy apparatus.
Furthermore, Navalny had been in the Charité clinic for a week before it was
announced that he had been poisoned by so-called Novichok, and only then after his test
samples had been sent from Berlin to the Bundeswehr laboratory in Munich, which declared that
"Novichok" had. been found.
And during that long wait for the German findings, total silence from the Navalnyites,
who, when Navalny was in the Omsk hospital, were howling and screaming for an immediate
statement from doctors there about what had "poisoned" their heroic leader.
All this is being done with the objective of driving a wedge between Russia and
Germany. And it is succeeding, from the tone set by Lavrov.
I do not doubt the French and Swedish found Novichok or whatever the stuff is in
Navalny's blood sample; they were meant to find it. That's quite a different thing from
finding Navalny was poisoned with it. They have probably tested the bottle, and a blood
sample given to them. But if Navalny was actually poisoned with a deadly nerve agent, he
should be dead instead of up and about and feeling peckish.
I suppose we'll never know what these specialist labs in France and Sweden are, we'll just
have to take the German government's word that it sent samples of Navalny's blood to these
and possibly other labs to test.
I would not be surprised if the Spiez laboratory that tested samples of the Skripals'
blood in 2018 had not been asked to test Navalny's blood samples
'cos as any fule knows , that place's computers are chock full of Russian hackers nosing
around all their databases, and Russian spies are everywhere in the building, hiding in the
ceilings and cupboards and beneath the floorboards they might even be hiding in the kitchen
rubbish bins or the incinerator
Navalny drank something shitty in the Tomsk-Moscow aircraft toilet, then he performed
his dramatics outside the toilet for all to behold, and the "Novichok" contaminated bottle
was given to Navalnaya by Pevchikh en route to Berlin.
It will be interesting to learn full details of the chain of transmission of the
"deadly-ish" bottle from its last handling by an agent of the Russian state onwards. If the
bottle is to play the central role demanded by the "martyr"'s present narrative, then the
transfer of custody thereof has to be evident and indisputable. Moreover, the transmission of
the bottle to German hands needs to have a rational explanation including such minor issues
as why the Russian authorities didn't seize it as evidence or confiscate it at the security
checkpoints?
The fundamental thing about this false flag is that the Doctors in Omsk saved Navalnys
life. They treated him and ensured that he lived, So the samples the Russian doctors took and
their analysis to find a cure for Navlany are the most important factor in all this. They
found no evidence of poisoning. German doctors who came to Omsk acknowledged this at the time
and discussions were held.
Germany did not play any part in saving his life they just brought him out of the induced
coma. Whatever happened in that Clinic and after wards is all unclear and lacks transparency.
PS. France and Sweden can only say the samples they were given had "poison".
Very many people die every day of poisoning. On death certificates one often sees the term
"septicaemia" as cause of death. That's what it said on my father's death certificate.
Septicaemia is commonly called "blood poisoning".
My unfortunate father was not poisoned by anyone: his body poisoned him. He had
cancer.
And this what the the Germans etc. at first said: they found poison in body.
This has been taken as his having been poisoned by one someone using a poison and this
poison is "Novichok".
Macron has said today that somebody had attempted to murder Navalny.
Because he was a "threat" to the "Kremlin Party" and Putin in particular?
Macron and the BBC, CNN, Fox News etc. should take a look at the Russian election results
now being announced.
I think it's actually called "Chain of Custody", and refers to the traceability of every
time a piece of evidence was handled by a different person, how it was sealed against
tampering, and so forth.
"Custody" is a loaded, legal term which the supporters of the "martyr" should be wary of
using, Mark.
If the bottle was suspected by one or more of Navalny's companions when still in Russian
territory of having contained a toxic substance then it ought to have been transmitted to the
custody of the appropriate Russian authorities. Reasonable safeguards such as video recording
the handover could be taken. Thereafter a "chain of custody" of potential evidence can follow
to provide a Court – those pesky places that the shit-smearers would run a mile from
– to assess (test, prove if you prefer) the quality of the evidence and the reliability
of the chain of custody thereof.
The allegations of poisoning have been enabled by the deliberate withholding of "evidence"
from the Russian investigators. Those who did not cooperate with the Russian authorities have
been given so many free passes on the basis of their being plucky Scooby Doo style kids that
I half-expect VVP to mumble about "getting away with it except for those pesky kids". The
cartoonish level of the entire affair and the contempt this narrative displays towards media
consumers in "The West" is dangerous. When all are held to the same standards progress will
be made.
To revert to the "chain of custody" briefly: let's hold the feet of the plucky kids to the
fire of legal process and find out the truth about the "magic bottle" and its amazing journey
to the West. I read recently that in the aftermath of the fall of the Shah in 1979 many very
prosperous Iranians relocated to California. Among those were Zoroastrians who had time
enough and plenty to find digs for themselves and then to finalise the new home for the Holy
Fire which arrived by sea months later. Perhaps the Navalnyites have a similar story to
account for the miraculous appearance of The Bottle in Germany.
From the Orc Blogosphere, so it will be fake, unlike squeaky clean Western MSM and its
open sources:
Pevchikh attracted attention by the fact that she had flown to Russia from Great
Britain for Navalny's "tour", and as soon as the blogger was poisoned, she immediately left
the country on the same flight that took Alexey to Germany. By the way, even the blogger's
wife was not allowed on board that flight, yet Pevchikh was allowed to do so. She was with
him all the way.
According to statements made by German doctors, the poison was found on Navalny's
underwear and on the neck of a bottle. Maybe you are still just thinking about this bottle,
but only a few had access to Alexey's underwear, apart from people who were staying with him:
Pevchikh, for example.
She organized Navalny's meetings with politicians from other countries to discuss the
assistance that the West is ready to provide the blogger with, provided him with exclusive
information and could even play the role of Alexey's "curator" from the West.
As soon as Navalny began to lose popularity, the West could well have decided to take
extreme measures and make a "holy sacrifice" out of Alexey.
He was taken out of a coma. It seems as though he remembers something and can speak,
without suffering any consequences. But will he return to Russia? Or will we never see him
again? Good question.
But one thing is clear for sure, if he returns to the country -- it will already be a
completely different story and a completely different game.
Source:
Кажется,в "деле
Навального"
появился
подозреваемый |
Политические
заметки |
Яндекс Дзен
It seems that a suspect has appeared in the "Navalny case" | Political Notes | Yandex
Zen
In short, Lavrov has demanded that the Germans present evidence for their accusations.
There is none so far.
They have evidence they insist -- "undeniable results from the Bundeswehr -- but they
won't show the data that the Bundeswehr states has given "undeniable" confirmation that
Navalny was poisoned with something that the Western MSM and governments call "Novichok".
I mean, there is a difference between data and the interpretation thereof.
The Germans persistently refuse to present the data that they allege to have, but present
an interpretation of said data as given by the Bundeswehr laboratory.
The ancients interpreted the data of the heavens that they had in the belief that the
earth was the centre of all things and later, this interpretation was based on the belief in
what is written in "Holy Scripture", which they believed was the word of something they
called "god", which had created the All.
The Western interpretation of the data that they say they have concerning analyses of
Navalny's medical tests taken in Germany is based on the belief that the Russians are wont to
use something that the West calls "Novichok" in order to eliminate "dissidents" in the
Russian "regime" and journalists and "leaders of the opposition" there in "Putin's Mafia
State" who dare to criticize the Russian "tyrant".
'In the early stage, you're a young crusader and you write an exposé story about
the powers that be, and you bring it to your editor and the editor says: "No, kill it. We
can't touch that. Too hot."
'Stage two: You get an idea for the story, but you don't write it and you check with
the editor first and he says: "No, won't fly. No, I think the old man won't like it. Don't do
that, he has a lot of friends in there and that might get messy."
'Stage three: You get an idea for the story and you yourself dismiss it as
silly.
'Stage four: You no longer get the idea for that kind of an exposé
story.
'And I would add a stage five: You then appear on panels, with media critics like me,
and you get very angry and indignant when we say that there are biases in the media and
you're not as free and independent as you think.'
Perhaps when the BBC's John Simpson finally retires, or Channel 4's Jon Snow, or ITV's
Mark Austin, or any of the other big beasts in the media jungle, they'll be brave and honest
enough to make similar cogent observations about journalism .
####
A lot more at the link.
I just came across this even though it is from May 2013. Very succinct points especially
as I regularly mention the west's five stages of grief and guesstimate where it is currently
at. As The Canary piece notes: As Chomsky noted, he didn't think journalists like Marr
"self-censor". But that:
if you believed something different, you wouldn't be sitting where you're
sitting
####
Though to be honest I know a few journalists and they do privately rail against the
reporting of their own employers, ergo self-censorship = self-preservation and future
channels of advancement. They generally believe that they cannot change anything in a
meaningful way. This explains why quite a few quit the business to do something completely
different but often keep a toe in with a blog or infrequent item on current
affairs/whatever.
Continuing the Pevchikh saga, I saw on Russian TV yesterday a presser in Berlin, during
which a journalist asked spokesman for Merkel's government Seibert about that woman of
mystery.
Seibert just repeated that he knew nothing about such a woman. He was pressed further,
told that she had left Russia on board the same aircraft as Navalny had, arrived with him in
Berlin, and vanished.
Seibert was asked how come a Russian national was allowed entry into Germany without
appropriate documentation, especially during this CORONA-19 crisis. Seibert repeatedly acted
stumm .
Huh. Where's that famous 'pressure from the streets' from Navalny's hamsters to find out?
Or is nobody interested in hearing any possibility but 'Putin dunnit'? Not a peep from the
Navalny entourage, none of whom appear to be curious about the mysterious Masha.
Apparently you are just supposed to take Germany's word that There Is Nothing To See Here.
Just like they suddenly gained an immovable certainty that Navalny was poisoned with a new
version of Novichok which acts totally differently from that which poisoned the Skripals, yet
still bears the state seal of the Russian Federation and could not have been employed without
the Head Of State's approval. After three days or so of testing and suggesting he was
poisoned with something, but it might have been a cholinesterase inhibitor of some kind.
By Bryan MacDonald We are now expected to believe that Kremlin assassins used a new,
even more powerful, Novichok poison on Alexey Navalny, and his aides brought a water bottle
laced with it to Germany, but nobody suffered any side effects.
At this point, Western reporters covering the story are either completely high on the
Kool-Aid or they are going to intense lengths to suppress their skepticism, because so much of
the narrative simply doesn't add up.
The opposition figure's condition when he was first hospitalized, in Siberia, was clearly
very grave. He was placed into an induced coma and attached to a ventilator. The situation was
so serious that his wife and associates demanded he be moved abroad, to Germany, for treatment.
A request Russian authorities acquiesced to the following evening, after a tense day when the
doctors treating him in Omsk stated that they felt he was too unwell to travel, and his
associates alleged they were stalling.
Since Navalny's arrival in Berlin, things have become politicized, and there has been talk
of sanctions and other diplomatic and economic penalties being directed at Russia. Germany
insists that its experts
found traces of the extremely lethal Novichok poison in the activist's system. Angela Merkel
herself has more-or-less accused the Russian government of being behind what she has described
as an "attempted murder."
Moscow claims that Russian doctors didn't find any substance of that nature in their tests.
But Berlin has shot back by saying laboratories in France and Sweden have backed up its
assertions.
When it comes to Russia, the mainstream Western media operates in a self-contained pit of
rumor, fear, braggadocio, bulls**t, and propaganda. Thus its correspondents have treated the
Navalny case in a predictable fashion: Any pronouncements from the opposition figure's
associates, and the German government – even when contradictory or scarcely believable
– are treated like gospel truth, but anything Russian officials say is immediately
disparaged.
Before Thursday, the most blatant example of this came on September 9, when, to quote Max
Seddon, a Moscow correspondent for the Financial Times, "Germany apparently concluded (that)
Navalny was poisoned with a substance 'that the world did not know until this attack, but which
is more malicious and deadly than all known offshoots of the Novichok family,' and that Russian
security must have done it."
Now, given that the previous incarnation of Novichok was said to be eight times more potent
than VX (a deadly nerve agent famously used in the assassination of North Korean leader Kim
Jong-un's half brother Kim Jong-nam), if the new variant is even deadlier, how could Navalny
not only be alive, but, at that point, already out of his coma.
Less than a week later, he was able to get out of bed, and pose for photographs. Yet,
Western media has just accepted the German statement at face value and has failed to ask how
can a pronouncement like this be credible?
Now, we have an even stranger illustration. On Thursday Navalny's team posted a video to his
official Instagram, which alleges that traces of Novichok were found on a water bottle in his
Tomsk hotel room, where he stayed the night before the ill-fated flight to Moscow.
They described how, after learning that his plane had been forced to make an emergency
landing, his aides went to the room, which had not yet been cleaned. The video shows Navalny's
supporters "recording, describing, and packing" everything they found there. According
to the text, they took what they found to scientists in Germany.
While Western media has faithfully amplified the allegations, the reality is it's all pretty
hard to swallow. For the narrative to be true, we have to suspend disbelief, and imagine that
the Kremlin's crack assassins tried to kill Navalny by dousing the most deadly nerve agent
known to man on bottles in his hotel room. Then, they didn't even bother trying to cover up
their dastardly act by at least telling the hotel to have housekeeping clean up the place and
remove the receptacles?
Instead, they just left the evidence there, not at all worried that the Novichok might kill
the hotel staff or the next guest in the room, leading to the exposure of the secret agents
involved, and a local scandal. Also, how did the poisoners know which room Navalny would stay
in? It's common knowledge that his team never books under his name, so they could just as
easily have killed one of his aides.
Also, how did they time the Novichok to conveniently work while the activist was on his
flight, given they could not have known what time he'd take a swig of the water? Plus, what if
he never drank it at all, and instead gave it to a thirsty comrade? Perhaps the Kremlin
assassins stuck a label on it? 'For Alexei Anatolievich only! Please drink at precisely
(whatever) o'clock'.
What's more, you then have to imagine Navalny's team came back, with no protective gear,
beyond rubber gloves, and touched bottles laced with this killer substance, but suffered no
side effects? Not only this, but they managed to subsequently fly them out of the country,
presumably on commercial flights, during a pandemic when direct routes from Russia to Berlin
are closed? Without any care for the dangers of taking a potentially lethal substance on a
plane full of innocent passengers?
The story pushes beyond the normal bounds of believability, and stretches all credibility.
It's also another example of how bad and distorted Western reporting out of Moscow has become.
Much of it being little more than PR boosterism for those opposition figures who are viewed as
favourable to Western interests in Russia.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
A 33-year-old young woman who recently flew in from London. On August 15 she celebrated
her birthday and then went with Navalny on the working trip. When the plane urgently landed
in Omsk for Navalny's hospitalization, the woman also remained on the ground in the 'Ibis
Siberia Omsk' hotel, waiting for Alexei to recover. She left from Russia to Britain on August
22.
Maria Konstantinovna Pevchikh (Мария
Константиновна
Певчих) born in 1987, Russian. In 2010 she graduated from
the sociological faculty of Moscow Lomonosov State University.
Lives in London. Fond of sports, trains under the program of "Navy Seals", an elite US
military unit, owns bookstores in the UK and Australia.
Have close ties with Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Yevgeny Chichvarkin. Joined Navalny's
activity in 2009. At that time, she was 22-year-old and worked as an assistant to one of the
British parliamentarians.
It is alleged that the family and relatives do not know this woman.
They discovered that in Tomsk the blogger's company has booked seven rooms for four
people, Navalny himself spent the night in a different room that was recorded in his
name.
I always assumed that Trump was the candidate of MIC in 2016 elections, while Hillary was the
candidate of "Intelligence community." But it looks like US military is infected with desperados
like Mattis and Trump was unable fully please them despite all his efforts.
But it looks like US military is infected with desperados like Mattis and Trump was unable
fully please them despite all his efforts. Military desperados are not interested in how many
American they deprived of decent standard of living due to outside military expenses. All they
want is to dominate the word and maintain the "Full Spectrum Dominance" whatever it costs.
It is Trump's tortured relationship with the military that stands out the most, especially
as told through the eyes of former Secretary of Defense Jim 'Mad Dog' Mattis, a retired marine
general. It is clear that Bob Woodward spent hours speaking with Mattis -- the insights,
emotions and internal voice captured in the book show a level of intimacy that could only be
reached through in-depth interviews, and Woodward has a well-earned reputation for getting
people to speak to him.
The book makes it clear that Mattis viewed Trump as a threat to the US' standing as the
defender of a rules-based order -- built on the back of decades-old alliances -- that had been
in place since the end of the Second World War.
It also makes it clear that Mattis and the military officers he oversaw placed defending
this order above implementing the will of the American people, as expressed through the free
and fair election that elevated Donald Trump to the position of commander-in-chief. In short,
Mattis and his coterie of generals knew best, and when the president dared issue an order or
instruction that conflicted with their vision of how the world should work, they would do their
best to undermine this order, all the while confirming to the president that it was being
followed.
This trend was on display in Woodward's telling of Trump's efforts to forge better relations
with North Korea. At every turn, Mattis and his military commanders sought to isolate the
president from the reality on the ground, briefing him only on what they thought he needed to
know, and keeping him in the dark about what was really going on.
In a telling passage, Woodward takes us into the mind of Jim Mattis as he contemplates the
horrors of a nuclear war with North Korea, and the responsibility he believed he shouldered
when it came to making the hard decision as to whether nuclear weapons should be used or not.
Constitutionally, the decision was the president's alone to make, something Mattis begrudgingly
acknowledges. But in Mattis' world, he, as secretary of defense, would be the one who
influenced that decision.
Mattis, along with the other general officers described by Woodward, is clearly gripped with
what can only be described as the 'Military Messiah Syndrome'.
What defines this 'syndrome' is perhaps best captured in the words of Emma Sky, the female
peace activist-turned adviser to General Ray Odierno, the one-time commander of US forces in
Iraq. In a frank give-and-take captured by Ms. Sky in her book 'The Unravelling', Odierno spoke
of the value he placed on the military's willingness to defend "freedom" anywhere in the world.
" There is, " he said, " no one who understands more the importance of liberty and
freedom in all its forms than those who travel the world to defend it ."
Ms. Sky responded in typically direct fashion: " One day, I will have you admit that the
[Iraq] war was a bad idea, that the administration was led by a radical neocon program, that
the US's standing in the world has gone down greatly, and that we are far less safe than we
were before 9/11. "
Odierno would have nothing of it. " It will never happen while I'm the commander of
soldiers in Iraq ."
" To lead soldiers in battle ," Ms. Sky noted, " a commander had to believe in the
cause. " Left unsaid was the obvious: even if the cause was morally and intellectually
unsound.
his, more than anything, is the most dangerous thing about the 'Military Messiah Syndrome'
as captured by Bob Woodward -- the fact that the military is trapped in an inherited reality
divorced from the present, driven by precepts which have nothing to with what is, but rather by
what the military commanders believe should be. The unyielding notion that the US military is a
force for good becomes little more than meaningless drivel when juxtaposed with the reality
that the mission being executed is inherently wrong.
The 'Military Messiah Syndrome' lends itself to dishonesty and, worse, to self-delusion. It
is one thing to lie; it is another altogether to believe the lie as truth.
No single
general had the courage to tell Trump allegations against Syria were a hoax
The cruise missile attack on Syria in early April 2017 stands out as a case in point. The
attack was ordered in response to allegations that Syria had dropped a bomb containing the
sarin nerve agent on a town -- Khan Shaykhun -- that was controlled by Al-Qaeda-affiliated
Islamic militants.
Trump was led to believe that the 59 cruise missiles launched against Shayrat Airbase --
where the Su-22 aircraft alleged to have dropped the bombs were based -- destroyed Syria's
capability to carry out a similar attack in the future. When shown post-strike imagery in which
the runways were clearly untouched, Trump was outraged, lashing out at Secretary of Defense
Mattis in a conference call. " I can't believe you didn't destroy the runway !",
Woodward reports the president shouting.
" Mr. President ," Mattis responds in the text, " they would rebuild the runway in
24 hours, and it would have little effect on their ability to deploy weapons. We destroyed the
capability to deploy weapons " for months, Mattis said.
" That was the mission the president had approved, " Woodward writes, clearly
channeling Mattis, " and they had succeeded ."
The problem with this passage is that it is a lie. There is no doubt that Bob Woodward has
the audio tape of Jim Mattis saying these things. But none of it is true. Mattis knew it when
he spoke to Woodward, and Woodward knew it when he wrote the book.
There was no confirmed use of chemical weapons by Syria at Khan Shaykhun. Indeed, the
forensic evidence available about the attack points to the incident being a false flag effort
-- a successful one, it turns out -- on the part of the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamists to
provoke a US military strike against Syria. No targets related to either the production,
storage or handling of chemical weapons were hit by the US cruise missiles, if for no other
reason than no such targets could exist if Syria did not possess and/or use a chemical weapon
against Khan Shaykhun.
Moreover, the US failed to produce a narrative of causality which provided some underlying
logic to the targets that were struck at Khan Shaykhun -- "Here is where the chemical weapons
were stored, here is where the chemical weapons were filled, here is where the chemical weapons
were loaded onto the aircraft." Instead, 59 cruise missiles struck empty aircraft hangars,
destroying derelict aircraft, and killing at least four Syrian soldiers and up to nine
civilians.
The next morning, the same Su-22 aircraft that were alleged to have bombed Khan Shaykhun
were once again taking off from Shayrat Air Base -- less than 24 hours after the US cruise
missiles struck that facility. President Trump had every reason to be outraged by the
results.
But the President should have been outraged by the processes behind the attack, where
military commanders, fully afflicted by 'Military Messiah Syndrome', offered up solutions that
solved nothing for problems that did not exist. Not a single general (or admiral) had the
courage to tell the president that the allegations against Syria were a hoax, and that a
military response was not only not needed, but would be singularly counterproductive.
But that's not how generals and admirals -- or colonels and lieutenant colonels -- are
wired. That kind of introspective honesty cannot happen while they are in command.
Bob Woodward knows this truth, but he chose not to give it a voice in his book, because to
do so would disrupt the pre-scripted narrative that he had constructed, around which he bent
and twisted the words of those he interviewed -- including the president and Jim Mattis. As
such, 'Rage' is, in effect, a lie built on a lie. It is one thing for politicians and those in
power to manipulate the truth to their advantage. It's something altogether different for
journalists to report something as true that they know to be a lie.
On the back cover of 'Rage', the Pulitzer prize-winning historian Robert Caro is quoted from
a speech he gave about Bob Woodward. " Bob Woodward ," Caro notes, " a great
reporter. What is a great reporter? Someone who never stops trying to get as close to the truth
as possible ."
After reading 'Rage', one cannot help but conclude the opposite -- that Bob Woodward has
written a volume which pointedly ignores the truth. Instead, he gives voice to a lie of his own
construct, predicated on the flawed accounts of sources inflicted with 'Military Messiah
Syndrome', whose words embrace a fantasy world populated by military members fulfilling
missions far removed from the common good of their fellow citizens -- and often at conflict
with the stated intent and instruction of the civilian leadership they ostensibly serve. In
doing so, Woodward is as complicit as the generals and former generals he quotes in misleading
the American public about issues of fundamental importance.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Scott Ritter
is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of ' SCORPION
KING : America's Suicidal Embrace of Nuclear Weapons from FDR to Trump.' He served in the
Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff
during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter
@RealScottRitter
Whichever construct you want to believe, the fact remains that US has continued to sow
instability around the world in the name of defending the liberty and freedom. Which brings
to the question how the world can continue to allow a superpower to dictate what's good or
bad for a sovereign country.
Johan le Roux Jewel Gyn 18 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 03:42 AM
The answer you seek is not in the US's proclaimed vision of 'democracy' ot 'rescuing
populations from the clutches of vile dictators.' They just say that to validate their
actions which in reality is using their military as a mercenary force to secure and steal the
resources of countries.
Joaquin Montano 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 04:57 PM
Bob Woodward was enshrined as a great, heroic like journalist by the Hollywood propaganda
machine, but reality is he is a US Security agent pretending to be a well informed/connected
journalist. And indeed, he is well informed/connected, since he was a Naval intelligence man,
part responsible of the demise of the Nixon administration when it fell out of grace with the
powerful elites, and the Washington Post being well connected with the CIA, the rest is
history. And as they say, once a CIA man, always a CIA man.
That is correct. Woodward is a Naval intelligence man. The elite in the US was not happy
about Nixon's foreign policy and his detante with the Soviet Union. Watergate was invented,
and Nixon had nothing to do with it. However, it brought him down, thank's to Woodward.
NoJustice Joaquin Montano 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:48 PM
But he also exposed Trump's lies about Covid-19.
lectrodectus 17 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 04:45 AM
Another first class article by ....Scott .. The book makes it clear that Mattis viewed Trump
as a threat to the Us' standing as the defender of a " rules -based order -built on the back
of decades -old alliances-that had been in place since the end of the second World War". It
also makes it clear that " Mattis and the Military officials he oversaw placed defending this
order above the implementing the will of the American People " These old Military Dinosaurs
simply can't let go of the past, unfortunately for the American people / the World I can't
see anything ever changing, it will be business as usual ie, war after War after War.
Jonny247364 lectrodectus 5 minutes ago 17 Sep, 2020 09:53 PM
Just because donny signs a dictact it does not equate to the will of the americian people.
The americian people did not ask donny to murder Assad.
neeon9 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:56 PM
"a threat to the US’ standing as the defender of a rules-based order –" Who made
that a thing? who voted for the US to be the policeman of the planet? and who said their
"rules" are right? I sure didn't, nor did anyone I know, even my american friends don't know
whose idea it was!
fezzie035fezzm 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:29 PM
It's interesting to note that every president since J.F.K. has got America into a military
conflict, or has turned a minor conflict into a major one. Trump is the exception. Trump
inherited conflicts (Afghanistan, Syria etc) but has not started a new one, and he has spent
his three years ending or winding down the conflicts he had inherited.
NoJustice fezzie035fezzm 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:34 PM
Trump increased military deployment to the Middle East. He increased military spending. He
had a foreign general assassinated. He had missiles fired into Syria. He vetoed a bill that
would limit his authority to wage war. Trump is not an exception.
T. Agee Kaye 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 05:59 PM
Good op ed. 'Rage is built on a lie' applies to many things.
E_Kaos T. Agee Kaye 7 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 02:46 PM
True, the beginning of a new narrative and the continuation of an old narrative.
PYCb988 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 07:25 PM
Something's amiss here. Mattis was openly telling the press that there was no evidence
against Assad. Just Google: Mattis Newsweek Assad.
erniedouglas 12 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 09:14 AM
What was Watergate? Even bet says there were tapes of a private relationship between Nixon
and BB Rebozo.
allan Kaplan 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:03 PM
Continuation of a highly organized and tightly controlled disinformation campaign to do one
singularly the most significant and historically one of the most illegal act of American
betrayal... overthrow American elections at any and all costs to install one of the most
deranged, demoralized sold out brain dead Biden and his equally brown nosing Harris only to
unseat a legally and democratically elected US president according to our Constitution! Will
their evil acts against America work? I doubt it! But at a price that America has never
before seen. Let's sit back and watch this Rose Bowl parade of America's dirtiest of the
dirty politics!
E_Kaos allan Kaplan 7 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 02:49 PM
"brown nosing harris", how apropos with the play on words.
Bill Spence allan Kaplan 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:29 PM
Both parties and their politicians are totally corrupt. Why would anyone support one side
over the other? Is that because you believe the promises and lies?
custos125 17 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 04:35 AM
Is there any evidence that both Mattis and Woodward knew that the allegations of a Syrian use
of chemical weapons by plane were not true, a false flag? On the assumption of this use, the
capacity to fly such attack and deploy such weapons was destroyed for some time. I recommend
reading of Rage, it is quite interesting, even if some people will not like it and try to
keep people away from the book.
E_Kaos custos125 7 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 02:58 PM
My observations were: 1 - where were the bomb fragments 2 - why use rusted gas cylinders 3 -
how do you attach a rusted gas cylinder to a plane 4 - were the rusted gas cylinders tossed
out of a plane 5 - how did the rusted gas cylinders land so close to each other My conclusion
- False Flag Incident
neeon9 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:58 PM
The is only one threat to peace in the world, and it's the US/Israeli M.I.C.. War mongering
children, who actually believe, against all reason, that they are the most worthy and
entitled race on earth! they are not. The US has been responsible for more misery in the
world than any other state, which isn't surprising given how many Nazi's were resettled there
by the Jews. They are also the only Ppl on the planet who think a nuclear war is winnable!
How strange is that!
NoJustice 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:22 PM
So everything is a lie because Woodward didn't mention that there was no evidence found that
linked the Syrian government to the chemical attack?
Strongbo50 6 minutes ago 17 Sep, 2020 09:58 PM
The left is firing up the Russian Interference narrative again, how Russia is trying to take
the election. The real truth is in plain sight, The main stream media is trying to deliver
Biden a win, along with google yahoo msn facebook and twitter. I say, come on Russia, if you
can help stem that tide of lies please Mr Putin help. That's a joke but the media is real.
And Woodward in his old age wants one more trophy on his mantle.
CuttySark 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 05:41 PM
Trump has become the great white whale. Seems like there are Ahab's everywhere willing to
shoot their hearts upon the beast to bring it down whatever the cost. I think it was this
kind of rage and attitude that got Adolf off to a good start.
NoJustice CuttySark 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 05:44 PM
He's an easy target because he keeps screwing up.
Gryphon_ 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:59 PM
The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon. Never in my life have I seen a
newspaper that lies as much as the post. Bob Woodward works for the post.
The USA political establishment is seeking confirmation of its insanity using lies, more lies
then more lies. Democracy is dead in the USA and is replaced with perjury, violence,
nationwide corruption and full blown insanity. All politicians need the rope.
WakeUpGoyim 4 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 05:03 PM
During Obamas 2nd run for president (see YouTube) he openly said Russia was not hostile &
Mitt Romney said Russia was an enemy - Romney got hammed for saying this. Today if Trump says
Russia is Americas friend, the media then say he is an agent. People have short memories, or
so the media thinks so, actually most people do, most cant even remember why countries went
on lock-down.
NoJustice WakeUpGoyim 4 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 05:17 PM
No. He said Russia wasn't the number one threat.
apothqowejh 4 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 04:31 PM
The CIA was founded by the same fascists who tried to enlist Smedley Butler to overthrow FDR.
During the post-war period, they smuggled their ideological brethren out of Germany with
operation Paperclip. Their founding fathers included Prescott Bush, a Nazi, whose son and
grandson went on to become US Presidents. They have never stopped hating Russia, nor have
they ever stopped lying to the American Public.
FFII 2 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 06:45 PM
OMG.... Biden is a perfect candidate for Russia. Old, dumb and predictable. With a cart load
of corruption evidence from Ukraine sources, regarding his dealing with Poroshenko personaly
and his son with Ukrainian gas company, earning millions
___RICHLAND__ 2 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 07:00 PM
As an Australian i've seen Biden's handywork in Ukraine, trust me, the guy's an Expert in
Over-throwing an Elected Government"
frankfalseflag 49 minutes ago 17 Sep, 2020 08:52 PM
Did you know that the FBI takes its orders from the CIA?
mumbojumbo272 2 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 07:41 PM
Oh, Wray forced out of comfort zone following is ''gang'' being sub-poena by senate to divert
attention on Russia. Interesting !
Those clever and evil Russians are at the top of their game
again. For less then 20 millions dollars they dispose Hillary in 2016
and now intend to dispose Creepy Joe. Wait, is that this a valuable service to the
nation?
The collapse of neoliberalism forces the US neoliberal elite to deploy desperate measures to preserve the unity of the nation
and the US-controlled world neoliberal empire. Neo-McCarthyism in one of those dirty tricks. The pioneer in this dirty game was
Hillary, but now it is shared by both parties.
According to FBI director Christopher Wray you need to be Russian to
understand that Biden as a Presidential Candidate is DOA. And that decision of DNC to prop him
instead of Sanders or Warren was pretty idiotic, and was based on the power the neoliberal wing
(aka Clinton mafia) still holds within the Party. You have to be pretty delusional to believe
Biden has all his marbles.
And by "interference" he means reporting in the news and expressing
own opinion. Like in 2016 looks like FBI again crossed the line and had become the third
political party, which intends to be the kingmaker of the Presidential elections. So here's a
suggestion: call in UN observers to the elections.
Russian media influence is actually very easy to prove -- just ask yourself, do you trust
RT more than CNN? But if a person laugh every time Joe Biden talks and it has nothing to do
with Russia.
And if this nonsense again comes from the FBI Director, the legitimate question is "What
next?" The claim that Putin ordered the assassination of Abraham Lincoln?
Look at all those hapless intelligence agencies, helplessly watching Russian hackers
stealing election. But, wait a minute, we are talking about arguably the largest, best
equipped, best financed and most devious intelligence agencies on the Earth. So it is natural
to assume that people who want to steal the election are those who cry most loudly about the
Russian influence.
Actually If Russia really wanted to "sink" Biden all that it would need to do is noisily
support him openly. The rabid Russophobia would do the rest: Unfortunately most of of Americans
are spoon fed neoliberal propaganda and don't care much about if it's real or not. That reminds
me the USSR where the life of people was difficult enough not to pay attention to Communist
Party slogans and propaganda.
Notable quotes:
"... According to the FBI director, the Russians' primary goal seems to be not only to " sow divisiveness and discord ," but to trash Democratic nominee Joe Biden – along with " what the Russians see as a kind of anti-Russian establishment " – through social media, " use of proxies ," state-run media, and " online journals ." ..."
"... Former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats even suggested Congress create another election integrity body to supervise the vote in November, apparently concerned the existing authorities – all 54 of them, one for each state plus four federal entities tasked with keeping meddlers, foreign and domestic, shut out – weren't enough. ..."
"... "Crowd pleasing claims" is spot on the money. Sounds like the FBI has been tasked to lay some groundwork for the "after party". He knows what he is doing. ..."
"... Nothing new from the man who was Comey's assistant AG when Comey was Deputy Attorney General. ..."
Russia is reprising its still-unproven 2016 election meddling efforts, this time targeting
Democratic challenger Joe Biden, according to FBI Director Christopher Wray, who gave no
evidence to support his crowd-pleasing claims.
Wray told the House of Representatives that Russia is taking a " very active " role
in the 2020 US election, claiming Moscow " continues to try to influence our elections,
primarily through what we call malign foreign influence " during a Thursday hearing on
national security threats.
According to the FBI director, the Russians' primary goal seems to be not only to " sow
divisiveness and discord ," but to trash Democratic nominee Joe Biden – along with
" what the Russians see as a kind of anti-Russian establishment " – through
social media, " use of proxies ," state-run media, and " online journals ."
Wray contrasted 2020's alleged meddling with that of 2016, which he claimed involved "
an effort to target election infrastructure ," presenting no evidence to back up
either current or past claims – other than that the FBI or other intelligence agencies
had made the same claims in the past. There is no actual evidence that Russia interfered with
election infrastructure in 2016.
While four years of similarly flavored conspiracy theories blaming Russia for Donald
Trump's 2016 win have come up empty-handed, the paucity of real-world evidence for 'Russian
meddling' has not stopped Wray and other US intel officials from hyping it up as a major
threat to the integrity of the democratic process.
The National Counterintelligence and Security Center suggested last month that, while
Russia would interfere in the election in favor of Trump, China and Iran would meddle on
behalf of Biden – implying Americans couldn't vote at all without doing the bidding of
a foreign nation.
Former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats even suggested Congress create another
election integrity body to supervise the vote in November, apparently concerned the existing
authorities – all 54 of them, one for each state plus four federal entities tasked with
keeping meddlers, foreign and domestic, shut out – weren't enough.
TWOhand 5 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 03:49 PM
"Crowd pleasing claims" is spot on the money. Sounds like the FBI has been tasked to lay
some groundwork for the "after party". He knows what he is doing.
danko79 4 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 04:22 PM
Can't feel anything but sympathy for those that are so easily influenced. If/when Biden
loses, perhaps blaming his lack of ability to string a few words together might be more
relevant than any kind of imaginary foreign interference.
Terry Ross 4 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 04:43 PM
Nothing new from the man who was Comey's assistant AG when Comey was Deputy Attorney General. Wray made it clear
when sworn in for position of FBI head that he believed Russia had interfered to help Trump win 2016 election. The only
question that remains is why Trump picked him for the job.
"... The CIA was founded by the same fascists who tried to enlist Smedley Butler to overthrow FDR. During the post-war period, they smuggled their ideological brethren out of Germany with operation Paperclip. Their founding fathers included Prescott Bush, a Nazi, whose son and grandson went on to become US Presidents. ..."
The CIA was founded by the same fascists who tried to enlist Smedley Butler to overthrow FDR.
During the post-war period, they smuggled their ideological brethren out of Germany with
operation Paperclip. Their founding fathers included Prescott Bush, a Nazi, whose son and
grandson went on to become US Presidents.
They have never stopped hating Russia, nor have
they ever stopped lying to the American Public.
Is this a preparation for immigration with important political side effect? After all Navalny
is former stock speculator, so he can concoct some scheme of "escape" from Russia in such a
dramatic way. And German intelligence service were only too glad to play their role, as they did
in Yushchenko case.
The idea of Novichok poisoning is pretty crude and highly quetionable -- being military agent
it supposedly it acts instantly killing the victim. Here Navalny manage to get into plain and
remain countious for at least 30 min. More probably is the same scheme as in Skripal case. Some
agent after which you lose conciouness, but that does not cause any serious side effects.
A video posted by Navalny's team on his Instagram page showed them searching Navalny's room
at the Xander Hotel in Tomsk on Aug. 20, an hour after they were informed about his
illness.
Apparently, this is how Germany got the materials, which a military lab allegedly tested to
confirm the presence of Novichok. Initially, Navalny's team claimed he had been poisoned after
drinking a cup of tea at the airport. But now it's a water bottle from his hotel room. The
story just keeps changing,
"It was decided to gather up everything that could even hypothetically be useful and hand
it to the doctors in Germany. The fact that the case would not be investigated in Russia was
quite obvious," the post said.
It showed his team bagging several empty bottles of "Holy Spring" mineral water, among
other items, while wearing protective gloves.
"Two weeks later, a German laboratory found traces of Novichok precisely on the bottle of
water from the Tomsk hotel room," the post said.
"And then more laboratories that took analyses from Alexei confirmed that that was what
poisoned Navalny. Now we understand: it was done before he left his hotel room to go to the
airport."
One of Navalny's team members bragged to Al Jazeera that the evidence was taken "right under
the KGB's nose".
Vladimir Milov, a former deputy energy minister and an ally of Navalny, said his team had
outplayed the FSB security police with their quick thinking: "They took the evidence from
under their noses and shipped it out of the country."
Navalny's flight took off at 08:01am, so he must have left the room by 5am, to go to the
airport to catch the flight. The bedside clock in the video says 11:45 (presumably am)... and
the room had not been cleaned? Really??
Why did Navalny's team think he would be going to Germany... it was 2 more days until the
family made that request. Odd...
Were Navalny's team checked for nerve agent? They were in a room with "the world's most
deadly" nerve agent... but they all seem fine.
Has the room been used by anyone else since? Are they all OK?
This story is complete garbage.
SiFiUK , 7 hours ago
So sick of this BS, is anything real any more? Surely, in the near future, the public
won't believe anything the MSM says, whether it really is true or not.
EDIT: I still remember well how, during the BBC's Skripal coverage, one of the 'actors',
dramatically dressed in a hazmat suit and searching for 'clues', took his helmet off thinking
he'd gone off camera. Epic fail, yet the story still stuck enough to have confidence in
launching a sequel!
d0gpants , 6 hours ago
Just like that ***** said...something like 'we know were successful when everything the
public believes is a lie'
BigJim , 6 hours ago
William Casey, I do believe.
Meanwhile, the FSB poison Navalny, but don't bother removing the evidence, or worry about
his woman touching the bottle (the fiends!) and his "team" have no problems getting into his
room... after he#s already checked out.
BetaGap , 5 hours ago
Did they need the bottle or could they find the substance on the photo already?
Was the name putin written on each molecule?
HowdyDoody , 6 hours ago
A clear water bottle with a blue top was spotted peeking out of his wife's handbag as she
tavelled to Germany. The water bottle sold for use on the flights are blue with a pink
top.
And there is no verifiable chain of custody for this bottle. In other words it is not
evidence.
thurstjo63 , 5 hours ago
@EuroPox,
Thank you for pointing out exactly what I was thinking! Difficult to believe that the room
was not already cleaned especially since the hotel already knew that he checked out.
But consider the fact that Navalny's team is supposedly going into his hotel room to
recover novichuk, a deadly nerve agent!?!
Maybe Navalny thinks that this is going to revive his career!
EuroPox , 4 hours ago
I do not understand how Germany got suckered into this, especially as Nordstream is such a
hot topic... how could the Germans have been so stupid? Merkel really was caught with her
pants down (which is not an image I wish to dwell on...)
A_Huxley , 3 hours ago
Its that special agent. That does not work.
That people can be around.
But its super secret.
Then it gets found.
Then the media talks a lot on when, how and where and when again.
All very secret, but we can read along in real time.
Space-Time Continuum , 8 hours ago
You're being presented:
Skripal 2
Like all remakes, this one is worse.
BorisTheBlade , 8 hours ago
Naturally, as Marx used to say: history repeats itself, first as a tragedy, second as a
farce. Modern day marxists usually skip the tragedy, go straight to farce and outright
nonsense. Moron is a new normal.
BuboTB48 , 7 hours ago
BOLLOCKS !!!
If a lethal dose of Potassium Cyanide is about the size of a pea, then imagine that a
lethal dose of Sarin is about the size of a full stop (period).
Now we have to change scales and assume that the lethal dose of Sarin is the size of a
baseball, then the lethal dose of VX is now smaller than the aforementioned full stop
(period).
Unfortunately we have to change scales again to consider Novichok. So the Potassium
Cyanide lethal dose becomes the size of a seriously over-inflated basketball, while the sarin
lethal dose is struggling to look like a poorly endowed baseball. The VX lethal dose is a lot
smaller than a marble. The Novichok lethal dose is still smaller than the full stop
(period).
Seriously lethal, and pretty quick acting it has the same symptoms as most nerve agents
which are designed to destroy the bodies ability to transmit nerve signals via acetyocholine
and cholinesterase. You get pinpoint pupils, convulsions, asphyxiation, etc and of course,
most importantly death. If you survive, typically by injecting Atropine, then the damage to
the nervous system may well still be permanent and you will never really recover.
Military NBCD training gives you 9 seconds to get your gas mask on and a further minute to
get into the full activated carbon NBCD suit, after this you then have to decontaminate all
over with a neutraliser like Fuller's Earth.
How the fcuk have three people now survived being poisoned by this monstrous chemical,
while all showing different symptoms and two of them disappeared of the face of the
earth.
As I said at the start, complete and utter bollocks
AlphaSnail , 7 hours ago
+ 1000 ups
BaNNeD oN THe RuN , 5 hours ago
I could do a thousand ups with your avatar.
serotonindumptruck , 8 hours ago
Navalny is clearly a see-eye-ay spy.
Water bottles?
I thought it was tea consumed at the Moscow airport?
One doesn't survive Novichok nerve agent poisoning, which is reputed to be 10 times more
deadly than VX nerve gas.
Can the Western intelligence agencies manage to get their narrative straight?
This was a massive false flag operation designed to shut down the Nord Stream II
pipeline.
greenskeeper carl , 8 hours ago
They really do think we are stupid. I could make a long list of people who benefit from
his being 'poisoned' but Putin is not on there.
Vivekwhu , 8 hours ago
The NATO gangsters are banking on the Plebs being too hooked on football and the
Kardassians.
gatorengineer , 8 hours ago
Yes they really do think we are that stoopid, covid is proving to them how stoopid we
are.
SiFiUK , 7 hours ago
I truly believe that there were several members of the elite questioning whether this
covid hoax was a stretch too far, and if the public really were that dumb. After seeing the
success of 'Phase 1' (to quote Gates), it is clear that even the skeptics among them agree
that the public deserves everything they get.
How can any of us deny that anyone falling for this BS doesn't deserve to get poisoned by
the vaccine?
4Y_LURKER , 8 hours ago
I like how all these people are supposedly being poisoned by a deadly nerve agent but are
all living, this is better than worldcup soccer drama queens. Russia!
gatorengineer , 8 hours ago
6 billion died from covid so far, just as amazing...
4Y_LURKER , 2 hours ago
Plot twist: we all died during COVID it was the salmon
BlindMonkey , 8 hours ago
Deadly nerve agent is on the water bottles and they are just sitting around on a hospital
table and nobody around them dies?
How is this supposed to be remotely believable?
BigJim , 6 hours ago
Hotel room... but yeah, the story sucks
BlindMonkey , 2 hours ago
Pic looks like a hospital bed. YMMV
John Hansen , 8 hours ago
Pretty easy to slip stuff past the KGB considering they haven't existed for over 20
years.
bill_bly , 6 hours ago
They still do (under that name) in Belarus, but your point is valid.
AriusArmenian , 6 hours ago
Sure, Russia attempted to kill him with Novichok which didn't work then let's him go to
Germany so that they can blame Russia. This is over the top stupid.
And in the West most people believe it. It must be a kind of IQ Test to show just how
gullible most people are.
Yamaoka Tesshu , 6 hours ago
After the Skripal circus in the UK, I doubt anybody buys it.
BaNNeD oN THe RuN , 5 hours ago
Not so, anyone who only gets their news from the MSM will believe it.
josie0802 , 6 hours ago
Sounds like a ten year old attempting to write a detective novel.
abee , 7 hours ago
Navalny is an idiot
lucitanian , 6 hours ago
True, but the German government is showing itself to be more than an idiot.
BetaGap , 5 hours ago
Seems like in Germany you can present everything to the people there.
Putin poisened Navalny.
The sky is green.
Invaders are refugees.
etc. etc. etc.
44magnum , 5 hours ago
German zio occupational government
Volkodav , 6 hours ago
Addict
Yamaoka Tesshu , 6 hours ago
That would depend on how much they pay him.
hzp , 8 hours ago
How can you tell if Putin ordered the poisoning or not? he still alive!!!
Joe A , 7 hours ago
How fast does this poison work because he got the symptoms on the plane. Some sources says
if works after 30 seconds to 2 minutes.
It must have been a couple of hours since he left his hotel room before he developed the
symptoms on the plane. How many hours are there between him leaving the hotel room or
drinking the water and the development of symptoms? Did he check out? Did he keep the hotel
room? If the poison was in the water bottle in the hotel room and he drank it there then he
should have developed the symptoms there.
Yamaoka Tesshu , 4 hours ago
From what I've read the stuff shuts you down right away. Read, mind you. But they did want
to kill him. The note from Putin had vodka spilled on it, and the operatives saw "n" and "k"
and assumed it was like last time. VVP actually wrote "nunchuck", figuring they should keep
it simple this time.
ooobie , 8 hours ago
simply not credible, not a word of it. It was a set up with some other non-deadly
substance, making him sick but not killing him. Doubt he was aware, but somebody involved in
his group did this for the p.r. value as NATO drivels over the thought of adding Belarus to
the Hate Russia coalition, a NATO umbrella group.
humbug , 5 hours ago
So let's assume they poisoned him with the old "Novichok" calling card - which they also
would know would backfire on Nordstream 2 and give the USA (Russia's main geopolitical enemy)
an opportunity to sell its more expensive gas exports to the EU instead, long term, pushing
them out the market for good.
Bollocks!!
JackBurton , 5 hours ago
Exactly..zero benefit for Russia to do this. Just another wrench to throw in the
spokes..
CriticalUser , 4 hours ago
The benefit is a frightening warning to Putins' political opponents. Putin has seen what
is happening in Belarus.
Argon1 , 3 hours ago
By all accounts he wishes it would collapse already, its come around with a begging bowl
after decades of oligarch rule.
bluez , 7 hours ago
This is simply a dirt cheap way for the Germans to placate the USSA. Everybody with a
brain larger than a walnut knows that this absurd narrative is unenforceable. It won't change
anything, and the pipeline will be completed.
If the Russians were going to poison somebody one might suppose that they would try
something else. It would be plain stupid to just keep using 'Novichok®' over and
over.
44magnum , 5 hours ago
Especially if it doesn't kill anyone
lucitanian , 6 hours ago
The fact that German government officials at ministerial level are trying to hold up this
farce of a story that Navalny was poisoned by Novichok and that the Russian government is to
blame is simply incredible.
As someone else bellow pointed out. At 11:45 (according to the bedside clock) at the hotel
when Navalny must have left 4 or 5 hours earlier, how did they know that he would lnd up sick
in Germany since that was only clear 2 days later? Also the chain of evidence is soooo
unreliable. A total joke to even call it evidence.
The German government has been made to look totally stupid. Who's idea was it to go down
this rabbit hole?
jmNZ , 6 hours ago
Like the UK government, they're vassals of the US.
VZ58 , 7 hours ago
Man oh man...you'd think that MI6/CIA would get their act together and use some actually
deadly "Russian Novichok" from their lab in Porton Down the next time they want a do another
Skripal! Oh wait, I see...they don't want their assets like Navalny or the Skripals to
actually die...
Vivekwhu , 8 hours ago
Stage-managed or what? The US Evil Empire is really desperate to stop Nordstream II. Now I
know what to do the next time I go to the hotel in the UK. I could make a killing out of the
UK government and become a star in the Russia, China, Iran etc.
I could scream "Boris poisoned me with "Etonian mineral spring water, laced with VX".
And all because I criticised him for having too many babies.
To the NATO nutjobs who planned this farce: only those drunk and drugged (half of the
US/EU population) are stupid enough to believe these anti_Russian RACIST propaganda
farts.
Egao , 7 hours ago
This is evidence tampering :) now Russian state can rightfully deny any potential
liability as the bottles were extracted illegally by Navalny's subordinates without due
custody chain and could be replaced at any point of time. Not to mention that his stuff is
one of the most interested parties and had real motive to poison Navalny.
Jgault , 7 hours ago
Except that the russian state is the only known manufacturer of novochok in the
world...where did that come from?
bluez , 7 hours ago
I had a chemist girlfriend who made Novichok® every Saturday night. A tiny touch of
that with a heroic helping of fine hash gives incredible sexual results.
bluez , 7 hours ago
Holy smokes! Man you have no clue what you missed out on!
Volkodav , 7 hours ago
Wrong
simpson seers , 5 hours ago
are you really and truly that stupid?.....
AlphaSnail , 7 hours ago
you dont need proof when you can issue a press release.
Banjo , 6 hours ago
An anonymous sourced one even better.
DEDA CVETKO , 8 hours ago
In related news, a squadron of flying piglets defects from Belarus to Saudi Arabia.
tranium , 8 hours ago
That's it. NO Nord Stream 2 for you!
researchfix , 8 hours ago
That´s quite o.k.
Citizens will pay 3 times in energy cost, because industry will be excluded from raising
cost.
The cost of being dumb...
xrxs , 8 hours ago
Molecules of freedom ain't free.
QABubba , 6 hours ago
And the winner of the Academy Award for best Documentary is: "The White Helmets," err,
"Alexia Navalny and Co."
blitzen69 , 7 hours ago
navalny, the russian version of macron...just another rothschild punk assed b*tch
xxyyzzsmith , 5 hours ago
Being a Yale World Fellow and having a daughter at Stanford. No chance of his being a
stooge for other interests hoping for color revolution in Russia?
CriticalUser , 5 hours ago
You think Putin's daughter lives in Russia? Think again!
CatInTheHat , 2 hours ago
Why YES so glad you asked!
The US tiny hats are all freaking out as it looks as?if no maidan in Belarus is going to
take place.
A little bit of pressure on Russia to let Lukashenko go and maybe then they will get to
keep their pipeline.
Russia is no fool. They will continue to support Belarus and Lukashenko so that the US
cannot plunder it and put nukes on it's border with Russia.
Putin played his hand beautifully.
BaNNeD oN THe RuN , 5 hours ago
Riddle me this. If the KGB (really the FSB now, but why quibble) conducted the attempted
poison via a water bottle, would they also not clean up the crime scene after.
Are we to believe they are that incompetent on both counts?
No, whatever traces of Novi-whatever were found on the bottle was applied in Germany.
I trust whoever did it got extra hazard pay ;-)
ComeOnThink , 3 hours ago
Not to mention the same problem with the Skripal narrative - how can you get a nerve agent
into your system and not show symptoms until several hours later?
How does that work, exactly?
If you hit a fly with an insecticide does he happily fly around for hours afterwards and
then - hello! I'm not feeling well - drop dead?
Or does it start to show symptoms of distress almost instantly?
CatInTheHat , 2 hours ago
Did you know that when first responders were called about the Skripals the first thing
they said as they were getting Skripals to hospital was that they suspected FENTANYL
overdose.
ComeOnThink , 1 hour ago
Sure. But regardless of whether it is Fentanyl or Novichok, how is anyone expected to
believe that you can get the stuff into your system and NOT show effects for several hours
after exposure/ingesting/whatever.
It simply doesn't happen.
You get something nasty like that in your system then you get sick very, very quickly.
I have no doubt - none whatsoever - that whatever it was that made the Skripals sick was
administered to them in that park. And it acted so quickly that neither of them had any time
to react or cry for help.
Fentanyl? Novichok? Take your pick, but whatever it was that incapacitated them was
administered minutes before they were found slumped on that bench.
Same with Navalny: if he was poisoned (which is not a given) then it was done on that
plane, it was not done hours beforehand in his hotel room.
Did you know this: six members of his entourage hopped on that plane with him, and all six
of them stayed with him until he got to Germany. Five are still by his side, and one of them
has skipped town.
This one: Maria Pevchikh.
The first opportunity that presented itself she fled back to where she came from.
Which is not Moscow, but London.
Makes you think, doesn't it?
jmNZ , 6 hours ago
Navalny = Skripal 2
I wonder which patsy will be Skripal 3?
Yamaoka Tesshu , 6 hours ago
Does he have a cat? They can always recycle the Skripals' "crisis actor" cat. It has
experience "dying".
I don't get it, how are we supposed to be afraid of the Russians if they can't pull off a
simple poisoning? I was told now, they didn't even whack the kitty.
fnsnook , 7 hours ago
.....and a pristine russian passport and kgb identification was found on the bathroom
counter in the room.
Volkodav , 5 hours ago
KGB ID find would top this to ridiculous greatness.
gatorengineer , 8 hours ago
So MI-6 did it?
Indiana Militia , 8 hours ago
Our pathetic government has been murdering people non stop for decades, and they have the
nerve to act offended at something Putin does? You have got to be kidding me.
They have no problem with Saudi Arabia blowing up school buses full of children, or
chopping people up into pieces with a bone saw in foreign embassies. But God forbid the
Russians killing some pathetic CIA stooge trying to destroy their nation from within. Though
we all know it isn't true anyway.
They lock Kyle Rittenhouse up for daring to defend fellow Americans that they abandoned
from communist terrorists, while giving a pass to Israel who has been murdering people non
stop for 80 years. Oh how I truly hate them.
SMC , 5 hours ago
LOL... propaganda for idiots.
Sokhmate , 6 hours ago
Damn. I can spot the Novichonga particles in that picture. Damn Pesky Rooshians.
cashback , 6 hours ago
And the evidence point to CIA/MI6
CrazzeTimes4all , 7 hours ago
Aaah the classic False Flag.
It's pretty pathetic for the US to use an unsuccessful poisoning as leverage to sidetrack
Nordstream 2.
The empire's collapsing, so it's time to threaten the whole planet...either you deal
exclusively with us OR ELSE!!
PS Is killing someone really this difficult!?
JUICE E SMALL IT EMPIRE , 8 hours ago
It could go both ways. The only way I think that is because of the wine and chocolate.
However, I think if Russia wanted him dead. He would be dead. Putin is not in the business of
fighting with the USA.
ComeOnThink , 3 hours ago
Laughable.
Note this: "A video posted by Navalny's team on his Instagram page showed them searching
Navalny's room at the Xander Hotel in Tomsk on Aug. 20, an hour after they were informed
about his illness."
Navalny was in a Russian hospital on August 20. It wasn't agreed that he would be released
to the Germans until the day after.
Now note this: "It was decided to gather up everything that could even hypothetically be
useful and hand it to the doctors in Germany. The fact that the case would not be
investigated in Russia was quite obvious."
Dudes, he wasn't *in* Germany at the time that you were claiming to be rummaging around in
his hotel room collecting stuff for the Germans.
He was in a Russian hospital, and as far as you could have known at that time that's where
he was going to stay.
Honestly, this is amateur-hour stuff.
Moribundus , 3 hours ago
Immodestly, I still consider myself an expert in organic chemistry.
Of course, organophosphates were also a part of my studies, not only military grade
poisons, but also pesticides and toxicology.
When using nerve-paralytic combat poisons, such as Sarin, Soman, Tabun, VX, IVA, Novichok and
many others, it is not a problem to kill someone. The problem is the opposite rather than
poisoning someone so that he does not die.
Let's go to toxicity. Kim Jong-nam died after being hit with one drop of the American
neuroparalytic substance VX. The literature states that Novichok is 5-8 times more toxic than
American VX, the Germans even report that he is up to 10 times more toxic than VX. So what
tiny dose would Skripals and Navalny have to receive to survive?
After exposure to neuro-paralytic agents, death usually occurs within minutes of this point.
Death occurs rapidly, regardless of whether the substance has been ingested, inhaled, or
passed through the skin, which is no problem for these substances.
Even the evaporation of a single drop in an enclosed space or the inhalation of a single
grain (in the case of a solid, non-liquid version of Novichok) will cause death within a few
minutes. By blocking cholinesterase, these substances cause incredibly severe cramps, so
severe that the victim can break a own bone in the cramp; they also block the respiratory and
smooth muscles, in short, everything that is normally caused by nervous excitement.
After being poisoned by Novichok, the Skripals calmly walkec and sit on park bench and
Navalny calmly boarded the plane. Does anyone want to claim such crap to me, an organic
chemist? What is this dirty game of politicians?
The only person, the Russian chemist Andrei Zeleznakov, who was demonstrably hit by Novichok
(a small dose) and immediately received an antidote, still died within 5 years of a total
disruption of the nervous system. And Skripal's take took relax and grin into the lenses of
journalists.
How long do you want to feed common people with this myths about Novichok and the evil
Russians who are removing by them their opponents?
As a chemist, I say: if Navalny had been poisoned by Novichok, the only article you would
write about him, journalists, would be about his funeral.
And finally: how did the Germans identify that this was poisoning by Novichok? They claim
that they never made it. How they identified, when spectra were needed to identify it, at
least from infrared, mass and UV-VIS spectroscopy. However, reference spectra can only be
measured from a pure, real sample. So, as neither the Germans nor the British ever produced
Novichok, where did they have the reference spectra with which they made comparisons of the
samples of the Navalny and Skripals?
Without this (without comparing the spectra) it is not possible to reliably identify the
substance. So you can choose:
1) Neither the Germans nor the British found any Novichok in the bodies of the Navalny and
Skripals, they just launched a dirty media campaign against Russia, or
2) The Germans and the British know Novichok, they produce it by themselves, and therefore
they have spectra from it. Then they are dirty liars again, when they claim that they do not
have it, did not have, or never produced Novichok. So they are either lying in the first or
second point, but the result is still the same, they are liars. And stupid, sensational
greedy journalists help them spread these lies among the common people.
Berkleyboy , 3 hours ago
Thank you for this informative response
Itinerant , 1 hour ago
They are claiming to have found Novichok in Navalny's urine, skin, blood, and water
bottle.
Any such poison is quickly metabolized (otherwise it doesn't work), and you will never find
anything but trace metabolites (especially after days of delay), which can never establish
what the exact precursor poison was. That is why they need an environmental sample, such as
the water bottle. The story of finding traces in urine are technically impossible.
What I find confusing is that this story is coming out now when the shift to the water
bottle was reported quite a few days ago...
skippy dinner , 5 hours ago
Well, I guess they did a slightly better job of it than "Jucy" Smollett. But the idea was
much the same.
No. Hold the pictures next to each other. Significant differences...
vincenze , 4 hours ago
Try to make the image smaller and rotate it a little bit.
Also, his wife has a smaller head compared to his in other photos, unlike in the
photo.
Yamaoka Tesshu , 4 hours ago
Good catch. They're too lazy even for a quick photop.
CatInTheHat , 2 hours ago
My GOD her head does look photo shopped.
Notice also no equipment behind them looks as if it has been used. And his bed looks
fresh. As if never slept in.
UndercoverBrother , 6 hours ago
Putin is laughing his *** off
/any time you can use that remark is a good time
MAD_EYE_STARE , 7 hours ago
Jeez...he looks great....like he's been at a spa or something.
What a pissy weak nerve agent that was....
St. TwinkleToes , 7 hours ago
Fake poisoning just like the fake plandemic.
What's with all the fakery?
Is their a master plan for all this bs?
Its getting phucing old, and I'm not buying into this bs anymore.
File under: Propaganda, Disinformation, Fake News.
JPHR , 8 hours ago
Actually using the Skripal hoax as "proof" for this Skripa 2.0 Navanlny hoax can only be
facilitated by a completely moronic MSM press lacking any measure of common sense.
Sorry, run that by me again: Navalny swigged some nerve agent in his hotel room in Tromsk,
THEN travelled to the airport, THEN had a cup of tea, THEN boarded his flight, and only THEN
became sick?
How does that work again?
I can - maybe - understand a slow-acting poison that is in pill-form. Maybe.
But not a nerve agent that you ingest by drinking. The results are instant.
Honestly, you have to be a moron to buy this story.
BTW, who waves goodbye to their boss and then hangs around the hotel room for hours
afterwards?
Kaiama , 4 hours ago
So even before they knew he had been poisoned they already bagged the "evidence"
themselves and "smuggled it" past the KGB? Are we all born yesterday? This is an admission
that this was a planned provocation.
Woodenman , 4 hours ago
I think Russia should really kill a few people with Novichok and throw the U.S. and Europe
for a loop when Russia does what they are always accused of.
Berkleyboy , 3 hours ago
I could offer up a few names if it would help
VZ58 , 1 hour ago
Could start with an old Hungarian )ew...
WTFUD , 5 hours ago
Do not let this Guaidoesque like puppet back into Russia.
cowdogg , 6 hours ago
Did they look for evidence in Navalny's office in the US embassy in Moscow?
JeanTrejean , 6 hours ago
Questions ? ;
1) Doesn't they clean the rooms after the client check out the Hotel ?
2) Didn't the eventually killers, clean and supress all traces, as soon Navaltny left
?
3) Are they allowed to fly with bottles...?
4) Doesn't this extremely dangerous poison infected others person, at the hotel, at the
fly,...?
CriticalUser , 5 hours ago
1) Room cleaning doesn't happen immediately after departure of the client
2) Not necessarly
3) Bottles can be carried without problem in check-in luggage
4) Not if there is no physical contact. It's a nerve agent not a gas.
"... German Chancellor Angela Merkel personally announced at a press conference last week that a chemical weapons laboratory of the Bundeswehr (Armed Forces) had proved "beyond doubt" that Navalny was the victim of an attack using the Novichok nerve agent. She called on the Russian government to answer "very serious questions." ..."
"... At a special session of the Parliamentary Control Committee, which meets in secret, representatives of the German government and the secret services left no doubt, according to media reports, that the poisoning of Navalny had been carried out by Russian state authorities, with the approval of the Russian leadership. The poison was said to be a variant of the warfare agent -- one even more dangerous than that used in the Skripal case in Britain. It purportedly could enter the body simply through inhalation, and its production and use required skills possessed only by a state actor. ..."
"... Excerpt of an article by Peter Schwarz published by wsws.org ..."
The relationship between Germany and Russia has reached its lowest point since Berlin
supported the pro-Western coup in Ukraine six years ago and Russia subsequently annexed the
Crimean Peninsula.
The German government is openly accusing the Russian state of poisoning opposition
politician Alexei Navalny, who is currently in Berlin's Charité Clinic. He reportedly
awoke from a coma on Monday.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel personally announced at a press conference last week
that a chemical weapons laboratory of the Bundeswehr (Armed Forces) had proved "beyond doubt"
that Navalny was the victim of an attack using the Novichok nerve agent. She called on the
Russian government to answer "very serious questions."
At a special session of the Parliamentary Control Committee, which meets in secret,
representatives of the German government and the secret services left no doubt, according to
media reports, that the poisoning of Navalny had been carried out by Russian state authorities,
with the approval of the Russian leadership. The poison was said to be a variant of the warfare
agent -- one even more dangerous than that used in the Skripal case in Britain. It purportedly
could enter the body simply through inhalation, and its production and use required skills
possessed only by a state actor.
Germany and the European Union are threatening Russia with sanctions. The German government
has even questioned the completion of the almost finished Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline,
which it had categorically defended against pressure from the US and several Eastern European
states.
The German media has gone into propaganda mode, repeating the accusations against Russian
President Vladimir Putin with a thousand variations. Seventy-nine years after Hitler's invasion
of the Soviet Union, which claimed more than 25 million lives, German journalists and
politicians, in editorials, commentaries and on talk shows, speak with the arrogance of people
who are already planning the next military campaign against Moscow.
Anyone who expresses doubts or contradicts the official narrative is branded a "conspiracy
theorist." This is what happened to Left Party parliamentarian Sevim Dagdelen, among others, on
Sunday evening's "Anne Will" talk show. The Christian Democratic Union (CDU) foreign policy
expert Norbert Röttgen, the head of the Munich Security Conference Wolfang Ischinger and
former Green Party Environment Minister Jürgen Trittin sought to outstrip one another in
their accusations against the Russian government. When Dagdelen gently pointed out that, so
far, no evidence whatsoever has been presented identifying the perpetrators, she was accused of
"playing games of confusion" and "encouraging unspeakable conspiracy theories."
The Russian government denies any responsibility in the Navalny case. It questions whether
Navalny was poisoned at all and has called on the German government to "show its cards" and
present evidence. Berlin, according to Moscow, is bluffing for dirty political
reasons.
Contradictory and implausible
Evidence of the involvement of the Russian state is as contradictory as it is
implausible.
For example, the German authorities have so far published no information or handed evidence
to Russian investigators identifying the chemical with which Navalny was poisoned. Novichok is
merely a generic term for several families of warfare agents.
No explanation has been given as to why no one else showed signs of poisoning from a nerve
agent that is fatal even in the tiniest amounts, if touched or inhaled. Navalny had had contact
with numerous people between the time he boarded the airplane on which he fainted, his entering
the clinic in Omsk where he was first treated, and his transfer to the Charité hospital
in Berlin.
This is only one of many unexplained anomalies in the German government's official story.
Career diplomat Frank Elbe, who headed the office of German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich
Genscher for five years and negotiated the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons as
head of the German delegation in Geneva from 1983 to 1986, wrote on Facebook on Friday: "I am
surprised that the Federal Ministry of Defence concludes that the nerve agent Novichok was used
against Navalny."
Novichok, he wrote, belongs "to the group of super-toxic lethal substances that cause
immediate death." It made no sense, he argued, to modify a nerve poison that was supposed to
kill instantly in such a way that it did not kill, but left traces behind allowing its
identification as a nerve agent.
There was something strange about this case, Elbe said. "Either the perpetrators -- whoever
they might be -- had a political interest in pointing to the use of nerve gas, or foreign
laboratories were jumping to conclusions that are in line with the current general negative
attitude towards Russia."
The assertion that only state actors can handle Novichok is also demonstrably false. The
poison was sold in the 1990s for small sums of money to Western secret services and economic
criminals, and the latter made use of it. For example, in 1995, the Russian banker Ivan
Kiwelidi and his secretary were poisoned with it. The chemist Leonid Rink confessed at the time
in court that he had sold quantities to criminals sufficient to kill hundreds of people. Since
the binary poisons are very stable, they can last for decades.
The Navalny case is not the reason, but the pretext for a new stage in the escalation of
German great power politics and militarism. The media hysteria over Navalny is reminiscent of
the Ukrainian crisis of 2014, when the German press glorified a coup d'état carried out
by armed fascist militias as a "democratic revolution."
Social Democrat Frank-Walter Steinmeier, then foreign minister and now German president,
personally travelled to Kiev to persuade the pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, to
resign.
He also met with the fascist politician Oleh Tyahnybok, whose Swoboda Party glorifies Nazi
collaborators from World War II. Yanukovych's successor, Petro Poroshenko, one of the country's
richest oligarchs, was even more corrupt than his predecessor. He terrorised his opponents with
fascist militias, such as the infamous Azov regiment. But he brought Ukraine into NATO's sphere
of influence, which was the real purpose of the coup.
In the weeks before the Ukrainian coup, leading German politicians (including then-President
Joachim Gauck and Steinmeier) had announced a far-reaching reorientation of German foreign
policy. The country was too big "to comment on world politics from the sidelines," they
declared. Germany had to defend its global interests, including by military means.
NATO marched steadily eastward into Eastern Europe, breaking the agreements made at the time
of German reunification in 1990. For the first time since 1945, German soldiers today patrol
the border with Russia. With Ukraine's shift into the Western camp, Belarus is the only
remaining buffer country between Russia and NATO.
Berlin now sees the protests against the Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko as an
opportunity to remove this hurdle as well. Unlike in Ukraine, where anti-Russian nationalists
exerted considerable influence, especially in the west of the country, such forces are weaker
in Belarus, where the majority speaks Russian. The working class is playing a greater role in
the resistance to the Lukashenko regime than it did in Ukraine. But Berlin is making targeted
efforts to steer the movement in a pro-Western direction. Forces that appeal for Western
support, such as the presidential candidate Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, are being
promoted.
The dispute over the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, whose discontinuation is
being demanded by more and more German politicians, must also be seen in this context. It was a
strategic project from the very beginning.
The natural gas pipeline, which will double the capacity of Nord Stream 1, which began
operations in 2011, will make Germany independent of the pipelines that run through Ukraine,
Poland and Belarus. These countries not only earn transit fees from the pipelines but have also
used then as a political lever.
With a total capacity of 110 billion cubic metres per year, Nord Stream 1 and 2 together
would carry almost all of Germany's annual gas imports. However, the gas is also to be
transported from the German Baltic Sea coast to other countries.
In addition to Russia's Gazprom, German, Austrian, French and Dutch energy companies are
participating in the financing of the project, which will cost almost €10 billion. The
chairman of the board of directors is former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder (Social
Democratic Party), who is a friend of President Putin.
Nord Stream 2 is meeting with fierce opposition in Eastern Europe and the US. These
countries fear a strategic alliance between Berlin and Moscow. In December of last year, the US
Congress passed a law imposing severe sanctions on companies involved in the construction of
the pipeline -- an unprecedented move against nominal allies. The nearly completed construction
came to a standstill because the company operating the special ship for laying the pipes
withdrew. Berlin and Moscow protested vehemently against the US sanctions and agreed to
continue construction with Russian ships, which, however, will not be available until next year
at the earliest.
Excerpt of an article by Peter Schwarz published by wsws.org
That's according to Maximilian Krah, a member of the European Parliament from the
Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. The "obscure" case involving the alleged poisoning
of Navalny has been used by the EU establishment to launch another round of Moscow-bashing, he
says.
The lawmaker explained that his fellow MEPs had not, in fact, seen a single piece of
evidence suggesting the Russian government might have had a hand in what happened to
Navalny.
We don't have the evidence... none of the members of parliament who today voted in
favor of sanctions has seen any evidence.
Krah said it was "unrealistic" to expect that Navalny's case would not be
politicized, arguing that it was "absolutely clear" it was being used to push an
anti-Moscow agenda.
On Thursday morning, the EU Parliament passed a resolution calling on member states to
"isolate Russia in international forums," to "halt the Nord Stream 2 project" and
to prioritize the approval of another round of sanctions against Moscow.
The MEP also expressed skepticism about the prospects of the broader public ever getting to
see any evidence linking the opposition figure's sudden illness to Russian foul play.
"Evidence will only get published and provided to Russia if there is public
pressure," he said, adding that he does not see any such pressure building anywhere in the
EU. Until that changes, Berlin is likely to continue demanding "answers" from Moscow
while holding off on requests by Russian for cooperation, Krah believes.
The German MEP also weighed in on the fate of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, suggesting that
the alleged poisoning could work to Washington's benefit, given that the White House has been
seeking to undermine the project, liking Russian gas to Germany, for months. Krah said it was
"clear from the beginning" that the US would try to use the situation to scupper the
project, which he says would make Germany "more independent from American
influence."
The EU resolution, which is not legally binding but acts as an advisory for the bloc's
leaders, was supported by 532 MEPs and opposed by 84, while 72 abstained. Fresh sanctions
against Russia have been mulled by both the EU and US since news about Navalny's alleged
poisoning was made public.
Moscow has repeatedly expressed its readiness to cooperate with Germany in the probe into
the incident, while stressing that the Russian medics who first treated Navalny when he fell
ill found no traces of any poison in his body. The Kremlin has also repeatedly approached
Berlin for data possessed by the German side, but has so far received none.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Dachaguy 8 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 02:02 PM
Of course, the investigation is incomplete, but that doesn't stop the EU from levying
"justice." We've seen this before in the Downing Street Memos, where the facts were, "being
fixed around the policy. " Millions of innocent people died as a result. When will people
learn?
Jeff_P 4 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 06:01 PM
There should be an international commission to look into this false flag. It should be
comprised of Russia and Germany, of course, but no other NATO or European countries and no US
vassal states other than Germany. Other members could be Cuba, China, Venezuela, and maybe
India. And, of course, the US playbook of assignment of guilt without the benefit of evidence
and the exacting of penalties without proving guilt won't fly. Russia might just tell Europe
to go FO and leave PACE and the other organizations that it supports but which insist on
abusing it.
perikleous 6 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 04:09 PM
If Russia was determined they would say you cannot delay NSII or we cut the Ukraine pipeline
as well, its all or none! Tick Tock Tick Tok, winter is coming soon! Hopefully the Covid 19
won't delay the fuel ships your relying on or the workers who procure the fuel, you know a
2nd wave... is "Highly Likely" and its taking over in the rural areas where the fuel comes
from! Present evidence to a poisoning directed by either the fuel company or the gov't and we
will continue, or just tell your "handlers" go ***, because I do not recall the US severing
weapons sales to Saudi Arabia after Admission to them Severing the head off of (J. Koshoggei)
because the US profits/jobs are bigger than one WaPo Journalists life! Hypocracy in action!
Shelbouy 6 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 03:46 PM
Germany has offered to help pay for the construction of two LNG terminals in Germany to the
tune of 1 billion plus to the US. to receive US LNG. The US in turn has said then they would
not interfere with the completion of Nord Stream 2 if this were to take place. I am
suggesting that Germany then would have 30% cheaper Russian gas than US LNG, blend these two
prices, hi cost US LNG and low cost Russian gas of Nord Stream 2, and sell to the EU
consumers at a price which would likely be higher than the current rate today, and who would
be the wiser, and who would consumers blame when the price of gas goes up instead of down.
This may, at least temporarily, appease the US while at the same time ensure the completion
of the cheaper Russian supply line, and prevent the diversion of Russian gas to other
customer nations like China, and Germany laughs all the way to the bank. This is only
speculation on my part because I do not know if it would work that way or not. If it did then
Germany would have their cake and eat it. The offer of Germany to the US is however, a fact.
The reasons behind this offer are speculative. After all, it's really all about money anyway.
perikleous Shelbouy 5 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 04:16 PM
The US would demand a contract/commitment for the fuel based on your yearly usage currently,
if you re neg, they still bill you for it! Then its handled in court while your bank accounts
are frozen and none of the US debt to you is paid until this is resolved. You may win the
hearing/court but the losses from not having access to that money will cost way more!
HimandI 4 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 05:47 PM
Just more proof that the EU rulers are bought and paid prostitutes.
Jayeshkumar 6 minutes ago 17 Sep, 2020 10:03 PM
May be EU is indirectly suggesting to use the 2nd Pipeline to be used Exclusively for
Transporting the Hydrogen, in the Future!
Congozebilu 2 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 08:06 PM
From the first minute this Navalny story broke I knew it was aimed at Nordstream. Everyone
who understands geopolitics and also US desperation to sell "freedom gas" knows that
Nordstream was the intended target this Navalny clown show.
ivoivo 1 hour ago 17 Sep, 2020 09:00 PM
apparently there are evidence found in a trash can in his hotel room in omsk, they poisoned
him with novichock in a water they gave it to him and discard a paper cup in a trash can,
standard kremlins procedure, isn't it, what is happening to world intelligence, russians
can't kill some dude that is actually not even important and americans can't stop russian
hackers in meddling in us election
"... But CNN has and will continue to repeat the allegations as fact, so it's mission accomplished for the deep state. As another poster said on this board about manufacturing consent: "It is important to discuss the story, not its credibility, the more the discussion, the more the reaction and the more it reinforces the narrative." ..."
"... In the 1920s (or 30s), far-rightist Karl Popper coined the concept of systematic manipulation of "public opinion". This would become a hallmark of Western Civilization in the post-war. The public opinion theory states that the masses don't have an opinion for themselves or, if they have, it is sculpting/flexible. The dominant classes can, therefore, guide the masses like a shepherd, to its will. ..."
"... It is an insult to the noble profession, to call what the mainstream media in the west, especially in the USA do, journalism. In my opinion what they do is propaganda and stenography on behalf of those who are in power. I am not sure who coined the term but "presstitution" is not a bad attempt at describing their profession. ..."
"... While the western corporate media lie on a continuous basis - and that has the predictable effect - what is more insidious is not these acts of commissions ( meaning lies), but their acts of omission (meaning excluding or deemphasizing important contextual information) leading people to make the wrong conclusions. NPR in the US is an excellent example of such presstitution. ..."
"... Why are the US promoting conflict with China, with Russia? Why are they beating Europe, maybe with the intention to destroy it? Why is a new civil war in the US promoted? ..."
"... Normal (geopolitically interested) people would think: against China it is better to come together and unite, at least US & Europe, but eventually Russia included. For instance take the population of these three together: far less than China's. ..."
"... Journalism in the US is so superficial, it is a drop above the uppermost wavy comb. Not worth to pay attention to it. ..."
"... Other than few independent blog site such as this, every media outlet is in the service of its home government or foreign sponsors. Only born-suckers take the corporate media at face value. Modern journalism is nothing but an aggressive propaganda racket. ..."
"... Using lies (bearing false witness) to cause murder and theft are not exactly a new phenomenon. These 'groups of individuals', which are employing these fabricated deceptions, are doing nothing less than trying to commit murder and theft. ..."
"... Everything that was accomplished (albeit incompletely or moderately) through the New Deal and then the abortive Great Society absolutely spooked the oligarchy. Lifting much of the working class out of absolute wage slavery to the point where the next rung on Maslow's ladder was at least visible. And when it all culminated in the late 60's and early 70's with the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the Surface Mining act, and various labor protection measures, the wealthy owner class decided the proles had gained too much power to influence "their" captive government. ..."
"... What differs, however, is the presentation. Trump is criticized (not praised) for being allegedly soft on Russia and Biden criticized for being allegedly soft on China. This clever trick ensures that just about everybody is onboard the bash-China-and-Russia train. ..."
"... In a violently polarized society, with red-blue antagonism reaching ridiculous heights, people tend to act exclusively in contradiction to the cult figure they hate so much. ..."
"... I've been saying for years here to watch the documentary - Century of the Self. If you want to learn about and understand America, its all here. Government, Corporations, Consumerism, Militarism, Deep State, Psychology, Individual selfishness and mental illness. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s ..."
Every few days U.S. 'intelligence' and 'officials' produce fake claims about this or that
'hostile' country. U.S. media continue to reproduce those claims even if they bare any logic
and do not make any sense.
On June 27 the New York Times and the Washington Post published fake news
about
alleged Russian payments to the Taliban for killing U.S. troops.
[T]hat the story was obviously bullshit did not prevent Democrats in Congress, including
'Russiagate' swindler Adam Schiff, to bluster about it and to call for immediate briefings
and new
sanctions on Russia .
Just a day after it was published the main accusation, that Trump was briefed on the
'intelligence' died. The Director of National Intelligence, the National Security Advisor and
the CIA publicly rejected the claim. Then the rest of the story started to crumble. On June
2, just one week after it was launched, the story was
declared dead .
...
The NYT buried the above quoted dead corpse of the original story page A-19.
Despite that the Democrats
continued to use the fake story for attacks on Donald Trump.
Yesterday the commander of the U.S. forces in the Middle East
drove a stake though the heart of the dead corpse of the original story:
Two months after top Pentagon officials vowed to get to the bottom of whether the Russian
government
bribed the Taliban to kill American service members , the commander of troops in the
region says a detailed review of all available intelligence has not been able to corroborate
the existence of such a program.
"It just has not been proved to a level of certainty that satisfies me," Gen. Frank
McKenzie, commander of the U.S. Central Command, told NBC News. McKenzie oversees U.S. troops
in Afghanistan.
But as one fake news zombie finally dies others get resurrected. Politico's
'intelligence' stenographer Natasha Bertrand produced
this nonsensical claim :
The Iranian government is weighing an assassination attempt against the American ambassador
to South Africa, U.S. intelligence reports say, according to a U.S. government official
familiar with the issue and another official who has seen the intelligence.
News of the plot comes as Iran continues to seek ways to retaliate for President Donald
Trump's decision to kill a powerful Iranian general earlier this year, the officials said. If
carried out, it could dramatically ratchet up already serious tensions between the U.S. and
Iran and create enormous pressure on Trump to strike back -- possibly in the middle of a
tense election season.
U.S. officials have been aware of a general threat against the ambassador, Lana Marks,
since the spring, the officials said. But the intelligence about the threat to the ambassador
has become more specific in recent weeks. The Iranian Embassy in Pretoria is involved in the
plot, the U.S. government official said.
Ambassador Lana Marks is known for selling overpriced handbags and for her donations to Trump's campaign.
To Iran she has zero political or symbolic value. There is no way Iran would ever think about
an attack on such a target. Accordingly the South African intelligence services
do not believe that there is such a threat:
South African Minister of State Security Ayanda Dlodlo said the matter was "receiving the
necessary attention" and that the State Security Agency (SSA) was "interacting with all
relevant partners both in the country and abroad, to ensure that no harm will be suffered by
the US Ambassador, including any other Diplomatic Officials inside the borders of our
country."
However, an informed intelligence source told Daily Maverick that although the
"matter has been taken seriously as we approach all such threats, specifically, there appears
to be, from our perspective, no discernible threat. Least of all from the source that it
purports to emanate from.
There was "no evidence or indicator", the source said, so the plot was "not likely to be
real". The "associations made are not sustainable on any level but all precautions will be
put in place".
The source suggested this was an instance of the "tail wagging the dog", of the Trump
administration wielding a "weapon of mass distraction" to divert attention from its failures
in the election campaign running up to President Donald Trump's re-election bid on November
3.
The spokesperson for the Iranian ministry of foreign affairs, Saeed Khatibzadeh, strongly
denied the allegation in the Politico report which he called "hackneyed and worn-out
anti-Iran propaganda".
In January the U.S. assassinated the Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad. Soleimani
led the external campaigns of the Iranian Quds Forces. He was the one who orchestrated the
campaign that defeated the Islamic State. His mythic-symbolic position for Iran and the
resistance in the Middle East is beyond that of any U.S. figure.
There is simply no one in the U.S. military or political hierarchy who could be seen as his
equal. Iran has therefore announced that it will take other ways to revenge the assassination
of Soleimani.
As an immediate response to the assassination of Soleimani Iran
had launched a precise missile attack against two U.S. bases in Iraq. It has also announced
that it will make sure that the U.S. military will have to leave the Middle East. That program
is in full swing now as U.S. bases in Iraq are again coming under
daily missile attacks :
More than eight months after a barrage of rockets killed an American contractor and wounded
four American service members in Kirkuk, Iraq, militia groups continue to target U.S.
military bases in that country, and the frequency of those attacks has increased.
"We have had more indirect fire attacks around and against our bases the first half of
this year than we did the first half of last year," Gen. Frank McKenzie, the commander of the
U.S. Central Command, said. "Those attacks have been higher."
...
McKenzie's comments came just hours after he announced the United States would be cutting its
footprint in Iraq by almost half by the end of September, with about
2,200 troops leaving the country .
Just hours agon two Katyusha rockets were fired against the U.S.
embassy in Baghdad's Green Zone. Two British/U.S.convoys also came under attack . U.S. air
defense took the missiles down but its anti-missile fire is only further disgruntling the Iraqi
population.
These attacks are still limited and designed to not cause any significant casualties. But
they will continue to increase over time until the last U.S. soldier is withdrawn from
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and other Middle East countries. That, and only that, is the
punishment Iran promised as revenge for Soleimani's death.
The alleged Iranian thread against the U.S. ambassador to South Africa is just another fake
news propaganda story. It is useful only for lame blustering:
According to press reports, Iran may be planning an assassination, or other attack,
against the United States in retaliation for the killing of terrorist leader Soleimani, which
was carried out for his planning a future attack, murdering U.S. Troops, and the death &
suffering...
...caused over so many years. Any attack by Iran, in any form, against the United States will
be met with an attack on Iran that will be 1,000 times greater in magnitude!
The danger of such fake stories about Russia or Iran is that they might be used to justify a
response in the case of a false flag attack on the alleged targets.
Should something inconvenient happen to Ambassador Lana Marks the Trump administration could
use the fake story as an excuse to respond with a limited attack on Iran.
It is well known by now that U.S. President Donald Trump is lying about every time he opens
his mouth. Why do U.S. journalists presume that the agencies and anonymous officials who work
under him are more truthful in their utterings than the man himself is hard to understand. Why
do they swallow their bullshit?
Posted by b on September 15, 2020 at 11:50 UTC |
Permalink
US and European journalists are also lying constantly, that's why. Even when they make
embarrassing attempts at "being unbiased" or "factual". Do they understand it? Many might
not, but some do, perhaps fewer than anyone would think reasonable.
Btw a lot of these "journalists" in Europe in particular openly self-identify to "the
left" or even as socialists and communists or "greens". So much for ideology as some kind of
solution: entirely worthless and superficial.
But CNN has and will continue to repeat the allegations as fact, so it's mission
accomplished for the deep state. As another poster said on this board about manufacturing
consent:
"It is important to discuss the story, not its credibility, the more the discussion, the
more the reaction and the more it reinforces the narrative."
Just for laughs, I looked at the reviews of Gordon Chang's book, 'The Coming Economic
Collapse of China' to see if I could figure out the reasoning and one of the reviewers said
that China weakens because they lack a free press to hold their govt accountable. I had a
good laugh at that one.
In the 1920s (or 30s), far-rightist Karl Popper coined the concept of systematic manipulation of "public opinion".
This would become a hallmark of Western Civilization in the post-war. The public opinion theory states that the masses don't have an opinion for themselves or,
if they have, it is sculpting/flexible. The dominant classes can, therefore, guide the masses
like a shepherd, to its will.
Friedrich von Hayek - a colleague of Popper and father of British neoliberalism (the man
behind Thatcher) - then developed on the issue, by proposing the institutionalization of
public opinion. He proposed a system of three or four tiers of intellectuals which a
capitalist society should have. The first tier is the capitalist class itself, who would
govern the entire world anonymously, through secret meetings. These meetings would produce
secret reports, whose ideas would be spread to the second tier. The second tier is the
academia and the more prominent politicians and other political leaderships. The third tier
is the basic education teachers, who would indoctrinate the children. The fourth tier is the
MSM, whose job is to transform the ideas and opinions of the first tier into "common sense"
("public opinion").
Therefore, it's not a case where the Western journalists are being fooled. Their job was
never to inform the public. When they publish a lie about, say, Iran trying to kill an
American ambassador in South Africa, they are not telling a lie in their eyes: they are
telling an underlying truth through one thousand lies. The objective here is to convince
("teach") the American masses it is good for the USA if Iran was invaded and destroyed (which
is a truth). They are like the modern Christian God, who teach its subjects the Truth through
"mysterious ways".
It is an insult to the noble profession, to call what the mainstream media in the west,
especially in the USA do, journalism. In my opinion what they do is propaganda and
stenography on behalf of those who are in power. I am not sure who coined the term but
"presstitution" is not a bad attempt at describing their profession.
Unfortunately they have been amazingly successful in brainwashing people. One current
example, from numerous ones that could be cited, is the public's opinion on Julian Assange.
.
While the western corporate media lie on a continuous basis - and that has the predictable
effect - what is more insidious is not these acts of commissions ( meaning lies), but their
acts of omission (meaning excluding or deemphasizing important contextual information)
leading people to make the wrong conclusions. NPR in the US is an excellent example of such
presstitution.
What I am saying is nothing new to the bar flies here. But I am extremely distressed when
I see how poorly informed (propagandized, brainwashed) the vast majority of the people I know
are. Let's say a decade ago, ideological polarization was the main reason why it was so
difficult to have an open discussion on important issues the US. Today it has become even
more difficult because, thanks to the success of the presstitutes, people also have different
sets of "facts". And most alarmingly, after successfully creating a readership who believe in
alternative "facts", the mainstream presstitutes are moving on to creating a logic-free
narrative. Examples include Assad supposedly gassing his people when he was winning (even
though that was guaranteed to produce western intervention against him). A more recent
example is the Navalny affair. Sadly, very sadly, way too many people are affected.
Hi, thanks, and sorry, but: why does nobody look behind the curtain?
Why are the US promoting conflict with China, with Russia?
Why are they beating Europe, maybe with the intention to destroy it?
Why is a new civil war in the US promoted?
Are these random developments of history? Are laws of history behind that?
NO!! Surely not!
Normal (geopolitically interested) people would think: against China it is better to come
together and unite,
at least US & Europe, but eventually Russia included.
For instance take the population of these three together: far less than China's.
If something is going against the common sense, then there should be a reason behind.
This reason I recommend You, with due respect, to find - and to uncover the plan.
Journalism in the US is so superficial, it is a drop above the uppermost wavy comb.
Not worth to pay attention to it.
The actual demand is to understand and to show the forces playing deep underwater.
And to preview where these forces are determined to strike against.
A new report showing that US state-level voter databases were publicly available calls into
question the narrative that Russian intelligence "targeted" US state election-related
websites in 2016.
The problem with these sorts of accusations about "state-sponsored" hacking is they assume
that because a target has some connection to a state or some political activity that it means
the hackers are "nation-state". In reality, personal identification information (PII) is a
commodity on the black market, along with intellectual property - and *any* hacker will
target *any* such source of PII. So the mere fact that it is an election year, and that
voting organizations are loaded with PII, makes them an obvious target for any and every
hacker.
"Oregon's chief information security officer, Lisa Vasa, told the Washington Post in
September 2017 that her team blocks 'upwards of 14 million attempts to access our network
every day."'
This is the usual ridiculous claim from almost every organization. They treat every
Internet packet that hits their firewall as being an "attempt to access" the network (or
worse, a "breach" - which it is not.) Which is technically true, but would only be relevant
if they had *no* firewall - a setup which no organization runs these days. By definition,
99.99999% of those attempts are random mass scans of a block of IP addresses by either a
hacker or some malware on someone else's machine - or even a computer security researcher
attempting to find out how many sites are vulnerable.
"It just has not been proved to a level of certainty that satisfies me," Gen. Frank
McKenzie, commander of the U.S. Central Command, told NBC News. McKenzie oversees U.S. troops
in Afghanistan.
Barflies should write Gen Frank McKenzie inside the back cover of their diaries, and count
the days until we hear of/from him again. I've a feeling he's crossed a line and knows
precisely what he's doing and why. Imo, the Swamp has just been put on notice.
Posted by: vk | Sep 15 2020 12:54 utc | 4
In the 1920s (or 30s), far-rightist Karl Popper coined the concept of "public opinion".
vk, I can't find anything regarding this coinage. Could you please provide a link.
Wiki is specially devoid of it and it goes back to 16 century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion
The term public opinion was derived from the French opinion publique which was first used in
1588 by Michel de Montaigne in the second edition of his Essays
Thank you, b. In this world of illusion that mainstream press provides it is forgivable that
we cannot even convince members of our own families that are dear to us of the underlying
truths behind what these masters of deception continue to print. Surely they only do so
because livelihoods are threatened, and the public perceptions are reaching a critical point
where belief in what they write, read by the diminishing numbers of faithful few, reaches a
pinnacle of perception and spills chaotically down into a watershed of realization.
I remember when we were told what happens on the top floor of the New York Times. It
opened my eyes. And perhaps here also, b is providing a chink through which we may glimpse
what is happening in military circles in fields of operation where facts collide with
fiction:
"We have had more indirect fire attacks around and against our bases the first half of
this year than we did the first half of last year," Gen. Frank McKenzie, the commander
of the U.S. Central Command, said. "Those attacks have been higher."
...
McKenzie's comments came just hours after he announced the United States would be
cutting its footprint in Iraq by almost half by the end of September, with about 2,200
troops leaving the country.
On Hayek's "tiering", google "IHS model" ("pyramid of social change") and his book "The
Intellectuals and Socialism".
On Popper's conception of "public opinion", see "The Open Society and Its Enemies" (1945).
Yes, the term itself is not Popper's invention - he never claimed to have done so. But he
gave it a "twist", and we can say nowadays every Western journalist's conception of "public
opinion" is essentially Popper's.
because on matters related to Iran, China and Russia, they are not independent, there is
no real difference between the two camps in US, Biden' foreign policy which is endorsed and
supported by NYT and WP is not that different than Trump's, if not more radical. There is no
free press in US, as matter of fact, as long as this United Oligarchy of America exist there
will be no free press.
As well, this fake news propaganda barrage continues in the context of determined censorship
of alternative media and social media - a campaign which has been largely promoted by the
liberal intelligentsia in the US, in the name of reducing "fake news."
Having to live within an ever-widening swamp of utter BS is wearying and mind-numbing - also
to the point, one may assume.
Yes, I agree, IMO/observation, the US Government, the political parties and their supportive
media are rapidly ideologically polarizing their constituencies to two hard entrenched
ideological camps (which as you say has become hard shelled impenetrable). Except on one
common ideological point, which almost all the population has been and is being brain washed
as young as first grade, this common used term, which shield you from needing to investigate
or form any other opinion is: US has always been, is and will be a "force for good" by its
constitution, no matter what she has done or will do. This sentence when fully believed and
carved in one' mind from childhood is very difficult to erase and crack. These two
ideologically opposing camps about 70% of the population will not want to hear any fact or
not, other than what they are told and believed all their life.
"Unlike utopian engineering, piecemeal social engineering must be "small scale," Popper
said, meaning that social reform should focus on changing one institution at a time. Also,
whereas utopian engineering aims for lofty and abstract goals (for example, perfect justice,
true equality, a higher kind of happiness), piecemeal social engineering seeks to address
concrete social problems (for example, poverty, violence, unemployment, environmental
degradation, income inequality). It does so through the creation of new social institutions
or the redesign of existing ones. These new or reconfigured institutions are then tested
through implementation and altered accordingly and continually in light of their effects.
Institutions thus may undergo gradual improvement overtime and social ills gradually reduced.
Popper compared piecemeal social engineering to physical engineering. Just as physical
engineers refine machines through a series of small adjustments to existing models, social
engineers gradually improve social institutions through "piecemeal tinkering." In this way,
"[t]he piecemeal method permits repeated experiments and continuous readjustments" (Open
Society Vol 1., 163).
Only such social experiments, Popper said, can yield reliable feedback for social
planners. In contrast, as discussed above, social reform that is wide ranging, highly complex
and involves multiple institutions will produce social experiments in which it is too
difficult to untangle causes..."
So Top-Down with a vengeance, but softly, softly, hunting for 'good results', for what and
how these are defined is left out entirely, and who exactly runs the process...? (Btw China
sorta follows this approach with 'social experiments' gathering data that is analysed etc. to
improve governance.)
Don't forget that the only time the Amerikastani Empire's warmongering imperialist media
called Trump "presidential" was when he launched missiles at Syria on false pretences in
support of al Qaeda.
The statement by praetor McKenzie probably won't do much to remove the "Russian bounties"
tale from the received Beltway belief structure, where it lodged immediately upon
publication, any more than earlier refutations, or its inherent implausibility, did. I see
the bounties regularly referred to by Dems and Dem-adjacent media as established fact.
In the same light, it's worthwhile to read the Politico article on the alleged Iranian
designs on the purse princess and try to spot other fictions included as supposedly factual
background, some qualified as being American assertions, but others presented as undisputed
fact, such as:
Trump's version of the almost-happened retaliation after Iran downed a U.S. drone
that the attack that killed a U.S. "contractor" in Iraq that started last winter's
U.S./Iran tit-for-tat was "by an Iranian-allied militia"
Soleimani was responsible for the death of numerous U.S. troops
Soleimani plotted to hire a Mexican drug cartel to kill the Saudi ambassador in
Washington (remember that one? a blast from the past)
This new one about the plot to get the ambassador in Pretoria may be too trivial to get
sustained attention, but it will show up as background in some future Politico article or the
like, joining the rest in the Beltway's version of reality, which at this point is made
almost entirely of these falsehoods encrusting on each other, decade after decade, creating
the phony geopolitical mindscape these people live in.
Mere factual refutation – even from otherwise establishment-approved sources –
won't remove these barnacles. For instance, in February the NY Times itself published a
debunking of the initial account that it was an Iran-backed Shia militia, as opposed to
Salafist I.S.-affiliated forces, that killed that U.S. contractor last December. But the good
(if delayed) reporting is forgotten; the lie persists. The same fate awaits McKenzie's
dismissal of the Russian bounties nonsense.
The thoughtful reader would at this point stop and ponder. "Fake News About Iran, Russia,
China Is U.S. Journalism's Daily Bread". I agree with this statement. But not just U.S. Journalism. Minimally U.K. Journalism is
on-board, if not tutoring the Yanks in the art of Journalism. And then there is Europe
herself, she too has armies of Journalists and many Journals. They too mostly fake around in
general.
Now then, that leave Journalism in "Iran, Russia, China". It is fine trait to root for
underdogs but Journalism in these states is also subject to a highly controlled and managed
environment. It is disingenuous to ignore these facts.
Given this congregation of "fakers", worldwide, it is very reasonable to question the very
"fight" that these "fakers" keep telling us is on between the "adversaries".
Good to see so many being able to name the operation of the official narrative. It serves
also another purpose, witnessed by one of the most consequential actions of all, the wanton
abandonment of international law and accountability - the GWOT and the launching of same in
Afghanistan and Iraq. That other purpose is to create cover for those, elected in our name,
to avoid responsibility.
"Who knew?" asked the soulless Rumsfeld. And the refrain returned from the hollowed out
halls of the Greatest Democracy On Earth (tm) - "We were misled!", "Look it says so right
there in the official narrative, REMEMBER?" But the misleaders are never rounded up and never
face any consequences, cause truth be told all that voted for the AUMF belong in the pokey.
And the congressional class of '02-'03 would do the same thing all over again, 'cause the
narrative's got their back.
Despite the future grimness predicted by 1984 , the ability and effectiveness of Media
Structures to openly lie and thus herd the public to embrace the preferred Narrative hasn't
turned out quite the way Orwell thought it might. Former authoritarian blocs learned the hard
way that it's better to tell their citizens the truth and actively engage them in governance,
while the Anglo-Imperial powers have gone in the opposite direction, thus the question why?
IMO, the longstanding Narrative related to the mythical Dream has greatly eroded in the face
of Reality, while at the same time the Rentier Class and the Duopoly it controls needs
to try and obfuscate what it's doing. And thus we've seen the rise of BigLie Media to be used
for the purpose of Divide and Rule. There're numerous works detailing how and why; two of the
more important are Manufacturing of Consent and J is for Junk Economics . Part
of the overall process of dumbing-down populations is the deliberate destruction of the
educational process, particularly in the areas of philosophy and political-economy/history,
which are essentially connected as one when considering the History of Ideas or a sub-area
like the Philosophy of Science.
Such a dumbing-down of a nation's populous can be measured, the USSR and its Warsaw Bloc
being the most evident, but also The Inquisition and its affect on the advancement of science
within the regions it ruled, and the inward turning of China during the Ming Dynasty which
allowed for its subjugation by Western forces beginning in the 16th Century. Most recently,
this is evident in China's passing the Outlaw US Empire in terms of geoeconomics and thus
overall geopolitical power. An explanation for India's inability to match China's development
can be found in its refusal to do away with its semi-feudal caste system and not educate its
masses so they can become a similar collective dynamo as in China. At the beginning of his
brief tenure, JFK noted the Knowledge Gap that existed between a USSR that was nearing its
intellectual heights (although that wasn't known then) and the USA whose educational system
effectively excluded @60% of students from having the opportunity to advance. There would
never have been a Dot.Com economy without JFK's initiative to improve educational outcomes.
There seems to be a notion within the Outlaw US Empire's elite that an well educated populace
presents a danger to their rule and they can get by using AI and Robotics to further their
future plans. Here I'd refer such thinkers to the lessons provided by the failure of Asimov's
Galactic Empire in his Foundation series of books--particular their reliance on AI, robotics,
dumbing-down the populace to the point where no one recalls how atomics functioned. The sort
of balance sheet being constructed by the Fed cannot repair or replace crumbling
infrastructure or train the engineers needed to perform the work.
So, what continual BigLie Media lies tell us is the continued downward spiral of the
West's intellectual abilities will continue while an East that values the Truth and Discovery
moves on to eclipse it, mainly because the West has stopped trying, thinking it's found a
better way based on the continual amassing of Debt, which is seen as wealth on their balance
sheets. Ultimately, the West thinks the one person holding all the assets as the winner of
its Zero-sum Monopoly Game is a better outcome than having millions of people sharing the
winnings of a Win-Win system that promotes the wellbeing of all. I can tell you now which
philosophy will triumph, but you all ought to be capable of reasoning that outcome.
After a sound and an in-depth analysis, b sometimes confounds me with his credulity. Take
this sentence for example: "Why do U.S. journalist presume that the agencies and anonymous
officials who work under him are more truthful in their uttering than the man himself is hard
to understand. Why do swallow their bullshit?" Of course there is no daylight between the US,
and indeed the whole Western governments, and its Press. Other than few independent blog site
such as this, every media outlet is in the service of its home government or foreign
sponsors. Only born-suckers take the corporate media at face value. Modern journalism is
nothing but an aggressive propaganda racket.
You only have to look at who owns the media and who their close friends are,
to understand why the media says what it says or lies what it lies !
It's an industry promoting the elites self-interest, creating fictioous enemy countries to
feed the arms industry and create US domestic mass paranoia.
The Israeli lobby groups are at the wheel of the whole dam clown car.
Using lies (bearing false witness) to cause murder and theft are not exactly a new
phenomenon.
These 'groups of individuals', which are employing these fabricated deceptions, are doing
nothing less than trying to commit murder and theft.
No doubt the two propaganda streams will merge until we will be told that the CIA now
believes that Iran will attempt plausible deniability by funnelling the money through Putin,
who will offer it to the Taliban by way of a bounty on the Ambassador's head.
The CIA's wet dream: the Taliban does it, Putin arranged it, but it was all Iran's fault,
leading to:
A) infinite occupation of the poppy fie.... sorry, Afghanistan
B) even more sanctions on Russia
C) war with Iran
'"Public opinion", according to Bernays, is an amorphous group of judgments which are not
well elaborated even in the head of a single average individual. He extracts a quotation from
Wilfred Trotter, which states that this average man has many strong convictions whose origin
he can't explain (Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War, p. 36). People's minds have
"logic-proof compartments" which must be approached by means beyond the rational. (pp.
61–68).'
Yes, I forgot to mention this very important book. If I'm not mistaken (and I may be),
Popper got the term from Bernays.
Popper, von Hayek... these guys are the fathers of neoliberalism. I'm not mentioning
backyard intellectuals here. They shaped the West as we know it today and, if you're a
Westerner and wants to understand the civilization you live in, you have to know what they
formulated.
Just to clear that off: I don't agree with Popper's (or Bernays, for that matter)
conception on "public opinion". The Marxist conception of ideology is much more complete and
precise scientifically.
Speaking of education (although of science/tach, rather than critical thinking)...
Add in the migration of top-level educated individuals. In the US, an underdeveloped
primary/secondary school system creates room at the university/grad level to absorb talent
from the rest of the world. For many years, this was a source of competitive advantage --
imported human capital is better than home grown, because if you import, you take it away
from someone else. Clever!
It was not that big a deal for the US if social mobility of native born lower and middle
classes was stifled somewhat. (and I would say it still would not be a big deal if the
resources of the country were not so grossly mismanaged/wasted/stolen).
But in the current century, or certainly the decade now ending, China alone can fill every
US grad school science/tech program and still have people to spare for itself. Other parts of
the world are right up there as well.
And then you have computers. Sometime between 2000 and 2010, computers became pretty much
cheap enough that you could give one to a every kid, even in families of limited means.
Provided the primary/secondary education system is there to support it, a country could
develop as much tech talent as they had population. The first generation of kids whose
childhood took place under this condition is now coming out of university - I would think
vastly greater in numbers than any amount the US (or Euro) higher educational system can
absorb. Should be a pretty serious shifting of gears in how human capital is distributed
worldwide.
But none of this is about critical thinking. Few systems of organizing society actually
promote that ... it tends to happen in spite of the organizing principles, rather than
because of them. Nor are the most educated (regardless of country of origin) any less
susceptible to the propaganda - if anything they are more so, due to the design of the
message, because it is more important that they receive it. You want a book recommendation
that talks about that, check out 'Disciplined Minds' by Jeff Schmidt (though perhaps with an
overly pessimistic outlook -- people can recognize the reality he describes and deal with
it... it is only the more naive/idealistic types who fall extra hard for the mythology and
then find themselves in a conflict they can't handle). There are lots of other avenues to
take too... about the psychology of self-discovery, discovery of self-vs-social-organism
etc....
Exactly that and yet we are constantly fed a diet from the bottom of the barrel. NYT?
WAPO? They are rags. Gutter press peddling drivel. Surely there are more erudite and critical
publications in this world than these USA drivel sheets. I am aware of good journalism in
Switzerland and elsewhere but currently separted from a device adequate to translate and
quote.
Thank you Conspiracy-theorist it I way past time we escaped the neverending story of BS +
HATE.
A propos fake news, John Helmer reports on the Navalny saga and was lately on the
Gorilla radio podcast with Chris Cook to discuss the newest events. It's a one-hour-talk
but very enjoyable listening to Helmer. You can also follow his reports on his blog
Dances With Bears .
Try this on for size. This is a conclusion I arrived at several decades ago, wrote about
several times, but not recently.
Everything that was accomplished (albeit incompletely or moderately) through the New Deal
and then the abortive Great Society absolutely spooked the oligarchy. Lifting much of the
working class out of absolute wage slavery to the point where the next rung on Maslow's
ladder was at least visible. And when it all culminated in the late 60's and early 70's with
the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the Surface Mining act, and various labor protection
measures, the wealthy owner class decided the proles had gained too much power to influence
"their" captive government.
The princes and barons of industry and finance were very open about their complaints. The
advance of regulation on their ability to pollute and to exploit must stop or they would take
their bundles of riches and go elsewhere. It is what Saint Ronny was ALL about. And so all
that got fat and filthy rich during the real American Century took their wealth where
regulation and labor fairness and justice didn't exist to continue their exorbitant profit
taking.
And then they imported those cheap products here to wreak what was left of our industrial
base and to impress on all of us that they remain the boss, the real power. Drive down wages,
destroy pensions and safety nets and put US proles back into wage slavery. Remember the 80's
and 90's when Wal-Mart basically told established and storied US manufacturers "either you
produce the goods we want for what our Asian suppliers can make them for, or you're
finished." And that is exactly what happened. Wal-Mart was just the vanguard, it is now
ubiquitous. Another aspect of this assault was forcing us proles into the stock market
through our pensions and retirement funds so as to make us all sympathetic to de-regulation -
so as not to hurt OUR bottom line. Many labor unions became just a sick symbiosis with the
industries they "served."
Incomplete and observational, I am not erudite or lettered, but I think it is an accurate
narrative.
There is a curious schizophrenia where the U.S. press will treat presidential claims about
foreign affairs as a sacred truth but treat claims denying adultery, such as in the Lewinski
affair, as dismissible.
Living in the USA (Steve Miller classic) has always seemed to me about dealing with falsehood
and deception. US highschool seemed like he time for me when the formidable pressure to
conform became completely nonsensical, perhaps because it was so utterly cruel, but also
because it seemed untruthful. You basically were required to accept modes if behavior and
thought that seemed alien to human behavior, but were presented as the sine quo non of how to
be. How to succeed, how to live. It seems to me that if you were attempting to retain
truthfulness, this conformity was rife with logical fallacies of every sort which if you
tried to deal with them, or confront them, you were ostracized or at worst outcast.
In the many years since, it seems like everything else, once a person adopts untruthful
behavior, it is next to impossible to change course, so you deal with all kinds of people who
have doubled down on their personal deceptions. Marriages based on financial success come to
mind, and are like any deception, the cause of incredible dis ease and misey.
There is a philosophical concept I came upon called parrhesia that Foucault gives a
fantastic series of lectures on which can be found by searching the web, that investigates
the perils implicit in telling truth to falsehood, and the many disasters and tragedies that
have befallen human kind in the attempts to do so.
I've come to think that humans by nature are basically incapable of avoiding whatever it
is that is "truth." Because over and over life seems to present situations that are the
unswervingly the same to everyone. Youth and aging, for example, and the end result never
varies, like illness, death, and dying. And everyone has their own similar story navigating
the human predicaments and facing an inalterable "truth," which might be in this example,
death.
My wonder as I observe life as I age, is what is the damage done to those not only who try
their honest best to remain truthful, but what is the damage done to those who cannot escape
an adopted untruth and refuse to let go of it. I suppose in this moment of history, you need
only look at pandemic, wildfires, and conflicts to see how far human beings have digressed
from an Eden. But there must be a purpose to it all? Like, trying to cling to any kind of
integrity.
You think international fake news is just a Trump thing? Just off the top of my head we have
thins like Tonkin Bay, Kuwait babies being massacred by Iraqi troops, my personal favorite
Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and a multiple of mean Assads killing their people with
poison. That is just a bipartisan few. We have one political party, who serves the deep
state. The deep state serves the interests of Wall Street and more importantly the Rothschild
world banking system. Give the spooks a lot of credit they let us have two "choices" while
controlling both. Think of it as a neo fascism kinda thing that ironically finances the anti
fascists. The press is just a means to an end. Assume everything is an agenda, and read the
independents for some actual thought. I may not agree with you all the time, but I do love
you MoA. Thank you for all your work.
'spooked oligarchy...reforms..culminated in ..70s'
Yep. When committed Dem's go off on Trump, it's deeply felt but kindof a ritual rant.
Bring Ralph Nader into the conversation, just mention him in passing, and the response
becomes live! Betrayal, danger of being shown up again!
Old and Grumpy @67 has a good point. Anyone suggesting that fake news is in any way related
to Trump being President are big parts of the problem for why fake news persists in the first
place. Suggesting that it is because of Trump, and thus implying that the fake news will go
away when Trump does, is either profoundly ignorant, or profoundly deceitful, though probably
both. Trump ranting about fake news exposed the problem and forced it into the public
discourse. Those rants did not create the problem.
"You basically were required to accept modes if behavior and thought that seemed alien to
human behavior ... ... forced to double down"
I had short but deeply influential conversation right out of college with a recruiter/HR
manager from Raytheon, of all places. He talked about exactly what you said. He spoke, in a
hypothetical third person, about a mid-career guy with a mortgage and family who finds
themselves questioning the defense industry. How that isn't the best place to be in,
mentally. I changed my career plans that day, forever thankful for the encounter.
However, regarding people being able to avoid unpleasant realities, he was of the opinion
that for most people, it is possible to do so. Even beneficial. (Except of course for the
recipients of his company's products. I didn't say that but I think he figured out that I was
thinking it). The issue, from the point of view of running an effective organization, is what
happens if the doubters and believers start to mix? Part of his assigned task was to simply
keep out people curious enough to ask too many questions. That's one of the "benefits" of
really polarizing politics too.
"My wonder as I observe life as I age, is what is the damage done to those not
only who try their honest best to remain truthful, but what is the damage done to those who
cannot escape an adopted untruth and refuse to let go of it."
That's what modern pharmaceuticals are for, and why one in six Americans (officially) are
prescribed them. If we include the numbers of Americans who self-medicate with alcohol and/or
grey/black market pharmaceuticals, then the proportion would be a bit (quite a bit) larger.
People who succeed at being truthful (mostly to themselves) are not confronted with cognitive
dissonance mind-quakes; however, such individuals are confronted with experiencing the retch
reflex when consuming mass media.
Is being truthful vs embracing the lies then half-dozen of one and six of the other? I
find satisfactory peace of mind from being truthful and simply avoiding the primary vector of
deception; the mass media. Noble individuals like our host and some of the posters here will
slog through that vile cesspool of lies and fish out the little nuggets of truth that leak
out. It is selfish of me to leave such dirty work to others, but at least I am not
hermetically isolated on a mountain somewhere.
An interesting thought. I have long had the feeling that a large part of the obviously
orchestrated drive to almost define both of the two US parties with really incredibly
unimportant issues like bathroom preferences were designed to split the voters as equally as
possible, so that to swing elections one had only to control the votes of a very small number
of tie breakers. I still think this is likely true, but I do think you make an important
point that a lot can be learned about what is truly important to the PTB by reflecting on the
topics that aren't being argued over.
Compare the "two" US political parties, and you will note that while they seem to be getting
ever more extreme and irreconcilable and quasi-religious in their differences, these
differences are always on the periphery. Both parties are being indoctrinated with certain
common beliefs they will take for granted because they are never talked about -- because
these points are not allowed to be in contention. So while even something like climate change
can be a big divider (no worries, there's money to be made on both sides of that issue, and
means of control); but you will never hear debate about
1. America is the greatest ever!
2.
America is always and unquestionably a force for good, and even it's proven bad things
(kidnapping, rendition, and torture programs) are done "for the greater good."
3. Unbridled
capitalism is the only way, and the privatization and unwinding of any vestiges of social
programs, like education, social security, and even utilities and infrastructure, is always a
good thing deserving of priority.
4. Individualism is the best, if not only, way. To be a
hero you must strike alone against the bad guys/the system/the government; someone who
rallies others, causes forces to be gathered and united, unionized, whatever are discouraged
or ignored.
5. "Leadership" in the affairs of others around the world is American right,
responsibility, and destiny. Having the largest, almost entirely offensively oriented
military on earth is essential; and having it, we must use it to get our money's worth.
6.
Omnipresent "intelligence" services equal safety and are absolutely required for life to be
normal. I'm sure there are other examples of "universally agreed" doctrines in the US, but
these are some that leap out.
These crazy MSM lies Anecdote. Last Sat (Geneva, Switz.) I spoke to 20 ppl whom I know
somewhat, all know I like to discuss news etc. I said, weird news this week, making no
mention of Navalny. 18/20 believed Putin poisoned Navalny and brought it up spontaneously!
There is something so appealing and narratively 'seductive' about spies and 'opponents'
(Skripal ) and mysterious poisons used by evil doers etc. that fiction just flows smoothly
into fact or whatever is 'real.'
I had to mention Assange myself to most, but there the reaction was very mixed, most
thought Assange was being persecuted, or it was 'not right', and took this story seriously in
one way or another - 4 ppl claimed not to know the latest news. Here, NGOs, Leftists and
Others have made demands for him to be offered asylum in Switz, so he has been front
page.
Besides that (I'm always interested in from-the-ground view-points, experiences, so post
some myself) what is going on is monopoly consolidation:
Mega MSM in cahoots with the MIC, Big Pharma, Big Agri, Finance, and so on. Corporations
joining up their positions bit by bit while also competing in some ways, bribing and owning
the Pols. who are front-men and women tasked with providing a lot of drama, manufactured
agitation, etc., which in turn is fodder for the MSM, etc.
Overall, the most important sector to watch is the GAFAM, 1, the reign of the middle men
is close at hand (control information, both the channels and the content, and commerce up to
a point.) All this leaves out energy considerations, another vital topic left aside.
Thanks for your reply! I've touched on the topic of human capital and its development
occasionally here, positing it's the #1 asset of all nations. Those nations who neglect to
develop their own human capital are bound to become deficient when it comes to basic
comparative advantages with other nations, particularly as political-economy shifts from
being materialistic to knowledge-based; thus Pepe Escobar agreeing wholeheartedly with my
comment about India. (He added this article to his FB timeline and I posted my comment
there.)
From 1999-2003, I was involved in developing distance learning platforms for the rapidly
advancing ability to learn outside of a school's four walls. The other educators I worked
with and myself had great hopes for the virtual classroom and what it might do to aide both
teachers and students. At the time we thought this development would provide a great
opportunity for the third member of the educational team--parents--to play a greater role in
the process since active parental involvement was proven to generate better student outcomes.
But for that to be properly implemented, equitable funding for all school districts became an
even greater issue than it was already. This issue highlighted the huge problems related to
financing education at a moment when BushCo Privatizers began to seriously threaten what was
already in place. And that problem has only worsened, the vast disparities being very evident
thanks to COVID-forced distance learning. The primary reason good teachers can't be retained
is the entire system's a massive Clusterfuck. And computers aren't substitutes for even poor
teachers. And parents are even more aloof from becoming involved in the process than ever
before.
The dumbing-down I mention is now entering its third generation. The educational structure
needs to be completely refitted nationally, but I wouldn't give that task to any of the
fuckwits employed by the past three administrations--Yes, I'm arguing education needs to be a
completely federal program instead of the 53 different school systems in states and
territories; and yes, I'm aware of the pitfalls and potential corruption that poses, which is
a microcosm of all the problems at the federal level of government. This problem is yet
another very basic reason why the Duopoly and its backers need to be ousted from government
and kept as far away as possible as the structure is torn down and rebuilt--The USA will
never be great again until that is done.
I suggest that the reason that the media focus on the ridiculous is to convince the public
that there is nothing important happening - except where the MSM wants the participation of
the public as in with anti-Russia, anti_China, anti-Socialism, etc. Good to get the public
participation directed at harmless targets.
They've got to fill the papers with something. The public must be kept warm, comfortable,
semi-comatose, watching cat videos...
Last thing anybody wants is the involvement of the public, they will only screw
everything-up or try anyway.
Thanks for your reply! Your explanation sadly is correct, but it was put into motion prior
to Reagan becoming POTUS. The tools used to undo the New Deal were put into place before FDR
became POTUS. And FDR's unwillingness to prosecute those who attempted to overthrow his
government provided that faction to infiltrate government and eventually attempt to undo the
good that was done prior to WW2. When looked at closely, American society was generally quite
Liberal in the positive aspects of that term and during the Depression was becoming ever more
Collectivist with the war advancing that even further. At the war's end, it was paramount for
the forces taking control of the nation to push the public to the right and away from its
collectivist proclivities. Where we find ourselves today thus is not an accident of history
but an engineered outcome. You may recall voices on the Right accusing Liberals and their
organizations of engaging in Social Engineering. Those accusations were projections since it
was actually forces on the Right that were maneuvering society to the Right while assiduously
applying the principle of Divide and Rule to create a condition where they would be immune
from political challenge, which is where we are now.
A few understand this ugly truth and how we arrived here. What's missing is scholarship
that links the changes that began in the 1870s with today's situation. Yes, there're good
examinations of various pieces of the overall puzzle. But it appears that only Hudson and
those in his small circle have figured it out; yet, they haven't produced a complete history
that encapsulates it all. And for us to have a realistic chance to undo what's been done, we
need to know how it all transpired.
Antonym @ 60
"There are big differences between Trump and Biden regarding their foreign policies:
Trump is hard on Xi-China and soft on Putin Russia, while Biden is the reverse."
I don't share your view. The current administration's foreign policy is very much aligned
with that of past administrations and the diplomatic circus surrounding the Skripal affair
alone is evidence that nobody is soft on Russia.
What differs, however, is the presentation. Trump is criticized (not praised) for being
allegedly soft on Russia and Biden criticized for being allegedly soft on China. This clever
trick ensures that just about everybody is onboard the bash-China-and-Russia train.
In a violently polarized society, with red-blue antagonism reaching ridiculous heights,
people tend to act exclusively in contradiction to the cult figure they hate so much.
If a Trump hater hears the criticism that the president is too soft on Russia, he will
readily grab the bash-Russia stick hoping to score a few hits on Trump. The same person's
reaction to a criticism on Biden will be either indifference or angry denial. In either case,
he will not be opposed to the bash-Russia nor the bash-China movement.
The dem hater's reaction is similar. Indifference to the soft-on-Russia claim (ie. no
opposition to the bash-Russia movement) and active support for the China-bashing.
The article and subsequent discussion brings to mind Dawkins discussion of Memes and
Memetics. Not those pesky internet memes. The propaganda war is fierce, and almost without
exception the people here are poking and prodding perhaps without being able to put the
finger on the "EZ button". This is war, baby, so one thinks the following link may be useful:
Wherein: " Ideally the virus of the mind being targeted will be overwritten with a higher
fidelity, fecundity, and longevity memeplex in order to assure long term sustainability. When
this is not practical, it is still possible to displace a dangerous memeplex, by creating a
more contagious benign meme utilizing certain packaging, replication, and propagation
tricks."
The lie is irrelevant, whether true or false, it must be believable, and it must
successfully replicate.
You are right, the early FDR days were, in hindsight, one of the most important in setting
the course of the US for the next century, and unfortunately Big Business won, taking us on a
long, ugly road to the right. I agree this would be a most fascinating history book if some
of those respected, genuinely knowledgeable people you often cite could collaborate on an
opus.
Yes, most people do not know that the wide ranging labor laws implemented at that time
were actually not meant to empower organized labor, but to limit it. Perhaps FDR thought it
was the best he could do for the working class, but I tend to think it was more a case of him
thinking that by outlawing general strikes, wildcat strikes, strikes in support of other
unions, and setting up an NLRB with a lot of political control by business, the powers who
had so recently let it be known they were ready to actively try to overthrow the government
might be mollified. I think he feared the US was at the cusp of a revolution, and perhaps it
was. Whether or not if would have been better had that been allowed to proceed is the big
question.
Anti-China activists funded by NED & Co make up all sorts of horrid stories online, which
are then picked up by MSM and political NGOs to spoon feed world audiences/viewers. Viola,
you have "fact-based" anti-China news!
This is literally what these overseas Uyghur activists do all day. Putting a random
caption on a video they ripped down from a medical worker's tiktok in China. And people
believe it. They'd even believe if the follow up rebuttal is that this is a forced labour
doctor.
Glad to see his name mentioned here. I've been saying for years here to watch the
documentary - Century of the Self. If you want to learn about and understand America, its all here. Government, Corporations,
Consumerism, Militarism, Deep State, Psychology, Individual selfishness and mental
illness.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s
Thanks for your reply! JK Galbraith in his American Capitalism: The Concept of
Countervailing Power lamented what you recap in your 2nd paragraph and that there was
thus no power capable of offsetting Big Business although one was sorely needed. As I wrote,
some very sharp minds have written about small segments of the overall movement toward
totalitarianism since the 1870s, Galbraith's 1952 book being one that's still worth
reading.
Karlof 1 @ 32 attacks vk @4-- Your attempt to credit Karl Popper with the concept of public
opinion is just as false as the stories b wrote about. Click here for a history of that
concept. by: karlof1 | Sep 15 2020 17:04 utc | 32
What I like about what vk@ 4 said is that he has given this list a beginning to not only
understand our plight as members of the governed classes, but also to analyze our experience
with this stuff and to develop a set of rules that can allow us to defend our minds against
being controlled by invisible hands of mind control.
can we on this list develop a defensive strategy and use it to teach the governed
masses?
Around the globe and throughout history it can be observed that the oligarchs invent a
collection of values and stuff them into structures they call nation states, culture,
institutions and journalist are all designed to, and rewarded for supporting the values,
while media is charged to keep the propaganda circulating.
The H&C propaganda model pulls together from across the political communications
literature the variety of factors which essentially constrain journalist and means that they
don't actually play the independent autonomous and watchdog role that we expect them to in a
democracy ae Herman Chromsky talk about the importance oe size concentration ownership oe
mainstream media the way in w/e ownership of most oe media outlets w/people go to for their
information is essentially associated w/very large conglomerates w/h overlapping interests
and overlapping interests with government and this produces a large structural constraint oe
way the media operates.
The Interface between Propaganda and War: Prof.
The Propaganda Model: The filters (Herman & Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent, the political
economy of the mass media).
@5, Nathan Mulcahy, going by this Google Books Ngram Viewer
graph use of the word "presstitute" appeared around 1882. Its use really took off in
2009, peaking in 2016-2017, but definitely still up there. It didn't give an equivalent graph
for "presstitution".
I think that might be just for printed books, and not for online usage. Since at least
2014, if not earlier, Paul Craig Roberts has definitely contributed to popularizing the term,
imo. It's definitely fitting for our mainstream new media.
Speaking of fake news, Wikipedia asserts that it was coined by a "trend
forecaster" author Gerald Celente (but if you look at Wikipedia's source article, it's some
Indian news site article that clearly makes the attribution "according to
urban dictionary " which is not only a crowd-sourced site but also makes zero mention of
this Celente.
Karl Marx said that " Philosophers have hitherto only
interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it ." I doubt very much that
you will know which changes you need to make if you don't have a very good idea about your
starting point. In his book Factfulness and in his many excellent online presentations, the
late Swedish Professor of International Health Hans Rosling identifies a lot of the ways things
have gotten better , especially for the world's poorest.
Suppose, for example, that you encounter the name " Milton Friedman ,"
perhaps in connection with lamented "neoliberalism" and maybe in connection with human rights
abuses perpetrated by the brutal Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. Friedman has been denounced
as the "father of global misery," and his reputation has taken another beating in the wake of
the fiftieth anniversary of his 1970 New York Times Magazine essay " The Social Responsibility of Business is to
Increase its Profits ," which I suspect most people haven't read past its title. But what
happened during "The Age of Milton Friedman," as the economist Andrei Shleifer asked in
a 2009
article ? Shleifer points out that "Between 1980 and 2005, as the world embraced free
market policies, living standards rose sharply, while life expectancy, educational attainment,
and democracy improved and absolute poverty declined."
Things have never been so good, and they are getting better , especially for the world's
poor.
In 2008, there was a bit of controversy over the establishment of the Milton Friedman
Institute at the University of Chicago, which operates today as the Becker Friedman Institute (it is also named for Friedman's
fellow Chicago economist Gary Becker ). In a
blistering
reply to a protest letter signed by a
group of faculty members at the University of Chicago, the economist John Cochrane wrote, "If
you start with the premise that the last 40 or so years, including the fall of communism, and
the opening of China and India are 'negative for much of the world's population,' you just
don't have any business being a social scientist. You don't stand a chance of contributing
something serious to the problems that we actually do face." Nor, might I add, do you stand
much of a chance of concocting a revolutionary program that will actually help the people
you're trying to lead.
2. What makes me so sure I won't replace the existing regime with
something far worse?
I might hesitate to push the aforementioned button because while the world we actually
inhabit is far from perfect, it's not at all clear that deleting the state overnight wouldn't
mean civilization's wholesale and maybe even perpetual collapse. At the very least, I would
want to think long and hard about it. The explicit mention of Frantz Fanon and Che Guevara in
the course description suggest that students will be approaching revolutionary ideas from the
left. They should look at the results of populist revolutions in 20th century Latin America,
Africa, and Asia. The blood of many millions starved and slaughtered in efforts to "forge a
better society" cries out against socialism and communism, and
macroeconomic populism in Latin America has been disastrous . As people have pointed out
when told that "democratic socialists" aren't trying to turn their countries into Venezuela,
Venezuelans weren't trying to turn their country into Venezuela when they embraced Hugo Chavez.
I wonder why we should expect WLU's aspiring revolutionaries to succeed where so many others
have failed.
3. Is my revolutionary program just a bunch of platitudes with which no
decent person would disagree?
In 2019, Kristian Niemietz of London's Institute of Economic Affairs published a useful
volume titled Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies , which you can
download for $0 from IEA . He notes a tendency for socialists and neo-socialists to pitch
their programs almost exclusively in terms of their hoped-for results rather than in terms of
the operation of concrete social processes they hope to set in motion (on this I paraphrase
my intellectual hero Thomas Sowell ).
Apply a test proposed a long time ago by the economist William Easterly: can you imagine
anyone seriously objecting to what you're saying? If not, then you probably aren't saying
anything substantive. Can you imagine someone saying "I hate the idea of the world's poor
having better food, clothing, shelter, and medical care" or "It would be a very bad thing if
more people were literate?" If not, then it's likely that your revolutionary program is a
tissue of platitudes and empty promises. That's not to say it won't work politically–God
knows, nothing sells better on election day than platitudes and empty promises–but you
shouldn't think you're saying anything profound if all you're saying is something obvious like
"It would be nice if more people had access to clean, drinkable water."
... ... ...
7. How has it worked the other times it has been tried?
Years before the Russian Revolution, Eugene Richter predicted with eerie prescience what
would happen in a socialist society in his short book Pictures of the Socialistic Future (
which you can
download for $0 here ). Bryan Caplan, who wrote the foreword for that edition of Pictures
and who put together the online " Museum of Communism ," points out
the distressing regularity with which communists go from "bleeding heart" to "mailed fist." It
doesn't take long for communist regimes to go from establishing a workers' paradise to shooting
people who try to leave. Consider whether or not the brutality and mass murder of communist
regimes is a feature of the system rather than a bug. Hugo Chavez and Che
Guevara both expressed bleeding hearts with their words but used a mailed fist in practice
(I've written before that "irony" is denouncing Milton Friedman for the crimes of Augusto
Pinochet while wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt. Pinochet was a murderous thug. Guevara was, too).
Caplan points to
pages 105 and 106 of Four Men: Living the Revolution: An Oral History of Contemporary Cuba
. On page 105, Lazaro Benedi Rodriguez's heart is bleeding for the illiterate. On page 106,
he's "advis(ing) Fidel to have an incinerator dug about 40 or 50 meters deep, and every time
one of these obstinate cases came up, to drop the culprit in the incinerator, douse him with
gasoline, and set him on fire."
... ... ...
9. What will I do with people who aren't willing to go along with my
revolution?
Walter Williams once said that he doesn't mind if communists want to be communists. He minds
that they want him to be a communist, too. Would you allow people to try capitalist experiments
in your socialist paradise? Or socialist experiments in your capitalist paradise (Families,
incidentally, are socialist enterprises that run by the principle "from each according to his
ability, to each according to his needs.")? Am I willing to allow dissenters to advocate my
overthrow, or do I need to crush dissent and control the minds of the masses in order for my
revolution to work? Am I willing to allow people to leave, or will I need to build a wall to
keep people in?
10. Am I letting myself off the hook for questions 1-9 and giving myself
too much credit for passion and sincerity?
The philosopher David Schmidtz has said that if your best argument is that your heart is in
the right place, then your heart is most definitely not in the right place. Consider this quote
from Edmund Burke and ask whether or not it leads you to revise your revolutionary plans:
"A conscientious man would be cautious how he dealt in blood. He would feel some
apprehension at being called to a tremendous account for engaging in so deep a play, without
any sort of knowledge of the game. It is no excuse for presumptuous ignorance, that it is
directed by insolent passion. The poorest being that crawls on earth, contending to save
itself from injustice and oppression is an object respectable in the eyes of God and man. But
I cannot conceive any existence under heaven (which, in the depths of its wisdom, tolerates
all sorts of things) that is more truly odious and disgusting, than an impotent helpless
creature, without civil wisdom or military skill, without a consciousness of any other
qualification for power but his servility to it, bloated with pride and arrogance, calling
for battles which he is not to fight, contending for a violent dominion which he can never
exercise, and satisfied to be himself mean and miserable, in order to render others
contemptible and wretched." (Emphasis added).
The day after the elections , Russians
got together to rally against election fraud. Even though the United Russia party, according to
preliminary results, is to lose some 77 seats compared to the previous Duma, most of the
protesters considered the election to be neither fair, nor free (see our previous reports on
the web crackdown
and massive
violation reports).
After the polls closed on Dec. 4, Solidarnost movement invited protesters to
Chistye Prudy metro station in Moscow, while the Communists, also unhappy with the election
results, organized their rally at Pushkinskaya square. Solidarnost movement represenatives,
most of whom have no political arena except street actions and the blogosphere, managed to
bring thousands of people together (while crowd estimates vary significantly, the most balanced
assessment seems to be from 8,000 to 10,000 people).
Chistye Prudy
People began gathering for the Solidarnost event at around 19:00 MSK. Georgiy Alburov
posted a picture of the
line to the site of the rally:
Line to the Chistye Prudy rally. Photo by Georgiy Alburov
Thousands out in cold/rain baying for free elections, Putin to be sent to prison. Never
seen anything on this scale. Definite change of mood
The overall coverage was chaotic as the mobile Internet stopped working in the area and
people couldn't upload videos and pictures. LiveJournal kept the chronology of the events
here [ru].
Only later in the evening people were able to upload videos [ru] from the rally and particularly
the speech [ru] by
Alexey Navalny, who was among the most popular politicians of the event. His speech probably
best describes the essence of the current events:
And then: "They can call us microbloggers or net hamsters. I am a net hamster! And I'll bite
[these bastards' heads off.] We'll all do it together! Because we do exist! [ ] We will not
forget, we will not forgive"
The reference to 'net hamsters' (a pejorative term for politically-engaged Internet
commenters) and their political will to change the country has destroyed the myth of the
slacktivist nature of political engagement online. Navalny has specifically emphasized
'forgetting/forgiving' to show that netizens do not necessarily have a short attention span
often ascribed to them.
On to Lubyanka
After several speeches made by the opposition politicians, the crowd moved on towards
Lubyanka Square, where the head office of the Federal Security Service is located. The
video [ru] uploaded by
user bigvane depicts Muscovites moving to Lubyanka and chanting "Free elections":
Most of the activists, however, were soon stopped on their way. Ilya Barabanov tweeted a
picture of the blocked road:
Blocked road. Photo by Ilya Barabanov
Twenty minutes after the aforementioned photo was made, Alexey Navalny was detained by the
police. Ilya Barabanov was detained three minutes after Navalny. (See this great photo report
made by ridus.ru correspondents here [ru].)
But even the detention didn't break the rebellious and quite positive spirit of the
protesters. Navalny, while sitting in a police bus together with other activists, shared an
instagram photo of the cheerful detained protesters:
'I'm sitting in a police bus with all the guys. They all say hi.' Photo by Alexey
Navalny
Another video , also shot
inside a police bus, showed protesters discussing the salaries of police officers, laughing a
lot.
The Hamster Revolution
The most interesting part of the post-election rebellion is not its peaceful manner (also an
important feature compared to violent nationalist riots), but its new demographics. Tvrain.ru
field reporter said that the crowd consisted mainly of the "intelligentsia, hipsters, and young
people." "It is a fashionable rally," said the reporter. Later, these observations were added:
the age of the protesters was between 16 and 33 and for many of those who were detained this
was the first street action experience. As Vera Kichanova tweeted :
Lyosha Nikitin writes that he is the only one of the 16 people in the police bus who had been
detained before. Others were taking part in a rally for the first time!
***
Meanwhile, levada.ru, the site of Levada Center polling and sociological
research organization, has been DDoSed [ru] and the contents
of epic-hero.ru were removed [ru] by the hosting provider.
Obama was saved by the MSM from the reputation of traitor, a man professing peace and
harmony among all races for which good people elected him, to that of a rabid sycophant of
the oligarchs, to that of a pliant instrument of despotism, intent upon the ruin of America
in general - an enemy to the cause of liberty, sowing violence and division.. Obama was a
wolf presented in sheep's clothing, a betrayer of the American Dream, the perpetrator of
criminal acts for which the nation is now suffering. For this he and that woman he married
were paid to gallop about in fancy dress and mansions flagrantly blowing the $40,000,000
handed them by the Globalists. The force from which he and his have been saved is
condemnation and ostracism.
From his past as a communist Alinsky community "organizer," we should have known his aim
was overthrow of the country.
jeff montanye , 2 hours ago
agree with everything but "that woman he married."
close enough for an upvote.
NAV , 1 hour ago
Sorry, Jeff, I understand, but it is hard for me to forgive the selfishness of a woman who
has had opportunity and wealth all her life in America and then had the gall to say that she
was not proud of America until she was 44 years old, when she said of her husband's 2008
Democrat presidential nomination, "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of
my country, because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."
She had/has no concept of what is/was the American Dream, ie, opportunity and property
rights. Does she not know that a billion people in this world subsist on a dollar or less a
day and have NO hope of anything better? How proud and how thankful THEY would be for the
opportunities of a better life in America, which she and her husband have helped to erase in
support of communism, IMHO.
createnewaccount , 11 hours ago
Obama was President because they could.
Same with any outrage.
P Dunne , 13 hours ago
No doubt Clinton was a war monger she got loads of cash from special interests seeking
destabilization in the region.
fxrxexexdxoxmx2 , 13 hours ago
This so untrue.
The Clinton's have only ever thought about children. Wanting to save them, shelter them,
keep them close.
Every effort taken by the Clinton's was about safe secure and frequent access to
children.
Trying to make that a bad thing is like saying the Netflix movie ' Cuties' was not an
artistic expression worthy of an Oscar.
Vivekwhu , 6 hours ago
Trump is in office not in power. Now he leaves a few hundred US troops in Syria to openly
steal the oil. Obiden would have farted nice flowery democratic language to hide the robbery
at gunpoint, but Trump is so honest and brazen.
Let it Go , 4 hours ago
How quickly people forget! Our memory has a way of removing rough edges from events we
should not try to whitewash the past and rewrite history to present a different picture of
what really happened. Because of the stark contrast in the demeanor and style of Trump and
Obama, the media has "photoshopped" reality.
For years former President Obama remained more or less off the grid. Now that he has
reemerged we should take a moment to review the Obama era. The article below reminds us of
many of the scandals that took place during this time in history.
The Plot Against Libya: An Obama-Biden-Clinton Criminal Conspiracy
This is clearly another Washingtonian Triumph and Success story. Other people's lives are
destroyed but Washingtonians and elites get the tsetse fly headlines for a spell. Libya is
just another great achievement by the Washington Regime and its state security apparatus and
puppet journalists. It's the claimed thoughtful good intentions of Ivy Leaguers &
JudeoWASP elites that counts and the headlines that matter not the bodies, bloodshed,
butchery, and slaughter.
Keep in mind it's for the people! The reason the Washingtonians destroy countries abroad
is because "it's for the people." The reason Washingtonians sick the secret police on people
and persecute people at home is because "it's for the people."
Let it Go , 4 hours ago
One thing we have come to expect on any issue confronting our nation is grandstanding from
those in both parties. The government in Washington like those in other countries specialize
in putting lipstick "On A Pig." It is very possible Washington is a swamp that cannot be
drained.
Strangely, as time has passed it seems the polarizing divide that grips the nation might
be planned or contrived merely to create a pathway to greater power by the forces that hold
us hostage. The article below explores how those in power with the aid of the media have
created an environment of gridlock where they can run free and continue exploiting those they
pretend to serve. http://Washington Specializes On Putting
Lipstick On A Pig.html
Obamaroid Ointment , 4 hours ago
The Obama Regime tried to pull a coup here too, in fact they still haven't given up on
it.
Manthong , 10 hours ago
At least Goldman is not involved.
Mentaliusanything , 7 hours ago
Hahahahahahaha! They are always "involved" Just not directly only covertly
In the days, weeks, and months immediately following the 9/11 attacks, Arab-Americans,
South Asian-Americans, Muslim-Americans, and Sikh-Americans were the targets of widespread
hate violence. Many of the perpetrators of these acts of hate violence claimed they were
acting patriotically by retaliating against those responsible for 9/11.
...
Just after September 11, numerous Arabs, Muslims, and individuals perceived to be Arab or
Muslim were assaulted, and some killed, by individuals who believed they were responsible
for or connected to the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. The first backlash
killing occurred four days after September 11.
Balbir Singh Sodhi was shot to death on September 15 as he was planting flowers outside
his Chevron gas station. The man who shot Sodhi, Frank Roque, had told an employee of an
Applebee's restaurant that he was "going to go out and shoot some towel heads." Roque
mistakenly thought Sodhi was Arab because Sodhi, an immigrant from India, had a beard and
wore a turban as part of his Sikh faith. After shooting Sodhi, Roque drove to a Mobil gas
station a few miles away and shot at a Lebanese-American clerk. He then drove to a home he
once owned and shot and almost hit an Afghani man who was coming out the front door. When
he was arrested two hours later, Roque shouted, "I stand for America all the way."
The next two killings were committed by a man named Mark Stroman. On September 15, 2001,
Stroman shot and killed Waquar Hassan, an immigrant from Pakistan, at Hassan's grocery
store in Dallas, Texas. On October 4, 2001, Stroman shot and killed Vasudev Patel, an
immigrant from India and a naturalized U.S. citizen, while Patel was working at his Shell
station convenience store. A store video camera recorded the killing, helping police to
identify Stroman as the killer. Stroman later told a Dallas television station that he shot
Hassan and Patel because, "We're at war. I did what I had to do. I did it to retaliate
against those who retaliated against us."
Beyond these killings, there were more than a thousand other anti-Muslim or anti-Arab
acts of hate which took the form of physical assaults, verbal harassment and intimidation,
arson, attacks on mosques, vandalism, and other property damage.
Instead of "calming prejudice" the GB Bush administration institutionalized hate
crimes:
First, in the weeks immediately following the September 11 attacks, the government began
secretly arresting and detaining Arab, Muslim, and South Asian men. Within the first two
months after the attacks, the government had detained at least 1,200 men.
...
Second, in November 2001, the Department of Justice began efforts to "interview"
approximately 5,000 men between the ages of 18 and 33 from Middle Eastern or Muslim nations
who had arrived in the United States within the previous two years on a temporary student,
tourist, or business visa and were lawful residents of the United States. Four months
later, the government announced it would seek to interview an additional 3,000 men from
countries with an Al Qaeda presence.
...
Third, in September 2002, the government implemented a "Special Registration" program also
known as NSEERS (National Security Entry-Exit Registration System), requiring immigrant men
from 26 mostly Muslim countries to register their name, address, telephone number, place of
birth, date of arrival in the United States, height, weight, hair and eye color, financial
information and the addresses, birth dates and phone numbers of parents and any foreign
friends with the government.
Besides all that a rather useless security theater was installed at U.S. airports which
has costs many billions in lost time and productivity ever since. The Patriot Act was
introduced which allowed for unlimited spying on private citizens. Wars were launched that
were claimed to be justified by 9/11. These were "mass outbreaks of anti-Muslim sentiment and
violence. Many were killed and maimed in them. People were tortured and vanished. All of this
happened largely to applause of a majority of the U.S. people which were glued to 24 and dreamed of being "terrorist
hunters".
Anyone with a functional memory knows that the U.S. reaction to 9/11 was anything but
"pretty calm". It is ridiculous that Krugman is claiming that.
I find it a bit humorous b that you are critical of Krugman for his 911 dementia when for
years many of us finance types have railed about how morally corrupt the logic and thinking
of Paul Krugman is.
Paul Krugman is to economics what Bernie Sanders has become for the purported "left" side
of the "right wing" uni-party....a sheep dog for the easily led.
Paul Krugman is an acolyte for the God of Mammon/global private finance elite.
While spreading anger and hate toward Arab people, The Bush Administration rescued the
many members of the Kingdom's family from all around the US and escorted their flights out of
the US to safety in Saudi Arabia.
Distracting the public big time was Dick Cheney, VP, who insisted from the very next day
that the plot to hit the Twin Towers was Saddam's plot.
So, the historical record and US response was skewed from the getgo. AQ and Bin Laden
didn't concern the neocons. They wanted the US to go to Iraq again, and this time start a
wide war that would spread to Syria and Lebanon and Iran.
It was easy times to spread fear and hate, and Cheney and the war mongers of CENTCOM were
riding high. Americans were scared of all Arabs, all Sunnis, all Shiites, from anywhere. They
were all the same in the public's mind. Enemies.
It was perfect and has led to 19 years of endless wars. Add ISIS and al Nusra and the
Taliban and you have an endless soup of enemies.
krugman is a terrible shill for the neo-cons and liberal-interventionists of the 21st
century
at my age, I shouldn't really be surprised any more by what american "intellectuals" and
"nobel prize winners" say about anything..... but I am.
He's neo-liberal interventionist moron of the first rank, and saying what he did actually
normalizes the war mania and war-mongering which has become so staple in mainstream thought
and the "think tanks" and is now practically part of the american DNA and "culture".
shame on krugman
...
It appears the Deep State has attacked the USA's people twice in two decades--on 911 and with
the decision to let as many die as possible by deliberately not doing anything to mitigate
the impact of COVID-19 and allowing the real economy to atrophy so even more will die in the
long run.
Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 11 2020 19:40 utc | 34
Talking about tilting at windmills - I'll never forget Robert Fisk angrily pointing out
that the Yankees knew where to find Al CIA-duh because they extended the cave complex at Tora
Bora to help Al CIA-duh, equipped with 10,000 US Stinger Missiles, kick the Russians out of
Afghanistan in the 1980s!!!
(The Yankees had to wait for 10+ years to invade Afghanistan because it takes that long
for Stingers to pass their Use By date)
@michaelj72. "krugman is a terrible shill for the neo-cons and liberal-interventionists of
the 21st century"
Actually, Paul Krugman was a strong and outspoken opponent of the Iraq War since early
2003 and possibly earlier. He was amongst the few mainstream liberal commentators to take
that stand.
If MoA readers and commenters were to read the entire series of Krugman's tweets, six in
all, they will see mention of how the Bush govt began exploiting the events of 11 September
2001 almost immediately. Though the example Krugman actually uses would make most people
cringe at what it suggests about the bubble he lives in and how far removed it is from most
people's lives and experiences, and his reference to a "horrible war" does not mention either
Afghanistan or Iraq.
It has to be said that Twitter is not designed very well for the kind of informal
conversational commentary that people often use it for. But then you would think Krugman
would use something other than Twitter to discuss and compare 9/11 with the impact of
COVID-19.
The real issue I have with Krugman's Tweet is that he is revising history and bending over
backwards to apologise for Dubya in a way to criticise Donald Trump's performance as
President.
b " Anyone with a functional memory knows that the U.S. reaction to 9/11 was anything but
"pretty calm". It is ridiculous that Krugman is claiming that. "
Careful with that axe b, you are talking about Biden's chief economic adviser and likely
appointee as Chair of the Fed. How does this look?
Volker
Greenspan
Bernanke
Yellen
Powell
Krugman
Reading Krugman's columns in 2016, I had a strong to overwhelming sense that this was a
person revving up for a spot in Hillary's White House or cabinet. For some reason it isn't
hitting me as strongly this time around – he may not have as close connections in
Biden's circle – but it certainly would not be a surprise to see him take a turn
through the media/government revolving door if Trump loses (though, fwiw, I don't think it
will be a job at the Fed).
Yep. Pretty staggering how a few disgruntled ex-CIA contractors managed to, deliberately
or not, help the US Gov't launch the biggest world war operation right under the noses of the
brainwashed masses.
99% of Westerners still are clueless as to explaining the last 20 years in a broader
geopolitical context.
#28: "The antiwar protests in the US were small and insignificant."
No they were not. Millions of people demonstrated against the planned war, in the US,
in the UK, and around the world...
We mustn't forget how the vast majority of those who allegedly were anti-war suddenly went
totally pro-war silent upon Obama coming in.
But that pales compared to the vile spectacle of all the self-alleged
"anti-authoritarians", "anti-propagandists" "dissidents", who suddenly regard the government
media as the literal voice of God, where their alleged God speaks of Covid.
His book, End this Depression Now, is pretty weak. He has no theory of why the crash
occurred. He critiques the austerity agenda but doesn't understand that government spending
CAN create tax liabilities for capital down the road and eat into profits, thus blocking
expanded investments and growth. Moronic libertarians hate Krugman just because they are
right wing assholes who think, like fairies, that a free market without the state will work
fine and self correct. Marx debunked this fairy tale thoroughly in Capital Volume 1, showing
that, even if we start with the mythical free market of libertarian morons, capitalism will
still operate according to the general law by which concentration and centralization lead to
class polarization. In any case, in volume 3 of Capital, Marx develops his laws of crisis,
showing that the cycles of expansion and depression under capitalism follow the movements of
the rate of profit, which itself is determined by the ratio of the value of sunk capital in
production technologies to the rate of exploitation (profits/wages). If the former rises more
than the latter, the rate of profit sinks, along with investment, output and employment.
Financial crises then set in.
The empirical evidence in the data bears out Marx's theory, not Krugman's dumb notion of
aggregate demand, or the stupid libertarian focus on interest rates.
We could discuss here all day about the sociological subject of the American people's true
positioning in the aftermath of 9/11. It would be, sincerely, a waste of time.
The important thing to grasp over this episode - from the point of view of History - is
this: it was a strategic victory for al-Qaeda . The USA took the bait (all scripted?)
and went into a quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan. In a few years, the surplus the USA had
accumulated with the sacking and absorption of the Soviet space during Bill Clinton
evaporated and became a huge deficit in the Empire's accounts. Not long after, the 2008
financial meltdown happened, burying Bushism in a spectacular way.
There's a debate about the size of the hole the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan cost the
American Empire. Some put it into the dozens of billions of USDs; others put it into the
trillions of USDs range. We will never know. What we know is that the hole was big enough to
both erase the American surplus and to not avoid the financial meltdown of 2008.
Either the expansion through the Middle East wasn't fast and provided riches enough to
keep up with the Empire's voracious appetite or the invasion itself already represented a
last, desperate attempt by the Empire to avoid its imminent collapse. We know, however, that
POTUS Bush had a list of countries he wanted to invade beyond Iraq (the "Axis of Evil") which
contained a secret country (Venezuela). He was conscious Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't be
enough. Whatever the case, he didn't have the time, and the financial meltdown happened in
his last year in the White House.
They knew who the perps of 9/11 were: their "own" Saudi irregulars in the CIA's US main
land training camps, who started practicing on the "wrong"- domestic American- targets. These
guys were officially entered without any background checks.
The Bush and Bin Laden families go way back in money making. That is why George had to ponder
so long in that Florida kindergarten after hearing about the attacks: he had a suspicion. The
Saudi only fly out after 9/11 confirms that.
Paul Krugman Is a pro. Completely owned by Deep State. His purpose is to deflect
discussion and prevent questioning the official version of 9/11 , and get people chasing
something completely irrelevant. Well done Paul, most have taken the bait.
Dannehy's email contained no information about the investigation, her work for Durham, or
political pressure, according to the Courant.
Durham, the US attorney for the district of Connecticut since 2017, was tasked in May 2019
to investigate the way the FBI and the DOJ handled the so-called Russiagate probe of Trump's
campaign and administration, from mid-2016 to the appointment of Robert Mueller as special
counsel in May 2017.
Though copious evidence that the investigation wasn't on the level has since emerged –
from the text messages between FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page to memos about
"entrapment" of General Michael Flynn and a damning inspector-general report, Durham's
probe has resulted in only one prosecution so far.
Last month, FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith pleaded guilty to making a false statement,
admitting that he altered evidence in the case of Carter Page. By claiming Page was a 'Russian
agent,' the FBI was able to obtain a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign, both before and
after the 2016 presidential election.
Evidence has emerged that the principal basis of the FISA warrants was the discredited
'Trump-Russia dossier,' compiled by British spy Christopher Steele and funded by Hillary
Clinton's campaign through the Democratic Party.
bjd050 11 Sep, 2020 07:14 PM
"Improper political influence". That's rich, coming from a coup plotters' apologist.
At the time of writing, he is still in a coma in the intensive care unit, in the same
German clinic. What happened to him, no one can say for sure yet (or does not want
to).
Written before it was not unsurprisingly "revealed" by the Germans that Navalny was
poisoned with "Novichok".
I recall how in 2012, having spouted his usual bullshit to the mob at Bolotnaya, Navalny
left the stage but did not join the sheeple, some of whom wished to storm the police lines
containing them in order that they not cross a nearby bridge over the Moscow River and head
for the Kremlin, but went the opposite way, where a line of OMON personnel prevented persons
from venturing any further.
A gap then appeared in the OMON cordon, through which the Bullshitter nonchalantly
proceeded, whither no one knows.
I used to teach a bloke at KPMG who believed that Navalny was employed by the FSB. He was
a regular sort of bloke: mid-30s, married, young family, well educated, widely travelled, a
tax specialist.
Politically, he was right of centre, but not much: certainly not a Libtard and no rampant
nationalist either.
He had a younger brother, he told me, who was still at college and whom he considered to
be a dickhead because he was a Navalny hamster who attended the Bullshitter's unsanctioned
assemblies.
There have been a few Orcs who have expressed their opinion to me over the years that
Navalny is a latter-day "Father Gapon".
Western regime-change tuners would do well to take notice that Navalny is popular with
disaffected children of the elite and the intelligentsia for the same reason The Rolling
Stones and Deep Purple were beloved by the youth of my generation – because adults
despised them. I still believe Ritchie Blackmore is the greatest rock guitarist who ever
lived, but if he announced he was moving to Canada to run for Prime Minister, I would just
laugh. There is no crossover in those skills. Well, I couldn't actually give less of a fuck
who is the next Prime Minister of Canada, so perhaps it's not a good example, and Blackmore
would doubtless do as well as anyone else. But you see my point, I'm sure. Being a
Navalny-follower is cool because it is an act of rebellion. Lyosha was a real-estate lawyer,
and his understanding of massive organizations like the Ministry of Finance or the
labyrinthine workings of the tax code is strictly at the newspaper-commenter level. To be
fair, that's true of many Prime Ministers and Presidents as well, but they rely on Heads of
Departments and Ministers to know that stuff. Navalny seems to think those people would serve
him loyally and make his imaginings come to life if he could just win. It's surprising he has
not looked to America there, too, for his inspiration. Was that Obama's experience? I don't
think so. Nor is it Trump's.
I suppose Lyosha reasons that if he could just get elected, Harvard would send a team of
experts to help him remodel Russia, and doubtless it would. But that was tried once already,
and I think the reaction to a repeat attempt would be a little less welcoming this time
around.
Omsk doctor says there were no toxicants in Navalny's body
"Любой
токсикант,
проходя через
наши органы
детоксикации (а
это печень,
почки и лёгкие),
оставит след. В
данном случае в
течение всего
времени
пребывания ни
почки, ни
лёгкие, ни
печень не были
(поражены. -- RT)", --
уточнил
Александр
Сабаев в
разговоре с RT.
"Any toxicant passing through our detoxification organs (which are the liver,
kidneys and lungs) will leave a trace. In this case, during his entire stay, neither his
kidneys, nor his lungs, nor his liver were (affected. – RT) ", Alexander Sabaev
clarified in a conversation with RT.
And I am willing to bet that at the Omsk hospital they have records of their analyses on
hand to prove this. They used a USA manufactured machine to do these analyses, by the
way.
This is called "presenting evidence".
Over to you, "Free World" doctors at the Berlin Charité clinic -- better said
"Porton Down" and Bundeswehr laboratories!
I guess their hope was that Russia would just deny and then subside into sullen acceptance
when it could not be heard. It does not look like that is going to happen. If Germany has to
admit to fabricating its case, or even to confess it was mistaken, it will do 'great
propaganda damage' – to use Karl's phrase – to the west in general and Germany in
particular. Russia should not let up, and not accept non-answers like 'results classified for
reasons of national security'.
Hello again, folks. This is going to be interesting. Dilyana Gaytandzhieva has been
working away on researching that lab in Georgia. There has now been a data leak of hundreds
of documents from the lab. She had discovered something fishy going on there earlier in the
year, a biological warfare program run on Georgian soil by the US. Interesting, everyone
involved in fighting disinformation then turned on her and said it was Russian propaganda.
More recently, there have been claims in the media further obscuring the actual work there by
saying that the lab has been working on COVID research. Right. Anyway, Dilyana's twitter feed
is worth checking.
Now here's something for those who think that Putin was "a moron" for allowing Navalny to
go to Germany for treatment:
Knowing full well that Navalny had not been poisoned by anything, let alone "Novichok",
and having irrefutable evidence that this was the case, the powers-that-be here allowed the
Bullshitter to go to Germany, where the Evil Russians rightly assumed that the Germans, on
CIA advice, would attempt to use the Novichok gambit, a scam that they felt was an astounding
success in the UK.
Now it looks as though the wicked Orcs might now be able to kill 2 birds with one stone:
to reveal what lying bastards those who hold the levers of power in the USA snd its vassal
states are and to "debunk" (favourite term used by our erstwhile Venezualian troll) the
Skripal story.
I don't think that was a clever plan by the Russians – I actually think it was an
unpleasant surprise when Germany revealed that it, too, cannot be trusted because it is an
agent of Washington, or at least that there are powerful American influences in Berlin. I am
beginning to get a little respect back for Merkel, as she always has to be putting off some
special-interest group or other which is trying to back her into a corner; and, as we're all
aware, she is not a well woman.
Russia was right, I believe, to permit Navalny's transportation as it was at the wish of
the family, as you stated, and the western media is always ready to scream that Russians are
not free to make their own decisions. A note of caution should have been introduced, though,
by Germany's picking up the tab; Russia should have known then that something opportunistic
was afoot. But now Germany is in a very awkward position, and Russia is actually on pretty
solid ground – all it has to do is keep putting the screws to Germany and demanding an
explanation for why there was no 'nerve agent' in Navalny's samples before he left Russia,
but it magically showed up in Germany. Not to mention that the Germans tried to go with
poisoning using a cholinesterase-inhibitor until there was a rational explanation for that,
and only then switched to Novichok. The Germans are on the back foot now.
"Der Spiegel" has now said that traces of poison have been found on Navalny's clothing,
skin etc..
They just wont give up!
But are they still saying he was Novichocked? If they are, then why aren't his fellow
passengers on the Tomsk – Moscow flight not dropping dead like flies? For that matter,
why isnt Navalny dead? In fact, why didn't he die immediately after drinking his Novichocked
tea?
Ummm .how did Lyosha get such a heavy dose of poison that it was all over him, and he has
no clue where it came from? Or is that why he's been kept in a coma – so he doesn't
have to provide any answers?
"In all fairness, we should probably draw everyone's attention to the fact that the
Omsk hospital provided more information about the patient's health than, for example, the
Berlin hospital is doing right now. Our doctors behaved much more transparently with regard
to informing both journalists and all those interested than their German colleagues
do."
What a frightful image that conjures up: the snap of tight fitting surgical gloves as she
puts them on her hands before sticking her right index finger into a big jar of that goo!
No KY jelly in the the gas-station with missile, see: just good ol' Vaseline.
Such interesting Novichok. It only worked on Navalny 40 minutes after takeoff.
According to a young woman, the blogger [Navalny -- ME] suddenly felt
unwell about 40 minutes after take-off.
A passenger on the Tomsk-Moscow flight, in an interview with 5 -tv.ru , spoke about the
incident with Alexey Navalny on board the plane. The girl noted that she initially saw the
blogger at the airport in the cafeteria, where she was drinking coffee. According to her, the
man was sitting at a table and enjoying tea.
When boarding, the passenger noticed that Alexei Navalny was behind her and she asked
him for a photo to be taken of him and her together. The celebrity reacted positively to his
fellow traveller's request, after which the girl went to her seat.
"It seemed to me that he was feeling fine, absolutely. I had a photo taken of me and
him: you can't tell from it that he was somehow in bad way. We took photos; I went to my
place. I sat at the tail-end, where it all happened. We took off. Some flight time had
already passed, maybe 40 minutes, and he went to the toilet. I didn't see him come out, I
tried to sleep. I woke up because of a stewardess screaming that medical assistance was
needed", said the passenger.
The call of the cabin crew was answered by a woman who tried to bring Alexei Navalny to
life. While this was happening, his companions – a girl and a lad -- were shouting:
"Lyosha [Navalny -- ME] , don't close your eyes! Lyosha, breathe!"
The passenger said that at some point, Alexei Navalny began to shout in an inhuman
voice. This greatly frightened some of the passengers.
"In the end he began to shout 'beluga' [expensive brand of black caviar -- ME] ,
unlike a human being. It scared everyone very much. I burst into tears there then and I
started to panic. His cheeks were slapped. The pilot announced an emergency landing in Omsk",
the girl said.
After the landing, a medical team came on board. After having been examined, the
blogger was immediately put on a saline drip and was soon carried out of the aeroplane on a
stretcher. By that time, according to the incident witness, Alexei Navalny was already
unconscious.
The blogger's fellow passenger emphasized that when the aircraft was being refueled,
people in the cabin were vigorously discussing the incident. One of the passengers suggested
that Alexei Navalny had had an overdose of illegal drugs.
"When all this was happening, we were already at the refueling station and there was a
discussion going on between people. The woman who had tried to provide him with medical
assistance said: "Everything will be fine with him. He will now be cleaned up there and he
will be released". There were shouts from passengers: "Addict! Serves him right! ", "This is
an overdose!" said the blogger's fellow passenger.
The girl added that many began to intercede for Alexei Navalny and reject assumptions
about his taking drugs.
The blogger is currently in a serious condition, doctors say that he is stable. He was
put into a drug-induced coma ad connected to a ventilator. A final diagnosis has not been
established. A full investigation is underway.
Earlier, 5 -tv.ru reported that the police did not believe in the intentional poisoning
of Navalny.
Ate something that was a little off, Lyosha? And washed down with moonshine vodka?
Opinion: Will Vladimir Putin ride out the Navalny storm?
The consequences of what German Chancellor Angela Merkel all but called an
assassination attempt on Alexei Navalny could be serious and substantial for Vladimir Putin,
says DW's Konstantin Eggert.
Russian society should have been the first to react to Alexei Navalny's predicament.
But do not expect tens of thousands of people at the gates of the Kremlin, chanting "We won't
forget, we won't forgive," as they usually do during anti-Putin protests.
Do they really do that "at the gates of the Kremlin"?
Many are also afraid. What happened to the opposition leader was most probably designed
to warn the politically active: "This is what happens when you cross the authorities'
path."
The public will most probably remain as indifferent to the fate of Navalny as to the
struggle of the "brotherly" Belarusian people for civil rights. Russians are preoccupied with
the coronavirus pandemic, anxious about their jobs and the future of their families. Many are
also afraid. What happened to the opposition leader was most probably designed to warn the
politically active: "This is what happens when you cross the authorities' path."
That a fact, Eggert?
Navalny is not just a "blogger," as the Kremlin's propagandists like to call him. He is
a politician who has actively formulated an alternative political and economic agenda for
Russia. Even his temporary departure from the political scene is a blow to all critics of the
Kremlin. It is difficult to replace him.
An economic agenda you say? Are you serious?
The question is how cohesive and organised his supporters are. The inability to garner
broad popular support has plagued all Russian anti-authoritarian movements for centuries,
starting with the "Decembrist" uprising in 1825.
Broad and popular support? Now I know you are pulling my pisser!
No one really expects an objective and transparent investigation from Moscow into the
poisoning. The key question now is how seriously Germany and its EU and NATO allies
respond.
Talking about transparency, where's the fucking evidence that your pals say they have,
proving that "Novichok"was used to assassinate the charlatan who you like to label as a
politician and not a foreign agent?
Having taken responsibility for Navalny's fate, the German government has also taken on
a moral burden so serious that it is now almost impossible to shed it without incurring
lasting damage.
Responsibility for the Bullshitter's fate?
Moral burden?
Oh fuck off will ya!
No, on second thoughts don't! Let's analyse the heap of shite you wrote for DW in, say6
months' time, and see how it compares with the reality of Russian politics.
And I tell you what: Navalny will be alive and well before that time, he will not be
president of Russia, but he will still be a blogger hired by the US State Dept.
However, he but won't be blogging from his present home address: he'll be blogging from
Berlin or even further afield, perhaps from the USA.
Stop flogging yourself ME and let it go. I almost posted a piece by Lithuanian gobshite
and FM
Linas Linkevičius. I will not give those likes the oxygen of publicity unless there is
actually something new. It seems that Merkel is 'coming under pressure' because she refuses
to be bounced in to immediate action of do something and NATO of course have
commented. This is the same NATO that wants 'discussions with Turkey' but that Greece
completely rejects. Who's falling apart here again?
Well, just a small quibble – Von Eggert did not say Navalny had broad popular
support – he said the opposite, citing an INABILITY to garner broad political
support.
If Lyosha has a complete plan for Russia under his leadership, he's keeping it under wraps
except for loving peeks offered to western reporters; I have never seen a complete and
coherent election platform from Navalny. If anyone has, please post it here. That means a
serious plan in which objectives like – for example – 'reduce taxes' are costed
and the explanation provided for where the money will come from makes sense. Of course every
political candidate cites the need for reforms, and doubtless reforms are always needed,
nobody has a perfect plan. But it is one thing to say 'reduce taxes' and other
vote-compelling inducements, and quite another to do it and still have enough money for the
state to carry out needed improvements to public infrastructure.
But do not expect tens of thousands of people at the gates of the Kremlin, chanting "We
won't forget, we won't forgive," as they usually do during anti-Putin protests
."
My stress.
And they don't do that during anti-Putin protests -- ever..
For one thing, Navalny and his mostly juvenile mob are not allowed anywhere near the
Kremlin..
That's why the charlatan always surfaces at Pushkin Square metro station and, like a Pied
Piper, tries to lead his hamsters downhill along Tverskaya Street towards Manezh Square and
the Kremlin. When doing this, he usually gets lifted about 100 metres away from the metro
station by Putin's brutal, thuggish police.
An open and shut case! Clearly Novichok poisoning, a deadly poison made only in Russia,
and the Russians have already used it at least once. The most deadly nerve agent known to man
and part of the brutal armament that Putin's thugs use on their murderous missions.
Germany has denied allegation of falsification of the Navalny case
3 September 2020
MOSCOW, September 3 – RIA Novosti. The statement made by the President of
Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, about the falsification of data on the "poisoning" of Navalny
is not true, the press service of the German Cabinet told RIA Novosti.
Earlier, at a meeting with Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, Lukashenko said that
Minsk had intercepted a conversation between Warsaw and Berlin, which denied allegations of
the blogger's poisoning. He promised that he would give the Russian side a transcript of this
"interesting dialogue, which clearly indicates that this is falsification".
"Of course, Mr. Lukashenko's statement does not correspond to reality. Yesterday the
Federal Chancellor, the Foreign Minister and the Defence Minister expressed their views on
the new circumstances in the Navalny poisoning case There is nothing to add", the cabinet
told the agency.
In Moscow, they noted that they had not yet received this evidence.
"Lukashenko hast just announced this. He said that the material would be transferred to
the FSB. There is no other information yet", Peskov told RIA Novosti.
What a duplicitous creep Lukashenko is!
Always jumping to one side of the fence to the other and thinking he is so smart in doing
so.
Then again, perhaps he has such damning evidence, but even if he had, nobody would believe
it, because Germany, being a vassal state of the USA, is on the side of freedom and
democracy.
"Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit für das deutsche Vaterland" as one sings there to a
well known tune.
" Once Navalny was in Berlin it was only a matter of time before it was declared that he
was poisoned with Novichok. The Russophobes are delighted. This of course eliminates all
vestiges of doubt about what happened to the Skripals, and proves that Russia must be
isolated and sanctioned to death and we must spend untold billions on weapons and security
services. We must also increase domestic surveillance, crack down on dissenting online
opinion. It also proves that Donald Trump is a Russian puppet and Brexit is a Russian
plot.
I am going to prove beyond all doubt that I am a Russian troll by asking the question Cui
Bono?, brilliantly identified by the Integrity Initiative's Ben Nimmo as a sure sign of
Russian influence.
I should state that I have no difficulty at all with the notion that a powerful oligarch
or an organ of the Russian state may have tried to assassinate Navalny. He is a minor
irritant, rather more famous here than in Russia, but not being a major threat does not
protect you against political assassination in Russia.
What I do have difficulty with is the notion that if Putin, or other very powerful Russian
actors, wanted Navalny dead, and had attacked him while he was in Siberia, he would not be
alive in Germany today. If Putin wanted him dead, he would be dead.
Let us first take the weapon of attack. One thing we know about a "Novichok" for sure is
that it appears not to be very good at assassination. Poor Dawn Sturgess is the only person
ever to have allegedly died from "Novichok", accidentally according to the official
narrative. "Novichok" did not kill the Skripals, the actual target. If Putin wanted Navalny
dead, he would try something that works. Like a bullet to the head, or an actually deadly
poison.
"Novichok" is not a specific chemical. It is a class of chemical weapon designed to be
improvised in the field from common domestic or industrial precursors. It makes some sense to
use on foreign soil as you are not carrying around the actual nerve agent, and may be able to
buy the ingredients locally. But it makes no sense at all in your own country, where the FSB
or GRU can swan around with any deadly weapon they wish, to be making homemade nerve agents
in the sink. Why would you do that?
Further we are expected to believe that, the Russian state having poisoned Navalny, the
Russian state then allowed the airplane he was traveling in, on a domestic flight, to divert
to another airport, and make an emergency landing, so he could be rushed to hospital. If the
Russian secret services had poisoned Navalny at the airport before takeoff as alleged, why
would they not insist the plane stick to its original flight plan and let him die on the
plane? They would have foreseen what would happen to the plane he was on.
Next, we are supposed to believe that the Russian state, having poisoned Navalny, was not
able to contrive his death in the intensive care unit of a Russian state hospital. We are
supposed to believe that the evil Russian state was able to falsify all his toxicology tests
and prevent doctors telling the truth about his poisoning, but the evil Russian state lacked
the power to switch off the ventilator for a few minutes or slip something into his drip. In
a Russian state hospital.
Next we are supposed to believe that Putin, having poisoned Navalny with novichok, allowed
him to be flown to Germany to be saved, making it certain the novichok would be discovered.
And that Putin did this because he was worried Merkel was angry, not realising she might be
still more angry when she discovered Putin had poisoned him with novichok
There are a whole stream of utterly unbelievable points there, every single one of which
you have to believe to go along with the western narrative. Personally I do not buy a single
one of them, but then I am a notorious Russophile traitor.
The United States is very keen indeed to stop Germany completing the Nord Stream 2
pipeline, which will supply Russian gas to Germany on a massive scale, sufficient for about
40% of its electricity generation. Personally I am opposed to Nord Stream 2 myself, on both
environmental and strategic grounds. I would much rather Germany put its formidable
industrial might into renewables and self-sufficiency. But my reasons are very different from
those of the USA, which is concerned about the market for liquefied gas to Europe for US
produces and for the Gulf allies of the US. Key decisions on the completion of Nord Stream 2
are now in train in Germany.
The US and Saudi Arabia have every reason to instigate a split between Germany and Russia
at this time. Navalny is certainly a victim of international politics. That he is a victim of
Putin I tend to doubt.
I do hope that Murray was writing cynically when he penned the following words above about
Navalny:
He is a minor irritant, rather more famous here than in Russia
His popularity here is minimal and his political base statistically zilch, the incessant
swamping of the Russian blogosphere with his praise by his hamsters notwithstanding.
I saw one of such hamster's nonsense only the other week in which the retard wrote that
Navalny is the most well-known person in Russia and another post of yet another hamster who
presented a list of policies that the bullshitter would follow "when he becomes
president".
The whole crock of Navalny -- Novichok shite neatly summed up by a comment to Murray's
article linked above:
Goose
September 4, 2020 at 00:28 We're being asked to believe by people calling themselves serious journalists, that the
Kremlin's thought process was thus :
Let's poison this guy with Novichok. Nobody will know it was us and there'll be no
diplomatic fallout.
Completely illogical.
Logic has no part in this machination, dear chap: the people to whom these lies are
directed are fucking stupid: uneducated, brain-dead, browser surfing, soap opera and
"Celebrity Come Dancing" and "Reality TV" and porn watching morons.
Oh yes! And in the UK they're daily fed pap about "The Royals": every day without fail the
UK media presents page after page of "stories" concerning "Kate and Wills" and "Harry and
Megan".
And much of the rest of the UK media is full of shite about "football" and its prima
donnas -- that's "Associated Football" or "soccer" as they prefer to say in North America,
and not "Rugby Football" -- better said: not "Rugby League Football".
Nato has called for Russia to disclose its Novichok nerve agent programme to
international monitors, following the poisoning of activist Alexei Navalny.
Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said members were united in condemning the
"horrific" attack.
He added there was "proof beyond doubt" that a Novichok nerve agent was used against Mr
Navalny.
Where is the proof????????
You just say so or some "guy" at Porton Down or some Bundeswehr
Scheißkerl laboratories?
Get fucked Stoltenberg!
And Peskov, a word of advice: Shut the fuck up and say nothing.
Don't believe that silence from you will be taken as proof of guilt!
You and the Russian state are guilty of everything as charged by the very nature of the
fact that you are Russian, "the other"!
Sound familiar?
It's what the Nazis said about every Jew: guilty of all accusations because of their
ethnicity -- not their religion, note: Christianized Jews were still "Jews". They were guilty
of all charges from the moment of each and every one's birth as a "Jew".
And the sickening thing is that "woke" arseholes the world over condemn racism, but racism
directed against Russians is fair game.
The US president has received heavy criticism for his reluctance to immediately join
NATO allies in pressing Russia over the Navalny incident, which CNN called "the latest
instance of Trump failing to speak out and call for answers from the Kremlin on issues
ranging from election interference to possible bounties on US troops in Afghanistan."
I presume that the concept of "burden of proof" is now a dead letter in the Free West.
I thought that whole Russia-offered-bounties-for-dead-US-troops thing had been 'debunked'
for good. Several western sources which are sometimes not snapping-turtle crazy said there
was nothing to it. So why are they still citing it?
Alexei Navalny is one of the most important leaders of what passes for political
opposition in President Putin's Russia. Some say he is, in effect, "the" leader of the
opposition in Russia. He has just been the subject of an assassination attempt, and lies in
an induced coma in a German hospital. It's worth repeating: the leader of the opposition to
Vladimir Putin has been poisoned, perhaps fatally, using novichok, a chemical weapon banned
by international treaty. There is little doubt that, in one form or another, formal or
informal agents of the Russian state would have been part of the plot, especially given the
evidence of novichok, and that the highest circles of the Russian establishment would either
have knowledge of the attack, or made it apparent to any shady blah, blah. blah ..
Now don't you folks go and forget, BoJo recently made Evgeny Lebedev, the owner of that
rag and who penned the above shite, a Baronet.
Lebedev has dual Russian/British citizen and has lived in the UK since he arrived there as
an 8-year-old with his KGB papa, who had landed a cushy number at the Soviet Embassy.
Papa Lebedev went back to Russia, where in the immediate post-Soviet years of Russia he
made a mint and became an "oligarch", namely an extremely successful thief who had pillaged
Russia. His son became a UK citizen in 2010.
Evgeny Lebedev is now a life peer and may now plonk his arse (and get paid for doing so!)
in one of the chambers of the British legislature, the one whose members are unelected: they
are there either through their aristocratic "birthright" or are appointees, such as is
Lebedev.
When BoJo appointed Lebedev as a life peer, the moronic Russophobes in the UK accused that
fool of a British PM of being under the Evil One's control.
Just shows you how they know shag all about Russia and Russians.
Recording of conversation between Berlin and Warsaw on Navalny case published
20:40 09/04/2020 (updated: 05:19 09/05/2020)
MOSCOW, September 4 – RIA Novosti.The state Belarusian media has
published a recording of the negotiations between Berlin and Warsaw on the situation with
Alexei Navalny, intercepted by Minsk .
RIA Novosti is publishing a transcript of this dialogue.
– Hello, good afternoon, Nick. How are we getting on?
– Everything seems to be going according to plan. The materials about Navalny are
ready. They'll be transferred to the Chancellor's office. We'll be waiting for her
statement.
– Has the poisoning been definitely confirmed?
– Look, Mike, it's not that important in this case. There is a war going on. And
during a war, all sorts of methods are good.
– I agree. It is necessary to discourage Putin from sticking his nose into the
affairs of Belarus. The most effective way is to drown him with the problems in Russia, and
there are many of them. Moreover, in the near future they will have elections, voting day in
the Russian regions.
– This is what we are doing. How are you doing in Belarus?
– To be honest, not that well, really. President Lukashenko has turned out to be
a tough nut to crack. They are professional and organized. It is clear that Russia supports
them. The officials and the military are loyal to the president. We are working on it. The
rest [of this conversation] we'll have when we meet and not on the 'phone.
I find it hard to believe this is real. Lukashenko is 'a tough nut to crack'? The
Belarusian government is 'professional and organized'? Well, you never know with the Poles.
But it seems so perfectly to confirm western perfidy that it must be made up. Who would be
stupid enough to say things like that on the phone?
And "Yats is our man!" Victory Noodles crowed to Pie-whacked.
Don't forget also that Jens Stoltenberg was dumb enough to think he could drive a taxi
around Oslo and pick up paying passengers without their recognising him and commenting on his
poor driving skills and knowledge of Oslo streets.
And on hearing off a Latvian (?) politician, who had been observing the "Revolution of
Dignity" and was involved in an investigation into the deaths of the "Heavenly Hundred", that
there were good grounds to believe that those martyrs for Ukrainian freedom had been martyred
by being shot in the back by their fellow countrymen who were of a fascist bent, Lady Ashton
said: "Gosh!""
Now that really was a dumb utterance to make on the phone, considering the
circumstances.
It is also worth underlining that the Russian pilot who decided to make an emergency
landing in Omsk, rather than proceed to Moscow, may have saved Navalny's life, as may the
doctors in Omsk who – despite their professed doubts about poison – administered
atropine, the closest treatment there is to a novichok antidote, early on. The claim, made by
some, that this was a brazen attack, with the Kremlin's fingerprints all over it, designed to
be found out and interpreted as a "two fingers up" to the west, does not stack up.
But the German findings that probably the most influential Russian opposition leader
was poisoned and that the substance used was the same as the one identified in the Skripal
case – a military-grade nerve agent, moreover, that is associated with Russia, even
though it was developed in the Soviet-era and can be found outside Russia – means that
the Kremlin has a case to answer. Yes, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and the
Kremlin is all denials, but the onus is now squarely on Putin to make his case in the court
of international opinion.
" the doctors in Omsk who – despite their professed doubts about poison –
administered atropine, the closest treatment there is to a novichok antidote, early on."
That a fact, Doctor Dejevsky?
" everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and the Kremlin is all denials, but the onus
is now squarely on Putin to make his case in the court of international opinion"
Burden of proof?
Russia has been accused! Russia is not obliged to prove its innocence, FFS!!!!
Where is the evidence to back up the accusation????
Of course the Omsk hospital doctors had to apply atropine because Navalny's groupies were
squealing that he had been poisoned. They would have squealed again and accused the hospital
of malpractice if the hospital had not used the drug.
Russian doctors have proposed to their German colleagues that they establish a joint
group on the case of Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny, the president of Russia's
National Medical Chamber, noted paediatrician Leonid Roshal, told reporters on
Saturday.
Will the Germans agree?
I shouldn't imagine so. They and the rest of the West have crossed the Rubicon:
By
Tony
Cox
, a US journalist who has written or edited for Bloomberg and several major daily newspapers.
The New York Times and CNN are desperate to paint Donald Trump as an enemy of the military, due to his desire not to get
involved in pointless wars. But this is simply not true, and Trump has the backing of many soldiers.
Someone should tell the
New York Times, CNN and other mainstream media outlets that soldiers don't actually like getting killed or maimed for no good
reason. Nor do they like generals and presidents who spill their blood in vain.
Alas, ignorance of these
obvious truths probably isn't the issue. This is likely just another case of the biggest names in news pretending to not get
the point so they can take the rest of us along for a ride in their confidence game of alternative reality.
The latest example is the
New York Times spinning President Donald Trump's critique this week of Pentagon leadership and the military industrial complex
as disrespect for the military at large.
"Trump has lost the right and authority to be
commander in chief,"
the
Times quoted
retired US Marines General Anthony Zinni as saying. Zinni cited Trump's alleged
"despicable
comments"
about the nation's war dead – reported last week by
The
Atlantic
, citing anonymous sources – as one of the reasons Trump "must go."
Never mind that Trump and all on-the-record administration sources denied The Atlantic's report. The Times couldn't resist
when the pieces seemed to fit so well together for the military's latest propaganda campaign against Trump. First the
president disses the troops, calling them "losers" and "suckers," then he has the
temerity
to say
Pentagon leaders want to fight wars to keep defense contractors happy.
Except the pieces don't
fit. The many people who occupy so-called boots on the ground don't have the same interests as the few people who send them to
war. In fact, combat troops are given reason to hate the generals who send them to die when there's not a legitimate national
security reason for the war they're fighting. And the US has fought a long line of wars that didn't serve the nation's
national security interests. Even when a war is justified, the interests of top brass and front-line soldiers often clash.
Remember that great 1967
war movie, '
The
Dirty Dozen'
? A group of 12 soldiers who were condemned to long prison sentences or execution in military prison for their
crimes were sent on a 1944 suicide mission to kill high-ranking German officers at a heavily defended chateau far behind enemy
lines. After succeeding in the mission and escaping the Germans, the lone surviving convict, played by tough-guy actor Charles
Bronson, told the mission leader,
"Killing generals could get to be a habit with me."
So no, New York Times, speaking out against ill-advised wars does not equal bashing the military. And sorry, General Zinni,
but generals, defense contractors and their media mouthpieces don't get to decide who has the
"right
and authority"
to be commander in chief. The voters decided that already, and they expressed clearly that they don't want
senseless and endless wars and foreign interventions.
The Times cited General
James McConville, the Army's chief of staff, as saying Pentagon leaders would only recommend sending troops to combat
"when
it's required for national security and a last resort."
And no, it wasn't a comedy skit. What's the last US war or combat
intervention that measured up to that standard? Let's just say the late Bronson, who died in 2003 at the age of 81, was a
young man the last time that happened.
CNN tried a similar ploy
on Sunday, while trying to sell the "losers" and "suckers" story in an interview with US Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert
Wilkie. Host Dana Bash said the allegations fit a
"pattern of public statements
" by
the president because Trump called US Senator John McCain a "loser" in 2015 and said McCain shouldn't be considered a hero for
being captured in the Vietnam War. She repeatedly suggested to Wilkie, who didn't take the bait, that Trump's attacks on
McCain, who died in 2018, showed disrespect for the troops.
Apparently, this follows
the same line of propagandist thought which told us that saying there are rapists among the illegal aliens entering the US
from Mexico – which is undeniably true –
equals
saying
all Mexicans are rapists. In CNN land, a bad word about McCain is a bad word about all soldiers.
McCain was
a
warmonger
who didn't mind getting US troops killed or backing terrorist groups in Syria. If
he
had his way
, many more GIs would be dead or disabled, because the intervention in Syria would have been escalated and the
US might be at war with Iran. Soldiers wouldn't want their lives wasted in such conflicts.
All wars are hard on the
people who have to fight them, but senseless wars are spirit-crushing. An average of about 17 veterans commit suicide each day
in the US, according to Veterans Administration
data
.
Veterans account for 11 percent of the US adult population but more than 18 percent of suicides.
The media's deceiving
technique of trying to pretend that ruling-class chieftains and front-line grunts are in the same boat reflects a broader
campaign of top-down revolution against populism. The
military
is
just one of several pro-Trump segments of the population that must be turned against the president. Other pro-Trump segments,
such as
police
,
are demonized and attacked.
Trump has managed to keep
the US out of new wars and has drawn down deployments to Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan – despite Pentagon opposition. His rival,
Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden, can be expected to rev up the war machine if he takes charge. His foreign policy
adviser, Antony Blinken, lamented in a May
interview
with CBS News
that Trump had given up US "leverage" in Syria.
Trump also has turned
around the VA hospital system, ending
decades
of neglect
that left many veterans to die on waiting lists.
Like past campaigns to
oust Trump, the notion that he's not sufficiently devoted to the troops might be a tough sell. No matter how good their words
may sound, the people who promote endless wars without clear objectives aren't true supporters of the rank and file.
By Dr. Karin Kneissl , who works as an energy analyst and book author. She served as the Austrian minister of foreign affairs
from 2017-2019. In June, she published her book on diplomacy 'Diplomatie Macht Geschichte' in Germany through Olms, and in early
September her book 'Die Mobilitätswende', or 'Mobility in Transition', was released in Vienna by Braumüller. The cacophony of
noise generated in the wake of the attack on the Russian opposition figure is drowning out the reality. As Angela Merkel has always
maintained, the German-Russian gas deal is purely a commercial project.
Nord Stream has always had the ingredients to drive sober-minded Germans emotional. I remember energy conferences in Germany back
in 2006 when already the idea of such a gas pipeline as a direct connection from Russia to Germany provoked deep political rows,
not just in Berlin but across the EU.
Conservatives disliked it for the simple reason that it was a "Schröder thing," the legacy of social democrat Chancellor Gerhard
Schröder, who lost the election of September 2005 to Angela Merkel. Schröder had negotiated the project with his good friend, President
Vladimir Putin, and then chaired the company in charge of implementing it.
Around that time, I was invited to an energy conference in Munich by the conservative think tank, the Hanns Seidel Foundation,
managed by the Bavarian party CSU, the traditional junior partner of the ruling CDU in the government. The bottom-line of the debate
on Nord Stream was negative, with the consensus being that the German-Russian pipeline would lead to the implosion of a European
common foreign policy and damage the EU's energy ambitions.
I attended many other such events across Germany, from parliament to universities, and listened carefully to all the arguments.
The feelings towards Nord Stream were much more benign at meetings held under the auspices of the SPD.
But over the years, the rift between different political parties evaporated, and a consensus emerged which supported enhanced
energy cooperation between Berlin and Moscow. Politicians of all shades defended the first pipeline, Nord Stream 1, after it went
operational in 2011, bringing Russian gas directly to Germany under the Baltic Sea.
They also enthusiastically supported the creation of the second, Nord Stream 2, better known by its acronym NS2. This $11bn (£8.4bn)
1,200km pipeline is almost finished and was due to go online next year.
But now, in the very final stage of construction, everything has been thrown in limbo thanks to the alleged poisoning of Russian
opposition figure Alexey Navalny.
NS2 has always been controversial. Critics, such as the US and Poland, have argued that it makes Germany too reliant on energy
from a politically unreliable partner. President Trump last year signed a law imposing sanctions on any firm that helps Russia's
state-owned gas company, Gazprom, finish it. The White House fears NS2 will tighten Russia's grip over Europe's energy supply and
reduce its own share of the lucrative European market for American liquefied natural gas.
These sanctions have caused delays to the project. A special ship owned by a Swiss company menaced with sanctions had to be replaced.
And prior to that, various legal provisions were brought up by the European Commission that had to be fulfilled by the companies
in retrospect.
Now the case of Navalny, currently being treated at a Berlin clinic after being awoken from a medically induced coma, has thrown
everything up in the air again. It has triggered a political cacophony that threatens relations between Germany, the EU, Russia,
and Washington. And at the center is the pipeline.
Various German sources, among them laboratories of the armed forces, have alleged that Navalny had been poisoned with the nerve
agent Novichok. Foreign Minister Heiko Maas (SPD)
stated in an interview published on Sunday by Bild: " I hope the Russians don't force us to change our stance on Nord Stream
2 – we have high expectations of the Russian government that it will solve this serious crime ." He claimed to have seen "
a lot of evidence " that the Russian state was behind the attack. " The deadly chemical weapon with which Navalny was poisoned
was in the past in the possession of Russian authorities ," he insisted.
He conceded that stopping the almost-completed pipeline would harm German and broader European business interests, pointing out
that the gas pipeline's construction involves "over 100 companies from 12 European countries, and about half of them come from Germany."
Maas also threatened the Kremlin with broader EU sanctions if it did not help clarify what happened "in the coming days." Russian
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov responded by labeling the accusations "groundless" and Moscow has staunchly denied any involvement
in the affair.
The whole matter is complicated by domestic political considerations in Germany. CDU politician Norbert Röttgen, who heads up
foreign affairs within the ruling party and has demanded that the pipeline should be stopped, is among those conservatives vying
to lead the CDU in the run-up to Chancellor Angela Merkel's retirement next year. Meanwhile, Merkel is still trying to strike a balance
between the country's legal commitments, her well-known mantra that NS2 is a " purely commercial project, " and what is now
a major foreign policy crisis.
The chancellor had always focused on the business dimension. But most large energy projects also have a geopolitical dimension,
and that certainly holds true with Nord Stream.
When I was Austria's foreign minister, I saw first-hand the recurring and very harsh criticism of the project by US politicians
and officials. I remember the US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, in a speech at the margins of the UN General Assembly in September
2018 that focused solely on NS2. I replied by pointing out to him that pipelines are not built to annoy others, but because there
is demand. One thing was certain – the US opposition to Nord Stream would not wane and now the Navalny case has given it new impetus.
What we are witnessing is a tremendous politicization of the pipeline with a wide range of people all shouting very loudly.
So here we are, in a very poisoned atmosphere where it might be difficult to revise positions without losing face. The social
democrat Maas, just like the conservative Röttgen and many others, have taken to the media for different reasons. In my observation,
it might have to do with their respective desires to take a strong position in order to also mark their upcoming emancipation from
the political giant Merkel (she is due to step down next year).
Due to her professional and empathetic handling of the pandemic, she is today much more popular than before the crisis. That makes
it difficult for a junior partner, represented by Foreign Minister Maas, and for all those who wish to challenge her inside the party.
What is needed is to get the topic out of the media and out of the to-and-fro of daily petty politics. Noisy statements might
serve some, but not the overall interests involved. And there are many at stake. It is not only about energy security in times of
transition, namely moving away from nuclear, but much wider matters.
As a legal scholar, I deem the loss of trust in contracts. Vertragstreue, as we call it in German – loyalty to the contract –
will be the biggest collateral damage if the pipeline is abandoned for political reasons. This fundamental principle of every civilization
was coined as pacta sunt servanda by the Romans – agreements must be kept. Our legal system is based on this. Who would still conclude
contracts of such volumes with German companies if politics can change the terms of trade overnight?
In June 2014, construction sites on the coasts of the Black sea, both in Russia and Bulgaria, were ready for starting the gas
pipeline South Stream. After pressure from the European Commission, the work never started. The political reason was the dispute
on Ukraine – in particular, the annexation of the Crimea. However, the legal argument was that the tenders for the contracts were
in contradiction with EU regulations on competition. Tens of thousands of work permits, which had been issued from Bulgaria to Serbia
etc., were withdrawn. The economic consequence was the rise of China's influence in the region. South Stream was redirected to Turkey.
So here we are in the midst of a diplomatic standoff. It is a genuine dilemma, but it could also turn into a watershed. Will contracts
be respected or will we move into a further cycle of uncertainty on all levels? Germany is built on contracts, norms (probably much
too many) and not on arbitrariness.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
silvermoon 5 hours ago
All these weeks have passed and Germany has still not shown shared actual evidence of their Navalny tests
with Russia though. That is the same as saying we found the gun with your finger prints on it but never showing it.
Count_Cash
silvermoon 3 hours ago
Correct, Germany has only since 10th September (if confirmed) shared any 'evidence'. That is sufficient intervening
time to concoct any test result and associated materials that they want - another Diesel scandal. Indeed people will ask why when
you had the patient on 22nd of august, it took you so long to send samples to the OPCW, despite almost immediately yelling Poison!
gainwmn silvermoon 5 hours ago
U stupid sheep: Germany did show it to the OPCW, i.e. the organization RF is the member of,
and therefore the latter gets the full access to all the data provided by Germany, as well as any other of 192 members. Kremlin lies
and demands in this regard is more than ridiculous, they completely destroy any shred of trust left to all RF governmental structures
and regime itself.
Teodor Nitu gainwmn 3 hours ago
Riiight!...Those Russians...not only their chemical
weapons are no longer working, but they are no longer capable to choose the proper time to use them, or so the story goes. Think
about it; they 'used' novichok to kill the Skripals and they are still alive and well (supposedly), now they (Russians) 'used' novichok
again to kill Navalny and he is alive and getting better.
Besides, they chose the absolutely wrong time to do it. With Skripals it
was just before the opening of the World Cup in Russia and now, just before the finishing of the North Stream 2 pipeline.
It sounds
that they are sabotaging their own interests, aren't they? Are they (Russians) that stup!d? Some 'smart' posters here seem to believe
it. But lets get real, one has to be able to see beyond the length of his nose, in order to understand what is really going on.
silvermoon Teodor Nitu 2 hours ago
Russia had all their chemical weapons legally destroyed. Along with hundreds of countries. The
US, UK and Israel never did. Navalny the innocent anti Putin. Can't win one way try another.
Pro_RussiaPole gainwmn 2 hours ago
So why is Russia still asking for it? Clearly, something is being withheld. As for
the OPCW, their credibility has been shot for years with all their fake Syrian chem weapon attack reports.
seawolf 6 hours ago
Even if there was not Navalny's story, they could invent another to stop the project.
Abraxas79 seawolf 4 hours ago
Exactly.
I hope Russia is the one that abandons it. Let Germany be the one that decides to cancel it and go along with it. Concentrate on
supplying China and other Asian nations and internal consumption. Forget about Europe. You don't have to turn off the current supply,
just charge more for it when the market allows. Looks like the next German leader according to this article is quite the Russophobe,
which means relations will only get worse.
Pro_RussiaPole Abraxas79 2 hours ago
If this navalny farce does end up cancelling the NS2 project, Russia should stop all gas transit to western Europe through
Poland and Ukraine by spring of next year. Tell those countries that will be cut off that Russia can either sell them LNG, or
that they will have to connect to other sources of gas. Because if certain countries are so against Russian gas, then why are
they not doing anything against Russian gas going through Poland and Ukraine, and why isn't Trump threatening sanctions on
these countries for doing so?
Blue8ball713 RTjackanory 3 hours ago
Its a far longer list
and it have the fingerprints of GB secret services all over it.
Reply Gabriel Delpino seawolf 46 seconds ago It is not in the interest
of Germany to stop de project. Reply
magicmirror 6 hours ago
Europe should have nothing to do with the USA ....... proved time and
time again they cannot be trusted. All they want is markets, resources and consumers. They lie, they cheat, they steal...... (quoting mr Pompeo, I think). A big opportunity to win Europe's independence.
SmellLaRata
5 hours ago
All due respect for Mr. Navalny but since when does an individual fate of one person dictates the fate for millions ?
And c' mon Germany. Your hypocrisy is so utterly laughable. You ignore the Assange and Snowden cases, the slaughter of Kashoggi,
the brutal beating of yellow vests, the brutal actions against the Catalans ... but Navalni. Not even a hint of a proof of government
involvemen. But it fits the agenda, does it? The agenda which is dictated by the deep state agitators who so much flourished under
Obama.
gainwmn SmellLaRata
4 hours ago
Even being not a fan (to say the least) of the US foreign and some of the domestic policy, I have to point out that tried
by U analogy is largely out of balance: first, the issue in Navalny (as well as in Scripals' and others cases acted on with poisons)
case is not so much the assassination attempt on a person's life, as the banned use of chemical weapons, the ban RF's signature has
been under since 1993. And that conclusion (Russia's guilt) has not been made by the UK or Germany or any other country alone, but
the OPCW - the organization not only RF is the member of, but also 191(!) other countries, out of which not a single country (except
RF) rejected that conclusion!; second, the US did not made attempt on either Snowden's or Assange's life, with any kind of weapon,
not already mentioning the weapons banned by the international agreements American government(s) signed. This is a large - I would
say - decisive difference! As far as Kashoggi's case or other cases sited by U, RF did not react with sanctions against the respective
perpetrators either, thus demonstrating the same disregard for the law and order as the US did... therefore making all lies about
innocent RF and evil US, foolish, at the least.
Pro_RussiaPole gainwmn 2 hours ago
The US and its lackeys are killing Assange. They are doing it slowly. And many voices going along with a lie does not make
the lie true. Because these poisoning allegations are lies. The accused were never allowed to see the evidence or challenge
it. And there is the whole issue of politicized reports coming out of the OPCW that contradicted evidence and reality.
Nathi Sibbs 4 hours ago
After completing the pipe and
it start running Russia must turn off all Ukraine pipes. No more gas for free from Russia, Ukraine must start importing LNG from thier reliable partner USA. I think imports from USA will be good for Ukrainian Nazi people
Abraxas79 Nathi Sibbs 4 hours
ago
How are they going to pay for it? Ukraine's only exports these days are its women to various brothels across Europe and North
America.
Hilarous 5 hours ago
The German leaders know very well that the case of Navalny will never be resolved and exists
for no other reason than to seize a pretext to demonize Russia and to end Nord Stream 2 in exchange for US freedom gas
magicmirror
Hilarous 4 hours ago
freedom gas and handsome presents .....
SandythePole 3 hours ago
This is an excellent account by Dr Karin Kneissl. It is a genuine dilemma for 'occupied'
Europe. Its occupying master does NOT want NS2 and will do anything to stop it. Russia suffers sanctions upon sanctions, but still
gallantly tries to maintain friendly and honourable business relations with its implacable neighbours. For how much longer is this
to continue? Surely there must be some limit to the endless provocations of occupied Europe and its Western master. Perhaps it is
time to shut off the oil and gas and leave Germany to sail under its own wind.
dunkie56 3 hours ago
Perhaps Russia should disengage
with Germany/EU totally and forge ahead in partnership with China and India and whoever wants to do business. let the EU tie it's
ship to the sinking US ship and drown along with it's protection racket partner! Then Russia should build a new iron curtain between
itself and all countries who want to align with the EU..in the long run Russia has tried to forge a partnership with the West but
it just has not born any fruit and even as pragmatic as Russia is they must be coming to the conclusion they are flogging a dead
horse!
Blue8ball713 dunkie56 2 hours ago With 146 million citizen Russia is too small to be a real partner to anyone like
China or India. Best fit is the EU, but the EU is controlled or better said occupied by the USA. Its part of their hegemonial system.
So Russia is left out in the rain..
micktaketo 5 hours ago
I am not sure if it is the right thing to do but I think Russia
should sue the German authorities if this deal is withdrawn and if it is have nothing to do with Germany again along with other corrupt
countries that cannot prove or at the least bring forth their evidence to be seen, to be transparent to all even Russia the first,
because Russia is the one being accused. These countries must think we the people are all completely stupid and Russia more so. This
corruption stinks to high heaven and is obvious to all sane people who love fairness. You cannot trust an entity that believes in
getting what they want by hook or by crook. Russia learn your lesson ! So you countries that love whats good for you and your people
do not cheat them for they voted for you to help them. Germany do not kick yourself, it will hurt your people. Saying, There is more
than one way to skin a cat, they say.
Mutlu Ozer 3 hours ago
There is a simple concept to investigate a crime to find the criminals: Just look at whose benefit the crime is? EU
politicians are certainly smart people to know this basic concept of criminal investigation. However, now they are playing a
new strategy about how to domesticate(!) not only Russia China as well... Germans are the main actors in the stage of the WW-I
and WW-II. I surely claim that Germans would be the main architect of the last war, WW-III.
For anyone old enough to have been alive and aware of the attacks of September 11, 2001 and
of so-called COVID-19 in 2020, memory may serve to remind one of an eerie parallel between the
two operations.
However, if memory has been expunged by the work of one's forgettery or deleted by the
corporate media's flushing it down the memory hole, or if knowledge is lacking, or maybe fear
or cognitive dissonance is blocking awareness , I would like to point out some similarities
that might perk one up to consider some parallels and connections between these two
operations.
The fundamental tie that binds them is that both events aroused the human fear of death.
Underlying all fears is the fear of death. A fear that has both biological and cultural
roots. On the biological level, we all react to death threats in a fight or flight manner.
Culturally, there are multiple ways that fear can be allayed or exacerbated, purposely or not.
Usually, culture serves to ease the fear of death, which can traumatize people, through its
symbols and myths. Religion has for a long time served that purpose, but when religion loses
its hold on people's imaginations, especially in regard to the belief in immortality, as Orwell
pointed out in the mid-1940s, a huge void is left. Without that consolation, fear is usually
tranquilized by trivial pursuits.
In the cases of the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the current corona virus operation,
the fear of death has been used by the power elites in order to control populations and
institute long-planned agendas. There is a red thread that connects the two events.
Both events were clearly anticipated and planned.
In the case of September 11, 2001, as I have argued before
, linguistic mind-control was carefully crafted in advance to conjure fear at the deepest
levels with the use of such repeated terms as Pearl Harbor, Homeland, Ground Zero, the
Unthinkable, and 9/11. Each in its turns served to raise the fear level dramatically. Each drew
on past meetings, documents, events, speeches, and deep associations of dread. This language
was conjured from the chief sorcerer's playbook, not from that of an apprentice out of
control.
And as David Ray Griffin, the seminal 9/11 researcher (and others), has pointed out in a
dozen meticulously argued and documented
books , the events of that day had to be carefully planned in advance, and the post hoc
official explanations can only be described as scientific miracles, not scientific
explanations. These miracles include: massive steel-framed high-rise buildings for the first
time in history coming down without explosives or incendiaries in free fall speed; one of them
being WTC-7 that was not even hit by a plane; an alleged hijacker pilot, Hani Hanjour, who
could barely fly a Piper Cub, flying a massive Boeing 757 in a most difficult maneuver into the
Pentagon; airport security at four airports failing at the same moment on the same day; all
sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies failing; air traffic control failing, etc. The list goes on
and on. And all this controlled by Osama bin Laden. It's a fairy tale.
Then we had the crucially important anthrax attacks that are linked to 9/11. Graeme
MacQueen, in
The 2001 Anthrax Deception , brilliantly shows that these too were a domestic
conspiracy.
These planned events led to the invasion of Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, the U.S.
withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, the invasion of Iraq , the ongoing war on terror, etc.
Let us not forget years of those fraudulent color-coded warnings of the terrorist levels and
the government admonition to use duct tape around your windows to protect against a massive
chemical and biological attack.
Jump to 2020 .
Let me start in reverse while color-coded designs are fresh in our minds. As the COVID-19
lockdowns were under way, a funny thing happened as people were wishing that life could return
to normal and they could be let out of their cages. Similar color-coded designs popped up
everywhere at the same time. They showed the step-by-step schedule of possible loosening of
government controls if things went according to plan. Red to yellow to green. Eye catching. Red
orange yellow blue green. As with the terrorist warnings following September 11, 2001. In
Massachusetts, a so-called blue state where I live, it's color chart ends in blue, not green,
with Phase 4 blue termed "the new normal: Development of vaccines and/or treatments enable the
resumption of 'the new normal.'" Interesting wording. A resumption that takes us back to the
future.
As with the duct tape admonitions after 9/11, now everyone is advised to wear a mask. It's
interesting to note that the 3 M Company, a major seller of duct tape, is also one of the
world's major sellers of face masks. The company was expected to be producing 50
million N95 respirator masks per month by June 2020 and 2 billion globally within the coming
year. Then there is 3 M's masking tape but this is a sticky topic.
After the attacks of September 11, 2001, we were told repeatedly that the world was changed
forever. Now we are told that after COVID 19, life will never be the same. This is the "new
normal," while the post-9/11-pre-Covid-19 world must have been the old new normal. So
everything is different but normal also. So as the Massachusetts government website puts it, in
the days to come we may be enabled to enact "the resumption of 'the new normal.'" This new old
normal will no doubt be a form of techno-fascist transhumanism enacted for our own good.
As with 9/11, there is ample evidence that the corona virus outbreak was expected and
planned; that people have been the victims of a propaganda campaign to use an invisible virus
to scare us into submission and shut down the world's economy for the global elites. It is a
clear case, as Peter Koenig tells Michel Chossudovsky in this must-see interview
, that is not a conspiracy theory but a blatant factual plan spelled out in the 2010
Rockefeller Report , the October 18, 2019 Event 201 , and Agenda
21 , among other places.
Like amorphous terrorists and a war against "terrorism," which is a tactic and therefore not
something you can fight, a virus is invisible except when the media presents it as a pale,
orange-spiked bunch of floating weird balls that are everywhere and nowhere. Watch your back,
watch your face, mask up, wash your hands, keep your distance – you never know when those
orange spiked balls may get you.
As with 9/11, whenever anyone questions the official narrative of Covid-19, the official
statistics, the validity of the tests,
the effectiveness of masks , the powers behind the heralded vaccine to come, and the
horrible consequences of the lockdowns that are destroying economies, killing people, forcing
people to despair and to commit suicide, creating traumatized children, bankrupting small and
middle-sized businesses for the sake of enriching the richest, etc., the corporate media mock
the dissidents as conspiracy nuts, aiding the viral enemy.
This is so even when the dissenters are highly respected doctors, scientists, intellectuals,
et al., who are regularly disappeared from the internet. With September 11, there were
initially far fewer dissenters than now, and so the censorship of opposing viewpoints didn't
need the blatant censorship that is now growing daily.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS
MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
This censorship happens all across the internet now, quickly and stealthily, the same
internet that is being forced on everyone as the new normal as presented in the Great
Global Reset , the digital lie, where, as Anthony Fauci put it, no one should ever shake
hands again.
A world of abstract images and beings in which, as Arthur Jensen tells Howard Beal in the
film, Network , "All necessities [will be] provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom
amused." A digital dystopia that is fast approaching as perhaps the end of that red thread that
runs from 9/11 to today.
Heidi Evens and Thomas Hackett write in the New York Daily News :
With the nation's illusion of safety and security in ruins, Americans begin the slow and
fitful process of healing from a trauma that feels deeply, cruelly personal leaving citizens
throughout the country with the frightening knowledge of their vulnerability.
Over two dozen phones belonging to members of Robert Mueller's special counsel team were
wiped clean before they were handed over to the Inspector General, according to information
contained in
87 pages of DOJ records released on Thursday.
Some of the phones were wiped using the Apple operating system's 'wrong-password' failsafe,
where the wrong password must be entered ten times - after which the system wipes the
drive.
Those who couldn't seem to remember their password 10 times in a row include 'attack dog'
lawyer Andrew Weissman , who urged DOJ attorneys to go rogue and 'not' help US Attorney John
Durham investigate FBI and DOJ conduct during the Trump investigation.
A phone belong to assistant special counsel James Quarles "wiped itself without
intervention from him," the DOJ's records state.
Andrew Weismann, a top prosecutor on Mueller's team, "accidentally wiped" his cell phone,
causing the data to be lost. Other members of the team also accidentally wiped their phones,
the DOJ said.
Phones issued to at least three other Mueller prosecutors, Kyle Freeny, Rush Atkinson, and
senior prosecutor Greg Andres were also wiped of data.
Additionally, t he cell phone of FBI lawyer Lisa Page was misplaced by the special
counsel's office . While it was eventually obtained by the DOJ inspector general, by that
point the phone had been restored to its factory settings, wiping it of all dat a. The phone
of FBI agent Peter Strzok was also obtained by the inspector general's office, which found
"no substantive texts, notes or reminders" on it.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
"... The idea, therefore, that Paul Manafort was an agent of influence for the Russian government flies against everything we know about what he actually did. As for Kilimnik, maybe he is a Russian intelligence agent – I'm not in a position to say. But if he is, he's a very weird one, who spent years actively pushing the Ukrainian government to pursue a policy which directly contradicted Russian interests. ..."
"... None of this, needless to say, appears in the US Senate report. Instead, the report chooses to focus on the apparently shocking revelation that Manafort shared Trump campaign polling data with Kilimnik, as if this sharing of private information was in some ways a massive threat to national security and proof that Manafort was working for the Russians. The fact that both Manafort and Kilimnik spent years doing their damnedest to undermine Russia is simply ignored. Go figure! ..."
Despite the secondary roles played some bit part actors in the Russiagate drama, the central
figure in allegations that Donald Trump colluded with the Russian government to be elected as
president of the United States has always been Trumps' onetime campaign manager Paul Manafort.
The recent US Senate report on Russian 'interference' in the 2016 presidential election thus
started off its analysis with a long exposé of Manafort's comings and goings.
Simply put, the thesis is as follows: while working in Ukraine as an advisor to
'pro-Russian' Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich, Manafort was in effect working on behalf
of the Russian state via 'pro-Russian' Ukrainian oligarchs as well as Russian billionaire Oleg
Deripaska (a man with 'close ties' to the Kremlin). Also suspicious was Manafort's close
relationship with one Konstantin Kilimnik, whom the US Senate claims is a Russia intelligence
agent. All these connections meant that while in Ukraine, Manafort was helping the Russian
Federation spread its malign influence. On returning to the USA and joining the Trump campaign,
he then continued to fulfill the same role.
The fundamental flaw in this thesis has always been the well-known fact that while advising
Yanukovich, Manafort took anything but a 'pro-Russian' position, but instead pressed him to
sign an association agreement with the European Union (EU). Since gaining independence, Ukraine
had avoided being sucked either into the Western or the Russian camp. But the rise of two
competing geopolitical projects – the EU and the Russia-backed Eurasian Union – was
making this stance increasingly impossible, and Ukraine was being put in a position where it
would be forced to choose. This was because the two Unions are incompatible – one can't
be in two customs unions simultaneously, when they levy different tariffs and have different
rules. Association with the EU meant an end to the prospect of Ukraine joining the Eurasian
Union. It was therefore a goal which was entirely incompatible with Russian interests, which
required that Ukraine turn instead towards Eurasia.
Manafort's position on this matter therefore worked against Russia. Even The
Guardian journalist Luke Harding had to concede this in his book Collusion ,
citing a former Ukrainian official Oleg Voloshin that, 'Manafort was an advocate for US
interests. So much so that the joke inside [Yanunkovich's] Party of Regions was that he
actually worked for the USA.'
If anyone had any doubts about this, they can now put them aside. On Monday, the news agency
BNE Intellinews
announced that it had received a leak of hundreds of Kilimnik's emails detailing his
relationship with Manafort and Yanukovich. The story they tell is not at all what the US Senate
and other proponents of the Trump-Russia collusion fantasy would have you believe. As
BNE reports:
Today the Yanukovych narrative is that he was a stool pigeon for Russian President
Vladimir Putin from the start, but after winning the presidency he actually worked very hard
to take Ukraine into the European family. As bne IntelliNews has already reported,
Manafort's flight records also show how he crisscrossed Europe in an effort to build support
in Brussels for Yanukovych in the run up to the EU Vilnius summit.
On March 1, his first foreign trip as newly minted president was to the EU capital of
Brussels. The leaked emails show that Manafort influenced Yanukovych's decision to visit
Brussels as first stop, working in concert with his assistant Konstantin Kilimnik In a
memorandum entitled 'Purpose of President Yanukovych Trip to Brussels,' Manafort argued that
the decision to visit Brussels first would underscore Yanukovych's mission to "bring European
values to Ukraine," and kick start negotiations on the Association Agreement.
The memorandum on the Brussels visit was the first of many from Manafort and Kilimnik to
Yanukovych, in which they pushed Yanukovych to signal a clear pro-EU line and to carry out
reforms to back this up.
To handle Yanukovych's off-message antics, Manafort and Kilimnik created a back channel to
Yanukovych for Western politicians – in particular those known to appreciate Ukraine's
geopolitical significance vis-à-vis Russia. In Europe, these were Sweden's then
foreign minister Carl Bildt, Poland's then foreign minister Radosław Sikorski and
European Commissioner for Enlargement Stefan Fule, and in the US, Vice President Joe
Biden.
"We need to launch a 'Friends of Ukraine' programme to help us use informal channels in
talks on the free trade zone and modernisation of the gas transport system," Manafort and
Kilimnik wrote to Yanukovych in September 2010. "Carl Bildt is the foundation of this
informal group and has sufficient weight with his colleagues in questions connected to
Ukraine and the Eastern Partnership. ( ) but he needs to be able to say that he has a direct
channel to the President, and he knows that President Yanukovych remains committed to
European integration."
Beyond this, the emails show that Manafort and Kilimnik also tried hard to arrange a meeting
between Yanukovich and US President Barack Obama, and urged Yanukovich to show leniency to
former Prime Minister Yuliia Timoshenko (who was imprisoned for fraud).
It is noticeable that the members of the 'back channel' Manafort and Kilimnik created to
lobby on behalf of Ukraine in the EU included some of the most notably Russophobic European
politicians of the time, such as Carl Bildt and Radek Sikorski. Moreover, nowhere in any of
what they did can you find anything that could remotely be described as 'pro-Russian'. Indeed,
the opposite is true. As previously noted, Ukraine's bid for an EU agreement directly
challenged a key Russian interest – the expansion of the Eurasian Union to include
Ukraine. Manafort and Kilimnik were therefore very much working against Russia, not
for it.
The idea, therefore, that Paul Manafort was an agent of influence for the Russian
government flies against everything we know about what he actually did. As for Kilimnik, maybe
he is a Russian intelligence agent – I'm not in a position to say. But if he is, he's a
very weird one, who spent years actively pushing the Ukrainian government to pursue a policy
which directly contradicted Russian interests.
None of this, needless to say, appears in the US Senate report. Instead, the report
chooses to focus on the apparently shocking revelation that Manafort shared Trump campaign
polling data with Kilimnik, as if this sharing of private information was in some ways a
massive threat to national security and proof that Manafort was working for the Russians. The
fact that both Manafort and Kilimnik spent years doing their damnedest to undermine Russia is
simply ignored. Go figure!
Oh, look, no masks! And you thought that got covered up by the investigation done by the
Mueller team? Let's go over this one more time:
The document declassified by DNI Grenell shows that there were 14 unique days when the NSA
received requests to "unmask"--the first was on 30 November 2016 by UN Ambassador Samantha
Power and the last came on 12 January from Joe Biden. There were two separate requests on the
14th of December by Samantha Power, which indicates two separate NSA reports. Samantha Power
would not have to submit two requests for the same document.
"so basically, any legitimate grievance or concern of citizens is a Russian plot ."
Other commenters tweeted that they didn't need any help from Moscow to clearly see that Biden's
mind
is failing .
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper went on CNN to accuse Russia of
interfering in US affairs including the Covid-19 pandemic, Portland and Kenosha protests, and
election meddling while giving no real evidence.
Clapper, who has previously said Russians are "typically, almost genetically driven to
co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever," was more than happy to push more xenophobic Russia
conspiracy theories during a Monday CNN interview when prompted by anchor Alisyn
Camerota.
The US Department of Homeland Security reportedly blocked the distribution of a July intelligence bulletin warning of a
Russian plot to promote "misinformation" that the Democratic presidential candidate is in poor mental health.
The
report
by
ABC News on Wednesday cited internal emails, and the media outlet said a DHS spokesperson confirmed that distribution of the
bulletin to federal, state and local law enforcement agencies had been delayed. The spokesperson said the bulletin didn't meet
quality standards, including having sufficient evidence and context, for dissemination, ABC said.
Democrats will likely pounce on the report to allege that the DHS blocked the warning to help President Donald Trump win the
November election and that the Trump campaign's criticism of Biden's mental state is part of the Russian misinformation
effort. Twitter users are already promoting the new collusion theory, asking
"
which
'homeland'
does DHS serve?"
and saying,
"
Trump
and Putin
are one."
The ABC report downplayed
portions of the intelligence bulletin unrelated to Russia, including warnings that Iranian and Chinese state media outlets are
promoting suggestions that Trump
"suffers from psychosis"
and may be in poor
physical health. It also sets up the argument that any future criticism of the Democrat's mental soundness is Russian
misinformation.
One Twitter user said the
report is
"laying the groundwork for 'anyone commenting on Joe's decline is in league
with Russia' takes,"
while another inferred,
"so basically, any legitimate
grievance or concern of citizens is a
Russian
plot
."
Other commenters tweeted that they didn't need any help from Moscow to clearly see that Biden's
mind
is failing
.
Online speculation has
grown over Biden's expanding series of infamous gaffes, such as welcoming his audience to the
wrong
place
and then trying to pass it off as a joke when he gave a July speech in his home state of Delaware.
The Democrat has also
stumbled in unscripted moments to know
where
he is
, such as praising the beauty of Vermont when he was actually campaigning last year in New Hampshire, and whom he's
with, such as mistaking his
wife
for his sister
in a primary victory speech in March. He bragged in February that he negotiated the 2016 Paris Climate
Agreement with Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping. Deng died in 1997.
Democrats have tried to
revive the Trump-Russia collusion narrative despite the failure of special prosecutor Robert Mueller to prove that the Trump
campaign worked with Moscow to win the 2016 presidential election.
When the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence informed congressional committees last week that intelligence briefings on election security
issues would no longer be done in person, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff
issued a statement saying,
"The American people have both the right and the need to know
that another nation, Russia, is trying to help decide who their next president should be."
The statement ignored the
fact that Russia isn't the only country that has been accused of using disinformation and other means to influence the 2020 US
elections. A US intelligence report last month warned that Russia, China and Iran, among others, have sought to influence
voters and that mass use of voting by mail will make it easier for foreign countries to interfere.
China
and Iran
also allegedly sought to discredit Trump, according to the intelligence warnings.
Think your friends would be
interested? Share this story!
Doug Valentine's new book, The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal
Operations Corrupt America and the World , is a compilation of newly updated articles
and recent interviews. The book, which discusses a part of history that is rarely mentioned
nowadays but is vital to understand as we enter the Trump era, is divided into four sections.
The first covers the CIA's Phoenix program in Vietnam; the second looks at how the agency
manages the War on Drugs; the third reviews how the Phoenix program became the model for
Homeland Security and the War on Terror; and the fourth takes a look at the the CIA's influence
on the media.
The CIA created the Phoenix program in South Vietnam in 1967 as a means of identifying,
capturing, detaining, interrogating and assassinating the civilian leaders of the insurgency.
As detailed in the book, the program has become the template for Homeland Security, as well as
for waging the War on Terror and the War on Drugs.
The following edited excerpt, which focuses on the CIA's illegal domestic spying program,
Chaos, was omitted from the book. It is taken from an interview Valentine did with Guillermo
Jimenez in November 2014, originally titled "The CIA Has Become the Phoenix."
Cloaked in secrecy, the CIA is rarely written about and poorly understood. But while
researching the infamous Phoenix program, Valentine managed to penetrate the agency and
interview dozens of agency officers. His
Phoenix research materials are available to the public at the National Security Archive.
His interviews with several CIA officers are available online here and here
.
GUILLERMO JIMENEZ: The Phoenix Program has recently been republished by Open Road
Media as part of their Forbidden Bookshelves series. Would you mind sharing with us how your
book was chosen for the series? What do you make of this new-found interest in Phoenix; what
the CIA was up to in Vietnam; and what the CIA is up to generally?
VALENTINE: When the book came out in 1990, it got a terrible review in The New York
Times . Morley Safer, who'd been a reporter in Vietnam, wrote the review. Safer and the
Times killed the book because in it I said Phoenix never would have succeeded if the
reporters in Vietnam hadn't covered for the CIA.
Several senior CIA officers said the same thing, that "So and so was always in my office.
He'd bring a bottle of scotch and I'd tell him what was going on." The celebrity reporters knew
what was going on, but they didn't report about it in exchange for having access. I said that
in the book specifically about The New York Times . So I not only got the CIA angry at
me, I also got the Vietnam press corps angry at me too.
Between those two things, the book did not get off to an auspicious start. The Times
gave Safer half a page to write his review, which was bizarre. The usual response is just to
ignore a book like The Phoenix Program . But The New York Times Book Review
serves a larger function; it teaches the media elite and "intelligentsia" what to think and how
to say it. So Safer said my book was incoherent, because it unraveled the bureaucratic networks
that conceal the contradictions between policy and operational reality. It exposed Bill Colby
[who ran Phoenix for the agency and later became CIA director] as a liar. Safer was upset that
I didn't portray his friend and patron as a symbol of the elite, as a modern day Odysseus.
Luckily, with the Internet revolution, people aren't bound by the Times and network
news anymore. They can listen to Russia Today and get another side of the story. So Mark
Crispin Miller and Philip Rappaport at Open Road chose The Phoenix Program to be the
first book they published. And it's been reborn. Thanks to the advent of the e-book, we've
reached an audience of concerned and knowledgeable people in a way that wasn't possible 25
years ago.
It's also because of these Internet developments that John Brennan, the director of CIA,
thought of reorganizing the the agency. All these things are connected. It's a vastly different
world than it was in 1947 when the CIA was created. The nature of the American empire has
changed, and what the empire needs from the CIA has changed. The CIA is allocated about $30
billion a year, so the organizational changes are massive undertakings. If you want to
understand the CIA, you have to understand how it's organized.
JIMENEZ: I want to talk to you about that but first I'd like to touch upon the CIA's
infiltration of the US media. I find it curious, because the way that you describe it, it's not
so much a deliberate attempt to censor the media. There's a lot of self-censorship as a result
of that already existing relationship. Is that how you see this?
VALENTINE: Yes. The media organizes itself the way the CIA does. The CIA has case
officers running around the world, engaged in murder and mayhem, and the media has reporters
covering them. The reporter and the case officer both have bosses, and the higher you get in
each organization, the closer the bosses become.
The ideological guidelines get more restrictive the higher up you go. To join the CIA,
you have to pass a psychological assessment test. They're not going to hire anybody who is
sympathetic towards poor people. These are ruthless people who serve capitalist bosses .
They're very rightwing, and t he media's job is to protect them. Editors only hire reporters
who are ideologically pure, just like you can't get into the CIA if you're a Communist or think
the CIA should obey the law.
It's the same thing in the media. You can't get a job at CNN if you sympathize with the
Palestinians or report how Israel has been stealing their land for 67 years. The minute you say
something that is anathema or upsets the Israelis, you're out. The people who enforce these
ideological restraints are the editors and the publishers. For example, while covering the
merciless Israeli bombardment of civilians in Gaza in 2014, Diana Magnay was harassed and
threatened by a group of bloodthirsty Israelis who were cheering the slaughter. Disgusted,
Magnay later referred to them as "scum" in a tweet. She was forced to apologize, transferred to
Moscow, and banished forever from Israel.
In a similar case, NBC correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin was playing soccer with four young boys
in Gaza when Israel shelled the playing field. Mohyeldin witnessed their murders, which he
reported in a series of tweets. Without ever providing a reason, NBC pulled Mohyeldin from Gaza
and prevented him from ever returning. NBC replaced Mohyeldin with Israeli sympathizer Richard
Engel.
Any dictator would be happy with the way American media is organized. The minute you step
out of the box, they fire you or send you off to Siberia . It's a homogenous system. Not
just the media and CIA, but politicians too. As the 2016 primaries proved, you can't be a
candidate for either party unless you pass the ideological test. You must be a freewheeling
capitalist. You must support Israel with billions of tax payer dollars. You must give the
military whatever weapons it wants. That's the nature of the American state. These things
naturally work together because that is the way it has been structured for 240 years.
JIMENEZ: We've seen pseudo alternatives emerge in the Internet posing as adversarial or
anti-establishment when they're anything but. We've seen this growing trend, and it's something
to be mindful of as we look for these sources on the Internet.
VALENTINE: The Internet is a free for all, so you have to approach it the way any
enlightened person approaches every part of America, which is buyer beware. Capitalism is not
designed to protect poor people or make sure people lead healthy, fulfilling lives. It's
designed to make sure the super-rich can steal from the poor. There's only so much wealth and
the rich want it.
The rich want to monopolize information too. Is a particular piece of information on the
Internet coming from a reliable source? Who knows? Just because some of it is true doesn't mean
that all of it is true. To be able to discern whether the information is accurate or complete,
you must be grounded in the reality that the capitalist system are organized to oppress you,
keep you in the dark and off balance as much as possible. It's a game of wits and you've got to
be smart about it. Buyer beware.
JIMENEZ: Now I'd like to talk about the recent organizational changes in the CIA. It stems
from an article in The Washington Post by Greg Miller. The headline is "CIA Director
John Brennan Considering Sweeping Organizational Changes." What the article is saying is that
Brennan wants to restructure the CIA using the model of their Counterterrorism Center; merging
different units and divisions, combining analysts with operatives into hybrid teams that will
focus on specific regions of the world. This sounds to me like the organizational changes that
were born out of Phoenix and that were exported to other parts of the world over the years. The
CIA appears to be applying the same structure to all of its operations. Is that how you read
this?
VALENTINE: Yes, and it's something that, from my perspective, was predictable, which is why
The Phoenix Program was re-released now, because what I predicted 25 years ago has
happened. And you can only predict accurately if you know the history.
The CIA initially, and for decades, had four directorates under an executive management
staff: Administration, Intelligence, Operations, and Science and Technology. Executive
management had staff for congressional liaison, legal issues, security, public relations,
inspections, etc. Administration is just that: staff for finance, personnel, and support
services like interrogators, translators and construction companies. Science and Technology is
self-explanatory too, but with a typical CIA twist – science for the CIA means better
ways to kill and control people, like the MKULTRA program. And now there's a fifth directorate,
Digital, that keystrokes and hacks foreign governments and corporations.
The Operations people overthrew foreign governments the old fashioned way, through sabotage
and subversion. The Operations Directorate is now the National Clandestine Service. The
Intelligence Directorate, which is now called Analysis, studied political, economic and social
trends around the world so that executive management could mount better operations to control
them.
The Operations Directorate was divided into several branches. The Counterintelligence (CI)
branch detected foreign spies. Foreign Intelligence (FI) staff "liaison" officers worked with
secret policemen and other officials in foreign nations. They collected "positive intelligence"
by eavesdropping or by recruiting agents. The Covert Action branch engaged in deniable
political action. The Special Operations Division (now the Special Activities Division)
supplied paramilitary officers. There was also a Political and Psychological branch that
specialized in all forms of propaganda.
These branches and directorates were career paths for operations officers (operators)
assigned to geographical divisions. An FI staff officer might spend his or her entire career in
the Far East Asia Division. The managers could move people around, but those things, generally
speaking, were in place when the CIA began. The events that led to the formation of the
current Counterterrorism Center began in 1967, when US security services began to suspect that
the Cubans and the Soviets were infiltrating the anti-war movement. Lyndon Johnson wanted to
know the details, so his attorney general, Ramsay Clark, formed the Interdepartmental
Intelligence Unit (IDIU) within the Department of Justice. The IDIU's job was to coordinate the
elements of the CIA, FBI and military that were investigating dissenters. The White House
wanted to control and provide political direction to these investigations.
The Phoenix program was created simultaneously in 1967 and did the same thing in Vietnam.
It brought together 25 agencies and aimed them at civilians in the insurgency. It's political
warfare. It's secret. It's against the rules of war. It violated the Geneva Conventions. It's
what Homeland Security does in the US: bringing agencies together and focusing them on
civilians who they think look like terrorists.
The goal of this kind of bureaucratic centralization is to improve intelligence collection
and analysis so reaction forces can leap into the breach more quickly and effectively. In 1967,
the CIA already had computer experts who were traveling around by jet. The world was getting
smaller and the CIA, which had all the cutting edge technology, was way out in front. It hired
Ivy Leaguers like Nelson Brickham to make the machine run smoothly.
Brickham, as I've explained elsewhere, was the Foreign Intelligence staff officer who
organized the Phoenix program based on principles Rensis Likert articulated in his book New
Patterns of Management . Brickham believed he could use reporting formats as a tool to
shape the behavior of CIA officers in the field. In particular, he hoped to correct "the grave
problem of distortion and cover-up which a reporting system must address."
Likert organized industries to be adaptable, and the CIA organized itself the same way. It
was always reorganizing itself to adapt to new threats. And in 1967, while Brickham was forming
Phoenix to neutralize the leaders of the insurgency in South Vietnam, James Angleton and the
CIA's Counterintelligence staff were creating the MHCHAOS program in Langley, Virginia, to spy
on members of the anti-war movement, and turn as many of them as possible into double
agents.
Chaos was the codename for the Special Operations Group within Angleton's
Counterintelligence staff. The CIA's current Counterterrorism Center, which was established in
1986, is a direct descendent of Chaos.
The CIA's CT Center evolved from the Chaos domestic spying mechanism into the nerve center
of the CIA's clandestine staff. Same thing happened with the CIA's Counter-Narcotics Center at
the same time. Both are modeled on Phoenix, and both are wonderful tools for White House cadres
to exercise political control over the bureaucracies they coordinate. These "centers" are the
perfect means for policing and expanding the empire; they make it easier than ever for the CIA
to track people and events in every corner of the world. The need for the old-fashioned
directorates is fading away. You don't need an entire directorate to understand the political,
social and economic movements around the world anymore, because the United States is
controlling them all.
The US has color revolutions going everywhere. It's got the World Bank and the IMF
strangling countries with debt, like the banks are strangling college students and home owners
here. The War on Terror is the best thing that ever happened to US capitalists and their secret
police force, the CIA. Terrorism is the pretext that allows the CIA to coordinate and transcend
every government agency and civic institution, including the media, to the extent that we don't
even see its wars anymore. Its control is so pervasive, so ubiquitous; the CIA has actually
become the Phoenix.
JIMENEZ: Right.
VALENTINE: It's the eye of god in the sky; it's able to determine what's going to happen
next because it's controlling all of these political, social and economic movements. It pits
the Sunnis against the Shiites. It doesn't need slow and outdated directorates. These Phoenix
centers enable it to determine events instantaneously anywhere. There are now Counterterror
Intelligence Centers all over the world. In Phoenix they were called Intelligence Operations
Coordinating Centers. So it's basically exactly the same thing. It's been evolving that way and
everybody on the inside was gearing themselves for this glorious moment for 30 years. They even
have a new staff position called Targeting Officers. You can Google this.
JIMENEZ: Right, right, exactly.
VALENTINE: The centers represent the unification of military, intelligence and media
operations under political control. White House political appointees oversee them, but the
determinant force is the CIA careerists who slither into private industry when their careers
are over. They form the consulting firms that direct the corporations that drive the empire.
Through their informal "old boy" network, the CIA guys and gals keep America at war so they can
make a million dollars when their civil service career is over.
JIMENEZ: The Washington Post and subsequent articles frame it as if these changes are
drastic. But to hear you, it's a natural progression. So what does this announcement mean? Is
the CIA putting out its own press release through the Washington Post just to give
everyone the heads up?
VALENTINE: Well, everybody in the CIA was worried that if the directorates were reorganized,
it would negatively affect their careers. But executive management usually does what its
political bosses tell them to do, and Brennan reorganized in 2015. He created a fifth
directorate, the Directorate for Digital Innovation (DDI) ostensibly as the CIA's
"mantelpiece". But, as the Washington Times reported, "it is the formation of the new
'mission' centers – including ones for counterintelligence, weapons and
counter-proliferation, and counterterrorism – that is most likely to shake up the
agency's personnel around the world."
The CIA's "ten new Mission Centers" are designed to "serve as locations to integrate
capabilities and bring the full range of CIA's operational, analytic, support, technical and
digital skill sets to bear against the nation's most pressing national security problems."
This modernization means the CIA is better able to control people politically, starting with
its own officers, then everyone else. That's the ultimate goal. Politicians, speaking in a
unified voice, create the illusion of a crime-fighting CIA and an America with a responsibility
to protect benighted foreigners from themselves. But they can't tell you what the CIA does,
because it's all illegal. It's all a lie. In order for the politicians to hold office, they
have to cover for the CIA. Their concern is how to explain the reorganization and exploit it.
They squabble among themselves and cut the best deals possible.
The foreign policy elite dislikes Russia, always has, and will do anything to keep
this "adversary" front and center because their prospects for prestige, power and position
depend upon the presence of an enemy. As an example see Strobe Talbot and Michael
McFaul.
Notable quotes:
"... Ben Cardin agreed to be the cosponsor of a Magnitsky Act in the Senate. He sought a Republican cosponsor, John McCain, a Russophobic senator who never met a war he didn't like. ..."
"... It wasn't the first time McCain helped a fraudster. McCain was one of the corrupt "Keating Five" senators who improperly intervened in 1987 on behalf of Charles H. Keating, Jr., corrupt chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which collapsed in 1989 at a cost of $3.4 billion to the federal government (and thus taxpayers). Many investors lost their life savings. ..."
"... To get to McCain and others, Browder hired lobbyist Juleanna Glover, who had been Vice President Dick Cheney's press secretary and then Attorney General John Ashcroft's senior policy adviser. She went with Ashcroft when he left government to run the Washington office of his law firm, the Ashcroft Group. ..."
"... She got Browder a meeting with McCain who agreed to sponsor the Magnitsky Act. It fit with his Russophobia and friendship with fraudsters. ..."
"... On September 29, 2010, Senators Ben Cardin, John McCain, Roger Wicker (Republican of Mississippi) and Joe Lieberman (Democrat of Connecticut) introduced the bill in the Senate. Anyone involved in the false arrest, torture or death of Sergei Magnitsky, or the crimes he uncovered, would be publicly named, banned from entering the United States, and have their U.S. assets frozen. ..."
"... Remember again that a few months later Browder would tell the San Diego law school he didn't know how Magnitsky died. ..."
"... How the Browder-Magnitsky hoax law got passed in a trade deal ..."
"... Browder got Senator Joe Lieberman, conservative Democrat from Connecticut, to agree to block Jackson-Vanik repeal unless the administration stopped blocking his Magnitsky Act. ..."
"... Lieberman and the other cosponsors of the Magnitsky Act sent a letter to Montana Democratic Senator Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. The letter said, "In the absence of the passage of the Magnitsky legislation, we will strongly oppose the lifting of Jackson-Vanik." ..."
"... The final count December 6, 2012 was 92-4. Levin and three other Democrats – Bernie Sanders as well as Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse, both of Rhode Island – were the only Senators to vote against it. Elizabeth Warren was not yet in the Senate. ..."
"... It was signed by Obama a week later. Read Title IV of the law to see how it is based on the fake claims the chief sponsors would not, could not prove. Including "he was beaten by 8 guards with rubber batons on the last day of his life" based on zero evidence, just Browder's lies. (I also wrote to Cardin's office and got no reply.) ..."
As the Democratic Convention is in progress, it is fitting to look at how Democrats in Congress and the White House, with Republican
collaboration, were responsible for the
Magnitsky Act , the law that protects tax fraudster William Browder and his henchman Mikhail Khodorkovsky by erecting a wall
against their having to face justice for their financial crimes. And ramps up hostility against Russia.
The fraudster William Browder .
This is a half-hour interview about this I did today on this subject
for Fault Lines . And a 15-minute
interview for The Critical
Hour . Here is an expanded version of what I said.
William Browder in the mid-1990s became manager of the Hermitage Fund, set up with $25 million from Lebanese-Brazilian banker
Edmond Safra and Israeli mining investor Beny Steinmez to buy shares in Russian companies.
He says he started the fund, but that is a lie. He was brought in to manage other people's money. But after some years, when the
two investors either died or confronted major financial problems, Browder gained control.
Browder doesn't like paying taxes.
Browder was an American who traded his citizenship for a UK passport in 1998 so he could avoid paying U.S. taxes on his stock
profits. ( CBS called
him a tax expatriate.)
He didn't like paying Russian taxes either. In an early rip-off, he and his partners billionaire Kenneth Dart of Dart cups and
New York investor Francis Baker bought a majority of Avisma, a titanium company, that produces material used in airplanes.
They cheated
minority investors and the Russian tax collector of profits by using transfer pricing.
You sell your production to a fake company at a low price, then your fake company sells it at the world price. You book lower
dividends to cheat minority shareholders, report lower taxes to cheat the Russian people.
Browder and partners bought Avisma from infamous oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky on the basis of continuing his transfer
pricing scam. It was revealed by documents in a lawsuit when Browder and partners sued another infamous guy, Peter Bond, the Isle
of man crook handling the rake-offs for not passing on the full amount of the skim. (No honor among thieves!) The legal documents
where Browder admits to the scam are linked in this
story
.
Browder cheats bigtime on Russia taxes
Browder's next corruption was to
cheat the Russians of taxes from his stock buys in Russia, to the tune of about $100million. That included claiming as deductions
disabled workers who didn't work for him, local investments he never made, profits from stock buys of Gazprom the Russian energy
conglomerate that non-Russians were not allowed to buy in Russia.
Investigations started in the early 2000s for $40 mil in evaded takes and led to legal judgments in 2004. When he refused to pay,
in November 2005 he was denied a Russian visa and in 2006 he moved all his assets out of Russia. But the Russian tax evasion investigations
continued.
Browder's accountant Sergei Magnitsky was arrested for investigation of the tax evasion in 2008, and the European Commission on
Human Rights
ruled last year that was correct because of the evidence and because he was a flight risk. Browder's fake narrative was that
Magnitsky, who he lied was his lawyer , had been arrested because he blew the whistle on a scheme by Russian officials to
embezzle money from the Russian Treasury. In his own U.S. federal
court deposition
, Browder admits Magnitsky didn't go to law school or have a law license. See his brief
video on
that.
Browder gives speeches that he didn't know how Magnitsky died
Then Magnitsky died of heart failure exacerbated by stomach disease which forensic reports say was not properly treated. Browder
first said (in talks at the British foreign policy association
Chatham House , London, a month after he died, and San Diego Law School
-- video at minute 6:20 -- a year later) he didn't know how Magnitsky died, but after a few years he invented a story that he
had been beaten to death.
Jonathan Winer, who helped Browder with his scam.
That story was developed by Jonathan Winer, a former assistant to Senator John Kerry and then a State Department official. Winer
was working for APCO, an international public relations company one of whose major clients was the same Mikhail Khodorkovsky. They
correctly assumed the western media would do no research. Or at least would not be allowed to report it. And the mainstream media
never did, except much later
Der Spiegel in Germany, which the rest of the western press ignored.
The plan was to get a U.S. law that would in effect block the Russians from going after certain Americans who had cheated on taxes.
They would be Browder and Khodorkovsky, who is actually named in the law.
Khodorkovsky would spend several hundred thousand dollars to buy Congressional support for the Magnitsky Act, clearly money
well spent. He duly reported it as lobbying expenses.
Here is how the Democrats and Republicans colluded in the Browder Magnitsky hoax. Much of this comes from Browder's own writings
in his mostly fake book "Red Notice." Note the corruption of both parties.
Magnitsky died in November 2009. Only four months later in March 2010, Browder was plotting his Magnitsky hoax, attacking Russians
he would claim were responsible for Magnitsky's death. But the bizarre part of the story is that he continued throughout 2010 to
say he didn't know how Magnitsky died, including in a videoed Dec 2010
San Diego law school talk. He obviously assumed U.S. media and politicians would not notice or care about the contradictions.
Ben Cardin, senator who signed on to Browder hoax.
Browder got Maryland Democratic Senator Ben Cardin to send a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in March 2010 urging
her to ban visas for 60 people Browder had listed (without evidence) as complicit in Magnitsky's death. (Remember 9 months later
in a videoed talk at San Diego Law School Browder says he didn't know how Magnitsky died.)
The letter to Hillary Clinton, written (Browder says in his book) by Browder acolyte Kyle Parker, a staffer at the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, said, I "urge you to immediately cancel and permanently withdraw the U.S. visa privileges of all those involved
in this crime, along with their dependents and family members." Immediately? No due process, not even for children and grandparents?
Cousins?
Attached to the letter was the list of the sixty officials Browder accused, without evidence, of involvement in Magnitsky's death
and a tax fraud against the Treasury.
Browder's fake tax refund fraud
The tax refund fraud was a scheme in which shell companies were set up to sue Browder's Hermitage companies claiming contract
violations and damages of $1billion. The Hermitage companies immediately agreed to pay (no evidence of actual bank transfers), then
demanded the Treasury pay a tax refund of $230million because they now had zero profits.
Viktor Markelov, tried and jailed for the scam,
said he worked with a Sergei Leonidovich, which is Magnitsky's name and patronymic. Other evidence, including an inexplicable
delay of months between Browder learning about the his companies being re-registered in other names and him reporting that as
"theft," indicates he was part of the scam too.
Note this: Hermitage trustee HSBC filed a financial document in July 2007 saying it was putting aside $7 million for legal
costs that might be required to get back the companies. This was five months before the tax refund fraud occurred. Albert
Dabbah, chief financial controller for HSBC, confirmed the
document's authenticity in U.S.
federal court. But Browder and Magnitsky (in his
testimony
) said they didn't learn about the "theft" till October 2007.
Theft of his companies? The best defense is a good offense. Accuse others of the crime you committed.
Senator Cardin was requesting that all sixty of Browder's accused have their U.S. travel privileges permanently revoked.
But Hillary didn't buy it. Then House staffer Parker arranged for Browder to
testify about the Magnitsky case May 6 th at the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, not an official House body but
a pressure group set up in the name of a Russophobic former congressman from Hungary.
Congressman Jim McGovern would not send the evidence he promised, because he couldn't. There wasn't any.
The commission chairman was Massachusetts Democratic congressman Jim McGovern, who runs liberal but is a Russophobe who pretends
to be a human rights advocate.
Now what is really interesting is that seven months after this May 6 testimony, on December 6, 2010, Browder was telling the
San Diego law school (video 6:20 in) that "they put him in a straight
jacket, put him in an isolation room and waited outside the door until he died." Nothing about torture or killing. Had Browder forgotten
his dramatic beating story?
McGovern at the Lantos Commission hearing asked for no evidence. He said he would introduce legislation, put the 60 names Browder
cited in it, move it to the committee and make a formal recommendation from Congress, then pass it on the floor.
McGovern lies about sending evidence
Kimberly Stanton, who runs a propaganda operation and refused to provide evidence.
In July 2019, almost a decade later, I saw McGovern when he spoke at the Council on Foreign Relations. I asked if he would send
me evidence backing the claim that Magnitsky was tortured and killed. He agreed and introduced me to an aide. The aide referred me
to Kimberly Stanton, director of the Lantos Commission, who refused in an
email
to provide any information. And said evidence against targeted people is not required!
I also wrote McGovern's press secretary Matt Bonaccorsi and legislative director Cindy Buhl. They ignored repeated requests, never
sent me anything. I conclude that Jim McGovern, who pretends to be a liberal civil rights promoter, is a fake and a fraud.
McGovern introduces a Magnitsky bill in the House.
John McCain, he loved fraudsters and wars.
Ben Cardin agreed to be the cosponsor of a Magnitsky Act in the Senate. He sought a Republican cosponsor, John McCain, a Russophobic
senator who never met a war he didn't like.
It wasn't the first time McCain helped a fraudster. McCain was one of the corrupt "Keating Five" senators who improperly intervened
in 1987 on behalf of Charles H. Keating, Jr., corrupt chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which collapsed in 1989
at a cost of $3.4 billion to the federal government (and thus taxpayers). Many investors lost their life savings.
Keating was the target of a regulatory investigation. With powerful senators like McCain advocating his cause, the regulator
backed off taking action against Lincoln. Though Keating went to jail. McCain was cited only for exercising "poor judgment." Helping
a crook doesn't get you thrown out of the Senate.
To get to McCain and others, Browder hired lobbyist Juleanna Glover, who had been Vice President Dick Cheney's press secretary
and then Attorney General John Ashcroft's senior policy adviser. She went with Ashcroft when he left government to run the Washington
office of his law firm, the Ashcroft Group.
Juleanna Glover, former aide to Dick Cheney. She can buy you a bill .
She got Browder a meeting with McCain who agreed to sponsor the Magnitsky Act. It fit with his Russophobia and friendship
with fraudsters.
On September 29, 2010, Senators Ben Cardin, John McCain, Roger Wicker (Republican of Mississippi) and Joe Lieberman (Democrat
of Connecticut) introduced the bill in the Senate. Anyone involved in the false arrest, torture or death of Sergei Magnitsky, or
the crimes he uncovered, would be publicly named, banned from entering the United States, and have their U.S. assets frozen.
Remember again that a few months later Browder would tell the San Diego
law school he didn't know how Magnitsky died.
Now here is how the law got passed. The Jackson-Vanick amendment put in place in the mid-1970s imposed trade sanctions on the
Soviet Union to punish it for not allowing Soviet Jews to emigrate. Well, nobody could emigrate. Eventually 1.5 million Jews were
allowed to leave the country.
How the Browder-Magnitsky hoax law got passed in a trade deal
Thirty-seven years later the Soviet Union no longer existed, and everybody could emigrate, but Jackson-Vanik was still on the
books. It blocked American corporations from enjoying the same trade benefits with Russia as the world's other WTO members.
So, the U.S. business community said Jackson-Vanik had to go, and the Obama administration agreed. So did John Kerry, chairman
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. They needed an act of Congress.
Meanwhile, Kerry opposed the Magnitsky Act which he considered untoward interference in Russia (is that like saying meddling?)
and had been delaying bringing it to vote in committee.
Browder got Senator Joe Lieberman, conservative Democrat from Connecticut, to agree to block Jackson-Vanik repeal unless the
administration stopped blocking his Magnitsky Act.
Lieberman and the other cosponsors of the Magnitsky Act sent a letter to Montana Democratic Senator Max Baucus, chairman of
the Senate Finance Committee. The letter said, "In the absence of the passage of the Magnitsky legislation, we will strongly oppose
the lifting of Jackson-Vanik."
John Kerry had good instincts, forced to make bad compromise.
So, Kerry stopped his opposition to the Magnitsky Act.
The two bills were combined. First the bill would be brought up at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to pass Magnitsky, then
it would go before the Finance Committee to repeal Jackson-Vanik, and then, it would go before the full Senate for a vote.
Kerry called for a meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in June 2012, with the purpose of approving the Magnitsky
Act.
At the hearing, Kerry said that America was not a perfect country, and that the people in that room should be "very mindful of
the need for the United States not to always be pointing fingers and lecturing and to be somewhat introspective as we think about
these things." (Such nuance would obviously not be allowed today.)
He was "worried about the unintended consequences of requiring that kind of detailed reporting that implicates a broader range
of intelligence." He didn't have to worry. Reporting? Intelligence? Actual evidence would never be required! The U.S. was
setting up a kangaroo court and calling it a human rights tribunal!
The bill passed the House 365 to 43 on November 16, 2012. Voting "No" were 37 Democrats and 6 Republicans. Among them Maxine
Waters and Ron Paul. And surprisingly New York Democrat Jerrold Nadler who since then became a Russophobe. Tulsi Gabbard had not
yet been elected.
Kyle Parker told Browder, "There are a number of senators who are insisting on keeping Magnitsky global instead of Russia-only."
One was Cardin, but also Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan – a political giant who spent many years fighting, holding hearings, about
offshore tax evasion and must have known very well how Browder was a poster child for offshore tax-evading crooks. Also Jon Kyl,
Republican from Arizona. Of course, Browder wanted "Russia only," because the purpose of the law was to attack Russia, not to promote
global human rights. Cardin withdrew his objection, and the bill was "Russia only."
The Senate vote
The final count December 6, 2012 was 92-4. Levin and three other Democrats – Bernie Sanders as well as Jack Reed and Sheldon
Whitehouse, both of Rhode Island – were the only Senators to vote against it. Elizabeth Warren was not yet in the Senate.
It was signed by Obama a week later. Read Title IV of
the law to see how it is based on the
fake claims the chief sponsors would not, could not prove. Including "he was beaten by 8 guards with rubber batons on the last
day of his life" based on zero evidence, just Browder's lies. (I also wrote to Cardin's office and got no reply.)
It was the first pillar of Russiagate, where Cold Warrior Democrats joined forces with Cold Warrior Republicans. The result would
be to build a wall against Russia bringing Browder to justice, including getting Interpol to refuse to issue a red notice that would
require other countries to arrest him. He would name his book Red Notice as a jab at the Russians.
And the crooks Browder and Khodorkovsky, protected from the rule of law, laughed all the way to their offshore banks. Here's the
link to Browder's Mossack Fonseca (on Panama Papers fame) bank.
(Speaking of the rule of law, it doesn't apply to offshore banks, with secret owners of companies and accounts. They are largely
run by western banks that make big profits from laundering the money of the world's crooks. Note on any SEC filing where banks have
their subsidiaries: Caymans, Isle of Man, Guernsey, BVI, etc. No local clients, just financial fakery: letterbox companies, tax evasion.
It's okay. When there's corruption, only the little people go to jail. In the offshore system, the corrupt financial oligarchy rules.)
A full-bench US federal appeals court has reversed an earlier decision to dismiss the
'Russiagate' case against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, returning it to the
judge who refused to let the charges be dropped.
In a 8-2 ruling on Monday, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Judge Emmet Sullivan,
and sent the case back to him for review. Sullivan had been ordered by a three-judge panel in
June to drop the case against Flynn immediately, but hired an attorney and asked for an en
banc hearing instead.
Flynn's attorney Sidney Powell said the split was "as expected" based on the tone of
the oral arguments, pointing to a partisan divide on the bench, and added it was a
"disturbing blow to the rule of law."
The former top lawyer for the Barack Obama administration, Neal Katyal, hailed the decision as
"an important step in defending the rule of law" and argued the case should not be
dismissed because Flynn had pleaded guilty.
Flynn had indeed pleaded guilty to one charge of lying to the FBI, but Powell moved to
dismiss the charges due to the failure of his previous attorneys – a law firm with ties
to the Democrats – and the government to disclose evidence that could set him free. After
producing documents revealing that the FBI set out to entrap Flynn, had no valid cause to
interview him in the first place, and the prosecutors improperly extorted him into a plea by
threatening to charge his son, the Justice Department moved to drop all charges.
Sullivan had other ideas, however. In a highly unusual move, he appointed a retired judge
– who had just written a diatribe about the case in the Washington Post – to be
amicus curiae and argue the case should not be dropped. It was at this point that Powell took
the case to the appeals court, citing Fokker, a recent Supreme Court precedent that Sullivan
was violating.
Ignoring the fact that Sullivan had appointed the amicus and sought to prolong the case
after the DOJ and the appeals court both told him to drop it, the en banc panel argued the
proper procedure means he needs to make the decision before it can be appealed.
One of the judges, Thomas Griffith, actually argued in a concurring opinion that it would be
"highly unusual" for Sullivan not to dismiss the charges, given the executive branch's
constitutional prerogatives and his "limited discretion" when it came to the relevant
federal procedure, but said that an order to drop the case is not "appropriate in this case
at this time" because it's up to Sullivan to make the call first.
The court likewise rejected Powell's motion to reassign a case to a different judge.
Conservatives frustrated by the neverending legal saga have blasted the appeals court's
decision as disgraceful. "The Mike Flynn case is an embarrassing stain on this country and
its 'judges',"tweeted TV commentator Dan
Bongino. "We don't have judges anymore, only corrupted politicians in black robes."
While Flynn was not the first Trump adviser to be charged by special counsel Robert
Mueller's 'Russiagate' probe, he was the first White House official pressured to resign over
it, less than two weeks into the job.
With Mueller failing to find any evidence of "collusion" between President Donald
Trump's campaign and Russia, Democrats have latched onto Flynn's case as proof of their
'Russiagate' conspiracy theory. The latest argument is that the effort to drop the charges
against Flynn is politically motivated and proof of Attorney General Bill Barr's
"corruption."
Barr is currently overseeing a probe by US attorney John Durham into the FBI's handling of
the investigation against Trump during and after the 2016 election, with the evidence disclosed
during the Flynn proceedings strongly implicating not just the senior FBI leadership but senior
Obama administration figures as well.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Britain's Prime Minister Boris Johnson is the latest Western leader to wildly jump on the
bandwagon claiming that Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny was poisoned, and by
implication insinuating the Kremlin had a sinister hand in it.
"The poisoning of Alexei Navalny shocked the world,"
asserted Johnson on Twitter, who went on to call for a "transparent investigation" to find
the perpetrators . The British premier didn't explicitly finger the Russian authorities, but
that was what he implied.
It's amazing how Boris Johnson, wracked by the political disaster of his sheer incompetent
mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic in Britain, somehow has the time and "authority" to
poke into Russian affairs.
Johnson's rush to judgement replicates other Western leaders who have
concluded without any evidence that Navalny was poisoned in a malicious way. U.S. Secretary
of State Mike Pompeo has said he backs the European Union's call for a comprehensive
investigation. Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel not only referred to Navalny's condition as
"poisoning" but also a "crime".
Boris Johnson's intervention is reminiscent of how he accused the Kremlin of poisoning
former MI6 spy Sergei Skripal in March 2018 within days of that incident. Johnson was then the
UK's foreign minister. What actually happened to Skripal and his daughter Yulia in the English
city of Salisbury remains a mystery since the pair have not been seen or heard of since.
Presumably, they are in the custody of the British authorities, who have denied all
international norms by not allowing Russia consular access to at least one of its citizens.
As with the Skripal case, the reflexive response among Western governments and media is to
accuse Russian authorities of malign involvement in the case of Navalny. Demanding an
investigation by the Russian government indicates a high-handed presumption to interfere in
Russian internal affairs. It also indicates a Western prejudice to criminalize Moscow over any
incident.
As soon as Navalny was hospitalized after apparently being taken ill during a flight last
week from the Siberian city of Tomsk to Moscow, Western media headlines immediately inferred it
was the result of sinister play. "Putin critic" was ubiquitous in headlines, as were unfounded
claims of "poisoning" from drinking tea. (Russian trope alert.)
The Russian doctors who treated Navalny said there was no evidence of poisonous substance
found in his body. They said his seizure may have been caused by a fatal drop in blood sugar
levels. He is reportedly diabetic. So, from what we can tell, the Russian doctors appear to
have saved Navalny's life by their rapid response, but they were unable to make a precise
diagnosis. What then merits Western demands for an investigation by the Russian
authorities?
Two days after being treated in Russia, Navalny is airlifted on Saturday, August 22, by a
private jet to a hospital in Germany, where he continues to reside, reportedly in a coma, which
is not life-threatening. The doctors in the Charité hospital in Berlin release a vague
statement
claiming that it is "likely" he has been "poisoned" . They cite the presence of "cholinesterase
inhibitors" in his body as evidence of "poisoning".
The Russian medics were also aware of "cholinesterase inhibitors" being present and were
treating Navalny with atropine, a known antidote. But as the Russians point out, cholinesterase
inhibitors are widely found in a variety of clinical pharmaceuticals as well as more sinister
substances, such as nerve agents. By merely detecting the presence of cholinesterase inhibitors
and while not detecting any specific chemical that then does not permit a conclusion of
"poisoning", which the Russian doctors refrained from.
Therefore, what we have is a hasty assessment by the German doctors who make a dramatic
conclusion, which the Russian counterparts do not, even though both teams were working on the
same clinical sample information. Surely, that is unprofessional and unethical on the part of
the German medics.
It would appear that the doctors at the Berlin hospital share the same mental condition as
Boris Johnson, Angela Merkel and Mike Pompeo. That is, a condition of condemning Russia before
any evidence is in. Then let the media pile on the propaganda tropes and "history" of
"assassinations" by "Kremlin poisoning"
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The curious question is: why did the Russia authorities permit the private transport of a
Russian citizen out of the country at a time when he was in a serious medical condition? Was
the Russian government unnerved by the media accusations of foul play against a dissident
figure who has been lionized by the West as some kind of political hero? Did they feel the need
to be excessively "open"?
Alexei Navalny, despite his high-profile among Western media, is a minor figure in Russian
politics. His so-called anti-corruption campaigns have negligible interest for most ordinary
Russian citizens, and minimal political impact for the Russian government. In short, Navalny is
a professional gadfly whose importance is blown out of all proportion to its reality by Western
media. There is nothing to gain for the Russian authorities in causing injury to this person,
assuming that such a malicious event might even be considered.
That may well explain why Russian officials assented to Navalny being airlifted to Berlin,
knowing full well that his medical condition was not caused by anything pertaining to
deliberate, sinister action. Still, that decision by the Russians seems an odd concession over
a matter of sovereignty. It's doubtful that the Americans, British, Germans or others would
have followed a similar course for one of their citizens being take abroad, especially one who
could be exploited for propaganda value.
Surely, Moscow did not underestimate the mentality of Russophobia which Western politicians
suffer from? The cardinal rule is never give hostages to fortune when dealing with buffoons
like Britain's Boris Johnson. It looks like Navalny is now one such hostage to anti-Russian
fortune.
2 play_arrow smacker , 58 minutes ago
"The curious question is: why did the Russia authorities permit the private transport of
a
Russian citizen out of the country at a time when he was in a serious medical
condition?"
Because the Russians knew from their own examination of Navalny that the Germans
wouldn't
find anything in him they didn't already know about? And this seems to be the case.
What's left is spin and Boris' blustering bullsh1t.
Vivekwhu , 2 hours ago
Boris statement: my name is Boris and I am addicted to Russian Collusion Delusion Virus
poisoning.
This idiot actually bongs for Britain and makes more baby Borises!
InTheLandOfTheBlind , 2 hours ago
Mi5/6 are still in control
JPHR , 2 hours ago
By know Steele's reputation is totally destroyed by exposing his supposedly relevant
"Russian" sources for the Russiagate dossier as a Brookings Institute employee's bar
talk.
Given Steele's involvement with the Litvinenko affair one really ought to revisit any so
called British proof especially because the UK refused to follow Chemical Weapons Convention
dispute settlement procedure just like it refused to follow that procedure with respect to
the Skripal hoax.
Again Britain is alleging Russian guilt with a previous hoax as proof.
That is the UK Standard Operating procedure.
interrupt , 3 hours ago
This is classic Russian modus operandi - poison your enemies then deny everything. Works
every time.
JPHR , 2 hours ago
Classic is alleging a chemical attack and don't wait for the nonexistent proof and start
either attacking like in Syria or expelling diplomats.
The OPCW has been weaponized. MSM has ignored the extensive multiple whistle blowers
reports about falsifying reports by the OPCW.
So if the OPCW gets involved with this Navalny incident too that will confirm that this is
another western intelligence hoax probably to be used against for example Nordstream 2.
Why-Am-I-Banned , 3 hours ago
Yes a country with a GDP of $1.4 Trillion is the enemy of the world... I'm so sick of this
Russian $hit, we need to be partners with them, we have more in common with Russians than you
can even imagine
Herodotus , 4 hours ago
Russia has always been ruled by a dictator or quasi-dictator.
Winston Churchill , 4 hours ago
A chronic diabetic slips into a coma on an airline flight ,surely poisoned ?
Yamaoka Tesshu , 3 hours ago
A chronic alcoholic has medical problems? Outlandish! The Russian State furnished the
poison alright. It has a monopoly on vodka.
"... I approve of Russia continuing to refer to 'our western colleagues' or 'partners', because it suggests mockery to me so long as nobody in Russia believes it. ..."
That was the first that I'd heard of 'Russia hacking the SK Olympics' so I looked it up and
unfortunately I ran across this which may be the article that Hornsby may have read:
How digital detectives unraveled the mystery of Olympic Destroyer -- and why the next big
attack will be even harder to crack.
####
This is what passes for 'journalism.'
It is full of the usual false and long debunked claims, suppositions and 'detective work',
namely Guccifer 2.0 (CIA/whatever creation to cover up the DNC leaks which were not hacked but
given by USB stick by Seth Rich as 1st person source former ambassador Craig Murray has told
us), but the author knows better. Quite the feather in his cap for writing something that could
have come straight out of Langley.
He quotes from FireEye which we know has also been rather loose with the facts (Russian
interference in US election machines) and worst of all discovers 'metadata' that proves it was
'Da Kremlin', even though we all know about the NSA's hacking tools and obfuscation programs
like MARBLE via Snowden. And plenty more. Yes, Russians are still really clever but they cannot
help but use the same IP addresses as previous attacks and 'Hello Mama' in cyrillic like
teenage scriptkiddies. Greenberg's real pro.
It just goes to show that they never give up and there is always a journalist at an
established publication more than willing to run with it when the story is a bit exciting and
involves 'anonymous' security agencies and sources who tell them what they want to hear. Who
needs censorship when you live in your own weird reality?
As I have probably suggested before, Russia has to get used to the idea that the western
alliance is its implacable enemy, and its core – the United States – will accept
no other solution than Russia's demise in violence or its complete submission to American
disposal.
I approve of Russia continuing to refer to 'our western colleagues' or 'partners',
because it suggests mockery to me so long as nobody in Russia believes it.
But the American and American-dominated media has escalated the campaign against Russia to
the point that it is the root of everything which is wrong with the world. When you would
think any reasonable country would lie quiet for awhile, having aroused the ire of its
enemies to a fever pitch, Russia goes right on provoking and poking and daring the west to do
something. Or so the story goes. It is disappointing to see official Germany so easily pushed
off its previous halfway-defiant platform, but not really surprising. It remains to be seen
if it will actually use the completion of Nord Stream II as leverage to get what will mollify
the Americans. I frankly doubt it, and suspect Mutti Merkel and Heiko are just making
indignant noises while they scramble for a new position, but you never know. As I have often
said also, if Europe was left dependent on American LNG shipped in by tankers, it would serve
it right. Just as long as Russia is not coerced into shipping gas through Ukraine forever and
a day. That's the absolute no-go point.
Just letting all you contributors know how much I appreciate the links and key points to
the various hot topics in, particularly involving Belarus/President Lukashenko (and
what's-er-name) and the antics of Navalny et al. I have followed the Skripal case and it is
an absolute face palmer that the 'victims' remain in solitary confinement unable to tell
their 'story' while the 'perpetrators' (allegedly Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov) still
have not run out of toothpaste, cereal and toilet paper and continue to elude Britain's
finest
Since I had a hand in triggering this thread I Just wanted to get back to the intrepid Eva
K Bartlett for a moment.
At 40:16 of her talk in the video below Eva says (first part tongue in cheek)
**"Being a Russian propagandist, a Kremlin agent, a DPRK stooge doesn't actually pay but
speaking truth in the face of mountains of lies is a moral thing to do – human lives
are at stake."**
I shared this elsewhere in the context of the events in Victoria, Australia and posed:
"You might ask "What has Eva K Bartlett got to do with Andrews, Morrison, Hurley et al?"
Elsewhere I saw a meme featuring Andrews with a Kim Jong Un haircut. I commented that such
a meme should more appropriately feature Lenin or Trotsky – or in (Daniel) Andrews'
case, lower ranked henchmen such as Kaganovich or Beria.
Consider for example the narrative they [Andrews, Morrison, Hurley] have been spewing in
recent years with regard to Syria and the DPRK (etc)
It comes as no surprise to me then that these supporters of terrorism, advocators of
genocide and protectors of child trafficking and paedophilia would inevitably turn on 'their
own people'.
• Eva Bartlett speaks on North Korea & Syria (FULL)
3 Awan brothers are named by Webb : Imran, Jamal and Abid. (A 4th brother and wife of one
of the Awan's are also believed to be involved).
Originally installed in congressional positions by Greg Meeks who is widely regarded as
the most corrupt member of congress.
I will preface this discussion by stating you will find some variation in the numbers cited.
I believe that is because I quoted from stories as the case was developing. The Daily Caller
was the primary source for most of the news on the net. I tried to be as accurate as possible
with the facts quoting the sources I found. I am posting this because I want answers, it is not
a definitive work. I do, however, believe the breach is every bit as consequential as the
hillary email server and the CIA Wikileak.
I know a bunch of shills will tear me up screaming, "ya got no proof," but indulge me in a
conspiracy theory. I think the greatest disservice the MSM had managed to perpetuate is the
fallacy that other than the obvious connection of all these people there is otherwise no
connection between these events.
Let's assume for the moment that the items described here are patterns of political belief
and criminal activity. They aren't individual acts, but on going criminal conspiracies. Let's
not look at this as an isolated event. While I'm detailing the actions of the Awan brothers. I
believe, but can not prove, those action may have been perpetuated in concert with other
individuals at work in the under belly of the government. It's almost as if disparate groups
come in contact occasionally when their objectives overlap. As I stated, I have no proof of
this, but it stands to reason the flood of cyber attacks and leaks may have overlapped through
the individuals linked in the different events. For example, Debbie Wasserman Schultz was an
integral player in the DNC Hacks and also introduced the Awan brothers to Congress. Is there a
connection? Maybe, maybe not. It is not that far fetched, this has happened before, see the
Silverman
group . Silverman associated with the CPUSA and knew
Jarrett's father, Dr. James Bowman and through
three degrees of separation used by the NSA is directly connected to Valerie
Jerrett . If it is good enough for the IC to open an inquiry why can't we indulge in some
similar speculation.
• The First anomalous fact is the Media. Why have they largely ignored the issue.
Before you cyber trolls jump on me, I would like you to consider two facts. Congress deals with
very sensitive and classified material all the time. The Awan brothers could never have had a
secret clearance for any other group than Congress. There is no news story there?
• The Second error is the "smoking gun." The evidence is always covered up with a
coincidence, a cover story if you will. While I believe the politicos in D.C. are pampered
rubes, they do have a good support staff, and some have been trained to support clandestine
operations. The rest have been hammered with political optics for the entirety of their career
in D.C.. They are all trained to control optics and the dissemination of the truth.
• The Third fallacy is the "bad guy." Why does everyone think an on going criminal
conspiracy can be distilled down to a single criminal committing a crime rather than a pattern
of criminal behavior with one or more groups profiting off the criminal activities. It is best
to think of their actions like organized crime and should be prosecuted like a RICO case. An
on going criminal enterprise by an organized group or groups of conspirators.
The Media
Why hasn't the media made this the top news story to at least go along with the Russian
hack. Let's face it, the media doesn't care about the damage to the country, they only care
about their partisan agenda. If they didn't they would cover stories damaging to the DNC.
With a
$600,000,000 CIA contract you would think the Washington Post could afford an
investigative journalist or two. Perhaps CNN will take up an interest as this rabbit hole
runs deep and wide. Don't hold your breath.
Snowflakes and "journalists" can call Trump a fascist, but there is nothing connecting an
enormous breach of the United States Security Apparatus by as many as 80 Democrat members of
Congress (past and present). We rail on about the Russians and Trump without specific
allegations backed up with evidence, but the media avoids providing nightly updates about these
5 spies that have compromised congress. The answer is simple, the Awan Brothers are Muslim and
the "victims"/dupes are Dems. Dupes who in fact abused their position of responsibility to end
up being compromised by their own "trusted" staff. Several of the Congressmen involved in the
breach have gone so far as to blame the allegations on
Islamophobia .
Meeks said he was hesitant to believe the accusations against Alvi, Imran Awan and the
three other staffers, saying their background as Muslim Americans, some with ties to
Pakistan, could make them easy targets for false charges.
This story damages the narrative that Muslims are benevolent members of the government and
Dems care about the country. It really shows the depth of the progressive aims to " fundamentally transforming
the United States of America .
This is where the conspiracy theory comes in. Give me a little latitude to connect the dots,
and let's see where this trail goes...
The mainstream media seemed far more interested in obfuscating the details regarding the
Tillerson terminations than they were in covering what could be one of the most dangerous
intelligence leaks in years, of which there has been but a peep out of any major news outlet.
Captain Joseph R. John (Navy-Ret.) has stated that he believes the Muslim Brotherhood "
fifth column" has "infiltrated U.S. Government ," and if he is correct, the Awan brothers
could very well be a part of this infiltration.
The media is
90% Democrat and I would argue that in recent years the mainline Dems have gone hard left,
almost Marxist. They have an almost suicidal pact with Islamists. Where does this scandal
connect with Middle Eastern Islamists?
One might well look at the set of circumstances laid out above and see in it a scandal
that would make Watergate look like a petty break-in. One might then scratch his or her head
and wonder -- why on earth would the New York Times or the Washington Post, which
incidentally just hired John Podesta (speaking of horrendous cybersecurity!) as a columnist,
have virtually no interest in the Awans at all?
Do Carlos Slim and Jeff Bezos, one might ask, really believe they can't sell papers with
such a story to tell?
Fox News is told the employees made "unauthorized access" to the House computer
system.
Further, there were instances where House information was discovered in an external
"cloud" server. The contractors in question reportedly were sending and storing House-related
information in that off-site server.
"That violates House rules and it puts the House at risk," a source familiar with the
investigation said.
It is unclear whether the access issues exposed the House's networks to potential hackers
or spying efforts by unfriendly nations or terrorist groups, at a time when Washington is on
high alert for such cyber-activity.
Actually the last statement has been refuted. It has been alleged that Imran Awan had
achieved a privilege escalation through
Social Engineering . Essentially Imran through the political clout of the Congressional
leaders he worked for managed to convinced the Capitol Hill IT staff to escalate the Awans to
super user privileges to work on the "Congressional Machines" in violation of accepted
practices on the network. One device in particular was the Wasserman iPad compromised in the
DNC Leak. It has been also alleged they may have had Podesta's password. Since the Dems
approved the privilege escalation it is now forensically difficult to determine if the Russians
leaked the emails or the "enormously trustworthy and drunken" Awan brothers sold access to the
DNC servers.
Imran Awan bullied central IT to bend the rules for him so there wouldn't be a paper trail
about the unusually high permissions he was requesting. And their actions were not logged, so
members have no way of knowing what information they may have taken, the central IT employee
said.
After obtaining access to the Capitol server system, the Awan brothers could control all
aspects of a congressman system. They sold and configured the hardware setting permissions and
remote access to maintain the devices remotely. Essentially the keys to the kingdom. Through
congressional requests they managed to completely compromise the network. They could read
email, transfer files, install applications (i.e. key loggers). The latter reports that the
systems and network were completely compromised. Beyond that, Imran had bypassed IT key loggers
and reporting systems by gaining remote access directly to congressional computers.
The central IT staffer said any suggestion that the brothers' access didn't span the full
gamut of congressional intrigue was silly because they were the ones giving out
permissions.
The problem is that once they bypassed internal security there was no
logging of their actions . House authorities set their sights on the possibility that a
remote server had been used to transfer files off of Congressional members computers. The
investigation revealed that Imran had been
stealing money, equipment, and over charging for services . In total for almost 10 years
and almost 80 Democrat members of Congress were compromised.
This is where things go hinkey. Rather than turning the case over to the FBI the case is
turned over to U.S.C. Police. They are investigating the theft, not the data breach.
Let's state that again...
The USCP are investigation the theft of Equipment not the Loss
Of Congressional Data.
"At the request of Members of Congress, the United States Capitol Police are investigating
the actions of House IT support staff," Malecki said in a statement. "No Members are being
investigated. No arrests have been made. It should be noted that, administratively, House
staff were asked to update their security settings as a best practice. We have no further
comment on the ongoing investigation at this time."
The Bad Guy Two of the brothers, Imran and Jamal, have been linked to an emerging
security breach
The Awan brothers managed to get access to the Dems committee computers by just asking for
the passwords. In addition the Awan brothers sold the congress outrageously priced equipment
and broke into members of Congress' offices to steal equipment and or data.
Five House employees are under criminal investigation amid allegations that they stole
equipment from more than 20 member offices and accessed House IT systems without lawmakers'
knowledge.
More than 20 members were victimized by the alleged procurement scam and chiefs of staff
for the lawmakers were briefed on the matter Thursday.
The former staffer said "Jamal was always there," but Imran would only work "odd
hours."
And who is investigating this fiasco?
Where is the FBI and why have they left it to the DC police? Is it a "limited hangout"
they hope to bury by the promoting the administration's ties to Boris and Natasha?
D.C. Metro police have been brought into the investigation rather than the F.B.I at the
request of the Congressional
members involved with the Awan Brothers.
A source in the briefing said the Sergeant-at-Arms confirmed the U.S. Capitol Police is
conducting an active criminal investigation but said no arrests have been made. The source
said the FBI is not involved in the investigation.
"At the request of members of Congress, the United States Capitol Police are investigating
the actions of House IT support staff. No members are being investigated. No arrests have
been made.
Why aren't the FBI involved? I can only speculate, but it would mean that a FBI forensic
team would have to comb through all of those congressional computers to determine the extent of
the security compromise and data lost. The Dems just didn't seem up for the inconvenience of
allowing the FBI investigation to go forward.
The Awan Brothers had the keys to the kingdom. Physical security is paramount to cyber
security. If a hacker has Physical access to a machine they own it. It is the simplest hack to
conduct. The Anwar Bros had Debbie Wasserman Schultz's machine, along with Schultz, at least 80
other Dems also hired the
Awan Brothers to provide IT support at significantly higher rates than normal IT
support.
Jamal, who public records suggest is only 22 years old and first began working in the
House when he was 20, was paid nearly $160,000 a year, or three times the average House IT
staff salary, according to InsideGov, which tracks congressional salaries. Abid was paid
$161,000 and Imran $165,000.
Despite the fact that these individuals, reportedly heavily in debt, would have failed
security clearances they were able to receive top salary from Dems including members of the
intelligence panel and members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs were among the dozens
of members who employed the suspects on a shared basis. The two committees deal with many of
the nation's most sensitive issues, information and documents, including those related to the
war on terrorism.
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who was shamed for the Democratic National Committee conspiracy
against Bernie Sanders, recommended the Awan Brothers for their positions and Representative
Jackie Speier asked for their TOP SECRET CLEARANCE .
frontpagemag | Last year, eight members of the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence issued a demand that their staffers be granted access to top secret classified
information.
The signatories to the letter were Andre
Carson, Luis Guiterez, Jim Himes, Terri Sewell, Jackie Speier, Mike Quigley, Eric Swalwell
and Patrick Murphy. All the signatories were Democrats. Some had a history of attempting to
undermine national security.
Beyond the debt, the brothers seemed to have, they had convictions for felony traffic
offenses including
DUI . Any one of these issues are enough to prevent or revoke a security clearance for
normal folks. I guess things just work differently on Capitol Hill. The American military or
college grads are denied clearances due similar issues in their record, but not these Pakistani
brothers. Any one of these offenses would have caused me to fail my FBI background check at
work, but congress can admit anybody. Do you see a problem here? Valerie Jarrett and
Huma Abedin are
perfect examples of the double standard in the government / Congress. Staffers of any
background history can get clearances, but Dems seem to be able to prevent Trump's staff from
getting clearance. What is going on here?
Multiple small businesses and individuals went unpaid as a result of the 2012 bankruptcy.
Abid also had an unpaid line of credit of $10,000 with the congressional credit union at the
time of bankruptcy.
Abid's record includes numerous driving- and alcohol-related legal problems, including
driving with a suspended or revoked license, court records show. He was found guilty of drunk
driving a month before he started at the House, and was arrested for public intoxication a
month after his first day.
with possibly opposing goals. A felon normally commits the felony tens of times, maybe
hundreds of times before they get caught. How many times does a Coke head commit a felony
buying coke before they get caught? If they ever get caught, how many years do they get away
with the crimes before they draw the attention of the authorities. The FBI, Congress, whatever
never find the full scope of criminal activity. They may just get enough evidence to convict of
a crime, but they never convict for all the crimes committed.
What is really becoming obvious is the Democrats have irresponsibly opened our congressional
security oversight to Middle Eastern Factions. These 5 are just one group that were exposed.
Hillary had Huma, Obama had Vallery. A sharia practicing terrorist that believes in female
circumcision leading a woman's March to equality in the 21st century. There are so many
examples that one has to be purposefully obtuse to ignore the contradictions.
While the nay sayers claim you can not connect the dots it is obvious that the dots were
there for all to see and could have been connected. I would say that the deviation from
standard security practices was intentional, but Podesta's password was password123 or some
such nonsense. Who knows, our leaders may really be that incompetent. They haven't even made it
to the minimum expectations to be employed in corporate America.
I really don't know what to make of two very different groups with nothing but vaguely
similar beliefs in Marxist ideals working together. Many of the thoughts I have on the subject
are almost too extreme to believe, but the evidence is almost unavoidable. None of it makes
sense unless someone is lying about their objectives.
Two House Democrats this week fired technology staffers linked to an ongoing
criminal investigation , more than a month after the couple in question was barred from
House computer networks.
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) confirmed to Politico that Hina Alvi's last day as an IT
support staffer in his office was Tuesday. Her husband, Imran Awan, was working for Rep.
Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio) as of Tuesday evening, but a spokeswoman for Fudge said midday
Wednesday that Awan was no longer an employee.
This post has been updated and corrected with new information from US Capitol Police, which
said no arrests have been made but there is an active investigation ongoing into IT staff who
were involved in an alleged procurement scam. A lawmaker briefed on the situation had told
BuzzFeed News that arrests were made.
I believe Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was getting "schtupped" by at least one of the Awan
brothers.
Consider that even under heavy scrutiny, Debbie Wasserman Schultz fought like a mama grizzly
to keep these men on the job within the government. Why would she do this for a regular IT guy
on the payroll.
As The Daily Caller continues,
Awan was banned Feb. 2, 2017, from the congressional computer network because he is a
suspect in a cybersecurity investigation, but he still had access to House facilities because
Wasserman Schultz continued to employ him.
Outside of a couple of Congressional Black Caucus holdouts, every other Congressman fired
Awan when they found out he was under investigation. The CBC fired the later. Then the day
after the crap really hit the fan, Wasserman Schultz finally fired Awan.
... Why was the laptop found in the Rayburn building, when Wasserman Schultz's office and
every other Congressman for whom Awan worked office in the Longworth building?
Remember when Wasserman Schultz used a televised May 18, 2017 congressional hearing on the
Capitol Police budget to threaten "consequences" if Chief Matthew Verderosa did not give her
the laptop.
"If a member loses equipment," it should be given back, she said.
...
She tried the "executive immunity" argument that "If I'm not under investigation,
then you can't take away my SIDE PIECE!".
A couple month's later, Wasserman Schultz tried a different approach. Now she claimed to
protect the rights of Awan and the taxpayers.
If these political criminals were in the real world, this case would be over. But they work
in the world of politics where things are murky. Who knows what Wasserman Schultz has on
somebody else, who knows something about two other people. Thus, America gets the
run-around.
Politicians fight to protect each other. Because they know if America knew how dirty most of
the were, we'd disband government entirely.
As for Wasserman Schultz, hopefully the return of the mack, Awan sheds light on her dealings
with him. Moreover, let's hope this investigation uncovers what most Americans suspect of the
Democrats. We know in our hearts they are corrupt beyond belief. So let's prove it. Again.
Judicial Watch announced today that a federal court yesterday ordered a snap
hearing after the Justice Department submitted information under seal on Friday following the
court's demand for an explanation of why no records have been produced in the ongoing legal
battle for documents about the Congressional Democrat IT (information technology) scandal
involving the Awan brothers. The hearing is set for tomorrow, January 15, at 10 am.
In November 2018, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
lawsuit against the FBI over two FOIA requests for records related to the Awan brothers (
Judicial Watch
v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-02563)).
In August 2019, the Justice Department told the court that it would begin producing records
by November 5, 2019. After producing no records, on November 13, 2019, the agency told Judicial
Watch that it was having "technical difficulties," and in a recent email claimed that
"difficulties with the production remain."
In a joint status report
filed on December 5, 2019, Judicial Watch reported to the court that the DOJ claimed in a phone
call that it was now unable to produce any records to either of the FOIA requests "because the
agency was waiting for some unspecified action by Judge [Tanya S.] Chutkan in some other matter
so as to avoid having to produce records in this case." In that same report the DOJ told the
court that Judge Chutkan is "presiding over a related sealed criminal matter" that prohibits
the government from releasing the requested FOIA information.
In a hearing last month, U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta expressed frustration and
ordered the Justice Department to explain its failure to produce records by January 10 and to
provide Judicial Watch some details about the delay. Instead, the Justice Department made its
filing under seal and has yet to provide Judicial Watch with any details about its failure to
produce records as promised to the court.
"The cover-up of the Awan Brothers Democratic IT scandal shows the FBI and DOJ's penchant
for dishonesty isn't just limited to FISA abuse," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
"The DOJ's handling of the Awan Brothers case has long been an issue of concern and now we are
expected believe some secret investigation prevents the public from knowing the full truth
about this scandal. We are skeptical."
Imran Awan and his family were banned from the House computer network in February 2017 after
the House's top law enforcement officer wrote that Imran was "an ongoing and serious risk to
the House of Representatives, possibly threatening the integrity of our information systems,"
and that a server containing evidence had gone "missing." The inspector general said server
logs showed "unauthorized access" and procurement records were falsified.
Imran Awan was Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's (D-FL) top information technology aide. Most
lawmakers fired Awan in February, but Wasserman Schultz kept him on until he was
arrested in July 2017 , trying to board a flight for Pakistan.
In July 2018, Imran Awan was given a plea deal,
and pled guilty to federal bank fraud but prosecutors found no evidence that Awan "violated
federal law with respect to the House computer systems."
The Awan brothers reportedly "were not given
background checks before being given access to highly sensitive government information and no
explanations have been given as to why." Additionally, "If they would have run this background
check it would have found out not only multiple criminal convictions, but $1 million
bankruptcy, a dozen lawsuits it would have found a whole host of major red flags and the
Democrats didn't do any of those checks."
The Awan Brothers aided former DNC chief Debbie Wasserman Schultz in making threatening voice modulated phone calls to
attorneys suing the DNC for election fraud.
Lt. Colonel Tony Schaffer told
Fox
News
that Schultz ordered the Awan Brothers to scare off the lawyers due to the threat they pose in exposing widespread
election fraud committed by the Democratic Party in 2016.
Disobedientmedia.com
reports: If substantiated, the claims may have significance for the DNC fraud lawsuit proceedings,
and add to the growing controversy surrounding the recent arrest of Imran Awan on bank fraud charges.
Jared Beck, and attorney litigating the DNC Fraud Lawsuit noted
on Twitter
:
"We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and
domestic. And sadly, the domestic enemies to our voting system and our honoring of the
Constitution are right at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with their allies in the Congress of the
United States".
Amazing that Pelosi is suddenly aware of her duty.
Thank you karlof1 - LMFAO - coffee all over the keyboard.
Perhaps Pelosi should take her own advice and discuss this belief of hers with Debbie
Wasserman Schultz. After all Schultz promoted the Awan family spy and blackmail ring to other
members of the Democrat caucus in Congress.
Another swamp pond yet to drain, take note Barr, there is still a lot of work ahead ha ha
ha.
The way Merkel and other politicians immediately jumped on the poisoning thesis is
reminiscent of May's reaction in the Skripal case. It is difficult not to become suspicious.
Looks like they like to reuse the same propaganda memes over and over. Russian bounties to the
Taliban become Iranian bounties to the Taliban, Novichok becomes cholinesterase inhibitor, rinse
and repeat.
Russia did it. Evil Putin ordered it. Horrible China sponsored it. Iran backed it.
Hezbollah played a hand as well.
Thank Glorious God for the Indispensable Nation of American Exceptionalism. Rescuing the
world from evil dictators and conspiring theorists plots. Evil doers who hate OUR way of
life stand no chance against the Glorious Christians and their Honorable Zionist
gatekeepers.
Thanks and Glory to American Gods that Juan Guaido is now the President of Venezuela.
Soon the Zionist will offer their Chosen Ones to replace Evil Dictators.
Thanks and praise to MOA for shining Gods Light and dancing on Western narratives giving
them validity against the Evil doers of Poison and injustice.
Trump and Pence are "Men of the Bible" seeking out injustice and filling the world with
Christian values of Bro Love and world Peace. May all you Christians take a knee and pray
for these Mens souls and the Soul of America for leading the way to righteousness. Oh yeah-
and pray for whatever the fuck his name is Nirvany Nalvinny poisoned guy.
If the Russians are really trying to assassinate, why do it in so theatrical a manner?
Just shoot him twice in the back of the head and call it suicide like the Americans do.
I don't understand why people commenting here still insist on playing CSI Miami. The
Russian doctors have already publicly stated their own lab results showed absolutely no signs
of Cholinesterase Inhibitors. As in evidence of zero CI - not zero evidence of CI:
"Upon his admission to the [Omsk] hospital, Alexey Navalny was tested on a wide range of
narcotics, synthetic substances, psychodiletics and medicinal substances, including
cholinesterase inhibitors -- all tests came back negative ," Sabayev said in a
press statement, as quoted by the Omsk Ministry of Health.
No cholinesterase inhibitors were used, according to the Russian lab results. It's not
that they didn't test Navalny for the substances - they did and they came out negative.
Sabayev even called the Germans' bluff:
"Additionally, Navalny lacked symptoms specific of the poisoning with cholinesterase
inhibitors substances . As we said earlier, we are ready to share Alexey Navalny's
samples with our German colleagues for examination ," the health official [Sabayev]
added.
MoA's own German source state the lab tests in Germany were carried out by "independent
laboratories". They most likely are in BND's control, in one way or the other. Many Western
European nations have constitutional clauses that allow their respective governments
(usually, at the discretion of the executive) to intervene directly on the private sector in
specific occasions, normally under "national security" reasons. The executive of the British
government, for example, has a legal device that allows it to outright censor (without the
need for legislative approval) any specific information from all the British media outlets.
I'm sure modern Germany also has many constitutional clauses that allow its government and
intelligence agencies to intervene anywhere, anytime in the German economy instantly and
covertly, under the umbrella of national security.
As I predicted, the Russians aren't that stupid. They stored some blood samples from
Navalny, and they know, for sure, that he wasn't poisoned with CIs. That's why Peskov was so
direct, so sudden and so confident when he declared the Kremlin was in no hurry - because they
saw no reason - to initiate an investigation on Navalny's sudden health problems. And he also
called the German bluff ("If the substance is established and if it is established that this
is poisoning, then, of course, this will be a cause for investigation", i.e. there won't be
an investigation because there's no poison).
From southfront:
The air travel between Russia and Germany is mostly suspended due to coronavirus limitations.
The flight to Germany was organized by the Berlin-based Cinema for Peace Foundation. The
flight was paid by businessman Boris Zimin. Boris Zimin is the son of Dmitry Zimin –
the founder of VimpelCom (Beeline telecommunications brand).
PJSC VimpelCom is the third-largest wireless and second-largest telecom operator in
Russia. It is wholly owned by VEON Ltd. through which it is linked to Mikhail Fridman,
Russian Western-linked business magnate. Fridman's Alfa Group Consortium is among the main
shareholders of VEON Ltd.
These persons and entities represent the Russian influence group linked to the global
finance. The very same group has links and support work of think tanks affiliated with the
Higher School of Economics, the center of the Alma Mater of the liberal economic block of the
Russian government. Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobanin and Chairwoman of the Bank of Russia Elvira
Nabiullina also could be considered a part of the global finance in Russia.
In Russian media, this network of Western-linked persons, organizations, influence groups
and top officials is often described as the 'liberal tower' of the Kremlin. Thus, despite the
image of the opposition figure, Navalny receives support from the highest levels of the
Russian governance and business systems.
Whenever Navalny does end up dying the Russian government will be blamed anyway, so if
they wanted him dead then why not just blow him up with some missiles like the US did with
General Soleimani? Why not just arrest him, claim he resisted arrest, then shoot him like
happens with so many people in the US?
This talk about him being targeted by the Russian government using obscure toxins that
don't work is beyond silly.
Due to Navalny's dealings in Tomsk, this smells more of a bid to leave the country.
Orchestrations set in place by Germany suggests an asset that has run his course, but they
can't leave him in country to deal with any complications of him being taken by someone else.
This doesn't feel like state acting....or at least not the Russian state. Gruff is right,
this isn't targeting by the Russians. Navalny hasn't been relevant in Russian circles since
at least 2012-13 if he was even then.
This talk about him being targeted by the Russian government using obscure toxins that
don't work is beyond silly.
But that's the West's MO when it comes to trying to frame the USSR/Warsaw Pact
Member/Russia over the decades--an old Big Lie Narrative that will be used until the Outlaw
US Empire finally drowns.
From yesterday :
"'The Russians were there and they are there now 24/7 trying to interfere in our election,
but they're not the only ones', Pelosi said."
But then Pelosi added:
"We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and
domestic. And sadly, the domestic enemies to our voting system and our honoring of the
Constitution are right at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with their allies in the Congress of the
United States".
Amazing that Pelosi is suddenly aware of her duty.
"... Navalny fell ill on August 20 during a flight from Tomsk in Siberia to Moscow. The plane made an emergency landing in Omsk where he was transferred to a hospital. Navalny fell into a coma. The doctors diagnosed a sharp drop in his blood sugar. Navalny has diabetes and his symptoms as described were consistent with a diabetic shock. We therefore (somewhat prematurely) concluded that Navalny was not poisoned . ..."
"... The wording of the Charité statement seems to imply that the laboratory results point to the potential effects of a cholinesterase inhibitors, not to a specific substance itself. This is consistent with a statement by the clinic in Omsk which insists that no cholinesterase inhibitors, i.e a 'poison', were found: ..."
"... We can be quite sure that a trained toxicologist would recognize a Cholinergic crisis . There is however a documented case from India in which an organophosphate poisoning was falsely interpreted as diabetic ketoacidosis (hat tip Bernd Neuner ): ..."
"... If Navalny was poisoned - which is not established - the next question must be how Navalny came into contact with a cholinesterase inhibitor. Was the contact caused by himself or by someone else? Was it intentionally or unintentionally? ..."
"... Navalny's spokeswomen has insisted that the only substance Navalny ingested that morning was a tea from an airport bar. A CCTV video from the airport shows that the tea was brought from the bar by a person that then sits down with Navalny. They presumably traveled together. How would the airport barkeeper, if he supposedly poisoned Navalny, knew for whom the tea was? ..."
"... next page " the poison theory constructors are creating a colorful james bond style movie script. It captures the imagination. If the exciting, easily visualised, movie script is solidly imprinted in the imagination, then dull, tedious, evidence based reality doesn't get a look-in. ..."
"... Besides, this doesn't explain the almost immediate poisoning accusation by Merkel and then, the next day (today), by top EU ideologue Josep Borrell. The German State (at least the BND) must be involved - the fact that the Charité is owned by the State itself only strengthens this hypothesis. ..."
"... Someone on the web (might even be here) mentioned that cholinesterase inhibitors can be used against Cocaine dependence. Is this true or not? I do not have any other information and I am not a Medecin/doctor or user. But these days I am naturally cynical about any "official" statements, whoever makes them. ..."
"... The way Merkel and other politicians immediately jumped on the poisoning thesis is reminiscent of May's reaction in the Skripal case. It is difficult not to become suspicious. ..."
"... Due to Navalny's dealings in Tomsk, this smells more of a bid to leave the country. Orchestrations set in place by Germany suggests an asset that has run his course, but they can't leave him in country to deal with any complications of him being taken by someone else. ..."
The case of the alleged 'poisoning' of the Russian rabble rouser Alexey Navalny is becoming
more curious.
Navalny fell ill on August 20 during a flight from Tomsk in Siberia to Moscow. The plane
made an emergency landing in Omsk where he was transferred to a hospital. Navalny fell into a
coma. The doctors diagnosed a sharp drop in his blood sugar. Navalny has diabetes and his
symptoms as described were consistent with a diabetic shock. We therefore (somewhat
prematurely) concluded that
Navalny was not poisoned .
After a day and a half in the Omsk hospital the patient stabilized. On request of his family
he was flown to Berlin and admitted to the Charité hospital. The Charité is a
very large (14,000 employees) state run university clinic that is leading in many medical
fields. Its laboratories
found effects consistent with the ingestion of, or contact with, a cholinesterase
inhibitor:
Following his admission, Mr. Navalny underwent extensive examination by a team of
Charité physicians. Clinical findings indicate poisoning with a substance from the
group of cholinesterase inhibitors. The specific substance involved remains unknown, and a
further series of comprehensive testing has been initiated. The effect of the poison –
namely, the inhibition of cholinesterase in the body – was confirmed by multiple tests
in independent laboratories.
As a result of this diagnosis, the patient is now being treated with the antidote
atropine.
Cholinesterase is needed in the human nerve system to break down acetylcholine which is a
signaling substance between synapses. Inhibitors of cholinesterase are used in the
therapy of Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, anxiety disorder and other illnesses.
Cholinesterase inhibitors can be found in certain plant extracts or synthesized. There
are two types of cholinesterase inhibitors, carbamates and organophosphates. Both types are
also widely used as pesticides. During World War II organophosphates were developed as chemical
weapons (tabun, sarin, soman) but not widely used.
The wording of the Charité statement seems to imply that the laboratory results point
to the potential effects of a cholinesterase inhibitors, not to a specific substance itself.
This is consistent with a statement by the clinic in Omsk which insists that no
cholinesterase inhibitors, i.e a 'poison', were found:
"When Alexey Navalny was admitted to the in-patient clinic, he was examined for a wide range
of narcotics, synthetic substances, psychedelic drugs and medical substances, including
cholinesterase inhibitors. The result was negative," said Sabayev, chief of the acute
poisoning unit at the Omsk emergency care hospital where Navalny was treated before being
airlifted to Germany.
"Besides, he did not have a clinical picture, specific for poisoning with substances from
the group of cholinesterase inhibitors," Sabayev, who is also the top toxicologist in the
Omsk Region and the Siberian Federal District, added.
We can be quite sure that a trained toxicologist would recognize a Cholinergic crisis . There is however
a documented case from India in which an organophosphate poisoning was falsely interpreted as diabetic
ketoacidosis (hat tip Bernd Neuner ):
We present a 15-year-old girl who was initially treated for "diabetic ketoacidosis" with
further worsening of her general condition. This delayed recovery, coupled with focused
investigations, finally led us to a diagnosis and the appropriate management of an
intentional overdose with organophosphorous (OP) pesticide, presenting as diabetic
ketoacidosis.
The statement by German doctors on the diagnosis of FBK founder Alexei Navalny is nothing new
for Russian specialists, Dmitry Peskov, press secretary of the Russian President, told
reporters.
"We have not yet learned anything new from this statement. We specifically contacted our
doctors and asked how, from a professional point of view, we can relate to what was written.
The fact is that the fact of this lowered cholinesterase was established in the first hours
by our doctors in a hospital in Omsk. And the atropine, which the Germans are talking about
and which is now being given to the patient, began to be administered during the first hour
of the patient's stay in intensive care, " said Peskov.
The presidential spokesman stressed that the level of cholinesterase may decrease for a
variety of reasons, including from taking a number of medications. At the same time, German
doctors did not identify a toxic substance in Navalny's analyzes.
"Therefore, it is very important here to find out what caused the decrease in
cholinesterase levels. And neither our doctors, nor the Germans have yet been able to
establish the cause . At least, this follows from the statement of our German doctors'
colleagues. There is no substance, unfortunately, it cannot be established, analyzes do not
show it," Peskov explained.
He stressed that the analytical data of Russian and German doctors are the same, but the
conclusions are different.
"We do not understand why our German colleagues are in such a hurry, using the word
"poisoning". You know, this version was among the first that our doctors considered, but I
repeat once again: the substance has not yet been established. Maybe the Germans have some
data," said Peskov, noting that Russian doctors are ready to provide samples of the first
tests.
If Navalny was poisoned - which is not established - the next question must be how Navalny
came into contact with a cholinesterase inhibitor. Was the contact caused by himself or by
someone else? Was it intentionally or unintentionally?
Navalny's spokeswomen has insisted that the only substance Navalny ingested that morning was
a tea from an airport bar. A CCTV video from the airport shows that the tea was
brought from the bar by a person that then sits down with Navalny. They presumably traveled
together. How would the airport barkeeper, if he supposedly poisoned Navalny, knew for whom the
tea was?
As 'western' media continue with their "Putin poisoned Navalny" nonsense it is important to
again point out that
other people have more reason to harm Navalny than the Kremlin does:
During the last years Navalny has made some enemies by uncovering corruption cases. His
latest one was about the local governor of Tomsk. It was also the reason why he had flown
there. Should Navaly become the victim of a crime the suspects should be sought there.
Posted by b on August 25, 2020 at 11:57 UTC | Permalink
next page " the poison theory constructors are creating a colorful james bond style
movie script.
It captures the imagination. If the exciting, easily visualised, movie script is solidly
imprinted in the imagination, then dull, tedious, evidence based reality doesn't get a
look-in.
The India girl case is an interesting case if you're a doctor, but it is too over the top to
claim they are common. The important thing to consider here is that the Russian doctor who
treated him (and saved his life) discarded that possibility.
It is only the doctor that can diagnose his/her patient. Hunting for exotic cases around
the world is not diagnosis.
Besides, this doesn't explain the almost immediate poisoning accusation by Merkel and
then, the next day (today), by top EU ideologue Josep Borrell. The German State (at least the
BND) must be involved - the fact that the Charité is owned by the State itself only
strengthens this hypothesis.
The numbers consolidate last month's preview. It's bad, and Germany is officially in an
economic depression (2009-2020).
Uniting this data with my previous speculation on the "Prussian" and the "double-header"
hypotheses, I'm inclined to think the Belarus-Navalny operations are a gambit by the EU to
expand further to the East (Russia) and, ultimately, to dispute with China over the control
of Eurasia in the 21st/22nd Centuries.
I am a great fan of MOA, a refugee from ZH which is now an almost unreadable and tainted by
its anti-China drumbeat.
However, with all due respect I find that our host tends to come to conclusions a bit too
quickly... Navalny could well have been poisoned, but by whom? Guaido and her female clone
Tikhanovskaya better watch out - their handlers in the CIA may see them more useful as
martyrs than as "legitimate opposition".
As for other topics, I also find b to have way, way too quickly dismissed the Beirut blast
as anything other than AM.
As in, too quickly because the ramifications were too terrible to contemplate, as in the
ascendence of unspeakable evil on the part of the shitty little state. As to whether the
blast was nuclear or conventional, that is a minor point.
"If the substance is established and if it is established that this is poisoning, then, of
course, this will be a cause for investigation," he [Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov] said.
Someone on the web (might even be here) mentioned that cholinesterase inhibitors can be used
against Cocaine dependence. Is this true or not? I do not have any other information and I am
not a Medecin/doctor or user. But these days I am naturally cynical about any "official"
statements, whoever makes them.
This (anti-cocaine use) might equally be "disinformation", but with its' widespread use in
"elite" circles, it is not inconcievable. Navalny being in the toilets rather than having an
immediate reaction to the tea at the airport, could be an indication that something happened
in there.
The Russians caused the hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico in a plot to meddle with the U.S.
elections by causing disruptions in Texas which may vote Democrat in November. Considering
this it is plausible to think Putin poisoned Nav' in an attempt to take over the world.
3/3 Though a doctor from another region of Russia, who did not treat Navalny, wrote that
in his practice, cholinesterase inhibitors Proserin &Ubretid are allegedly widely used to
prevent disorders developing in patients placed on mechanical ventilation.
Josep Borrell as the top ideologue of the EU is overestimating a gray functionary
belonging to the Felipe González group, a group that somehow preceded the false center
left of Blair in the UK or Clinton in the USA.
From that same group of politicians that first
campaigned against Spain joining NATO back in the '80s with the slogan "De entrada no",
something like to start with NO, well one of those socialists later became NATO's secretary
general and lead the organization during its sinister days of the Yugoslavia bombings,
handsomely rewarded monetarily later became Mister Pesc, a strange definition for the sort of
foreign minister of the EU, the place than Borrell has been rewarded with nowadays, which
means he has rendered the required services to the empire. Those guys true ideology is
personal advancement and nothing else, so it kind of sounds funny to think he is the top
ideologue of the EU, but then again, he could be, which is a true mesure of what the EU is
worth politically, a pitiful colony.
Note that this is an off-label use of cholinesterase inhibitors, so an American doctor
would not likely prescribe it. Someone who has a supply of cocaine sufficient enough to
become an addict, on the other hand, probably would not have difficulty obtaining a
cholinesterase inhibitor like Galantamine, though. Navalny's CIA/State Department handlers
who keep him on coke could probably get him anything he asked for, though if I were in his
shoes I wouldn't put anything from them up my nose.
Unlikely. Europe hardly survived WW2. Russia plus China are a lot of people to make
angry.
It's more likely some projects continuing because someone has forgotten to stop them or
because they still have got money left. You would have to carry Europe to fight and even then
they would not fight.
As is, Europe's south has been bought up by Chinese investment. They invest strategically
not for short term returns.
Noone will climb a tree before knowing the results of US elections.
There is however a documented case from India in which an organophosphate poisoning was
falsely interpreted as diabetic ketoacidosis
So what? Doctors make false diagnoses all the time. It is called medical error. A
significant proportion of deaths in hospitals worldwide are due to medical error. India? Now,
if somebody is going to suggest that medical error never happens in India I am going to say
either they are a liar or an idiot. Medical errors also happen in German hospitals, by the
way, including Charité - plenty of them! Including both with and without intent.
This whole Navalny "poisoning" fantasy stinks to high heaven. It differs very little in
essential essence from the Skripal fantasy so far, and I am quite sure it is headed on the
same path.
But have we missed a point here? Is this not just trying to round the anti-Russia circle
started by the Skripal poisoning? Will not everyone now assume that Navalny was poisoned with
Novichok and that this proves beyond doubt that this is the preferred way for getting rid of
Kremlin enemies? You don't really have to prove anything more, it is now all out there, like
Russia gate, the dog whistle has been blown.
Re: "This whole Navalny "poisoning" fantasy stinks to high heaven. It differs very little
in essential essence from the Skripal fantasy so far, and I am quite sure it is headed on the
same path."
I agree completely. The whole script is so old and tired one would have to have spent the
last few decades living under a rock not to see through it, throw enough shit and hope some
of it sticks. It is probably just another ploy to put pressure on the German government to
cancel Nordstream 2.
This is the source a few other articles on the net also quote from, but where did it come
from. I spent some time searching for other earlier references to Navalny having diabetes but
could not find any.
@vk #3
Why do you believe that the EU and/or Germany wish to expand eastward when their economy is
in deep recession and they already have 45 million Ukrainians for cheap labor?
I would note that even East Germany is lagging West Germany in terms of economic progress
since reunification, which itself was incredibly expensive.
Ukraine isn't a great example either of neither economic progress nor contributing
integration into the EU.
From southfront:
The air travel between Russia and Germany is mostly suspended due to coronavirus limitations.
The flight to Germany was organized by the Berlin-based Cinema for Peace Foundation. The
flight was paid by businessman Boris Zimin. Boris Zimin is the son of Dmitry Zimin –
the founder of VimpelCom (Beeline telecommunications brand).
PJSC VimpelCom is the third-largest wireless and second-largest telecom operator in
Russia. It is wholly owned by VEON Ltd. through which it is linked to Mikhail Fridman,
Russian Western-linked business magnate. Fridman's Alfa Group Consortium is among the main
shareholders of VEON Ltd.
These persons and entities represent the Russian influence group linked to the global
finance. The very same group has links and support work of think tanks affiliated with the
Higher School of Economics, the center of the Alma Mater of the liberal economic block of the
Russian government. Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobanin and Chairwoman of the Bank of Russia Elvira
Nabiullina also could be considered a part of the global finance in Russia.
In Russian media, this network of Western-linked persons, organizations, influence groups
and top officials is often described as the 'liberal tower' of the Kremlin. Thus, despite the
image of the opposition figure, Navalny receives support from the highest levels of the
Russian governance and business systems.
1) the plan was never to make the DDR prosperous. On the contrary: too much people living
prosperously is damaging to capitalist expansion;
2) that's the pattern of recent EU expansion, with the latest great batch of new members
coming from ex-Yugoslavia and the Iron Curtain (why not, for example, insisting on the
accession of Norway and Switzerland, which are much richer and culturally alike
countries?);
3) besides the huge pool of cheap and relatively well-educated labor power (which can be
imported to Germany proper, thus rising unemployment rates, thus eroding the power of the
mighty German unions), there's the pot of gold of the old communist infrastructure (water,
electricity, communications, education, healthcare), which is already centralized and thus
would result in monopolistic rent for the German capitalists who will inevitably buy them in
a privatization process (as happened with Slovakia);
4) Belarus is the natural springboard to invade Russia, thus increasing Germany's leverage
within NATO.
Thanks for the reply. - Even if Navalny was suffering from a "manque" of his favourite
substance, the Germans and others would not mention it. He would not have had (much ?) trace
in his blood either.
Esteemed B, I am still waiting for a source reference for Navalnys diabetes. It is still
important to get the information confirmed. His environment says that he did not consume
anything except the tea. That would be a very risky behavior for a diabetic in itself.
Whether a diabetic shock can be ruled out due to the cholinesterase problem, which can
probably be considered certain after it has been confirmed by two hospitals, I cannot judge.
You seem to assume that.
The way Merkel and other politicians immediately jumped on the poisoning thesis is
reminiscent of May's reaction in the Skripal case. It is difficult not to become suspicious.
I dwell on the words Navalny spoke in Tomsk to his crew, about him becoming a martyr and it
not helping Putin, then his trauma on the following day. Yes, the observation about the tea
at the airport is of great importance. The time between its ingestion and boarding the plane
is similarly important IF he was administered a toxic agent via that tea. And if he's
diabetic or even pre-diabetic, there's a suite of meds he'd need to take daily if not
requiring insulin, and those meds must be ingested with food--I know.
I imagine all security camera footage of his time at Tomsk airport has been scrutinized,
the result being the Kremlin's ruling no investigation's warranted. That decision's good
enough for me.
navalny's words the day before about being a hero if Putin killed him is I think key.
Russia seems to produce a few Rasputin types - like the clown that nailed his balls to the
pavement.
Seen some photos of Navalny when he was younger and his eyes looked normal. Those wide open
staring eyes in selfies and so forth in recent years give more than a hint of madness.
I agree with Karlof1. If Navalny is diabetic, he seems a bit careless to me to just drink a
tea all morning. He should eat something according to his diet and probably take some meds as
well (if the disease isn't at a very early stage).
To compare Pavlensky to Rasputin is not proportional. The monk was the victim of the
British services and has been thoroughly discredited and demonized, by the same guys that
killed him. Check out the movie about Rasputin's life with no other than Gerard Depardieu.
Rasputin had the Tsarina's ear and he was against Russia going to war, the first world war,
and that was the main motive to eliminate him.
Pavlensky on the other hand is a freak useful to the empire propaganda on a condom basis, use
and throw away, just like the Pussy Riots, always referred to as the punk group, a group that
never issued a first album, save for a couple of clips on youtube after leaving Russia.
Freaks of that caliber are a dime a dozen everywhere, but since they are useful to discredit
Russia, well then they are endowed with media attention, and even Hillary receiving one of
the Riots member, Tolokonnikova, the one that being pregnant engaged in a public orgy,
another one of the group hits was introducing a frozen chicken into a members vagina.
Pavlensky was hailed as a hero for burning the FSB building entrance door, the feared
Lyubianka. He tried the same trick with the gates of the Bank of France, and he was sent to a
psychiatric ward, with no media noise at all. If that would have occurred back in Moscow we
would be still hearing and reading about psychiatric torture back to the good old days of the
Soviet Union.
Russia did it. Evil Putin ordered it. Horrible China sponsored it. Iran backed it. Hezbollah
played a hand as well.
Thank Glorious God for the Indispensable Nation of American Exceptionalism. Rescuing the
world from evil dictators and conspiring theorists plots. Evil doers who hate OUR way of life
stand no chance against the Glorious Christians and their Honorable Zionist gatekeepers.
Thanks and Glory to American Gods that Juan Guaido is now the President of Venezuela. Soon
the Zionist will offer their Chosen Ones to replace Evil Dictators.
Thanks and praise to MOA for shining Gods Light and dancing on Western narratives giving
them validity against the Evil doers of Poison and injustice.
Trump and Pence are "Men of the Bible" seeking out injustice and filling the world with
Christian values of Bro Love and world Peace. May all you Christians take a knee and pray for
these Mens souls and the Soul of America for leading the way to righteousness. Oh yeah- and
pray for whatever the fuck his name is Nirvany Nalvinny poisoned guy.
they like to reuse the same propaganda memes over and over. Russian bounties to the Taliban
become Iranian bounties to the Taliban, Novichok becomes cholinesterase inhibitor, rinse and
repeat.
As the collective west, including Germany, proceed to fabricate another "highly likely" Putin
play, may I ask what they have been doing while the collective west has buried Julian Assange
alive? Hypocricy is a much too weak word for it.
@ Posted by: Clueless Joe | Aug 25 2020 17:37 utc | 42
There's an extreme treatment for diabetics type 2, where you live in a near state of
starvation for months. In some mild cases, it is stated to cure diabetes.
Navalny could be going through this treatment, hence just a cup of tea (there are many
teas famous for cutting the appetite) in the morning.
If the Russians are really trying to assassinate, why do it in so theatrical a manner?
Just shoot him twice in the back of the head and call it suicide like the Americans do.
I've seen this site before - they post statements from various medical people on matters
of public medical interest, such as the pandemic. Useful for people who want some background
on the chemicals involved.
Posted by: Circe | Aug 25 2020 16:14 utc | 29
Yup. Just ran across that piece while searching for anything on Navalny having diabetes.
Found nothing so far beyond that. b's source appears to be the only one mentioning any
diabetes in Navalny's medical history. Apparently his personal doctor has denied this, saying
that the "diabetes" issue appears to have more a "description" of his medical condition
rather than an actual diagnosis.
Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 25 2020 17:26 utc | 40 And if he's diabetic or even pre-diabetic,
there's a suite of meds he'd need to take daily if not requiring insulin, and those meds must
be ingested with food--I know.
Yes, Metformin is the preferred drug. I started on twice a day, then once I lost 45
pounds, the doctor dropped me to one a day. In fact, now I could stop taking it, but I
continue to do so because it has alleged anti-aging properties. The only real negative is
that it leeches vitamin B-12 from the body - but I take tons of B-12 anyway, so doesn't
concern me. Metformin usually needs to be taken with food because otherwise it tends to give
you "the runs".
Russian news agency Interfax later quoted officials in Omsk as saying tests had identified
the presence of an industrial chemical in his body.
Russia's Ministry of Internal Affairs told the agency that since the substance they
claim was present is commonly used to increase plasticity in products, "it is possible that
it could appear in surface washings through the contact of Alexei Navalny with similar
objects, for example, through a plastic cup".
Studies have previously shown that the chemical officials were referring to -
2-ethylhexyl diphenyl phosphate - does not have a strong toxic effect on humans.
So it appears from the articles so far that initially the police detected that specific
chemical, but medical experts ruled it out as a cause, merely a by-product of having drunk
from a plastic cup.
This article discusses the term "metabolic disease", clarifying that it doesn't
necessarily mean diabetes.
Bottom line: There is no evidence Navalny had diabetes, although he might well have had
either Type 2 or Type 1 diabetes but never diagnosed. However, if he was in a diabetic coma,
that should have been detected almost immediately, even by first responders in the ambulance.
Beyond that, it appears that whatever chemical was the cause of his condition, it's likely
undetectable now.
So another "nothing-burger" which will be seized on to drum up hysteria against Russia.
And I've spent *way* too much time on this irrelevant crap.
At your age, you should take an interest in dissecting and studying insects.
Re coma from undiagnosed diabetes. From what I can find, that would be due to high blood
sugar, whereas a diagnosed patient taking meds can be hit with low blood sugar if
carbohydrates and insulin are not matched.
We need a timeline showing when tea drunk; when airplane boarded; when Navalny went to loo on
plane. Video showing his demeanor as he boarded would be great. It's been said his stomach
was empty except for the tea, so anything in that tea presumably would have acted quickly,
prior to his boarding. Or there was nothing in the tea and Navalny injured himself -- or was
injured by someone during the walk in the jet-way from the terminal to the plane. Security
Video?
"Mr Navalny drank a cup of tea at a cafe inside Tomsk airport, which his supporters
suspect had been poisoned because it was all he ate or drank that morning."
"The saleswoman, who did not want to be identified, said one of Mr Navalny's entourage
bought the tea at the counter and took it to him at the table."
The long delay between administration of the poison and the onset of effects AND the apparent
nonlethatity are clear evidence of novichok. Case closed.
Precisely four hours between contact with novichok and onset of symptoms, regardless of
victim age, weight, health, and quantity of novichok contacted. It is a truly amazing
chemical weapon, though not very practical for battlefield use.
testing for circulating cholinesterase activity is very simple-- a chromogenic assay with
acetyl thiocholine and DTNB. So its the first thing you would do in a case like this. In the
case of a nerve agent there should be no circulating activity. The Russians must have known
this.
So the question is now -- is there anything stuck to the active site serine of the enzyme--
an adduct. This one for Porton Down -- they will find it probably by immunoprecipitation and
mass spectrometry and they ought to get the mass and some structural data on the toxin.
Clinically, he should have had a bradycardia and excess secretions and pupils constricted.
Doesn't sound like that. The question is can we trust the West to be truthful here. After
various OPCW fiascos I doubt it.
CJ
Whenever Navalny does end up dying the Russian government will be blamed anyway, so if
they wanted him dead then why not just blow him up with some missiles like the US did with
General Soleimani? Why not just arrest him, claim he resisted arrest, then shoot him like
happens with so many people in the US?
This talk about him being targeted by the Russian government using obscure toxins that
don't work is beyond silly.
Due to Navalny's dealings in Tomsk, this smells more of a bid to leave the country.
Orchestrations set in place by Germany suggests an asset that has run his course, but they
can't leave him in country to deal with any complications of him being taken by someone else.
This doesn't feel like state acting....or at least not the Russian state. Gruff is right,
this isn't targeting by the Russians. Navalny hasn't been relevant in Russian circles since
at least 2012-13 if he was even then.
I don't understand why people commenting here still insist on playing CSI Miami. The Russian
doctors have already publicly stated their own lab results showed absolutely no signs of
Cholinesterase Inhibitors. As in evidence of zero CI - not zero evidence of CI:
"Upon his admission to the [Omsk] hospital, Alexey Navalny was tested on a wide range of
narcotics, synthetic substances, psychodiletics and medicinal substances, including
cholinesterase inhibitors -- all tests came back negative ," Sabayev said in a
press statement, as quoted by the Omsk Ministry of Health.
No cholinesterase inhibitors were used, according to the Russian lab results. It's not
that they didn't test Navalny for the substances - they did and they came out negative.
Sabayev even called the Germans' bluff:
"Additionally, Navalny lacked symptoms specific of the poisoning with cholinesterase
inhibitors substances . As we said earlier, we are ready to share Alexey Navalny's
samples with our German colleagues for examination ," the health official [Sabayev]
added.
MoA's own German source state the lab tests in Germany were carried out by "independent
laboratories". They most likely are in BND's control, in one way or the other. Many Western
European nations have constitutional clauses that allow their respective governments
(usually, at the discretion of the executive) to intervene directly on the private sector in
specific occasions, normally under "national security" reasons. The executive of the British
government, for example, has a legal device that allows it to outright censor (without the
need for legislative approval) any specific information from all the British media outlets.
I'm sure modern Germany also has many constitutional clauses that allow its government and
intelligence agencies to intervene anywhere, anytime in the German economy instantly and
covertly, under the umbrella of national security.
As I predicted, the Russians aren't that stupid. They stored some blood samples from
Navalny, and they know, for sure, that he wasn't poisoned with CIs. That's why Peskov was so
direct, so sudden and so confident when he declared the Kremlin was in no hurry - because they
saw no reason - to initiate an investigation on Navalny's sudden health problems. And he also
called the German bluff ("If the substance is established and if it is established that this
is poisoning, then, of course, this will be a cause for investigation", i.e. there won't be
an investigation because there's no poison).
It is known that activation of acetylcholine receptors (specifically M3 muscarinic receptors)
in the pancreas promotes insulin release into the bloodstream, which consequently would tend
to decrease blood glucose.
It's therefore possible that hypoglycemia could be triggered by increased acetylcholine
levels (drug-induced or otherwise). This would be less likely to occur in diabetics, as such
individuals would be deficient in either the ability to produce (type 1 diabetes) or respond
(type 2 diabetes) to insulin.
Dmitri Petrovsky, a doctor of medical sciences, a surgeon and deputy of the
municipality of Yaroslavl, questioned the competence of German doctors who said that blogger
Alexei Navalny had been poisoned.
Doctors [treating] Navalny [at] the German clinic "Charité" reported on Monday,
August 24, about the presence in the body of the blogger substance, part of the group of
inhibitors cholinesterase. According to them, this indicates the poisoning of the head of the
Anti-Corruption Foundation (recognized as a foreign agent).
Dmitri Petrovsky, M.D., surgeon and deputy of the municipality of Yaroslavl, commented
on the statement of German medics.
"What they found in Navalny cholinesterase inhibitors after being in intensive care is
normal. They should be in the man who was in intensive care and was on ventilator. And if
the doctor finds them in the analysis of the person after a stay in the operating room and
concludes that he was poisoned, then the conclusion is: either it is a political order,
or an illiterate doctor," the expert said.
According to public figure Ernest Makarenko, the hospitalization of Navalny in
["Charité"] is nothing but a political matter. Omsk doctors coped perfectly with the
blogger's treatment, but to make Navalny a "victim", he had to be defiantly taken to the
West, the expert added.
Readers will need to use Google Translate.
In other words, if Navalny had not been found to have cholinesterase inhibitors in his
body after being treated in an ICU with intubation, then the doctors at the Omsk hospital who
initially treated him hadn't been doing their job properly.
Aha - found MPN's comment @ 12, clicked on the link to Elena Evdokimova's tweets and then
clicked on a link she provides and here is another article (from Zhurnalistskaya Pravda)
on Dmitri Petrovsky's comments about Navalny's treatment in Germany.
What they found in Navalny cholinesterase inhibitors after being in intensive care
is normal. They should be in the man who was in intensive care and was on ventilator. If they
weren't there, it would be strange, I'd be surprised.
Tonight, doctors of the German clinic "Charite" found in the blood of blogger Alexei
Navalny substance, which, in their opinion, could provoke his illness, and hastened to
announce the poisoning. However, in Russian practice, this substance is widely used to
prevent disorders that developing in patients on ventilator.
German doctors found in Navalny substance - cholinesterase inhibitor.
"The effect of the toxin, i.e. the inhibition of cholinesterase in the body, has been
proven several times in independent laboratories. According to the diagnosis, the patient is
treated with an antidote to atropine. The outcome of the disease remains unsafe and the
subsequent effects, especially in the nervous system, cannot be ruled out at this time," the
statement obtained by Izvestia reads.
Deputy of the municipality of Yaroslavl, M.D., surgeon Dmitry Petrovsky commented on
this "find" of German colleagues.
"Cholinesterase inhibitors are widely used medicines in medicine. Basically, they are
used in the postoperative management of patients, when transferring to independent
breathing. That's what Navalny had. He was first on ventilator and when trying to translate
it, could use the drug Proserin. It is a cholinesterase inhibitor that is officially
administered to all patients when transferred to independent breathing. It must be used. I
think it was used. But I also understand that, most likely, he had to shine as Proserin's
German colleagues. Perhaps used not Proserin in its pure form, but another drug, more rare
- Ubretide, which is also an absolutely official drug, which is used in intensive care, in
postoperative practice to prevent bladder atony, to prevent bowel atony and, accordingly,
widely used. But, I admit, it can be used little in Germany, and it was not in the
toxicology kit, so they could be surprised, and because of this all the cheese-bor.
What they found in Navalny cholinesterase inhibitors after being in intensive care is
normal. They should be in the man who was in intensive care and was on ventilator. If they
weren't there, it would be strange, I'd be surprised.
When a person breathes with the help of the ventilator, various disorders develop,
including respiratory, cardiovascular, with the intestines, with the bladder. Various drugs
are used to prevent these disorders, including cholinesterase inhibitors. And if the doctor
finds them in the analysis of the person after a stay in the operating room and concludes
that he was poisoned, then the conclusion is: either it is a political order, or an
illiterate doctor."
Perhaps next time Navalny is in Russia and has a seizure or a collapse requiring IC
treatment and intubation, hospital staff should just arrange to send him to the closest
international airport and phone Charité to collect him as he is.
Thanks for providing those! IMO, sometime after the Skripal kidnapping a memo was sent to
all Russian medical personnel about the handling of known dissidents -- to use kid gloves and a
fine tooth comb whilst saving all fluids taken for testing and using an impeccable evidence
chain, for that's what's related by the doctor. I'd like to think such attention to detail is
usual practice in Russia.
i recommend a new ''military grade chemical agent" Novichok in honour of Alexey Navalny...
maybe alexeychok is better... it has a nice malevolent russian ring to it!
Opinion: Germany unlikely to pressure Russia on reported poisoning
Doctors in Berlin have revealed that Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny may have
been poisoned. Even if this were proven beyond doubt, the German government has no way to
retaliate against Moscow, says Jens Thurau.
A change from the recently trumpeted MSM headlines that the Germans had found poison in
Navalny's system.
But then:
Siberian doctors said Navalny, who has become known as one of President Vladimir
Putin's fiercest critics, had suffered from a metabolic disorder. Soon thereafter, the
gravely ill man was flown to Berlin for medical treatment, even though Russian authorities
had argued he was too unwell to travel. Was his relocation deliberately delayed so that
traces of his suspected poisoning would be harder to detect in his body? If so, the plan did
not work. Shortly after Navalny's arrival in the German capital, Berlin doctors announced
there was a high likelihood he had been poisoned.
Jesus H Christ!!!
Hopefully, the medical professionals in Berlin will help Navalny make it through
this. [Because those Russian retards certainly couldn't have done this? -- ME] But it
is highly unlikely Germany will adopt a tougher stance on Russia or impose meaningful
sanctions -- just as it highly improbable Russia will help shine any light on the Navalny
case. This is a cynical assessment, granted. But these are the times we are living
in.
Highly improbable, you wanker?
Shine a light on the Navalny case?
You mean, find out who poisoned the so full of shit lying imposter?
If he was poisoned, that is.
Sequence of events in the "Navalny Case":
Navalny goes to the toilet.
Comes out.
Starts screaming and howling.
Loses consciousness.
Entourage starts shouting "Poisoned!"
Aeroplane emergency landing, Navalny rushed to hospital.
Coma induced by medics.
No poison in body found.
Navalny still under INDUCED coma flown to Berlin.
May possibly/ likely/ highly likely be that he was poisoned say German medics.
Still under INDUCED coma.
And some poor bastard in the Berlin "Charité" clinic sill continues to wipe that
bastard's arse and empty his piss bottle.
Still shaping the narrative – now when Germany does not take any concrete action, it
will not be because Navalny was not poisoned and the whole thing an engineered crisis, but
because Germany is hesitant to do anything. Like the previous situation discussed, in which
Europe orders Russia to do something it knows Russia is going to do anyway, so that it
appears Russia is responding to European orders. Shaping the narrative. And either way, in
this instance, it results in bad feeling between Germany and Russia, which was the objective.
It does highlight, though, that there remains a significant liberal presence in Germany which
is sympathetic to America and its 'values', and it would be foolish to discount this in
further planning. And the media outlets are mostly dominated by those liberals.
The timing is terrible though. It'll be September in less than a week and all the other
domestic problems automatically become amplified (kids back to school/masks etc.). That'll
knock Saint Navalny off the front pages and his team will have to compete for space while
running on fumes.
Even the National post, which is rabidly conservative and borderline Republican, has
backed away a little from the "He was POISONED!!" shocker, today featuring 'The Kremlin's'
story, although the tone was still catty and it made a point of mentioning this and that
speaker was a 'Putin ally'.
"Шарите"
заподозрили в
непрофессионализме
из-за выводов
по Навальному
Анастасия
Броцкая, 24
августа 2020
"Charité" suspected of unprofessionalism because of conclusions about
Navalny
Anastasia Brotskaya, 24 August 2020
Doctor of Medical Sciences, surgeon and deputy of the municipality of the city of
Yaroslavl Dmitry Petrovsky, in an interview with Journalistic Pravda, commented on the
statement of German doctors.
"The fact that they found cholinesterase inhibitors in Navalny after his being in
intensive care is normal. They should be in a person who has been in intensive care and on
mechanical ventilation. The conclusion was that he had been poisoned -- then the conclusion
is this: either it is a political order, or an illiterate doctor," the expert noted.
"Cholinesterase inhibitors are widely used medicines in medicine. Basically, they are
used in the postoperative management of patients, when transferring to independent
breathing. That's what Navalny had. He was first on ventilator and when trying to translate
it, could use the drug Proserin. It is a cholinesterase inhibitor that is officially
administered to all patients when transferred to independent breathing. It must be used. I
think it was used. But I also understand that, most likely, he had to shine as Proserin's
German colleagues. Perhaps used not Proserin in its pure form, but another drug, more rare
– Ubretide, which is also an absolutely official drug, which is used in intensive
care, in postoperative practice to prevent bladder atony, to prevent bowel atony and,
accordingly, widely used. But, I admit, it can be used little in Germany, and it was not in
the toxicology kit, so they could be surprised, and because of this all the cheese-bor.
What they found in Navalny cholinesterase inhibitors after being in intensive care is
normal. They should be in the man who was in intensive care and was on ventilator. If they
weren't there, it would be strange, I'd be surprised.
When a person breathes with the help of the ventilator, various disorders develop,
including respiratory, cardiovascular, with the intestines, with the bladder. Various drugs
are used to prevent these disorders, including cholinesterase inhibitors. And if the doctor
finds them in the analysis of the person after a stay in the operating room and concludes
that he was poisoned, then the conclusion is: either it is a political order, or an
illiterate doctor."
I had to look up "atony" and Google tells me it's a condition in which a muscle loses its
strength or goes slack.
I guess next time when Navalny is back in Russia (if he ever does go back) and suffers a
seizure or falls into a diabetic coma and needs intensive care and intubation, the attending
medical staff should instead send him to the closest international airport and call
Charité to collect him as he is. He can have the minimum care to keep him his heart
beating and his brain oxygenated but no more.
Bravo! Jen for Prime Minister of the Russian Federation – get that weak sister
Medvedev out of there! I am all in favour of aggressive and hard-nosed Russian responses to
western idiocy, and having made fools of German doctors, Russia might even now make an
advance notice that in the event of Navalny's return to Russia – and considering the
west plainly considers Russian medical care to be a potential death sentence for Navalny
– he will be refused medical care and maybe it might be a good idea to establish a
German air-ambulance 'hot line' now for the future. Stress that this policy is brought about
wholly because of the accusatory nature of the German media.
What's the betting that the cheat and swindler and foreign agent Navalny claims asylum in
Germany after he has been brought out of the state of induced coma that he is at present
in?
After all, his life is always under threat in Russia., isn't it?
Good. Russia's loss is the Germans' hard bargain, what? They're welcome to the useless
tit. He will gravitate to wherever he can earn a comfortable living on who he is and not what
he does, as he has always done, living it up while he has no regular source of income and is
always free to go on vacation. But he can't run for office in Russia while living in Germany.
So we will be spared his endless presidential campaigns.
As I've commented several times already, Navalny is well past his sell-by date and his
protégée Sobol now seems more and more to be moving into position as front
person for the "Fund for the Struggle against Corruption".
Navalny's other sidekick, Volkov, has already for a good while now had a home address in
Luxembourg; Lyosha might soon have a Berlin one.
In Berlin, having been at death's door, he will most certainly be feted by all the German
liberals and well rewarded with lucrative media contracts, as is Nemtsov's daughter, who
slags off on Deutsche Welle to her heart's content and with monotonous regularity all things
Russian.
Nemtsova's life would certainly not be under threat if she were to live in Russia, but she
has clearly seized the main chance, making money in Germany whilst ensuring that her dear
dead papa not be forgotten.
Better than standing in shifts on a bridge in Moscow.
As I have probably suggested before, Russia has to get used to the idea that the western
alliance is its implacable enemy, and its core – the United States – will accept
no other solution than Russia's demise in violence or its complete submission to American
disposal.
I approve of Russia continuing to refer to 'our western colleagues' or 'partners', because
it suggests mockery to me so long as nobody in Russia believes it. But the American and
American-dominated media has escalated the campaign against Russia to the point that it is
the root of everything which is wrong with the world.
When you would think any reasonable country would lie quiet for awhile, having aroused the
ire of its enemies to a fever pitch, Russia goes right on provoking and poking and daring the
west to do something.
Or so the story goes. It is disappointing to see official Germany so easily pushed off its
previous halfway-defiant platform, but not really surprising. It remains to be seen if it
will actually use the completion of Nord Stream II as leverage to get what will mollify the
Americans.
I frankly doubt it, and suspect Mutti Merkel and Heiko are just making indignant noises
while they scramble for a new position, but you never know.
As I have often said also, if Europe was left dependent on American LNG shipped in by
tankers, it would serve it right. Just as long as Russia is not coerced into shipping gas
through Ukraine forever and a day. That's the absolute no-go point.
As I have probably suggested before, Russia has to get used to the idea that the western
alliance is its implacable enemy, and its core – the United States – will
accept no other solution than Russia's demise in violence or its complete submission to
American disposal.
This is first of all about preservation and expansion of the US-centered global neoliberal
empire, not so much about Russia. They react identically to any threat to the "neoliberal
world order" and "full spectrum dominance" from any country. False poisonings, creating and
organizing internal opposition out of neoliberal fifth column (which is influential in any
xUSSR country and consists first of all os some stratas of professionals (IT professionals,
part of academic community getting foreign grants and trips, journalists fifth column, etc )
as well as of compradors working in foreign firms, NGO, or getting foreign grants (aka
"grantoeds") ) attempts to stage color revolutions, all the arsenal of subversion is
used.
I think this might turn into a play of German intelligence (with some support and even
encouragement of political leadership) , which was a formidable opponent for Soviets during
WWII. So the same story repeats now on a new level. The idea is probably to convert this into
Scripals II scandal to keep Russophobia hysteria going strong. .
BTW Merkel government was instrumental in pushing Yushchenko poisoning story, which is
some ways was a dressed rehearsal of Scripal's poisoning story (in neither case victims died
and in both cases circumstances of poisoning were really mysterious ). And The Mirror
reminded us about this link in 2018:
Moreover, Merkel was instrumental in organizing color revolution of 2014 in Ukraine (aka
Euromaidan). Klitschko and his party were her puppets. With direct and indirect financial and
organizational support. He was called "Merkel's Boxer Boy In Ukraine." It was against her
attempt to hijack this color revolution Nuland's famous remarks "F*ck the EU" were
directed.
After that Klitschko political star faded and he never got into the Provisional
Government. Yatsenyuk was put in charge.
She is a staunch neoliberal and thus a lapdog of the USA with, nevertheless, her own
dreams of economic "Drang nach Osten". Ambitions which actually fully materialized in Ukraine
and Bulgaria.
So I would expect more pushing of yet another "false flag poisoning" story by all NATO
countries MSM.
Российские
врачи отвергли
немецкую
версию
отравления
Навального в
первый же день
Russian doctors have rejected the German version of Navalny's poisoning on the first
day
24 August 2020
Head of the department of anaesthesiology and resuscitation number 1 of the N.I.
Pirogov Centre, Boris Teplykh, has said that he had not heard "anything new" from the
statement of German doctors. According to him, on the very first day, Russian doctors were
working on the version about the intoxication of opposition leader Alexei Navalny with
cholinesterase inhibitors. But the substance was not found.
"They are talking about clinical data, and not about the substance itself, which
neither we nor, apparently, they have found at the moment. On the very first day of the
patient's admission, we worked on this version, but did not find confirmation", Mr. Teplykh
told RIA Novosti.
According to him, the atropine assigned to Alexei Navalny was given to him from the
first minutes after his hospitalization in Omsk.
"Subsequently, the need for its re-introduction was discussed In addition, the presence
of such a chemical reaction in the body is possible both as a result of the use of other
medications, and in the natural course of the sickness", said Mr. Teplykh.
The chief toxicologist of the Omsk region and the Siberian Federal District, Alexander
Sabaev, also said that cholinesterase inhibitors were not detected during the examination of
Mr. Navalny in Omsk.
"Upon his admission to the hospital, Alexei Navalny underwent investigations on a wide
range of narcotic, synthetic substances, psychodeletics and medicinal substances, including
cholinesterase inhibitors: the result was negative", said Mr. Sabaev. "In addition, he did
not have a clinical picture specific to poisoning by substances of the group of
cholinesterase inhibitors".
Recall that after the hospitalization of Alexei Navalny in the Omsk hospital, a
consultation was held, in which there took part specialists from the N. I. Pirogov National
Medical and Chemical Centre and the N. N. Burdenko Centre for Neurosurgery.
Clinical studies in the Berlin clinic "Charité" showed intoxication of Alexei
Navalny's body with a substance from the group of cholinesterase inhibitors. The exact
substance has not yet been identified. It is also not clear how exactly it got into the body.
Mr. Navalny's condition is assessed as "serious", but there is no acute threat to his
life.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Foreign Minister Heiko Maas have called on the
Russian authorities to investigate the poisoning of opposition leader Alexei Navalny. They
have also demanded that those responsible be punished.
At least "Kommersant" says they Russian doctors "have rejected"the "Charité"
doctors' statement and not "denied" that the charlatan had been poisoned
The whole thing is a set-up done by Team-Navalny, that foreign agent hamming it up for all
it was worth with his screaming and howling on board the aircraft. I somehow don't think that
a man poisoned with a "nerve agent" some while before take off would suddenly start howling
in agony after having visited the aircraft toilet.
Germany is a United States satrap and acts as behoves an occupied by the USA state.
Yes, that's just what Putin would do – wait until Navalny was all but used-up as an
opposition figure, and then poison him with something that would not offer any threat to his
life. Just sort of a cryptic, "Next time, Lyosha " warning. Right? If he didn't die of old
age first.
What a ridiculous farce. But, once again Navalny is talked about and talked about from
sunup to sundown, cosseted as if he were a national treasure. He'll probably have to go on a
very long and expensive vacation after this, with his statuesque wife and his lovely children
(except perhaps for the one busy with her American studies) to recover.
"We cannot treat the accusations you mentioned seriously. These accusations have
absolutely nothing to do with truth and are more like empty noise", Peskov told
reporters.
"We do not understand why our German colleagues are in such a hurry to use the word
'poisoning' and so on. This version was among the first to be considered by our doctors, but,
I repeat, the exact substance has not been determined", Peskov said.
Euractiv avec AFP: EU calls for 'independent, transparent' probe into Navalny
case
Cholinesterase is an enzyme needed for the central nervous system to function properly.
Its inhibitors are used to make medicines and insecticides, but also nerve agents such as
sarin
####
Or an escape route if necessary?
A 'full investigation' is required for Russia to prove that it is not guilty of 'possibly'
having done 'something' and the final arbiters of such a truth will be western politicans and
institutions. Have cake, will eat. You would expect u-Rope to be more careful considering the
US is trying by hook or by crook to kill NSII and destroy EU relations with Russia, but there
are plenty of broad-spectrum russophobes in the EU who don't care. Consequences are for
others.
What will be really funny will be if they are successful. I can imagine the looks on their
faces upon being told Nord Stream II is canceled and the Ukrainian transit contract will not
be renewed. It's not as if Russia could not sell the gas elsewhere. But gas prices in Europe
would transcend the fantastic. And America would get the opportunity to prove it just wants
to be Europe's commercial good friend, and would NEVER use energy imports to meddle in
national affairs like elections.
Why not? That's what the formerly-handsome Viktor Yushchenko did, coming out of it looking
like a pine-cone, but a martyr forever to a Russian attempt to kill him. I tell you what
– the Russians are going to have to give up poison as a weapon of assassination,
because they suck at it – they can't kill anyone! Put a little investment into a
commercially-available long gun in a common caliber, and shoot enemies of the state from a
nearby rooftop. That won't work repeatedly, because after the first time the cops will
blanket every rooftop and high point for miles around, but you'll have a dead dissident to
show for it.
In case anyone is in doubt, that is sarcasm and not an actual assassination plan. But I
cannot refrain from pointing out it has been used with great success in the United States by
individuals who most people, to put it kindly, would not consider extra-smart. This whole
poison thing seems too complicated and relies too much on chance, and the results are plainly
unsatisfactory. Time to get back to fundamentals, what?
Of course, if it is all just a big scam, it will be kind of hard for Washington to
actually shoot Navalny and kill him and pin it on Russia. Although the British did a
reasonable job of it by simply picking two Russians visiting the UK and painting them as
professional FSB 'wet men'.
I disagree. He is a spokesman. His comments were short and to the point. Now that they
have been made there is no need to respond to anything else unless something actually new
turns up and certainly not including the next range of unsubstantiated rumors. In short,
Peskov said 'Put up or shut up.' Diplomatically.
Whatever, a former Kremlin top doc held no punches as regards this latest Navalny
performance:
. . . the former chief physician of the Kremlin Hospital of the Russian President's
Property Management Department, Alexander Myasnikov, did not remain silent. When he heard the
diagnosis from German doctors that Navalny had been poisoned, he said:
" I shall speak cynically: if they had wanted to kill him, they would have killed
him! "
Maybe, but he should know that an invitation to comment is an invitation to engage, and
that past history indicates every official Russian statement will be dismissed as lies. Same
for the Chinese, now, really. Their denials of having started the coronavirus 'pandemic' are
regarded humorously as pathetic dissembling, and actually tacit admissions of guilt. Only the
west always tells the truth – all others always lie. A landscape which would not be at
all unfamiliar to Winston Smith.
Navalny's spokeswoman's response to Peskov statement:
In response, Mr Navalny's spokeswoman, Kira Yarmysh, tweeted: "It was obvious that the
crime would not be properly investigated and the culprit found. However, we all know
perfectly well who he is."
I absolutely agree. Just let those looking for a comment get a busy signal. The Russian
state has no comment, or cannot be reached. The latter is preferable.
US Senator demonizes Russia 'as supporting thugs' and 'undermining democracy' in bid to
lure India closer to US and its Quad alliance
The Nikkei Asian Review, well known for its anti-China reportage, featured an article
0n the weekend titled "India should ignore Putin's offer to broker accord with
China."
The author is none other than Marco Rubio, the high-flying Republican senator from
Florida and the acting chairman of the US Senate Intelligence Committee, co-chairman of the
Congressional-Executive Commission on China and a ranking member of the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations. ..
####
Rubio, Rubio, you're the big boob-io!
Is Modhi too polite to tell the US to f/o and the US takes this as encouragement to keep
making 'suggestions'? I wonder at which point the penny will drop and Washington will stop
this stupid behavior?
Rubio is high, I'll give him that; I don't know about high-flying. It has become political
gold in America to say something insulting about Russia or its leader, or both, and much of
the drooling electorate responds positively. America being the nation of the shortsighted and
the instant-gratification fans, it is hard to see down the road to here such behavior might
cost it, and for right now it sure is fun.
Washington obviously thinks it is irreplaceable as a trade partner, because it keeps
dangling the "If you want to do business with us, you'll do as we say" ultimatum, which it
evidently believes is persuasive. It remains to be seen if other countries are going to abase
themselves for money. They might; it is a powerful incentive. But the USA is defining
'loyalty' in a whole new context, suspiciously like the collecting of 'vassals' as described
by Putin. Saying you will do as you are told by Washington now implies that you will stay
bought, no matter how wiggy American policies become.
I think most traditional US allies will stay on the fence for as long as they can, hoping
for some idea of the direction the USA intends to take. But its debt is dragging it down and
down, and its squalling that it must do every deal so that it is to America's advantage makes
it less and less a desirable commercial partner.
Russian government-supported organisations are playing a small but increasing role
amplifying conspiracy theories promoted by QAnon, raising concerns of interference in the
November US election.
####
Yes, yet again new data/analytics shitpad Graphika (where Ben 'Russia is Evil' Nimmo an
expert at the Atlantic Council* shakes his butt) is being used as a source.
I haven't bothered to look at the timing of the cycles when the western propaganda efforts
decide to bring on stream a new bs site to peddle their rubbish, but I suppose that now
Bell-End Cat is more widely known to be NATO affiliated/whatever, an opening for another
'honest' data/fact driven organization that the PPNN can quote laundered fake intel is
required. One thing in common is that they are all new but have some old hands on deck.
counts among its ranks such luminaries as Ben Nimmo, perhaps best known for baselessly
accusing British and Finnish citizens of being Russian bots. Nimmo, who remains a senior
non-resident fellow at pro-war NATO-backed think tank Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic
Research Lab and has also worked with the UK government's secretive Integrity Initiative, was
hired by Graphika last year as its Head of Investigations, suggesting the company values a
vivid imagination over factual accuracy
Commenting on the spotlight that U.S. intelligence officials have placed on both countries'
interference efforts (along with Iran's), Pelosi and Schiff declared that the analysis
"provided a false sense of equivalence to the actions of foreign adversaries by listing three
countries of unequal operational intent, actions, and capabilities together."
In particular, they charged, the actions of Kremlin-linked actors seeking to undermine Vice
President Biden, and seeking to help President Trump" were glossed over.
Pelosi stated subsequently, "The Chinese, they said, prefer (presumptive Democratic nominee
Joe) Biden -- we don't know that, but that's what they're saying, but they're not really
getting involved in the presidential election."
... ... ...
Also alleging that Chinese agents are increasingly active on major social media platforms --
a study from research institute Freedom House,
which reported that :
"[C]hinese state-affiliated trolls are apparently operating on [Twitter] in large numbers.
In the hours and days after Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey tweeted in support of
Hong Kong protesters in October 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported, nearly 170,000
tweets were directed at Morey by users who seemed to be based in China as part of a
coordinated intimidation campaign. Meanwhile, there have been multiple suspected efforts by
pro-Beijing trolls to manipulate the ranking of content on popular sources of information
outside China, including Google's search engine Reddit,and YouTube."
Last year, a major
Hoover Institution report issued especially disturbing findings about Beijing's efforts to
influence the views (and therefore the votes) of Chinese Americans, including exploiting the
potential hostage status of their relatives in China. According to the Hoover researchers:
"Among the Chinese American community, China has long sought to influence -- even silence
-- voices critical of the PRC or supportive of Taiwan by dispatching personnel to the United
States to pressure these individuals and while also pressuring their relatives in China.
Beijing also views Chinese Americans as members of a worldwide Chinese diaspora that presumes
them to retain not only an interest in the welfare of China but also a loosely defined
cultural, and even political, allegiance to the so-called Motherland."
In addition: "In the American media, China has all but eliminated the plethora of
independent Chinese-language media outlets that once served Chinese American communities. It
has co-opted existing Chinese language outlets and established its own new outlets."
Operations aimed at Chinese Americans are anything but trivial politically. As of 2018, they
represented nearly 2.6 million eligible U.S. voters, and they belonged to an Asian-American
super-category that reflects the fastest growing racial and ethnic population of eligible
voters in the country.
Most live in heavily Democratic states, like California, New York, and Massachusetts, but
significant concentrations are also found in the battleground states where many of the 2016
presidential election margins were razor thin, and many of which look up for grabs this year,
like Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
More broadly, according to the Hoover study:
"In American federal and state politics, China seeks to identify and cultivate rising
politicians. Like many other countries, Chinese entities employ prominent lobbying and public
relations firms and cooperate with influential civil society groups. These activities
complement China's long-standing support of visits to China by members of Congress and their
staffs. In some rare instances Beijing has used private citizens and companies to exploit
loopholes in US regulations that prohibit direct foreign contributions to elections."
But even more thoroughly overlooked than these narrower forms of Chinese political
interference is a broader, much more dangerous type of Chinese meddling that leaves Moscow's
efforts in the dust. For example, U.S.-owned multinational companies, which have long profited
at the expense of the domestic economy by offshoring production and jobs to China, have just as
long carried Beijing's water in American politics through their massive contributions to U.S.
political campaigns. The same goes for Wall Street, which hasn't sent many U.S. operations
overseas, but which has long hungered for permission to do more business in the Chinese
market.
These same big businesses continually and surreptitiously inject their views into American
political debates by heavily financing leading think tanks -- which garb their special interest
agendas in the raiment of objective scholarship.
Hollywood and the rest of the U.S. entertainment industry has become so determined to brown
nose China in search of profits that it's made nearly routine rewriting and censoring material
deemed offensive to China.
... ... ...
Alan Tonelson is the founder of RealityChek, a public policy blog focusing on
economics and national security, and the author of The Race to the Bottom.
Obama State Department considered Konstantin Kilimnik a 'sensitive source,' Senate report
now identifies him as Russian intel officer.
"Thank you very much for looking into this and very sorry to ask," U.S. embassy
official Alexander "Sasha" Kasanof wrote businessman Konstantin Kilimnik in a Dec. 6, 2015
email obtained by Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigators and reviewed by Just the
News. "Ambassador very unhappy about the article, though agree it stinks to me to (sic) of
people we know very well."
A few lines later, Kasanof's email offered Kilimnik some valuable inside skinny about
the Obama administration's assessment of a sensitive meeting between indicted fugitive
Ukrainian oligarch Dmitri Firtash's associate Yuriy Boyko and Assistant Secretary of State
Victoria Nuland.
####
Plenty more at the link including original (cable) source material.
Kilimnik was good enough for Nuland
This story is worth repeating again and again. The recent Senate Intelligence Committee
report fingering Kilimnik is FoS media fodder and of course the media refuses to look at the
actual material, rather 'trust' what the pols say. i-Racki WMDs anyone? Yet more proof that
those who profess their journalistic creed is 'to hold the powerful to account' have long
since stopped doing so and are more than willing to switch their interpretations 180 degrees
depending on which politics they support.
RussiaGate is about MIC, Intelligence agencies and Dem leadership need to have an enemy to
milt taxpayers and retain power and military budget. Nothing personal, strictly business.
I met Strobe Talbott in 1968 when he and I were graduate students at Magdalen College,
Oxford. I liked him and respected him, and after we lost touch as friends, I followed his
career at Time , the State Department, and the Brookings Institution with admiration.
In recent years, however, I've become disillusioned with the foreign policy he advocated with
regard to Russia and was disturbed to learn of his involvement in the genesis of the
Russiagate narrative.
August 3, 2020
Dear Strobe,
It has been a long time – a very long time – since we've been in touch, but I
assume you remember me from 1968, when we met at Magdalen College, Oxford. Having just
graduated from Yale, you were there on a Rhodes Scholarship; I was on a Reynold Scholarship
granted by my alma mater, Dartmouth. Despite your three-barreled WASP name (Nelson Strobridge
Talbott) and your distinguished pedigree (son of a Yale football captain, Hotchkiss alum,
etc.) you were unpretentious, and we made friends quickly.
Despite assurances from my draft board that I would not be drafted that year, I got an
induction notice on Nixon's inauguration day. You were the first person I consulted. Safe
from the draft, like most Rhodes Scholars, you listened sympathetically. We were together in
our opposition to the War if not in our vulnerability to the draft.
You and I played the occasional game of squash. And when my Dartmouth fraternity brother
and Rhodes Scholar John Isaacson injured your eye with his racket, I visited you in the
Radcliffe Infirmary during your convalescence. I was reading Tristram Shandy as part
of my program, and one day I read some bits to you. You seemed to share my amusement; I can
still see you smiling in your hospital bed with a big patch on one eye. When your father came
from Ohio to visit you, he invited me, along with your Yale classmate Rob Johnson out to
dinner at the Bear.
You had majored in Russian at Yale and were writing a thesis on some topic in Russian
literature, Mayakovsky, perhaps? At any rate, you seemed committed to Russian studies.
(Little did I know.) When I chose to take a student tour behind the Iron Curtain during the
spring vac, you gave me some reading suggestions and advised me to dress warmly. Having
packed for England's relatively mild climate, I lacked a warm enough coat; you generously
loaned me your insulated car coat, which served me well in Russia's raw spring cold.
You likely debriefed me after my travels; I must have passed on to you my sense of the
Soviet Union as a very drab place with a demoralized, often drunk, population, and a general
sense of repression. Which is not to say that I didn't enjoy my trip – just that I was
struck by the stark differences at the time between the West and the East. How lucky I was to
have been born in the "free world."
The tour returned from Moscow and St. Petersburg via Ukraine and Czechoslovakia. In
Prague, just after the brutal suppression of Prague Spring, we were acutely aware of how
hated the Russians were. This just reinforced my distaste for what Ronald Reagan later termed
the Evil empire – perhaps the only thing he said I ever agreed with. So, like you, I
was staunchly anti-Communist at the time.
The next year, you got a gig polishing the text of Nikita Krushchev's memoirs, which had
been smuggled out of Russia. The publisher put you up in an "undisclosed location," which you
let on was the Commodore Hotel in Cambridge, Massachusetts; we met for coffee in Harvard
Square with friends of yours, possibly including Brooke Shearer whom you later married, and
one of her brothers, Cody or Derek. It may have been then that I drove you to the school
where I was teaching on a deferment, Kimball Union Academy in central New Hampshire; you
stayed overnight before returning to civilization.
Your second year, you moved into a house with Bill Clinton and two other Rhodes
Scholars.
During the next few years – the early 70s – you and I exchanged occasional
letters. After that, the rest is history: your illustrious career – as a journalist at
Time , then as a Russia hand and Deputy Secretary of State Department in the Clinton
administration, and then as president of the Brookings Institution – was easy to follow
in the media.
Eventually our paths diverged, I lost touch with you, with one exception.
In the mid-1990s, while you were serving at State, a close friend asked me to ask you to
do her a favor. I hate asking for favors, even for myself, and resent those who use
connections to advance themselves. But all my friend needed was for a senior State official
to sign off on a job application of some sort. I phoned your office from mine. I got a frosty
reception from your administrative assistant, who was justifiably protective of your time,
but she put me through. You recognized my voice, sounded glad to be in touch, and granted the
favor. It never came to anything, but I remember how pleased I was even to have such a brief
task-oriented phone encounter with you after a lapse of two decades.
In any case, over the next several decades I followed your career with interest and was
pleased with your success.
As I was by that of another member of the Oxford cohort, Bob Reich, another fraternity
brother of mine. We were not close, and I saw him less often in Oxford than I saw you. But
you and he both wound up in the Clinton administration – the Oxford troika, I like to
call you. You and Bob were doing what Rhodes Scholars were supposed to do: go into
professions, network, and perform public service. The Rhodes to success. Never a whiff of
scandal about either of you. You, Strobe, were very much what we Dartmouth men referred to as
a straight arrow.
So why am I writing you now, after all these years? And why a public letter?
In part, because I have become progressively more critical of the foreign policy that you
have advocated. Early on you were advocating disarmament. Good. And closer relations with the
Soviet Union. Also good. Indeed, you were regarded as something of a Russophile (never a
compliment). But while you initially resisted the expansion of NATO, you eventually went
along with it. Like George Kennan, I consider that decision to be a serious mistake (and a
breach of a promise not to expand NATO "one inch" to the east after Germany was
reunited).
When the Cold War ended, the Warsaw Pact dissolved. NATO did not; instead, it expanded
eastward to include former Warsaw Pact members and SSRs until today it borders Russia. Russia
resistance to this is inevitably denounced in the West as "Russian aggression." Hence the
tension in Ukraine today. You're not personally responsible for all of this of course. But
you are deeply implicated in what seems to me a gratuitously provocative, indeed
imperialistic, foreign policy.
Two old friends could amicably agree disagree on that, as I disagree with virtually all my
liberal friends.
But your loyalty to the Clintons has apparently extended to involvement in generating the
Russiagate narrative, which has exacerbated tensions between Russia and the USA and spread
paranoia in the Democratic establishment and mainstream media. I am always disturbed by the
hypocrisy of Americans who complain about foreign meddling in our elections, when the USA is
the undisputed champ in that event. Indeed, we go beyond meddling (Yeltsin's reelection in
1996) to actual coups, not to mention regime-change wars.
My concern about this has come to a head with the
recent revelation of your complicity in the dissemination of the Steele dossier, whose
subsource, Igor Danchenko, was a Russian national employed by Brookings.
I don't know which is worse: that you and your colleagues at Brookings believed the
dossier's unfounded claims, or that you didn't but found it politically useful in the attempt
to subvert the Trump campaign and delegitimize his election. I suspect the latter. But
doesn't this implicate you in the creation of a powerful Russophobic narrative in
contemporary American politics that has demonized Putin and needlessly ramped up tension
between two nuclear powers?
A lifelong Democrat who voted for Bill twice and Hillary once, I am no fan of Trump or of
Putin. But Russiagate has served as a distraction from Hillary's responsibility for her
catastrophic defeat and from the real weaknesses of the neoliberal Democratic Party, with its
welfare "reform," crime bill, and abandonment of its traditional working-class base.
Moreover, in and of itself, the Russiagate story represents what Matt Taibbi has called
this generation's WMD media scandal. The narrative, challenged from the beginning by a few
intrepid independent journalists like Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, and Aaron Maté,
and the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, is now being further undermined by the
declassification of documents by the Senate. If, as I have recently read, you were active in
disseminating the Steele dossier, you have contributed to
the mainstream media's gas-lighting of the American public – liberals, at least
(like most of my friends). Ironically, then, you have given credence to Trump's often, but
not always, false charge: "Fake News." Once described as a Russophile, you now seem complicit
in the creation of a nation-wide paranoid and hysterical Russophobia and neo-McCarthyism.
"... It therefore appears that elements of the Defense Intelligence Agency were aware of the deadly viral outbreak in Wuhan more than a month before any officials in the Chinese government itself. ..."
For forty years I carefully read the New York Times in hard copy each and every
morning, eager to discover what had transpired since the previous day. But just in the last few
months, my commitment has begun to flag, and my eyes often only lightly glance at half or more
of the articles and their columnar headlines.
I'd never thought much of Donald Trump, but can't seem to work up the enthusiasm to read yet
another article headlining the "lies" of our Great Satan or his coterie of lesser Satans. The
endless villainies of his Luciferian ally Vladimir Putin have grown dull to my mental tongue.
The diabolical wickedness of China, whom Trump had supposedly so recently courted, elicits
little interest. Closer to home, my eyes skip over another "social distancing" advice column
about Covid-19, or further explanations of how "peaceful protesters" had recently set a
government building on fire in Portland, Oregon, or destroyed Chicago's wealthiest downtown
shopping district.
The Business Section reports that the worst disease outbreak in a century, the worst
unemployment since the Great Depression, and the worst national rioting in two generations has
produced unprecedented gains in share prices on Wall Street, but the staff writers have
apparently forgotten the word "bubble." Many days the Arts Section seems to have become almost
monochromatically black. So my daily regular morning ritual now takes much less time than it
did in the past.
I can't exactly plot the trajectory of this sharp drop in my recent interest. But I
certainly noticed the change not longer after
a Twitter-mob forced the Times to summarily purge for insufficient "wokeness" its
highly-regarded Editorial Page Editor, widely considered a leading contender to run the paper,
perhaps suggesting that the journalists changed their coverage and writing style to avoid a
similar fate. I had always read my morning newspapers at a local coffee-shop, but the
Coronavirus outbreak ended that possibility, thereby disrupting my routine. And my years of
denouncing the dishonesty of "Our American Pravda" in my own articles
may have finally begun to register in my own mind.
There are occasional exceptions to this pattern. Earlier this month the Times
carefully tabulated our national mortality figures and determined that our "excess deaths"
from early March to the end of July had already exceeded 200,000 , indicating that the
American body-count from our Covid-19 epidemic was considerably larger than generally assumed,
and might even reach the half million mark by the end of the year. But examples of such solid
reporting seem few and far between these days.
The obvious decline of the Times is especially apparent to me each morning when I
compare it with the rival Wall Street Journal , which I read immediately afterward.
After Rupert Murdoch acquired the Journal in 2007, most observers predicted a sad fate
at the hands of the proprietor whose early Fleet Street media empire had been built upon on the
frontal nudity of the Page Three Girls of his tabloid Sun . But Murdoch totally
confounded those skeptics, providing his new flagship broadsheet with huge financial backing
and a hands-off editorial policy, thereby elevating it from a business-focused publication to a
near-peer rival to the Gray Lady at a time when so many other papers were about to begin
shriveling from massive loss of advertising. Within a couple of years, even such inveterate
Murdoch-haters as The Nationacknowledged this
surprising reality .
Superb journalist resources unshackled by extreme "political correctness" allow an
outstanding product, and this has certainly been demonstrated by the Journal 's
regular front-page investigative reports. A few days ago, our continuing Covid-19 disaster
prompted yet another of these, which I think lacked only a few crucial elements to be worthy of
a Pulitzer Prize.
Numerous publications have documented America's severe mistakes in combating the disease,
but
this 4,500 word WSJ report focused upon the serious mishandling of the original
outbreak by Chinese authorities.
The article revealed that top public health officials at China's Center for Disease Control
only became aware of the situation on December 30th, when they learned that at least 25
suspected cases of a mysterious illness had already occurred in Wuhan during that month. But as
the writers noted, the outbreak had certainly begun somewhat earlier:
Even a fully empowered China CDC would likely have missed the very first cases of the
coronavirus, which probably began spreading around Wuhan in October or November, most likely
in people who never showed symptoms, or did but never saw a doctor, researchers say.
All of this new information seems quite consistent with what had previously been discovered
by America's leading media outlets. But the Journal writers seem to have missed one
additional fact that could have elevated this important story from a mundane investigation to a
sensational expose. Although they documented that the Chinese government only learned of the
Wuhan outbreak at the end of December, they seemed unaware that more than a month earlier
American intelligence officials had distributed a secret report to our military allies
describing the "cataclysmic" disease outbreak then underway in Wuhan.
A few months ago, I
had noted the clear implications of this bizarre discrepancy in timing:
For obvious reasons, the Trump Administration has become very eager to emphasize the early
missteps and delays in the Chinese reaction to the viral outbreak in Wuhan, and has
presumably encouraged our media outlets to direct their focus in that direction.
As an example of this, the Associated Press Investigative Unit recently published a rather
detailed analysis of those early events purportedly based upon confidential Chinese
documents. Provocatively entitled "China Didn't Warn Public of Likely
Pandemic for 6 Key Days" , the piece was widely distributed, running
in abridged form in the NYT and elsewhere. According to this reconstruction, the
Chinese government first became aware of the seriousness of this public health crisis on Jan.
14th, but delayed taking any major action until Jan. 20th, a period of time during which the
number of infections greatly multiplied.
Last month, a team of five WSJ reporters produced a very detailed and thorough
4,400 word analysis of the same period, and the NYT has published a helpful
timeline of those early events as well. Although there may be some differences of
emphasis or minor disagreements, all these American media sources agree that Chinese
officials first became aware of the serious viral outbreak in Wuhan in early to mid-January,
with the first known death occurring on Jan. 11th, and finally implemented major new public
health measures later that same month. No one has apparently disputed these basic facts.
But with the horrific consequences of our own later governmental inaction being obvious,
elements within our intelligence agencies have sought to demonstrate that they were not the
ones asleep at the switch. Earlier this month,
an ABC News story cited four separate government sources to reveal that as far
back as late November, a special medical intelligence unit within our Defense Intelligence
Agency had produced a report warning that an out-of-control disease epidemic was occurring in
the Wuhan area of China, and widely distributed that document throughout the top ranks of our
government, warning that steps should be taken to protect US forces based in Asia. After the
story aired, a Pentagon spokesman officially denied the existence of that November report,
while various other top level government and intelligence officials refused to comment. But a
few days later,
Israeli television mentioned that in November American intelligence had indeed shared
such a report on the Wuhan disease outbreak with its NATO and Israeli allies, thus seeming to
independently confirm the complete accuracy of the original ABC News story and its several
government sources.
It therefore appears that elements of the Defense Intelligence Agency were aware of
the deadly viral outbreak in Wuhan more than a month before any officials in the Chinese
government itself. Unless our intelligence agencies have pioneered the technology of
precognition, I think this may have happened for the same reason that arsonists have the
earliest knowledge of future fires.
An entirely new disease that spreads in silent, asymptomatic fashion can easily escape
initial detection, and we should not be surprised that no one in China noticed the Wuhan
outbreak when it first began in October or November. But America's intelligence operatives were
entirely aware of what was happening from the very beginning, and began informing all our
allies. This seems about as close to a "smoking gun" as we can ever likely to encounter in the
annals of the murky world of intelligence operations.
Moreover, I
have also noted the very unusual international pattern the deadly disease immediately began
to follow:
As the coronavirus gradually began to spread beyond China's own borders, another
development occurred that greatly multiplied my suspicions. Most of these early cases had
occurred exactly where one might expect, among the East Asian countries bordering China. But
by late February Iran had become the second epicenter of the global outbreak. Even more
surprisingly, its political elites had been especially hard-hit, with
a full 10% of the entire Iranian parliament soon infected and at least
a dozen of its officials and politicians dying of the disease, including some who were
quite
senior . Indeed, Neocon activists on Twitter began gleefully noting that their hatred
Iranian enemies were now dropping like flies.
Let us consider the implications of these facts. Across the entire world the only
political elites that have yet suffered any significant human losses have been those of Iran,
and they died at a very early stage, before significant outbreaks had even occurred almost
anywhere else in the world outside China. Thus, we have America assassinating Iran's top
military commander on Jan. 2nd and then just a few weeks later large portions of the Iranian
ruling elites became infected by a mysterious and deadly new virus, with many of them soon
dying as a consequence. Could any rational individual possibly regard this as a mere
coincidence?
So if the journalists at the WSJ had merely taken note of what had previously been
reported by ABC News and confirmed by Israeli television, they would surely have
earned themselves a Pulitzer Prize. But earning and receiving are two separate matters, and
they might easily have instead been purged for treading upon such touchy national security
matters. After all, our own webzine was banned by both
Facebook and Google just days after we raised these same matters.
Such retaliation helps explain why our American mainstream media has long since concluded
that discretion is the better part of valor.
You
get as much justice as you can afford..,.. poor people in America know this. Justice is Swift for the poor man. Good example
jussie Smollett...... America has no justice yet to this day. The great Awakening started for me by, Nancy pelosi. She said we
are above you. Referring to the elite.... Two-tier justice system, that's why so many people are watching. Trump 20 🇺🇸 20
Landslide Victory 🤔
The
federal government bureaucrats and politicians are running the government like the Five Mafia Families of NY ran NYC and
beyond. ...selective prosecutions is all that can be seen from coast to coast. Everyone knows what's really going on. If
you're associated with President Trump, however distant, or are a Republican instant prosecution. If you're a Democrat member
of a coup d'etat, fo'get about it. Shakespeare was right about the lawyers. At least about the lawyers in the Southern
District of NY. Attorney General Barr should have gutted that cabal of seditious traitors, top to bottom, left to right.
Probably most of the DC contingent of the DOJ as well.
Fantastic interview. I hope many who do not understand the significance of this will take a step back and really understand
that these people are after ALL of us...
I hope that the American citizens will continue to inform themselves about the shenanigans that the Democrats have been up to
and prevent the mob with this 'world view" (which means total control by a view) will not be allowed to take root. The
alternative is this; if the US can be turned into a CCP of America then what chance does the rest of us have? Please
Americans, clean up you education system and make sure it is free and fair and available to everyone without indoctrination
from anyone. And dare to stand up against regimes that violate human rights. At present you are the only government who
publicly states the genocide that is going on in China and dares to take steps to stop the money hungry corporations to find
loopholes....
Very
good interview. It's just so disturbing that the press is so corrupted. The Constitution grants them freedoms to help the
public not to lie and tear our system down. No one trusts the media at this point, nor should they. It's both sad and
dangerous. Who would have ever thought that the media would turn into public enemy #1.
RINOs are a large part of the permanent coup. The heap of human waste includes not just Obama but also Romney, both Bush's,
McCain, Graham, Murkowski and a very long list of bureaucrats.
Diane Feinstein & Slick Willie acted like they cared about China but they (and many others) would sell anyone down the river,
any time day or night, and stick a fork in, if it benefits them.
I have Lee Smith's first book on the corruption... I'm getting tired of reading these books without seeing any indictments...
I will buy the new book after John Durham and AG Barr start making some real indictments of James Brennan, Comey, McCabe,
Strzok, Lisa Page, Hilary for funding the Dossier, ... all these people need to be behind bars...we can't live in a country of
no consequences for Democrats...
"Our
movement is about replacing a failed and corrupt political establishment with a new government controlled by you,
the American People. There is nothing the political establishment will not do, and no lie they will not tell, to
hold on to their prestige and power at your expense.
The Washington establishment, and the financial and media corporations that fund it, exists for only one reason:
to protect and enrich itself.
The establishment has trillions of dollars at stake in this election. As an example, just one single trade deal
they'd like to pass, involves trillions of dollars controlled by many countries, corporations and lobbyists. For
those who control the levers of power in Washington, and for the global special interests they partner with, our
campaign represents an existential threat.
It's a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class,
stripped our country of its wealth, and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and
political entities.
The corporate media in our country is no longer involved in journalism. They are a political special interest, no
different than any lobbyist or other financial entity with an agenda.
The establishment and their media enablers wield control over this nation through means that are well known.
Anyone who challenges their control is deemed a sexist, a racist, a xenophobe and morally deformed. They will
attack you, they will slander you, they will seek to destroy your career and reputation. And they will lie, lie
and lie even more.
I didn't need to do this. I built a great company, and I had wonderful life. I could have enjoyed the benefits of
years of successful business for myself and my family, instead of going through this absolute horror show of lies,
deceptions and malicious attacks. I'm doing it because this country has given me so much, and I feel strongly it
was my turn to give back. We will vote to put this corrupt government cartel out of business.
We will remove from our politics the special interests who have betrayed our workers, our borders, our freedoms,
and our sovereign rights as a nation. We will end the politics of profit, we will end the rule of special
interests, we will put a stop to the raiding of our country – and the disenfranchisement of our people."
Trump, Flynn, Stone, Page, Papa D; all have suffered because of this attempted coup. The main victims though are
the American electorate who have had their Democratic mandate stymied for the last 4 years.
Trumps only DOG in the fight is America. The Swamp has anti American interest. Look who backs the Dem party!
Soros, BLM, Netfilx, Amazon, and a ton of others that have $$$ instead of Americans in mind. Look who owns
the Media and tell me why they are so far left. Does it make sense? They know it isn't Russia but even Ivy
league Schools funding from China. WHY? Hmmmm. Who is pumping money into Silicon Valley? Hmmm
DOJ.gov/biography
~ Wm Pelham BARR was CIA from 1973 to 1977 > once a spook, thereafter always just a sheepdipped spook >
Sessions, Whitaker, BARR & WRAY are deep state coverup team
Biggest threat to US democracy is NOT from the OUTSIDE world - it is the Deep State and MSM.Trump isn't divisive;
he's simply reacted to all of abuses that have been going on. Thank God we have a Leader like him. He is a HERO -
not a villain
This is very interesting, but my initial reaction is trust Trump. He understood, even before any of this
occurred, that this would be the result of his presidency. The Obama/Hillary plan was not something
concocted by Obama - he was a 'puppet' to a much larger, 16 year plan to finally weaken the US on the world
stage, in order to usher in a different kind of global condition. But Trump knew all of this - he has been
preparing for this presidency for decades. He will win in 2020, and the darkness that Smith talks about
regarding a 'permanent coup' will not happen. It's all going to be brought down. This is not another 4 year
election, but a crossroads to the future.
If the Dems win there will be a Witch Hunt like one could not dream possible. The Dems will throw the Justice
System as we know it out the window. They will arrest President Trump and every person that stood up for him on
charges of treason. They will resurrect the Russia Hoax and the Ukraine Hoax and the China-Virus Hoax will be
blamed on President Trump decisively. Trump supporters will be outraged and the Democrats will send in the troops
to confiscate all their guns. Americans if you love your life get out in person and vote for President Trump in
November.
"... The fresh orgy of anti-Russian invective in the lickspittle media (LSM) has the feel of fin de siècle . The last four reality-impaired years do seem as though they add up to a century. And no definitive fin is in sight, as long as most people don't know what's going on. ..."
"... The LSM should be confronted: "At long last have you left no sense of decency?" But who would hear the question -- much less any answer? ..."
"... Thus the reckless abandon with which The New York Times is leading the current full-court press to improve on what it regards as Special Counsel Robert Mueller's weak-kneed effort to blame the Russians for giving us Donald Trump. The press is on, and there are no referees to call the fouls. ..."
"... Incidentally, Mueller's report apparently was insufficient, only two years in the making, and just 448 pages. The Senate committee's magnum opus took three years, is almost 1,000 pages -- and fortified. So there. ..."
"... is a good offense, and the Senate Intelligence Committee's release of its study -- call it "Mueller (Enhanced)" -- and the propaganda fanfare -- come at a key point in the Russiagate/Spygate imbroglio. It also came, curiously, as the Democratic Convention was beginning, as if the Republican-controlled Senate was sending Trump a message. ..."
"... The cognoscenti and the big fish themselves may be guessing that Trump/Barr/Durham will not throw out heavier lines for former FBI Director James Comey, his deputy Andrew McCabe, CIA Director John Brennan, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, for example. But how can they be sure? What has become clear is that the certainty they all shared that Hillary Clinton would be the next president prompted them not only to take serious liberties with the Constitution and the law, but also to do so without taking rudimentary steps to hide their tracks. ..."
"... The incriminating evidence is there. And as Trump becomes more and more vulnerable and defensive about his ineptness -- particularly with regard to Covid-19 -- he may summon the courage to order Barr and Durham to hook the big fish, not just minnows like Clinesmith. The neuralgic reality is that no one knows at this point how far Trump will go. To say that this kind of uncertainty is unsettling to all concerned is to say the obvious. ..."
"... None of that takes us much beyond the Mueller report and other things generally well known -- even in the LSM. Nor does the drivel about people like Paul Manafort "sharing polling data with Russians" who might be intelligence officers. That data was "mostly public" the Times itself reported , and the paper had to correct a story that the data was intended for Russian oligarchs, when it was meant for Ukrainian oligarchs instead. That Manafort was working to turn Ukraine towards the West and not Russia is rarely mentioned. ..."
"... On the Steele Dossier, the committee also missed a ruling by a British judge against Christopher Steele, labeling his dossier an attempt to help Hillary Clinton get elected. Consortium News explained back in October 2017 that both CrowdStrike and Steele were paid for by the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign to push Russiagate. ..."
"... the description of #WikiLeaks ' publishing activities by this #SenateIntelligenceCommittee 's Report appears a true #EdgarHoover 's disinformation campaign to make a legitimate media org completely radioactive ..."
"... And that's not the half of it. In September 2018, Mazzetti and his NYT colleague Scott Shane wrote a 10,000-word feature, "The Plot to Subvert an Election," trying to convince readers that the Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) had successfully swayed U.S. opinion during the 2016 election with 80,000 Facebook posts that they said had reached 126 million Americans. ..."
"... That turned out to be a grotesquely deceptive claim. Mazzetti and Shane failed to mention the fact that those 80,000 IRA posts (from early 2015 through 2017, meaning about half came after the election), had been engulfed in a vast ocean of more than 33 trillion Facebook posts in people's news feeds – 413 million times more than the IRA posts. Not to mention the lack of evidence that the IRA was the Russian government, as Mueller claimed. ..."
"... "Liberals are embracing every negative claim about Russia just because elements of the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency produced a report last Jan. 6 that blamed Russia for 'hacking' Democratic emails and releasing them to WikiLeaks ." ..."
The New York Times is leading the full-court press to improve on what it regards as Special Counsel Robert Mueller's weak-kneed
effort to blame the Russians for giving us Donald Trump...
The fresh orgy of anti-Russian invective in the lickspittle media (LSM) has the feel of fin de siècle . The last four reality-impaired
years do seem as though they add up to a century. And no definitive fin is in sight, as long as most people don't know what's going
on.
The LSM should be confronted: "At long last have you left no sense of decency?" But who would hear the question -- much less any
answer? The corporate media have a lock on what Americans are permitted or not permitted to hear. Checking the truth, once routine
in journalism, is a thing of the past.
Thus the reckless abandon with which The New York Times is leading the current full-court press to improve on what it regards
as Special Counsel Robert Mueller's weak-kneed effort to blame the Russians for giving us Donald Trump. The press is on, and there
are no referees to call the fouls.
The recent release of a 1,000-page, sans bombshells and already out-of-date report by the Senate Intelligence Committee has provided
the occasion to "catapult the propaganda," as President George W. Bush once put it.
As the the Times 's Mark Mazzetti put it in his
article Wednesday:
"Releasing the report less than 100 days before Election Day, Republican-majority senators hoped it would refocus attention
on the interference by Russia and other hostile foreign powers in the American political process, which has continued unabated."
Mazzetti is telling his readers, soto voce : regarding that interference four years ago, and the "continued-unabated" part, you
just have to trust us and our intelligence community sources who would never lie to you. And if, nevertheless, you persist in asking
for actual evidence, you are clearly in Putin's pocket.
Incidentally, Mueller's report apparently was insufficient, only two years in the making, and just 448 pages. The Senate committee's
magnum opus took three years, is almost 1,000 pages -- and fortified. So there.
Iron Pills
Recall how disappointed the LSM and the rest of the Establishment were with Mueller's anemic findings in spring 2019. His report
claimed that the Russian government "interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" via a social
media campaign run by the Internet Research Agency (IRA) and by "hacking" Democratic emails. But the evidence behind those charges
could not bear close scrutiny.
You would hardly know it from the LSM, but the accusation against the IRA was thrown out of court when the U.S. government admitted
it could not prove that the IRA was working for the Russian government. Mueller's ipse dixit did not suffice, as we
explained a year ago
in "Sic Transit Gloria Mueller."
The Best Defense
is a good offense, and the Senate Intelligence Committee's release of its study -- call it "Mueller (Enhanced)" -- and the propaganda
fanfare -- come at a key point in the Russiagate/Spygate imbroglio. It also came, curiously, as the Democratic Convention was beginning,
as if the Republican-controlled Senate was sending Trump a message.
Durham
One chief worry, of course, derives from the uncertainty as to whether John Durham, the US Attorney investigating those FBI and
other officials who launched the Trump-Russia investigation will let some heavy shoes drop before the election. Barr has said he
expects "developments in Durham's investigation hopefully before the end of the summer."
FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith already has decided to plead guilty to the felony of falsifying evidence used to support a warrant
from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to surveillance to spy on Trump associate Carter Page. It is abundantly clear that
Clinesmith was just a small cog in the deep-state machine in action against candidate and then President Trump. And those running
the machine are well known. The president has named names, and Barr has made no bones about his disdain for what he calls spying
on the president.
The cognoscenti and the big fish themselves may be guessing that Trump/Barr/Durham will not throw out heavier lines for former
FBI Director James Comey, his deputy Andrew McCabe, CIA Director John Brennan, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper,
for example. But how can they be sure? What has become clear is that the certainty they all shared that Hillary Clinton would be
the next president prompted them not only to take serious liberties with the Constitution and the law, but also to do so without
taking rudimentary steps to hide their tracks.
The incriminating evidence is there. And as Trump becomes more and more vulnerable and defensive about his ineptness -- particularly
with regard to Covid-19 -- he may summon the courage to order Barr and Durham to hook the big fish, not just minnows like Clinesmith.
The neuralgic reality is that no one knows at this point how far Trump will go. To say that this kind of uncertainty is unsettling
to all concerned is to say the obvious.
So, the stakes are high -- for the Democrats, as well -- and, not least, the LSM. In these circumstances it would seem imperative
not just to circle the wagons but to mount the best offense/defense possible, despite the fact that virtually all the ammunition
(as in the Senate report) is familiar and stale ("enhanced" or not).
Black eyes might well be in store for the very top former law enforcement and intelligence officials, the Democrats, and the LSM
-- and in the key pre-election period. So, the calculation: launch "Mueller Report (Enhanced)" and catapult the truth now with propaganda,
before it is too late.
No Evidence of Hacking
The "hacking of the DNC" charge suffered a fatal blow three months ago when it became known that Shawn Henry, president of the
DNC-hired cyber-security firm CrowdStrike,
admitted under oath that his firm had no evidence that the DNC emails were hacked -- by Russia or anyone else.
(YouTube)
Henry gave his testimony on Dec. 5, 2017,
but House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff was able to keep it hidden until May 7, 2020.
Here's a brief taste of how Henry's testimony went: Asked by Schiff for "the date on which the Russians exfiltrated the data",
Henry replied, "We just don't have the evidence that says it actually left."
You did not know that? You may be forgiven -- up until now -- if your information diet is limited to the LSM and you believe The
New York Times still publishes "all the news that's fit to print." I am taking bets on how much longer the NYT will be able to keep
Henry's testimony hidden; Schiff's record of 29 months will be hard to beat.
Putting Lipstick on the Pig of Russian 'Tampering'
Worse still for the LSM and other Russiagate diehards, Mueller's findings last year enabled Trump to shout "No Collusion" with
Russia. What seems clear at this point is that a key objective of the current catapulting of the truth is to apply lipstick to Mueller's
findings.
After all, he was supposed to find treacherous plotting between the Trump campaign and the Russians and failed miserably. Most
LSM-suffused Americans remain blissfully unaware of this, and the likes of Pulitzer Prize winner Mazzetti have been commissioned
to keep it that way.
In Wednesday's
article , for example, Mazzetti puts it somewhat plaintively:
"Like the special counsel the Senate report did not conclude that the Trump campaign engaged in a coordinated conspiracy with
the Russian government -- a fact that the Republicans seized on to argue that there was 'no collusion'."
How could they!
Mazzetti is playing with words. "Collusion," however one defines it, is not a crime; conspiracy is.
'Breathtaking' Contacts: Mueller (Enhanced)
Mark Mazzetti (YouTube)
Mazzetti emphasizes that the Senate report "showed extensive evidence of contacts between Trump campaign advisers and people tied
to the Kremlin," and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the intelligence committee's vice chairman,
said the committee report details "a breathtaking level of contacts between Trump officials and Russian government operatives
that is a very real counterintelligence threat to our elections."
None of that takes us much beyond the Mueller report and other things generally well known -- even in the LSM. Nor does the drivel
about people like Paul Manafort "sharing polling data with Russians" who might be intelligence officers. That data was "mostly public"
the Times itself
reported
, and the paper had to correct
a story that the data was intended for Russian oligarchs, when it was meant for Ukrainian oligarchs instead. That Manafort was working
to turn Ukraine towards the West and not Russia is rarely mentioned.
Recent revelations regarding the false data given the FISA court by an FBI lawyer to "justify" eavesdropping on Trump associate
Carter Page show the Senate report to be not up to date and misguided in endorsing the FBI's decision to investigate Page. The committee
may wish to revisit that endorsement -- at least.
On the Steele Dossier, the committee also missed a ruling by a British judge against Christopher Steele,
labeling his dossier an attempt to help Hillary Clinton get elected. Consortium News
explained back in October 2017 that both CrowdStrike and Steele were paid for by the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign to
push Russiagate.
Also missed by the intelligence committee was a document released by the Senate Judiciary Committee last month that
revealed that Steele's "Primary Subsource and his friends peddled warmed-over rumors and laughable gossip that Steele dressed
up as formal intelligence memos."
Smearing WikiLeaks
The Intelligence Committee report also repeats thoroughly
debunked
myths about WikiLeaks and, like Mueller, the committee made no effort to interview Julian Assange before launching its smears.
Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi, who partnered with WikiLeaks in the publication of the Podesta emails, described the report's
treatment of WikiLeaks in this Twitter thread
:
2. the description of #WikiLeaks ' publishing activities
by this #SenateIntelligenceCommittee
's Report appears a true #EdgarHoover 's disinformation
campaign to make a legitimate media org completely radioactive
3. Clearly, to describe #WikiLeaks and its publishing activities the #SenateIntelligenceCommittee's Report completely rely
on #US intelligence community+ #MikePompeo's characterisation of #WikiLeaks. There is not even any pretense of an independent
approach
4. there are also unsubstantiated claims like:
– "[WikiLeaks'] disclosures have jeopardized the safety of individual Americans and foreign allies" (p.200)
– "WikiLeaks has passed information to U.S. adversaries" (p.201)
5. it's completely false that "#WikiLeaks does not seem to weigh whether its disclosures add any public interest value" (p.200)
and any longtime media partner like me could provide you dozens of examples on how wrong this characterisation [is].
Titillating
Mazzetti did add some spice to the version of his article that dominated the two top right columns of Wednesday's Times with the
blaring headline: "Senate Panel Ties Russian Officials to Trump's Aides: G.O.P.-Led Committee Echoes Mueller's Findings on Election
Tampering."
Those who make it to the end of Mazzetti's piece will learn that the Senate committee report "did not establish" that the Russian
government obtained any compromising material on Mr. Trump or that they tried to use such materials [that they didn't have] as leverage
against him." However, Mazzetti adds,
"According to the report, Mr. Trump met a former Miss Moscow at a party during one trip in 1996. After the party, a Trump associate
told others he had seen Mr. Trump with the woman on multiple occasions and that they 'might have had a brief romantic relationship.'
"The report also raised the possibility that, during that trip, Mr. Trump spent the night with two young women who joined him
the next morning at a business meeting with the mayor of Moscow."
This is journalism?
Another Pulitzer in Store?
The Times appends a note reminding us that Mazzetti was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for reporting on Donald
Trump's advisers and their connections to Russia.
And that's not the half of it. In September 2018, Mazzetti and his NYT colleague Scott Shane wrote a 10,000-word
feature, "The Plot to Subvert an Election," trying to convince readers that the Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) had successfully
swayed U.S. opinion during the 2016 election with 80,000 Facebook posts that they said had reached 126 million Americans.
That turned out to be a grotesquely deceptive claim. Mazzetti and Shane failed to mention the
fact that those 80,000 IRA posts (from early 2015 through 2017, meaning about half came after the election), had been engulfed
in a vast ocean of more than 33 trillion Facebook posts in people's news feeds – 413 million times more than the IRA posts. Not to
mention the lack of evidence that the IRA was the Russian government, as Mueller claimed.
In exposing that chicanery, prize-winning investigative reporter Gareth Porter
commented :
"The descent of The New York Times into this unprecedented level of propagandizing for the narrative of Russia's threat to
U.S. democracy is dramatic evidence of a broader problem of abuses by corporate media Greater awareness of the dishonesty at the
heart of the Times' coverage of that issue is a key to leveraging media reform and political change."
Nothingburgers With Russian Dressing: the Backstory
The late Robert Parry.
"It's too much; it's just too much, too much", a sedated, semi-conscious Robert Parry kept telling me from his hospital bed in
late January 2018 a couple of days before he died. Bob was founder of Consortium News .
It was already clear what Bob meant; he had taken care to see to that. On Dec. 31, 2017 the reason for saying that came in what
he titled "An Apology
& Explanation" for "spotty production in recent days." A stroke on Christmas Eve had left Bob with impaired vision, but he was able
to summon enough strength to write an Apologia -- his vision for honest journalism and his dismay at what had happened to his profession
before he died on Jan. 27, 2018. The dichotomy was "just too much".
Parry rued the role that journalism was playing in the "unrelenting ugliness that has become Official Washington. Facts and logic
no longer mattered. It was a case of using whatever you had to diminish and destroy your opponent this loss of objective standards
reached deeply into the most prestigious halls of American media."
What bothered Bob most was the needless, dishonest tweaking of the Russian bear. "The U.S. media's approach to Russia," he wrote,
"is now virtually 100 percent propaganda. Does any sentient human being read The New York Times ' or The Washington Post 's coverage
of Russia and think that he or she is getting a neutral or unbiased treatment of the facts? Western journalists now apparently see
it as their patriotic duty to hide facts that otherwise would undermine the demonizing of Putin and Russia."
Parry, who was no conservative, continued:
"Liberals are embracing every negative claim about Russia just because elements of the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency
produced a report last Jan. 6 that blamed Russia for 'hacking' Democratic emails and releasing them to WikiLeaks ."
Bob noted that the 'hand-picked' authors "evinced no evidence and even admitted that they weren't asserting any of this as fact."
It was just too much.
Robert Parry's Last Article
Peter Strzok during congressional hearing in July 2018. (Wikimedia Commons)
Bob posted his last substantive article on Dec. 13, 2017, the day after text exchanges between senior FBI officials Peter Strzok
and Lisa Page were made public. (Typically, readers of The New York Times the following day would altogether
miss the
importance of the text-exchanges.)
Bob Parry rarely felt any need for a "sanity check." Dec. 12, 2017 was an exception. He called me about the Strzok-Page texts;
we agreed they were explosive. FBI Agent Peter Strzok was on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's staff investigating alleged Russian
interference, until Mueller removed him.
Strzok reportedly was a "hand-picked" FBI agent taking part in the Jan 2017 evidence-impoverished, rump, misnomered "intelligence
community" assessment that blamed Russia for hacking and other election meddling. And he had helped lead the investigation into Hillary
Clinton's misuse of her computer servers. Page was Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's right-hand lawyer.
His Dec. 13, 2017 piece
would be his fourth related article in less than two weeks; it turned out to be his last substantive article. All three of the earlier
ones are worth a re-read as examples of fearless, unbiased, perceptive journalism. Here
are the links .
Bob began his article
on the Strzok-Page bombshell:
"The disclosure of fiercely anti-Trump text messages between two romantically involved senior FBI officials who played key
roles in the early Russia-gate inquiry has turned the supposed Russian-election-meddling "scandal" into its own scandal, by providing
evidence that some government investigators saw it as their duty to block or destroy Donald Trump's presidency.?
"As much as the U.S. mainstream media has mocked the idea that an American 'deep state' exists and that it has maneuvered to
remove Trump from office, the text messages between senior FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok and senior FBI lawyer
Lisa Page reveal how two high-ranking members of the government's intelligence/legal bureaucracy saw their role as protecting
the United States from an election that might elevate to the presidency someone as unfit as Trump."
Not a fragment of Bob's or other Consortium News analysis made any impact on what Bob used to call the Establishment media. As
a matter of fact, eight months later during a talk in Seattle that I titled "Russia-gate: Can You Handle the Truth?", only three
out of a very progressive audience of some 150 had ever heard of Strzok and Page.
Lest I am accused of being "in Putin's pocket," let me add the explanatory note that we Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity included in our
most explosive Memorandum for President Trump, on "Russian hacking."
Full Disclosure: Over recent decades the ethos of our intelligence profession has eroded in the public mind to the point that
agenda-free analysis is deemed well nigh impossible. Thus, we add this disclaimer, which applies to everything we in VIPS say
and do: We have no political agenda; our sole purpose is to spread truth around and, when necessary, hold to account our former
intelligence colleagues.
We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians
and pundits say is purely coincidental. The fact we find it is necessary to include that reminder speaks volumes about these highly
politicized times.
somecallmetimmah , 1 hour ago
Only brain-washed losers read the new york times. Garbage propaganda for garbage people.
AtATrESICI , 43 minutes ago
"developments in Durham's investigation hopefully before the end of the summer." What summer? The summer of 2099.
Mouldy , 1 hour ago
So in a nutshell.. They just called half the USA too stupid to make an informed decision for themselves.
ominous , 1 hour ago
the disagreement is over which half is the stupid half
homeskillet , 25 minutes ago
The MIC's bogey man. What a crock of **** this whole country has become. Pravda puts out more truth than our MSM. I trust
Putin more than the Dem leaders at this point.
Demeter55 , 1 hour ago
The Globalist/New World Order/Deep State/Elitists (or whatever other arrogant subsection of the psychopaths among us you
wish to consider) have one great failing which will defeat them utterly in the end:
They do not know when to cut their losses.
As a result of that irrational stubbornness, born of a "Manifest Destiny" assumption of an eternal lock on the situation,
they will go too far.
Having more wealth than anyone is temporary.
Having more power than anyone is temporary.
Life is temporary.
And we outnumber them by several billion.
Even if they systematically try to destroy us, they will not have the ability unless we are complicit in our own destruction.
While there are many who have "taken the knee" to these tyrants in training, there are more who have no intention of doing
so.
Most nations are not so buffaloed as to fall for this propaganda, but the United States especially was created with the
notion that all men are created equal, and this is ingrained in the national character. We don't buy it.
And our numbers are growing daily, as people wake up and realize they have to take a side for themselves, their families,
their communities.
The global covid-panic was a masterful attack, but it will fail. Indeed, it has failed already. The building counter-attack
will take out those who chose to declare war on humanity. There really is no alternative for us, the humans. Live Free or Die,
as they say in New Hampshire.
And despite the full support of the MSM and the DNC, the Would-Be Masters of the Universe will not succeed.
sborovay07 , 1 hour ago
Sad Assange wasn't granted immunity to testify and was silenced just prior to the release of the Mueller report. Little
has been heard since except his health is horrific. Now, all the Deep State figures on both sides are just throwing as much
mud against Trump as possible to hide the truth. If Durnham does not indict the Deep State figures who participated in the
Obama led coup, all is for not. Only the foot soldiers marching in lock step will be charged.
wn , 1 hour ago
To sum it up.
Conclusion of the Democrats.
Americans need Russian brains to decide their leader in order to move forward.
nokilli , 25 minutes ago
Once the MO for "Russian hacking" is published to the international intelligence community, any (((party))) can pose as
a "Russian hacker."
This is the way computers work. Sybil is eponymous.
KuriousKat , 35 minutes ago
Mazzeti looks like the typical Gopher boy for the CIA Station Chiefs around the world..they retire or become contributors
to NewsWeek Wapo or NYT. ..not Any major network w/o one...Doing **** like this is mandatory..not elective.
I hope I live to see the day when the "New York Times" is deemed the same caliber of
"journalism" as the "National Inquirer". Of course, those with two brain cells to rub
together already know that this is the case. However, by "deemed", I mean by the
one-brain-celled masses.
homeskillet , 23 minutes ago
The National Enquirer actually has many more believable articles.
Pernicious Gold Phallusy , 20 minutes ago
The National Enquirer broke the story of Presidential candidate John Edwards cheating on
his wife, who was undergoing breast cancer treatment at the time. Other media organizations,
including the NYT, knew about it and refused to cover it.
Stu Pedassle , 1 hour ago
Glad to see Operation Mockingbird is still going strong after 60 years
"... "Corbyn was thoroughly delegitimised as a political actor from the moment he became a prominent candidate and even more so after he was elected as party leader, with a strong mandate." ..."
"... "chose not to" ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
George Orwell's novel
'1984' depicts life within Oceania, a totalitarian society strictly controlled by an omnipresent Party whose three simple yet
contradictory slogans are: war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength. Citizens of Oceania were forced to accept
that two plus two may equal five if the Party deemed it so.
Akin to the Snake
game
found
on old Nokia mobile phones, woke movements become increasingly illogical and harder to control before eventually tying
themselves in knots or crashing into the walls of logic, sowing the seeds of their own destruction. Modern feminist movements
are having the wind taken out of their sails by other woke factions who argue that children should be taught boys can have
periods
,
so as not to distress transgender students, or that
terms
like
mother and father should be replaced with parent 1 and parent 2. Even the main UK doctors' union sent an internal memo
advising its staff to use the term 'pregnant people' rather than 'expectant
mothers'
to
avoid causing offense.
One could argue that
campaigns designed to remove the concept of male and female is a threat to women and their historical struggles. By
eliminating the 'existence' of women, it not only airbrushes out women's vast contribution to history but also removes the
whole notion of feminism – if womanhood does not exist, then the whole idea of misogyny becomes irrelevant. Perhaps one day
someone will decide that race is simply a construct and can be changed at will, thus making all debates about racism and
oppression irrelevant. Thus future woke cultists might argue themselves into a corner in which racism and thus 'white
privilege' does not exist.
In the West you are free
to choose any gender or sexuality, transition between these at whim, or perhaps create your own, but you are not supposed to
question the foundations of capitalism or liberalism. Likewise, the much lauded concept of human rights and democracy – one of
the key pillars on which Western 'cultural superiority' rests and from which it sneers at 'undemocratic' and 'uncivilised'
countries – is used to justify the destruction, occupation and economic enslavement of other peoples.
Whether it is Libya, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen or Palestine we see that non-white lives do not matter when there are no political points to score.
Indeed, condemning the slaughter of Palestinians could be enough to get you labeled an anti-Semite by those who remain
suspiciously silent when real anti-Semitism rears its ugly head.
For example, far right and
neo-nazi militias in Ukraine,
some
of
whom take their symbols and ideology from the 1930-1940s
,
have
operated with relative impunity and perpetuated human rights abuses upon the people of the Donbass region. These groups were
part of the Maidan movement, visited by Western politicians and praised by liberals, that violently overthrew elected
Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. Some of the leaders of this movement included far right elements who had no qualms
being amidst white power logos and neo-nazi flags, or had in the past claimed that a
"Moscow-Jewish
mafia"
controls
Ukraine.
Neither
Western nor Israeli politicians seemed too interested in such developments, despite Israeli newspaper
Haaretz
reporting
that weapons sent by Israel to Ukraine were ending up in the hands of far right militias, such as the Azov battalion.
Paradoxically, copious effort and resources were allocated to make people believe that the UK Labour Party, led by left wing
leader Jeremy Corbyn, had a serious problem with anti-Semitism.
As soon as a party leader
like Jeremy Corbyn began to offer something outside the narrowly defined political bandwidth and stood up for the rights of
Palestinians, he was demonized by politicians as well as their media allies and big business handlers. A study conducted by
the London School of Economics and Political Science examined UK newspaper coverage of Corbyn in the months following his
election as Labour Party leader and found evidence of media
bias
such
that
"Corbyn was thoroughly delegitimised as a political actor from the moment he became
a prominent candidate and even more so after he was elected as party leader, with a strong mandate."
It is welcome that recent
events in the US have highlighted racism faced by African Americans. Yet frequent murders of African Americans by a
militarized police force did not suddenly appear when Trump came to power. Many Democratic Party politicians who nowadays make
sure everyone knows they unquestioningly support the Black Lives Matter movement had few issues with the status quo before the
killing of George Floyd, and will probably regain their apathy if Biden wins the election.
Furthermore, little is
said about the role the Obama administration played only a few years ago in the destruction of Libya, formerly one of Africa's
richest and most stable nations, and its relinquishment to warlords and Al-Qaeda affiliated groups. Some of these groups were
quick to imprison and murder
citizens
from
sub-Saharan Africa who had migrated to Libya in search of a better life.
Slave
markets
selling sub-Saharan Africans now exist in the new post-Gaddafi Libya.
The UK Conservative Party, traditionally not fans of refugees or migrants, were responsible for the
Windrush
scandal
which saw Caribbean immigrants who had arrived in the UK decades earlier being threatened with deportation despite
having lived, worked, and paid taxes in this country for many years. The same party is now thinking of allowing nearly three
million Hong Kong citizens the opportunity to reside in the UK and later apply for
citizenship
.
When it comes to sticking two fingers up to China, we hear no talk about how the NHS and welfare system cannot afford to
absorb refugees and migrants.
These days many people,
especially celebrities, politicians and media figures, are falling over themselves to condemn racism and make sure everyone is
aware of their anti-racist credentials. The only remaining forms of racism deemed acceptable in the West include Russophobia
and Sinophobia. The media devotes endless hours hyping up the threat from Russia and China and in doing so surreptitiously
promotes animosity toward these nations and their peoples. The shadowy hand of the Russian government is deemed to be behind
every calamity or undesired election result. We are frequently reminded that a vague and poorly defined threat from Russia and
China looms large, though hard evidence is often sketchy, open to interpretation or questionable. At the same time NATO troops
encroach upon Russia's borders, yet the latter is deemed the aggressor, whilst the US sails warships through contested seas
near China's
borders
.
Whereas the UK seeks to provoke Russia for no logical reason, the US is determined to pick a fight with China and claims it
"chose
not to"
stop coronavirus from spreading beyond its borders.
The waning US empire and
its allies within the disintegrating EU prefer to attack their rivals Russia and China to deflect their own populations'
attention away from domestic problems with some good old-fashioned xenophobia. The UK, in particular, would do well to try and
improve its relationships with Russia and China as it is on track to have a lonely time post Brexit.
Think your friends would be
interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
American main stream media is not informing and reporting but is actually Goebbels-like
propaganda for the Democrats. Fox is only retaliating with opposing views. Imagine Walter
Cronkite being advocate for one party – that would be scandalous. However the present
insects on CNN, MSNBC, NYT or WP and other dishonest outlets have no guts to stand up against
their owners disloyalty to this country.
Insightful overview. Giraldi explores the most important topic in American life. And one
of the most neglected: MSM distortions, omissions, sanctimony, propaganda, deception and
gaslighting. Stomach-turning drek –all of it.
Americans are in a half-Zombie state because of what they see on TV, and cannot discuss on
social media.
Hollywood, elite media, and Big Tech are the gatekeepers [ of the neoliberal power].
The shysters at WPO and NYT think that once they have misdirected the voters for their
goal into voting for Joe Biden, it can pick up things where they left off and fix it without
any problems but what they don't realize is that the train has left the station and now it's
barreling down the dark abyss from where there is no return to safety.
It took balls for Carlson to have Anya Parampil on his show last night. He has had her on
before, so he knows what she is like she tells it like it is. He will get shit for that.
I don't think he agrees with everything she said but agrees with some of it.
@Tommy Thompson he military is responsible for or how Israel is treated, how corporations
are handed free billions upon billions, etc, and its largely business as usual. All the noise
about Trump the disruptor is just that, noise. He hasn't disrupted anything of note.
As long as the two political parties exist, voting is for people who want to believe a
lie. Deep down they know, absolutely know, that the system is rigged but they can't let
themselves fully believe that because that would mean there is no hope. They would realize
that they live in a sophisticated soft military dictatorship that has stolen $21 Trillion
dollars and is the actual gov't of the country. That realization is unpalatable and
hence rejected.
However the present insects on CNN, MSNBC, NYT or WP and other dishonest outlets have no
guts to stand up against their owners disloyalty to this country.
It's not a simple as that. All the media people know that it's a rotten system, but if
they step out of line – they lose their jobs – and make themselves unemployable
anywhere else.
IMO it's not a question of standing up – which is pointless – but using
organized subversion. After all, this is what Jewry have been doing for decades in targeting
Anglo run organizations and it works. It's your friend and collaborator who is really your
enemy.
Thanks Phil for pointing out these prime examples of Media being MIA. But the question
remains, is there anything, new to the media's role in reporting, misreporting or
non-reporting the serious news stories of the day.
The MSM (Main Stream Media) and even a good part of the Alternative Media has been AWOL as
a protector of the rights of the public really for decades. The problem lies with our self
created media system. We have Freedom of the Press only for those that can afford to
buy their own press, print or electronic. The MSM has been accurately shown to be controlled
by a few consolidated Zio- owned Media conglomerates. Thus their has never been any serious
reporting on Israel – Palestine conflict, as it is not allowed and most critical
thinkers have to seek real news tidbits from the biased but less censored Israeli press.
Israel has govt censors, but we have Owner self-censorship which now extends to many other of
domestic and international politics.
The American public is now reaping what it has sowed. It's near total apathy and misplaced
faith in a very outdated electoral system which has slowly winded down its usefulness to the
American public in raising real leaders and statesmen who are willing to defend our Bill of
Rights and national independence is the real culprit.
The dumbed down and distracted public mind set in America is leading the country down a
deep chasm where it looks increasingly impossible to climb out of. Surely this is all leading
to a slow societal self-destruction.
As pointed out by Phil, the MSM failure to call a spade a spade on most key issues
from the Bombing of Beirut to the Portland civil insurrection, are just recent examples of a
press whose job has become more psy-ops and naked propaganda than providing any informed and
objective news reporting and defense of the general public from the political malevolent
forces taking over our country and world.
I think you finally hit it on the head. For 4 years the only agenda has been "get Trump".
Or I should say the only day the MSM LOVED Trump in unison was the day he illegally bombed
Syria over the fake chemical weapons attack on April 5th, 2017. That day every editorial page
in the country said silly things like he's "Presidential" and " a real leader". As if they
take their marching orders from the same Soros News Agency, approved copy for the unwashed
masses. See the problem? That's the day I said "Whoa, we really got a problem". The problem
was the MSM finally thought they got some control over Trump, or should I say the CIA finally
thought it got some control over Trump. Because that's what it really is: Our true masters,
not some silly guy who thinks the "President" is actually a president, and not the " General
Asset Manager, US division" for the NWO.
" the American public has largely figured things out "
A poll about a week ago found that the average American thinks 9% of the population has
died from Covid. (= about 30 million people) A few weeks ago a poll found that (by a narrow
margin) Americans think Trump suffers from cognitive impairment to a greater degree than
Biden. These are not exactly arcane issues, and the degree of ignorance is astonishing.
Brainwashing has succeeded. This is why 'la asserts that the "demonstrators" are mothers and
veterans; and that Biden will cure Covid; she believes that, with the assistance of the
media, she can sell these.
An interesting point about 2020 NYC starting to resemble the 70s. I've talked to several
people who actually say they miss it compared to the "cleaner, safer" NYC since then. All I
remember is garbage, crime, and "malaise."
He [Bezos] and people like him are more concerned with maintaining the Dollar as reserve
currency in order to facilitate the continued sell-out of Americans for cheap foreign
manufactured goods, technology sells to China, and their own personal enrichment.
In both cases, the "beef" with Trump is that he's rocking the boat -- both in terms of his
criticism of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama wars for Israel and the Petrodollar, and in terms of
the America First noises he's made. While he's proven to be a fairly reliable Zionist stooge
(although he hasn't started any new wars in the Mideast, and been more of a placeholder), he's
edging a little too close to America First (with his domestic rhetoric and some of his
policies) for comfort.
"... To understand the risk that Julian Assange represented to CIA interests, it is important to understand just how extensive the operations of the CIA were in 2016. It is within this network of foreign and domestic operations where FBI Agent Peter Strzok is clearly working as a bridge between the CIA and FBI operations. ..."
"... By now people are familiar with the construct of CIA operations involving Joseph Mifsud, the Maltese professor now generally admitted/identified as a western intelligence operative who was tasked by the CIA (John Brennan) to run an operation against Trump campaign official George Papadopoulos in both Italy (Rome) and London. { Go Deep } ..."
"... In a similar fashion the CIA tasked U.S. intelligence asset Stefan Halper to target another Trump campaign official, Carter Page. Under the auspices of being a Cambridge Professor Stefan Halper also targeted General Michael Flynn. Additionally, using assistance from a female FBI agent under the false name Azra Turk, Halper also targeted Papadopoulos . ..."
"... The initial operations to target Flynn, Papadopoulos and Page were all based overseas. This seemingly makes the CIA exploitation of the assets and the targets much easier. ..."
"... In short, Peter Strzok appears to be the very eager, profoundly overzealous James Bond wannabe, who acted as a bridge between the CIA and the FBI. The perfect type of FBI career agent for CIA Director John Brennan to utilize. ..."
"... It was also Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson who was domestically tasked with a Russian lobbyist named Natalia Veselnitskya. A little reported Russian Deputy Attorney General named Saak Albertovich Karapetyan was working double-agents for the CIA and Kremlin. Karapetyan was directing the foreign operations of Natalia Veselnitskaya, and Glenn Simpson was organizing her inside the U.S. ..."
"... All of this context outlines the extent to which the CIA was openly involved in constructing a political operation that settled upon anyone in candidate Donald Trump's orbit. ..."
"... Additionally, Christopher Steele was a British intelligence officer, hired by Fusion-GPS to assemble and launder fraudulent intelligence information within his dossier. And we cannot forget Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch, who was recruited by Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe to participate in running an operation against the Trump campaign and create the impression of Russian involvement. Deripaska refused to participate . ..."
"... The key point of all that background is to see how committed the CIA and FBI were to the constructed narrative of Russia interfering with the 2016 election. The CIA, FBI, and by extension the DOJ, put a hell of a lot of work into it. Intelligence community work that Durham is now unraveling. ..."
"... Rohrabacher recounted his conversation with Assange to The Hill. "Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] emails during last year's presidential election," Rohrabacher said, "Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails." ..."
"... Knowing how much effort the CIA and FBI put into the Russia collusion-conspiracy narrative, it would make sense for the FBI to take keen interest after this August 2017 meeting between Rohrabacher and Assange; and why the FBI would quickly gather specific evidence (related to Wikileaks and Bradley Manning) for a grand jury by December 2017. ..."
"... The Weissmann/Mueller report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central element to the Russia interference narrative in the U.S. election. This claim is directly disputed by WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, as outlined during the Dana Rohrabacher interview, and by Julian Assange on-the-record statements. ..."
"... The predicate for Robert Mueller's investigation was specifically due to Russian interference in the 2016 election. The fulcrum for this Russia interference claim is the intelligence community assessment; and the only factual evidence claimed within the ICA is that Russia hacked the DNC servers; a claim only made possible by relying on forensic computer analysis from Crowdstrike, a DNC contractor. ..."
"... The CIA holds a massive conflict of self-interest in upholding the Russian hacking claim. The FBI holds a massive interest in maintaining that claim. All of those foreign countries whose intelligence apparatus participated with Brennan and Strzok also have a vested self-interest in maintaining that Russia hacking and interference narrative. ..."
"... This Russian "hacking" claim is ultimately so important to the CIA, FBI, DOJ, ODNI and U.K intelligence apparatus ..."
According to reports in November of 2019, U.S Attorney John Durham and U.S. Attorney General
Bill Barr were spending time on a narrowed focus looking carefully at CIA activity in the 2016
presidential election. One recent quote from a
media-voice increasingly sympathetic to a political deep-state notes:
"One British official with knowledge of Barr's wish list presented to London commented
that "it is like nothing we have come across before, they are basically asking, in quite
robust terms, for help in doing a hatchet job on their own intelligence services"". (
Link )
It is interesting that quote came from a British intelligence official, as there appears to
be evidence of an extensive CIA operation that likely involved U.K. intelligence services. In
addition, and as a direct outcome, there is an aspect to the CIA operation that overlaps with
both a U.S. and U.K. need to keep Wikileaks founder Julian Assange under tight control. In this
outline we will explain where corrupt U.S. and U.K. interests merge.
To understand the risk that Julian Assange represented to CIA interests, it is important to
understand just how extensive the operations of the CIA were in 2016. It is within this network
of foreign and domestic operations where FBI Agent Peter Strzok is clearly working as a bridge
between the CIA and FBI operations.
By now people are familiar with the construct of
CIA operations involving Joseph Mifsud, the Maltese professor now generally
admitted/identified as a western intelligence operative who was tasked by the CIA (John
Brennan) to run an operation against Trump campaign official George Papadopoulos in both Italy
(Rome) and London. {
Go Deep }
In a similar fashion the CIA tasked
U.S. intelligence asset Stefan Halper to target another Trump campaign official, Carter
Page. Under the auspices of being a Cambridge Professor Stefan Halper also targeted General
Michael Flynn. Additionally, using assistance from a female FBI agent under the false name Azra
Turk, Halper also targeted Papadopoulos
.
The initial operations to target Flynn, Papadopoulos and Page were all based overseas. This
seemingly makes the CIA exploitation of the assets and the targets much easier.
One of the more interesting aspects to the Durham probe is a possibility of a paper-trail
created as a result of the tasking operations. We should watch closely for more evidence of a
paper trail as some congressional reps have hinted toward documented evidence (transcripts,
recordings, reports) that are exculpatory to the targets (Page & Papadop). HPSCI Ranking
Member Devin Nunes has strongly hinted that
very specific exculpatory evidence was known to the FBI and yet withheld from the FISA
application used against Carter Page that also mentions George Papadopoulos. I digress
However, there is an aspect to the domestic U.S. operation that also bears the fingerprints
of the CIA; only this time due to the restrictive laws on targets inside the U.S. the CIA
aspect is less prominent. This is where FBI Agent Peter Strzok working for both agencies starts
to become important.
Remember, it's clear in the text messages Strzok has a working relationship with what he
called their "sister agency", the CIA. Additionally, Brennan
has admitted Strzok helped write the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA)
which outlines the Russia narrative; and it is almost guaranteed the July 31st, 2016,
"Electronic Communication" from the CIA to the FBI that originated FBI operation "Crossfire
Hurricane" was co-authored from the CIA by Strzok . and Strzok immediately used that EC to
travel to London to debrief intelligence officials around Australian Ambassador to the U.K.
Alexander Downer.
In short, Peter Strzok appears to be the very eager, profoundly overzealous James Bond
wannabe, who acted as a bridge between the CIA and the FBI. The perfect type of FBI career
agent for CIA Director John Brennan to utilize.
Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson hired CIA Open Source analyst Nellie Ohr toward the
end of 2015 ; at appropriately the same time as "
FBI Contractors " were identified exploiting the NSA database and extracting information on
a specific set of U.S. persons.
It was also Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson who was domestically tasked with a Russian
lobbyist named Natalia Veselnitskya. A little reported Russian Deputy Attorney General named
Saak Albertovich Karapetyan was working double-agents for the CIA and Kremlin. Karapetyan was
directing the foreign operations of Natalia Veselnitskaya, and Glenn Simpson was organizing
her inside the U.S.
Glenn Simpson managed Veselnitskaya through the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump
Jr. However, once the CIA/Fusion-GPS operation using Veselnitskaya started to unravel with
public reporting back in Russia Deputy AG Karapetyan
fell out of a helicopter to his death (just before it crashed).
Simultaneously timed in late 2015 through mid 2016, there was a domestic FBI operation using
a young Russian named Maria Butina
tasked to run up against republican presidential candidates . According to Patrick Byrne,
Butina's handler, it was FBI agent Peter Strzok who was giving Byrne the instructions on where
to send her. {
Go Deep }
All of this context outlines the extent to which the CIA was openly involved in constructing
a political operation that settled upon anyone in candidate Donald Trump's orbit.
International operations directed by the CIA, and domestic operations seemingly directed by
Peter Strzok operating with a foot in both agencies. [ Strzok gets CIA service
coin ]
Recap :
Mifsud tasked against Papadopoulos (CIA).
Halper tasked against
Flynn (CIA), Page (CIA), and Papadopoulos (CIA).
Azra Turk , pretending to be Halper
asst, tasked against Papadopoulos (FBI).
Veselnitskaya tasked against Donald Trump Jr
(CIA, Fusion-GPS).
Butina tasked against Trump, and Donald Trump Jr (FBI).
Additionally, Christopher Steele was a British intelligence officer, hired by Fusion-GPS to
assemble and launder fraudulent intelligence information within his dossier. And we cannot
forget Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch, who was
recruited by Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe to participate in running an operation
against the Trump campaign and create the impression of Russian involvement. Deripaska
refused to participate .
All of this engagement directly controlled by U.S. intelligence; and all of this intended to
give a specific Russia impression. This predicate is presumably what John Durham is currently
reviewing.
The key point of all that background is to see how committed the CIA and FBI were to the
constructed narrative of Russia interfering with the 2016 election. The CIA, FBI, and by
extension the DOJ, put a hell of a lot of work into it. Intelligence community work that Durham
is now unraveling.
We also know specifically that John Durham is looking at the construct of the Intelligence
Community Assessment (ICA); and
talking to CIA analysts who participated in the construct of the January 2017 report that
bolstered the false appearance of Russian interference in the 2016 election. This is important
because it ties in to the next part that involves Julian Assange and Wikileaks.
On April 11th, 2019, the Julian Assange
indictment was unsealed in the EDVA. From the indictment we discover it was under seal
since March 6th, 2018 : (Link to pdf)
On Tuesday April 15th more
investigative material was released . Again, note the dates: Grand Jury, * December of 2017
* This means FBI investigation prior to .
The FBI investigation took place prior to December 2017, it was coordinated through the
Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) where Dana Boente was U.S. Attorney at the time. The grand
jury indictment was sealed from March of 2018 until after Mueller completed his investigation,
April 2019 .
Why the delay?
What was the DOJ waiting for?
Here's where it gets interesting .
The FBI submission to the Grand Jury in December of 2017 was four months after congressman
Dana Rohrabacher talked to Julian Assange in August of 2017: "Assange told a U.S. congressman
he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents did not come from Russia."
(
August 2017, The Hill Via John Solomon ) Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on
Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year's
election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks
in the near future.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican who is friendly to Russia and chairs an
important House subcommittee on Eurasia policy, became the first American congressman to meet
with Assange during a three-hour private gathering at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where
the WikiLeaks founder has been holed up for years.
Rohrabacher recounted his conversation with Assange to The Hill. "Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure
of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] emails during last year's presidential election,"
Rohrabacher said, "Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the
hacking or disclosure of those emails."
Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents, Rohrabacher said he had
information to share privately with President Trump. (
read more )
Knowing how much effort the CIA and FBI put into the Russia collusion-conspiracy narrative,
it would make sense for the FBI to take keen interest after this August 2017 meeting between
Rohrabacher and Assange; and why the FBI would quickly gather specific evidence (related to
Wikileaks and Bradley Manning) for a grand jury by December 2017.
Within three months of the grand jury the DOJ generated an indictment and sealed it in March
2018. The EDVA sat on the indictment while the Mueller probe was ongoing.
As soon as the Mueller probe ended, on April 11th, 2019, a planned and coordinated effort
between the U.K. and U.S. was executed; Julian Assange was forcibly arrested and removed from
the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and the EDVA indictment was unsealed (
link ).
As a person who has researched this three year fiasco; including the ridiculously false 2016
Russian hacking/interference narrative: "17 intelligence agencies", Joint Analysis Report
(JAR) needed for Obama's anti-Russia narrative in December '16; and then a month later the
ridiculously political Intelligence Community
Assessment (ICA) in January '17; this timing against Assange is too coincidental.
It doesn't take a deep researcher to see the aligned Deep State motive to control Julian
Assange because the Mueller report was dependent on Russia cybercrimes, and that narrative is
contingent on the Russia DNC hack story which Julian Assange disputes.
This is critical. The Weissmann/Mueller
report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central element to the
Russia interference narrative in the U.S. election. This claim is directly disputed by
WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, as outlined during the Dana Rohrabacher interview, and by Julian
Assange on-the-record statements.
The predicate for Robert Mueller's investigation was specifically due to Russian
interference in the 2016 election. The fulcrum for this Russia interference claim is the
intelligence community assessment; and the only factual evidence claimed within the ICA is that
Russia hacked the DNC servers; a claim only made possible by relying on forensic computer
analysis from Crowdstrike, a DNC contractor.
The CIA holds a massive conflict of self-interest in upholding the Russian hacking claim.
The FBI holds a massive interest in maintaining that claim. All of those foreign countries
whose intelligence apparatus participated with Brennan and Strzok also have a vested
self-interest in maintaining that Russia hacking and interference narrative.
Julian Assange is the only person with direct knowledge of how Wikileaks gained custody of
the DNC emails; and Assange has claimed he has evidence it was not from a hack.
This Russian "hacking" claim is ultimately so important to the CIA, FBI, DOJ, ODNI and U.K
intelligence apparatus . Well, right there is the obvious motive to shut Assange down as soon
intelligence officials knew the Mueller report was going to be public.
Now, if we know this, and you know this; and everything is cited and factual well, then
certainly AG Bill Barr knows this.
The $64,000 dollar question is: will they say so publicly?
Non-Corporate Entity , 7 minutes ago
Former NSA chief Bill Binney has forensic evidence that it was a download not a hack!!!
Hello?!?!
exige42 , 22 seconds ago
I believe this all holds true. My only hesitation is why Assange hasn't retaliated. He
was holed up in an Embassy for how many years because of these bastards? He had to have
known they were going to make a move on him sooner or later. Where is his dead plan? I hate
how these corrupt evil bastards have gotten their way forever. There has got to be a turn
on these SOBs. Where is the fight from these people who they are destroying
ffs???!!!
play_arrow
Dolar in a vortex , 1 minute ago
Jabba Barr and Bulldog Durham are a complete joke until they prove otherwise with
significant indictments. And no, Steve Bannon doesn't count.
In January 2017, former State Department official Jonathan Winer destroyed several years
worth of reports from former UK spy Christopher Steele , at Steele's request, according to the
Daily Caller , citing a report released Tuesday.
Winer, a former legislative assistant to former Sen. John Kerry who became the State
Department's Special Envoy for Libya when Kerry was Secretary of State - was Steele's contact
at the State Department, and received the now-debunked reports claiming that President Trump
had been compromised by the Russians.
According to the
Senate report , Winer disclosed that he destroyed reports that Steele had sent him over
the years. The Senate report also says that Winer failed to reveal when asked in his first
interview with the committee that he had arranged the meeting for Steele at the State
Department months earlier. -
Daily Caller
"After Steele's memos were published in the press in January 2017, Steele asked Winer to
make note of having them, then either destroy all the earlier reports Steele had sent the
Department of State or return them to Steele , out of concern that someone would be able to
reconstruct his source network," reads the Senate report, which quote sWiner as saying " So I
destroyed them, and I basically destroyed all the correspondence I had with him. "
In total, Winer had received over 100 intelligence reports from Steel between 2014 and
2016.
Emails that The Daily Caller News Foundation obtained
through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit show that Winer shared Steele's reports with a
small group of State Department officials. The Senate report says that the State Department
was able to provide the committee with Steele's reports from 2015 and 2016, though most from
2014 are missing. -
Daily Caller
In March, Steele told a UK court that he had "wiped" all of his dossier-linked
correspondence in December, 2016 and January, 2017, and had no records of communications with
his primary dossier source, Igor Danchenko.
In addition to receiving reports from Steele, Winer gave Steele various anti-Trump memos
from Clinton operative Sidney Blumenthal , which originated with Clinton "hatchet man" Cody
Shearer. Winer claims he didn't think Steele would share the Clinton-sourced information with
anyone else in the government.
"But I learned later that Steele did share them -- with the FBI, after the FBI asked him to
provide everything he had on allegations relating to Trump, his campaign and Russian
interference in U.S. elections," Winer wrote in a
2018 Op-Ed .
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Steele was paid $168,000 by opposition research firm Fusion GPS to produce his anti-Trump
dossier, which was funded in part by Hillary Clinton and the DNC, who used law firm Perkins
Coie as an intermediary.
Very telling that ZH editors don't consider this newsworthy: key findings of the
Republican led Senate Select Committee on Intelligence regarding Russia's 2016 election
interference.
Manafort and Kilimnik talked almost daily during the campaign. They communicated through
encrypted technologies set to automatically erase their correspondence; they spoke using code
words and shared access to an email account. It's worth pausing on these facts: The chairman
of the Trump campaign was in daily contact with a Russian agent, constantly sharing
confidential information with him.
It did not find evidence that the Ukrainian government meddled in the 2016 election, as
Trump alleged. "The Committee's efforts focused on investigating Russian interference in
the 2016 election. However, during the course of the investigation, the Committee
identified no reliable evidence that the Ukrainian government interfered in the 2016 U.S.
election."
"Taken as a whole, Manafort's high-level access and willingness to share information with
individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services, particularly
[Konstantin] Kilimnik and associates of Oleg Deripaska, represented a grave
counterintelligence threat," the report said.
Kilimnik "almost certainly helped arrange some of the first public messaging that
Ukraine had interfered in the U.S. election."
Roger Stone was in communications with both WikiLeaks and the Russian hacker Guccifer 2.0
during the election; according to the Mueller report, Guccifer 2.0 was a conduit set up by
Russian military intelligence to anonymously funnel stolen information to WikiLeaks.
The Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation found "significant evidence to suggest
that, in the summer of 2016, WikiLeaks was knowingly collaborating with Russian government
officials," the report said.
The FBI gave "unjustified credence" to the so-called Steele dossier, an explosive
collections of uncorroborated memos alleging collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian
government officials, the report said. The FBI did not take the "necessary steps to validate
assumptions about Steele's credibility" before relying on the dossier to seek renewals of a
surveillance warrant targeting the former Trump campaign aide, the report said.
Demeter55 , 47 minutes ago
It's the latest in 5 years of "Get Trump!", a sitcom featuring the Roadrunner (Trump) and
the Wiley Coyote (Deep State/Never Trumpers / etc, etc.)
This classic scenario never fails to please those who realize that the roadrunner rules,
and the coyote invariably ends up destroyed.
rpi staff
wednesday august 19, 2020
RPI Director Daniel McAdams was interviewed on RT about the release of the fifth and final
volume of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation into the "Russiagate" claims that
President Trump colluded with the Russians to get elected or at least had election help from
Russian President Vladimir Putin. As McAdams points out in the interview, this is yet another
"nothingburger" even as the die-hard Russiagaters poke and prod looking for any sign of life.
McAdams makes the point that a Russian influence operation to "undermine America's faith in
democracy" would be ultra high-risk and what would be the rewards? How would Russia benefit?
Watch the interview here:
CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post are now following the same script
with the Trump panics. The pattern is consistent. Day one involves spectacular claims of
corruption. By day two, placard-bearing protesters are hitting the streets ("
You can't fire the truth !" a protester in Times Square proclaimed in the Sessions affair),
celebrities are taping video
appeals , and experts are quoted suggesting Trump is already guilty of crime:
OPEN TREASON in Helsinki, "
bribery " in Ukraine, or in this case, election interference (some are already speculating
that Trump
could get a year for the mail slowdown).
Almost always, by day three or four, key claims are walked back: maybe there was no direct "
promise " to a foreign leader, or the CIA doesn't have "
direct evidence " of Russian bounties, or viral photos of children in cages at the border
were
from 2014 , not 2017. By then it doesn't matter. A panic is a panic, and there are only two
reportable angles in today's America, total guilt and total innocence. Even when the balance of
the information would still look bad or very bad for Trump, news outlets commit to leaving out
important background, so as not to complicate the audience response.
That's the situation with this story, where the postal slowdown is probably more serious
than other Trump scandals, but people pushing it are also not anxious to remind readers of
their own histories on the issue.
Take the New York Times, currently cranking out about a feature an hour about the U.S.P.S.
Paul Krugman is now
telling us "The Postal Service facilitates citizen inclusion. That's why Trump hates it."
Apparently, until recently, all decent Americans had bottomless affection for the communal
spirit of the Postal Service and supported it without hesitation. Yet in April, 2012, in the
middle of the Obama presidency, the Times ran a very different
house editorial .
The paper argued mounting losses necessitated swift action to reduce costs. The Times
worried that "lawmakers in both houses" would "procrastinate as usual," and blasted the Senate
for devising a bill that "timorously aims at part-time 'downsizing,' not closing, lightly used
post offices." The paper added that decreased revenue thanks to email could mean losses of
"more than $20 billion a year by 2016," and hoped that, so long as "courage trumps
procrastination," the U.S.P.S. could be granted the "flexibility of a modern business."
If you look back, you'll find the overwhelming consensus in both the Bush and Obama years
was that a fully-staffed post office was a money pit, and "
flexibility " was needed to allow the service to budget-slash its way back to relevance in
the Internet age.
For a significant period – between the mid-2000s and the Trump years – it was
hard to find a big-name politician who would talk about the post office at all. An exception
was Bernie Sanders, whose office labored to get major news media organizations interested (
I got some of those calls ) in an alternative narrative about the post office.
But when an analysis by the Office of Personnel Management was released in November, 2002,
it turned out the U.S.P.S. had a "more positive picture" than was believed. The U.S.P.S. was
massively over- paying into its retirement fund, headed for a $70 billion surplus. Then in 2003
the
Postal Pension Funding Reform Act was passed, which among other things forced the U.S.P.S.
to pay the pension obligations of employees who had prior military service.
A few years after that, in 2006, the "
Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act " passed with overwhelming support in both
houses, forcing a series of incredible changes, the biggest being a requirement that the
U.S.P.S. fully fund 75 years worth of benefits for its employees. The provision cost $5.5
billion per year and was unique among government agencies. "No one prefunds at more than 30%,"
said Anthony Vegliante, the service's executive vice president, at the time.
The bill also prevented the post office from offering "nonpostal services" as a way to
compete financially. This barred it from establishing a postal banking service, but also nixed
creative ideas like Internet cafes, copy services, notaries, even allowing postal workers to
offer to wrap Christmas presents. Coupled with the pre-funding benefit mandate and other
pension changes, this paralyzed the post office financially, making it look ripe for
reform.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
By 2012, those took the form of calls for the U.S.P.S. to eliminate 3,700 post offices (a
first step toward eventually closing as many as 15,000) and 250 mail processing centers.
Sanders, along with other Senators with large rural constituencies like Jon Tester and Claire
McCaskill, managed to change the bill and save a lot of the mail processing centers. The Senate
that year also cut the amount of required pre-funding for benefits and
began refunding the U.S.P.S. for about $11 billion in overpayment for retirement costs.
A few years after that, in 2015, the Post Office Inspector General issued a
blistering report about CBRE , the company that had served as sole real estate broker to
the U.S.P.S. from 2011 on. The report found that CBRE had been selling and/or leasing post
office properties at below-market prices, often to clients of CBRE – a company
chaired by Richard Blum , the husband of California Senator Dianne Feinstein. This chronic
problem had a financial impact on the Postal Service, and would have become a much bigger
problem had the U.S.P.S. been forced earlier on to sell off a massive quantity of
infrastructure through that broker, as originally hoped.
The thread running through all of these stories was that panic over the financial condition
of the U.S.P.S. was often a significantly artificial narrative, caused by a bipartisan mix of
stupidity, greed, and corruption. This high-functioning civil service organization, which
provided tremendous value to the public through everything from
subsidized news deliveries in the Pony Express years to the well-maintained public meeting
places built in remote rural locations, has not had real backers in either party for most of
the last thirty or forty years.
None of this means the Trump-DeJoy story isn't serious. It just means that Trump is not the
first person to try to gut the U.S. Postal Service. Going back decades, it's been stuck with
impossible funding mandates, used as a piggy bank by both parties in congress (which refused to
let it stop making massive retirement overpayments for fear of the "
adverse" impact on the federal budget), artificially prevented from expanding or innovating
by lobbyists, and ripped off by connected contractors.
Combine that with the maddening sloppiness of these panic stories – one wild report
after another of mailboxes ripped from the streets "
right before our eyes " in a "plan to steal the election" turns out later to be another old
photo or a shot of a
routine maintenance operation – and it becomes increasingly difficult for nonpartisan
news audiences to know what they're dealing with.
Is this unprecedented corruption, something a little worse than normal, or just the usual
undisguised? If press outlets never dial back excesses, we may miss it when we're actually
supposed to panic.
All Comments 76
2banana , 3 hours ago
Conspiracy after Conspiracy...
You would think after a while, it would get old. And, it does.
Here is real life.
America had an in person voting process that worked and got results in a few hours.
Democrats want to change that to an untested fraud ridden system that may get results in
a few weeks.
And that ain't a conspiracy - that is fact.
Hal n back , 2 hours ago
not only did it work, it emphasized the importance of getting out and voting.
As I walk into my voting place, I say hello to neighbors working there , flip out my
drivers license and sign the proper form. If my signature does not look the same (which
happens after a period of time) the folks behind the table ask me to sign again even if
they know me because its protocol and it is important to get it right. And then I get my
ballot and fill it in and I get to place it in the electronic machine inside a card so my
neighbors do not know which way I am voting.
Which they already know since the neighborhood while aging, is vibrant and has constant
debates on politics especially now as we gather on driveways socially distanced shooting
the bull over the whole thing.
we will not know how many ballots will be filled in by somebody other than the right
person.
why not just save money and give proxies to the Democrats.
slightlyskeptical , 2 hours ago
Electronic machines is the first step in bungled elections.
Four chan , 21 minutes ago
we all know the dems plan to fucckup the election using mail in
votes, what are these democrat gollum going to try next covid 20?
Unknown User , 2 hours ago
There is so much to steal and privatize in America, a Neoliberal paradise.
stacking12321 , 54 minutes ago
"America had an in person voting process that worked"
oh, it worked, did it?
is that why there's endless wars, a ballooning out of control deficit, a pay for play
political system, unconstitutional laws passed constantly, a system of wealth extraction
where the little wealth that people have is squeezed out of the, and given to the
elites?
face the facts, the American political system is an abject failure, the very concept of
government is an abject failure. A violent gang of thugs being enabled to take power over
everyone should be recognized as a crime - all government is a crime against the people it
claims to rule over.
Things will continue getting worse, not better, thanks to your "working" system of
government.
government is not here to help, they are servants of your enemy, the elites.
Tenshin Headache , 3 hours ago
Easy rule of thumb: If you learned it from the fake news, it's fake news.
seryanhoj , 1 hour ago
The basic thing about government and media today is, truth and facts have nothing to do
with their job.
Words are there to mould people's minds to their purpose so they don't make a nuisance
of themselves by having diverse opinions Facts are never allowed to get in the way. What
about when Bush 2 and Blair outright fabricated evidence of Baghdad .WMD...the dodgy
dossier? Oh says they, I saw intelligence reports . Yes .intelligence reports they
pressured them to write. Result. A million dead and Iraq in chaos.
And what happened to Bush 2. Re elected! At that point it was over.
The official Twitter
accounts for RT, Xinhua, and other media outlets owned by certain governments the US doesn't like are being pushed into the
shadows, confirming that Twitter is getting serious about its role as one of the chief enforcers of US informational
supremacy. But deploying the memory-hole against Washington's rivals is tacitly admitting that the same informational
supremacy would be doomed without such heavy-handed censorship.
Not only will Twitter refuse to auto-complete searches for the official accounts of RT, Sputnik, Xinhua, Global Times, and a
handful of other outlets owned by Russia and China – typing in their handles with the @ symbol yields no results for users who
don't already follow these accounts. The platform has essentially made it impossible for the average Twitter user to
accidentally stumble across their posts.
Turning off the "
hide
sensitive content
" function in search settings allows state media accounts to surface under "
people
"
– if their handle is searched exactly, with the @ symbol – tagged with the "
state-affiliated
media
" warning Twitter has casually referred to as an "
election label
." But
posts from these outlets remain missing everywhere but in their own feeds. Running the accounts through Shadowban.eu confirms
they're subject to a "
search suggestion ban.
"
While Twitter announced
earlier this month that it would remove state-run media accounts from any 'recommended' screens, including the home screen,
notifications, and search, the new policy's wording left room for interpretation. Even employees at some of these
organizations thought – perhaps naively – that Twitter wouldn't go so far as to block searches for RT from turning up, well,
RT.
"... How fitting therefore that this time around the discord and distrust on display is patently US-style homegrown – without an iota of Russian input. Recent US intelligence claims of Russian interference seem more threadbare than usual. ..."
"... It is what it always has been: a crisis in legitimacy of American democracy owing to a fractured, self-alienated nation encumbered by endemic social problems. ..."
"... US-style internal discord has become even more magnified and glaring to the point where invoking "foreign malign influence" just looks absurd in its irrelevance. ..."
It's the most important election ever, according to Republicans and Democrats alike. With such vital billing it is all the more
ominous that even before ballots are cast the very legitimacy of the presidential result is in doubt.
This week, a sprawling US
Senate intelligence report again casts aspersions on the Trump election in 2016, alleging
"extensive
sabotage"
by the Kremlin to get him elected. The
report
seems
more a redux of previous unsubstantiated claims of Russian meddling, which Moscow has always categorically rejected as false.
Then there are looming doubts
stemming from the mechanics of mail-in or absentee voting which is set to take an outsized role in the election amid social
distancing over coronavirus public health fears. Like the concerns about the disease itself there is sharp partisan divide over
the merits of mail-in voting. For some it is a necessary precaution, for others it is a ruse built upon an exaggerated health
scare.
On top of that division you
have the extreme partisan stakes being piled up.
Republican President Donald
Trump says if
"radical left"
rival Joe Biden and running mate Kamala Harris win in
November then the US will be plunged into Venezuela-like
"socialist"
disaster (as if
Washington's regime-change machinations have had nothing to do with the latter).
For the Democrats, four more
years of Trump will be akin to living under a dictatorship.
One could say it's all
electioneering hyperbole. But still the divisive passions are running like a fever. There is a lot at stake for the participants
in this election from the torrid way they have depicted the choice. The partisan discord could hardly be more acrimonious from
the extremely polarized way each side views the other.
Throw into the political
maelstrom accusations and counter-accusations of
"cheating"
over the election and then
we have a cauldron of contention which ruptures the public trust in voting. The very legitimacy of US democracy is being split
asunder.
Trump has set the pace for
undermining the presidential election by saying it could be the most rigged ever in history. He has repeatedly claimed that
mail-in voting is rife with fraud and has suggested that the Democrats are using the coronavirus pandemic and absentee voting as
a cover for stealing the White House.
Several studies have
shown
that
fraud from mail-in voting in the US is negligible. Many other countries seem to manage a system of absentee voting without much
concern for voter misconduct. Nevertheless, Trump has succeeded in planting the notion among his supporters that mail-in voting
is the death knell for democracy. He has already hinted that he may not accept the result in November if it goes against him. For
millions of diehard Trump supporters that is tantamount to a call to arms in an echo of the anti-lockdown rebellion that the
president advocated earlier this year.
For Democrats and
anti-Trumpers, they see this president as deliberately sabotaging the US Postal Service from his
appointment
of
a political donor as postmaster general in May. The subsequent cost-cutting and cutbacks in services under Louis DeJoy has put in
doubt the adequate delivery of voting ballots in time for the election for many states. Trump has even brazenly
admitted
that
he held back emergency funding for the postal service in order to curb mail-in voting.
So if Trump manages to pull off victory despite failing poll numbers, millions of voters will view his re-election as the product
of his rhetorical maneuvers and maligning of mail-in voting. In the 2016 election, nearly a
quarter
of
all ballots were cast by absentee voting. This time around, it is
estimated
that
nearly half of 200 million registered voters in the US will use the mail-in system due to health concerns of going to polling
stations in person at a time of pandemic risk.
There you have it. Whatever
way this election turns out, there will be a gulf of divisiveness and doubt among US citizens about the legitimacy of the next
administration. The bitter partisan wrangling that has gone on – seemingly interminably – for the past four years is set to
continue with even more corrosive consequences for American democracy.
"Sowing discord and distrust"
has been a stock phrase used in US media in regard to
allegations that Russia has somehow been sponsoring malign influence among Americans. Those claims have always been overblown and
unfounded, bordering on paranoia. Ironically, the anti-Russia allegations were a product of deep inherent discord among Americans
over the controversial election of maverick Donald Trump.
How fitting therefore that
this time around the discord and distrust on display is patently US-style homegrown – without an iota of Russian input. Recent US
intelligence claims of Russian interference seem more threadbare than usual.
It is what it always has
been: a crisis in legitimacy of American democracy owing to a fractured, self-alienated nation encumbered by endemic social
problems.
US-style internal discord has
become even more magnified and glaring to the point where invoking
"foreign malign
influence"
just looks absurd in its irrelevance.
If 'liberal' dogs can't bark at Jews and Deep State, they bark at Russia.
The Origins of Mass Manipulation of the Public Mind
Many years ago, the American political commentator Walter Lippmann realised that
political ideology could be completely fabricated, using the media to control both presentation
and conceptualisation, not only to create deeply-ingrained false beliefs in a population, but
also to entirely erase undesirable political ideas from the public mind. This was the beginning
of not only the American hysteria for freedom, democracy and patriotism, but of all
manufactured political opinion, a process that has been operative ever since. Lippmann created
these theories of mass persuasion of the public, using totally fabricated "facts" deeply
insinuated into the minds of a gullible public, but there is much more to this story. An
Austrian Jew named Edward Louis Bernays who was the nephew of Sigmund Freud, was one of
Lippmann's most precocious students and it was he who put Lippmann's theories into practice.
Bernays is widely known in America as the father of Public Relations, but he would be much more
accurately described as the father of American war marketing as well as the father of mass
manipulation of the public mind.
Bernays claimed "If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind" it will be
possible "to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing
about it". He called this scientific technique of opinion-molding the 'engineering of
consent', and to accomplish it he merged theories of crowd psychology with the psychoanalytical
ideas of his uncle Sigmund Freud. [10] [11]
Bernays regarded society as irrational and dangerous, with a "herd instinct", and that if the
multi-party electoral system (which evidence indicates was created by a group of European
elites as a population control mechanism) were to survive and continue to serve those elites,
massive manipulation of the public mind was necessary. These elites, "invisible people", would
have, through their influence on government and their control of the media, a monopoly on the
power to shape thoughts, values, and responses of the citizenry. His conviction was that this
group should flood the public with misinformation and emotionally-loaded propaganda to
"engineer" the acquiescence of the masses and thereby rule over them. According to Bernays,
this manufactured consent of the masses, creating conformity of opinion molded by the tool of
false propaganda, would be vital for the survival of "democracy". Bernays wrote:
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the
masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen
mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our
country. People are governed, their minds molded, their tastes formed, their ideas suggested,
largely by men they have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our
democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner
. In almost every act of our daily lives we are dominated by the relatively small number
of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they
who pull the wires which control the public mind."[12]
In his main work titled 'Propaganda', [13] which he
wrote in 1928, Bernays argued that the manipulation of public opinion was a necessary part of
democracy because individuals were inherently dangerous (to the control and looting of the
elites) but could be harnessed and channeled by these same elites for their economic benefit.
He clearly believed that virtually total control of a population was possible, and perhaps easy
to accomplish. He wrote further that:
"No serious sociologist any longer believes that the voice of the people expresses any
wise idea. The voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up
for it by those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion. It is composed of
inherited prejudices and symbols and clichés and verbal formulas supplied to them by
the leaders. Fortunately, the politician is able, by the instrument of propaganda, to mold
and form the will of the people. So vast are the numbers of minds which can be regimented,
and so tenacious are they when regimented, that [they produce] an irresistible pressure
before which legislators, editors, and teachers are helpless. "
And it wasn't only the public masses that were 'inherently dangerous', but a nation's
leaders fit this description as well, therefore also requiring manipulation and control.
Bernays realised that if you can influence the leaders of a nation, either with or without
their conscious cooperation, you can control the government and the country, and that is
precisely where he set his sights. Bernays again:
"In some departments of our daily life, in which we imagine ourselves free agents, we are
ruled by dictators exercising great power. There are invisible rulers who control the
destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions
of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the
scenes. Nor, what is still more important, the extent to which our thoughts and habits
are modified by authorities. The invisible government tends to be concentrated in the
hands of the few because of the expense of manipulating the social machinery which
controls the opinions and habits of the masses."
And in this case, the "few" are the wealthy industrial elites, their even wealthier banker
friends, and their brethren who control the media, publishing and entertainment industries.
Until the First World War, these theories of creating an entirely false public opinion based
on misinformation, then manipulating this for population control, were still only theories, but
the astounding success of propaganda by Bernays and his group during the war laid bare the
possibilities of perpetually controlling the public mind on all matters. The "shrewd" designers
of Bernays' "invisible government" developed a standard technique for what was essentially
propaganda and mind control, or at least opinion control, and infiltrated it throughout the US
government, its departments and agencies, and its leaders and politicians. Coincident with
this, they practiced infecting the leaders of every identifiable group – fraternal,
religious, commercial, patriotic, social – and encouraging these men to likewise infect
their supporters.
Many have noted the black and white mentality that pervades America. Much of the blame must
be laid on Bernays' propaganda methods. Bernays himself asserted that propaganda could produce
rapid and strong emotional responses in the public, but that the range of these responses was
limited because the emotional loading inherent in his propaganda would create a kind of binary
mentality, eventually forcing the population into a programmed black and white world –
which is precisely what we see in the US today. This isn't difficult to understand. When
Bernays flooded the public with fabricated tales of Germans shiskababbing babies, the range of
potential responses was entirely emotional and would be limited to either abhorrence or perhaps
a blocking of the information. In a sense, our emotional switch will be forced into either
an 'on' or 'off' position , with no other reasonable choices.
The elite few, as Bernays called them, realised early on the potential for control of
governments, and in every subsequent US administration the president and his White House staff,
the politicians, the leaders of the military and intelligence agencies, all fell prey to this
same disease of shrewd manipulation. Roosevelt's "intense desire for war" in 1939 [14] [15]
[16] was the result of this same infection process and, once infected, he of course
approved of the infection of the entire American population. Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays
succeeded beyond their wildest expectations.
Bernays – Marketing War
In the discovery of propaganda as a tool of public mind control and in its use for war
marketing, it is worthwhile to take a quick look at the historical background of Bernays' war
effort. At the time, the European Zionists had made an agreement with England to bring the US
into the war against Germany, on the side of England, a favor for which England would grant
them the possession of Palestine as a location for a new homeland. [19]
Palestine did not 'belong' to England, it was not England's to give, and England had no legal
or moral right to make such an agreement, but it was made nevertheless.
US President Wilson was desperate to fulfill his obligations to his handlers by putting the
US into the First World War as they wished, but the American population had no interest in the
European war and public sentiment was entirely against participating. To facilitate the desired
result, Wilson created the Committee on Public Information (The Creel Commission), [20] to
propagandise the war by the mass brainwashing of America, but Creel was merely the 'front' of a
group that consisted of specially hand-picked men from the media, advertising, the movie
industry, and academia, as well as specialists in psychology. The two most important members
were Walter Lippman, whom Wilson described as "the most brilliant man of his age", and Bernays
who was the group's top mind-control expert, both Jews and both aware of the stakes in this
game. Bernays planned to combine his uncle Freud's psychiatric insights with mass psychology
blended with modern advertising techniques, and apply them to the task of mass mind control. It
was Bernays' vast propaganda schemes and his influence in promoting the patently false idea
that US entry to the war was primarily aimed at "bringing democracy to all of Europe", that
proved so successful in altering public opinion about the war. Thanks to Edward Bernays,
American war marketing was born and would never die.
Note to Readers: Some portion of the immediately following content which details the
specifics of the propaganda of Lippman and Bernays for World War I is not my own work. It was
extracted some years ago from a longer document for which I cannot now locate the original
source. If a reader is able to identify this source, I would be grateful to receive that
information so I can properly credit the author for his extensive research.
"Wilson's creation of the CPI was a turning point in world history, the first truly
scientific attempt to form, manipulate and control the perceptions and beliefs of an entire
population." With Wilson's authority, these men were given almost unlimited scope to work
their magic, and in order to ensure the success of their program and guarantee the eventual
possession of Palestine, these men and their committee carried out "a program of
psychological warfare against the American people on a scale unprecedented in human history and
with a degree of success that most propagandists could only dream about".
Having received permission and broad authority from the US President and the White House to
"lead the public mind into war"[21] and,
with their success threatened by widespread anti-war sentiment among the public, these men
determined to engineer what Lippman called "the manufacture of consent" . The committee
assumed the task to "examine the different ways that information flowed to the population and
to flood these channels with pro-war material". Their effort was unparalleled in its scale and
sophistication, since the Committee had the power not only to officially censor news and
withhold information from the public, but to manufacture false news and distribute it
nationally through all channels. In a very short time, Lippman and Bernays were well enough
organised to begin flooding the US with anti-German propaganda consisting of hate literature,
movies, songs, media articles and much more.
... ... ...
Everything we have read above about the marketing of war during preparation for the two
World Wars, is from a template created by Lippman and Bernays exclusively to support the
creation of a Jewish state in Palestine and to promote the agenda of Zionism. That template
has been in constant use by the US government (as the Bankers' Private Army) since the Second
World War, 'engineering consent and ignorance' in the American and Western populations to mask
almost seven decades of atrocities, demonising innocent countries and peoples in preparation
for 60 or 70 politically-inspired color revolutions or 'wars of liberation' fought exclusively
for the financial and political benefit of a handful of European bankers using the US military
as a private army for this purpose, resulting in the deaths and miseries of hundreds of
millions of innocent civilians.
... ... ...
We can easily think of George W. Bush's demonisation of Iraq, the sordid tales of mass
slaughters, the gassing of hundreds of thousands and burial in mass graves, the nuclear weapons
ready to launch within 15 minutes, the responsibility for 9-11, the babies tossed out of
incubators, Saddam using wood shredders to eliminate political opponents and dissidents. We can
think of the tales of Libyan Viagra, all proven to have been groundless fabrications –
typical atrocity propaganda. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran and dozens of other wars and
invasions followed this same template to get the public mind onside for an unjustified war
launched only for political and commercial objectives.
Fast Forward to 2020
We are at the same place today, with the same people conducting the same "anger campaign"
against China in preparation for World War III. John Pilger agrees with me , evidenced in
his recent article "Another Hiroshima is coming – unless we stop it now." [43] And so
does Gordon Duff . [44] The
signs now are everywhere, and the campaign is successful. It is necessary to point out the need
for an 'anger campaign' as opposed to a 'hate campaign'. We are not moved to action from hate,
but from anger. I may thoroughly despise you, but that in itself will do nothing. It is only if
I am moved to anger that I want to punch your lights out. And this, as Lippman and Bernays so
clearly noted, requires emotionally-charged atrocity propaganda of the kind used so well
against Germany and being so well used against China today. Since we need atrocity propaganda
to start a war, there seems to be no shortage.
... ... ...
Then, Mr. Pompeo tells us, "The truth is that our policies . . . resurrected China's
failing economy, only to see Beijing bite the international hands that were feeding it."[55] Further,
that (due to COVID-19) China "caused an enormous amount of pain, loss of life," and the
"Chinese Communist Party will pay a price". [56] Of
course, we all know that "China" stole the COVID-19 virus from a lab in Winnipeg, Canada, then
released it onto the world – and Pompeo has proof [57] , and
even "A Chinese virologist has proof" that "China" engaged in a massive cover-up while
contaminating the world [58] and then
"fleeing Hong Kong" because "I know how they treat whistle-blowers." [59] And of
course, "China needs to be held accountable for Covid-19's destruction"[60] which is
why everyone in the US wants to sue "China". "Australia" demands an international criminal
investigation of China's role in COVID-19. [61] What a
surprise.
And of course we have an almost unlimited number of serious provocations , from Hong
Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan, the South China Seas, to Chinese consulates, media reporters,
students, researchers, visa restrictions, spying, Huawei, the trade war, all done in the hope
of making the Chinese leaders panic and over-react, the easiest way to justify a new war.
The list could continue for several hundred pages. Never in my life have I seen such a
continuous, unabating flood of hate propaganda against one nation, surely equivalent to what
was done against Germany as described above to prepare for US entry into the First World War.
And it's working, doing what it is intended to do. Canada, Australia, the UK, Germany, India,
Brazil, are buying into the war-mongering and turning against China. More will follow. The
Global Times reported "Mutual trust between Australia and China at all-time low". [62]
"Boycott China" T-shirts and caps are flooding India, Huawei is being increasingly banned
from Western nations, Chinese social media APPs like Tik-Tok are being banned, and Bryan
Adams recently slammed all Chinese as "Bat-eating, wet-market-animal-selling, virus-making,
greedy bastards".[63] [64] In
a recent poll (taken because we need to measure the success of our handiwork in the same way
Bernays and the Tavistock Institute did as noted earlier), half of all ethnic Chinese in
Canada have been threatened and harassed over COVID-19.
About 45% of Chinese in Canada said they had been " threatened or intimidated in some
way", fully 50% said they had recently been insulted in public, 30% said they had experienced
. . . "some kind of physical altercation", and 60% said the abuse was so bad "they had to
reorganise their daily routine to avoid it". One woman in her 60s said a man told her and her
daughter "Every day I pray that you people die".[65]
... ... ...
Several years ago, CNN was sued by one of their news anchors for being ordered to lie in the
newscasts. CNN won the case. They did not deny ordering the news anchor to lie. Their defense
was based simply on the position that American news media have "no obligation to tell the
truth". And RT recently reported that nearly 9 out of 10 Americans see a "medium or
high" bias in all media coverage,[65] yet, as
we can see, most of those same people, and a very large portion of the population of many
nations still succumb to the same hate propaganda.
Actually, after only a quick review of some of the news reports, it appears that the
Senate Committee placed great importance on the "fact" that Russia was involved in the
"hacking" of emails from the DNC. This suggests that the Committee relied on the same
intelligence sources that fabricated the Russiagate scenario in the first place. I guess that
the Republicans on the Committee have not kept up with revelations that there is no evidence
of any such hacking. Hence, the Committee's conclusions are likely based on the same old
disinformation and can be readily dismissed.
Mass media throughout the western world are uncritically passing along a press release from
the US intelligence community, because that's what passes for journalism in a world where God
is dead and everything is stupid.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has voiced his opposition to a proposed Russian rule that
would require labeling of propaganda content, saying it would burden "independent" information
work by outlets such as Voice of America.
"This decree will impose new burdensome requirements that will further inhibit RFE/RL's
and VOA's ability to operate within Russia," Pompeo said
Monday, commenting on the draft rule published by the media regulator Roskomnadzor.
Pompeo called VOA and its sister outlet Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty "vital sources
of independent news and information for the people of Russia" for "more than 70
years."
Far from independent, however, they were both established as US propaganda outlets at the
dawn of the Cold War. They are fully funded by the government, and the charter of their parent
organization – now known as US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) – mandates that they
"be consistent with the broad foreign policy objectives of the United States" and
"provide a surge capacity to support United States foreign policy objectives during crises
abroad."
The 1948 law that established these outlets outright prohibited their content from being
broadcast in the US itself, until the Obama administration amended it in 2013.
The proposed rule would require all content produced by designated "foreign agents"
in the Russian Federation to be clearly labeled. When the draft of it was made public last
month, acting RFE/RL president Daisy Sindelar protested that its purpose was to
"intimidate" her audience and make them "feel like criminals, or believe that they
are in danger when they watch or read our materials."
Yet the Russian regulation is the mirror image of the requirement imposed under the US
Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) on RT, Sputnik and China Global Television Network
(CTGN) since 2017, which only a handful of groups such as the Committee to Protect Journalists
(CPJ) condemned as
an attack on free speech. The USAGM remained conspicuously silent even as the designated
outlets were denied credentials to access government press conferences.
US-based social media companies have also bowed to political pressure and labeled Russian-
and Chinese-based outlets as "state-affiliated," while refraining from using that
descriptor for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), German outlet Deutsche Welle, the
French AFP, Turkish TRT, or any of the USAGM outlets, once again showcasing the double
standard.
jangosimba 10 August, 2020
He cheats, he lies, he murders, he steals.
Zogg jangosimba 11 August, 2020
That's a small part of CIA job description.
Harbin
William Johnson 1 hour ago
Mike reminds me that character from "Godfather" series, the old , dumb henchman ready to
follow any order...
Is not Q-anon a disinformation operation run by intelligence againces?
From comments: "Being a true believer in "Q" is literally no different than being a true believer in the
Democrat-Republican kosher sandwich." and "After almost four years of Trump's presidency, QAnon is an attempt to explain the
President's failure to "Make America Great Again.""
Notable quotes:
"... This doesn't mean there's a Satanic cabal running the government. It does mean some bureaucrats opposed or even sabotaged President Trump's agenda. They investigated his subordinates or leaked information to the press. If we substitute "the permanent bureaucracy" for the more ominous sounding term "Deep State," this "conspiracy theory" becomes plausible. ..."
"... What is truly implausible about QAnon is the idea that President Trump knows about everything and will destroy this vast conspiracy. ..."
"... If you desperately want to believe something, you'll find evidence for it . This is confirmation bias at best, schizophrenia at worst. If President Trump truly is about to reveal a vast Satanic conspiracy, he's taking his time. ..."
"... What is especially dangerous about QAnon is not that it promotes dangerous extremism, but that it urges complacency. Its core message is that Donald Trump knows all about the secret conspiracy running the world and has the power to crush it; after all, he's President. ..."
"... After almost four years of Trump's presidency, QAnon is an attempt to explain the President's failure to "Make America Great Again." ..."
"... QAnon isn't dangerous. Conspiracy theories are as old as the Anti-Masonic Party , maybe older. Some unstable people may latch on to them, but they are not notably violent. If anything, if they really believe a Satanic cabal runs the world, they are showing remarkable restraint. ..."
"... I suspect the real reason journalists don't like QAnon is because at its core, it tells people the media are lying. It encourages independent investigation and citizen journalism. ..."
"... Journalists promote a conspiracy far more dangerous and deadly than QAnon. That is the "white privilege" conspiracy theory . ..."
"... Liberals are right to think QAnon is dangerous, but not in the way they think. QAnon is dangerous to whites. It tells them that everything is under control, that an evil conspiracy will be exposed, and that we just need to trust President Trump. We can't be under any illusions that President Trump will save us . "The Storm" is not coming, the cavalry won't ride over the hill, and there isn't a secret military force ready to scoop up our foes and liberate America. It's up to us. ..."
"... The Qanon phenomenon exploits the most fundamental psychological need which is hope, that hope dies last. The hope in order not to die will accept and forgive anything including the greatest nonsense. The hopeful ones can be strung along for ever because hope wants to last as it is the last to die. You just have to keep giving them a dose and keep stringing them alone. ..."
"... Sadly, the author is pretty much on-the-money. If Trump is for real, that is, if he believes what he says, he has been completely incompetent at accomplishing anything. ..."
"... I came late to the QAnon crap and saw it was the same soup as Black Lives Matter. Why, in fact, wouldn't the same crooks behind the one not foment the other? One says "blacks gonna make you kneel and take away all your stuff" while the other says, "don't worry, the least effective president in history has got us covered." ..."
"... They're all in show biz and Americans just happen to be an unusually gullible audience. ' ..."
"... I believe Trump is just another minion of the Deep State and is acting in accordance with their wishes. He is helping play out a charade a good cop (Trump) against a bad cop (Deep State). At any rate, he is not fulfilling his promises to those that elected him whether through incompetence or scheme. ..."
"... The logic of Hood's article is hard to beat either way. Trump/QAnon are just there for show, dangling hope in front of people that there's some person or entity that cares about them. It's the same as the infamous Pentagon Papers fifty years ago: Even after Americans knew the fix was in, the Vietnam War didn't stop until the plutocrats were good and ready to end it. ..."
"... The first sign of trouble was back when they adopted that ridiculous slogan, 'Trust the plan.' Sorry: this is politics. And in politics, I trust no one. The Q ought to be putting pressure on Trump (and the Republican Party generally), not sitting around waiting for them to grow a pair and save the country. ..."
"... The school system is promoting liberal indoctrination, and a whole bunch of kids are dropping out. Why? Because they like weed and don't like math. I see QAnon the same way. Sure, the media can't be trusted. But the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. ..."
"... I'm not prepared to defend the Qanon thing but, clearly, it is more than a pysop. It has revealed enormous amounts of sordid detail about what really goes on this country/ world and who many of the crooks are. The vast majority of the readers would not have learned that info any other way. Period. ..."
"... Great article. It covers the good and the bad and the hopelessly implausible very well. In times of a pandemic of lying generated by the USA Media Leviathan, the vulture capitalism of Wall Street, the exponentiating hate-Whitey rhetoric, the economy-killing Covid Scamdemic,the dwindling Euro-demographic numbers, along with a vurulent virus called Cultural Marxism, "extremism is no vice" ..."
"... A very insightful analysis and I think I now understand Q Anon. This seems to be an evolution from the people who early on were claiming that Trump was playing 4 (or 5 or 6) dimensional chess. I never supported him and don't now. He couldn't play one dimensional checkers if he wanted to and he probably doesn't. ..."
"... It has taken on a life of its own, constantly adapting to changes in situation. I kind of follow it as an unintentional experiment in human psychology. It's also interesting that it has absorbed a great deal of Christian mythology without actually being a Christian religion. ..."
What is QAnon? This question is harder to answer than you might think. There are several
books about QAnon, including QAnon and The Great Awakening by Michael Knight, QAnon: An Invitation to The Great Awakening by "WWG1WGA," and Revolution Q by "Neon Revolt." After reading these and other books and websites, I'd
identify three main points.
"Q," an anonymous, highly placed government official, knows that President Trump is planning
a series of dramatic events that will expose crimes and even treason implicating many
Democrats and government bureaucrats. Q communicates what's coming by posting on various
forums, including 4chan and 8kun (formerly 8chan). He says there's a fierce battle over this
at the highest levels of the government.
President Trump himself communicates with followers
of the movement through code phrases, gestures, and imagery. He and his family also
occasionally retweet accounts linked to QAnon.
"The Storm," the righteous day of justice that
President Trump is bringing, is opposed by a cabal of financial and media elites who want to
keep people from learning the truth. Thus, people must do their own research and not trust
what the mainstream media tell them.
The initial post that spawned "Q" could have been made by anyone. Further "drops" by "Q" or
people in the movement could also be made by anyone. There is no way to verify any of their
claims, except through vague references to key phrases that will supposedly be uttered in the
days following the posts. For example, before President's rally in Tulsa, Eric Trump posted an
American-flag QAnon meme with the #WWG1WGA (this is supposed to stand for "Where We Go One, We
Go All") at the bottom to Instagram. Does this mean anything, or was Eric Trump simply passing
along an image he liked?
QAnon is so popular it has spawned its own "watchdog" groups. NPR's Michael Martin
interviewed
Travis View, the co-host of the QAnon Anonymous podcast. Mr. Martin prepped the
audience by calling QAnon "a group of people who adhere to some far-right conspiracies and
believe a number of absurd things." Mr. View obliged by saying that according to QAnon, "The
world is controlled by a Satanic cabal of pedophiles that they believe control everything like
the media, politics and entertainment." He adds that QAnon also thinks President Trump knows
all about this and will "defeat this global cabal once and for all and free all of us." "QAnon
Anonymous" host Travis View added that it is a "domestic extremist movement" and said President
Trump had "tweeted or retweeted QAnon accounts over 160 times." However, he also admitted "no
one in the current administration has ever done anything to endorse QAnon."
Nevertheless, it seems that at least some of President Trump's advisors know about the
movement and are playing to it. President Trump has directly retweeted
memes from accounts linked to QAnon. Republican congressional candidate Angela Stanton-King
tweeted , " THE STORM IS HERE ."
Tess Owen, Vice's reporter on the "far right" beat,
wrote , "Welp, the GOP Now Has 15 QAnon-Linked Candidates on the November Ballot."
"There is no evidence to these claims" about a "cabal of criminals run by
politicians like Hillary Clinton and the Hollywood elite."
However, after Jeffrey Epstein's
alleged "suicide" and news that powerful figures such as former President Bill Clinton and
Prince Andrew were part of Epstein's strange network, it's hardly absurd to claim there could
be sick stuff going on among the political and cultural elite.
Jimmy Saville was a well-known British media personality, knighted, and honored by many
institutions including the Vatican and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. After his death,
it emerged that he had sexually abused children
; some suggested hundreds of them. Most honors were rescinded posthumously.
A jury recently convicted Harvey
Weinstein, once the most powerful producer in Hollywood, of sexual crimes. Several actresses
including Allison Mack were alleged to be part of a bizarre sexual
cult called NXIVM, and she pleaded guilty to racketeering . During the 2016 election, Wikileaks
released email tying John Podesta's
brother to "artist" Marina Abramovic and her bizarre, occult performance piece "Spirit
Cooking."
If a crazy man approached you in the street raving about these plots, you'd run, but these
things happened. Non-whites sexually abused
thousands of young women in Rotherham, England. Police and local government officials did
nothing because they didn't want to be called racists. This is a sick world, and evildoers
often get away with evil. It's not absurd to think powerful men and women are no better than
middling Labour politicians who looked the other way instead of stopping rape and sex
slavery.
Is there a "Deep State" opposing President Trump? In 2019, the New York Times ran an
editorial called " The
'Deep State' Exists to Battle People Like Trump. " In 2018, an anonymous official wrote, "
I Am
Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration ." Recent evidence suggests that the
FBI bullied General Michael Flynn, President Trump's former national security advisor, and made
him confess he had lied to agents after they threatened his son. The Department of Justice
recently
concluded that the interview of General Flynn was not "conducted with a legitimate
investigative basis."
This doesn't mean there's a Satanic cabal running the government. It does mean some
bureaucrats opposed or even sabotaged President Trump's agenda. They investigated his
subordinates or leaked information to the press. If we substitute "the permanent bureaucracy"
for the more ominous sounding term "Deep State," this "conspiracy theory" becomes plausible.
Incidentally, General Flynn recently posted a
video that uses QAnon slogans.
What is truly implausible about QAnon is the idea that President Trump knows about
everything and will destroy this vast conspiracy. The proof for such assertions lies in
gestures, vague statements, or even the background of where he is speaking. For example, in
QAnon and the Great Awakening, the author says that President Trump's phrases "this is
the calm before the storm" and "tippy top," his supposed circular motions with his hands, and
occasional pointing towards supposed Q supporters are proof that he is on to it. "Q offers
hundreds of data points that demonstrate Q is indeed linked to the Trump Administration," the
book says.
If you desperately want to believe something, you'll find evidence for it .
This is confirmation bias at best, schizophrenia at worst. If President Trump truly is about to
reveal a vast Satanic conspiracy, he's taking his time.
What is especially dangerous about QAnon is not that it promotes dangerous extremism, but
that it urges complacency. Its core message is that Donald Trump knows all about the secret
conspiracy running the world and has the power to crush it; after all, he's President. All we
have to do is wait. "Nothing can stop what is coming," says one popular slogan. If this were
true, President Trump and his followers have already won, and there's no reason to do anything
but scour the internet for clues about what's coming next.
After almost four years of Trump's presidency, QAnon is an attempt to explain the
President's failure to "Make America Great Again." It's true that he's hobbled by powerful
elites. However, President Trump's biggest personnel problems, from John Bolton to Anthony Scaramucci, were people he appointed himself. No one forced him to make Reince Priebus his
chief of staff, expel Steve Bannon, or pick a fight with Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Indeed, according to QAnon, Attorney General Sessions was the one who was supposed to
rout the evildoers .
QAnon assures Trump supporters that he has everything well in hand and that justice is
coming. It's far more terrifying to realize that he doesn't. He is politically isolated,
surrounded by foes, and losing the presidential campaign to a confused and
combative man who occasionally forgets what office he's running for or where he is . President Trump's
not mustering his legions. Instead, his own defense secretary publicly
opposed his plans to use soldiers to suppress riots. The brass
overruled his wishes to leave bases named after Confederate heroes alone. Unless President
Trump has a Praetorian Guard we don't know about (perhaps the Space Force?), there's nothing he
can use against domestic opponents.
The real question is why reporters fear QAnon. Some of its supporters have allegedly
committed crimes. One alleged QAnon believer killed
a Gambino mob boss. In February, another
blocked a bridge with an armored vehicle. Two
others had family troubles, which may or may not be related to their QAnon beliefs. If
these people did those things, they are criminals, but this is hardly a wave of violence. All
together, this would be a
peaceful weekend in Chicago .
QAnon isn't dangerous. Conspiracy theories are as old as the Anti-Masonic Party , maybe older. Some
unstable people may latch on to them, but they are not notably violent. If anything, if they
really believe a Satanic cabal runs the world, they are showing remarkable restraint.
I suspect the real reason journalists don't like QAnon is because at its core, it tells
people the media are lying. It encourages independent investigation and citizen journalism.
This occasionally leads to absurdities, such as building a worldview around 4chan posts.
However, it's healthy to distrust elites. Sometimes, journalists lie ,
stretch
the
truth , or hide
it entirely . Sometimes, they
demand citizens be silenced .
Ordinary Americans looking for truth are a threat. I believe mainstream journalists truly
regard themselves as a Fourth Estate, an independent political power . They
think they have the right to determine what Americans should and should not be allowed to hear
or say. Their efforts to censor and suppress QAnon only fuel the movement.
Journalists promote a conspiracy far more dangerous and deadly than QAnon. That is the
"white
privilege" conspiracy theory . Many journalists and academics tell non-whites that racist
whites hold them down. This implicitly justifies protests,
shakedowns, and even anti-white violence. When George Floyd died, Americans
weren't allowed to see the bodycam videos . Instead, many journalists told a fable about a
white policeman murdering an innocent black man. This was the spark, but journalists had soaked
the country in gasoline years before with endless
sensationalist coverage of race and "racism." Now, riots are destroying cities, ruining
businesses, probably spreading disease, and creating a huge crime wave
. I blame journalists for inciting this violence. It's not QAnon spreading a violent conspiracy
theory, but journalists at CNN
, the New York Times , the Washington Post, and others who manufactured
a fake crisis .
Liberals are right to think QAnon is dangerous, but not in the way they think. QAnon
is dangerous to whites. It tells them that everything is under control, that an evil conspiracy
will be exposed, and that we just need to trust President Trump. We can't be under any
illusions that President Trump will save us .
"The Storm" is not coming, the cavalry won't ride over the hill, and there isn't a secret
military force ready to scoop up our foes and liberate America. It's up to us.
Liberals should be thankful for a conspiracy theory that urges complacency. Our message is
more urgent: Our people, country, and civilization are at stake. You don't need to pore through
websites to see what's happening; just walk down any city street. Time is running out.
You have a duty to
resist . Don't look for a savior. Instead, join us, and be worthy of our ancestors .
"What is especially dangerous about QAnon is not that it promotes dangerous extremism,
but that it urges complacency . "
"We can't be under any illusions that President Trump will save us. "The Storm"
is not coming, the cavalry won't ride over the hill, and there isn't a secret military
force ready to scoop up our foes and liberate America."
The Qanon phenomenon exploits the most fundamental psychological need which is hope, that
hope dies last. The hope in order not to die will accept and forgive anything including the
greatest nonsense. The hopeful ones can be strung along for ever because hope wants to last
as it is the last to die. You just have to keep giving them a dose and keep stringing them
alone.
There is is a blogger Benjamin Fulford that precedes Qanon and uses exactly the same
technique and very similar narratives of hidden forces of Good and Evil fighting for the
dominance and the forces of Good always being very close to the final victory to give you
enough hope to keep you interested till the next installment.. There is a mixture of Free
Masons, Rockefellers, Rothschild, Zionists, Trump, Pope Sabbatean mafia, Khazarian mafia and
Asian Secret Societies. The latter are on the side of Good in Fulford's universe. Fulford, I
think, is located somewhere in Asia, most likely Japan. Fulford missed his calling of being a
script writer of the never ending TV series and dramas like TWD and so on. But I suspect he
makes some money from his series about the world in battle between forces of Good and Evil
and the victory being just around the corner.
From August 10, 2020. Benjamin Fulford installment:
"The Khazarian mafia is preparing the public for some form of alien disclosure or invasion
scenario as they struggle to stay in power, Pentagon and other sources claim. The most likely
scenario for this autumn is the cancellation of the U.S. Presidential election followed by a
UFO distraction, the sources say. U.S. President Donald Trump himself is saying the election
needs to be called off even as he continues to promote a "Space force.""
Or from August 3 installment:
"The P3 Freemasons are saying the Covid-19 campaign is only going to intensify until an
agreement is reached to set up a "World Republic." Certainly, the P3 lodge involvement is
easier to spot in Japan and Korea where all positive test results are being traced to either
Christian (P3) sects or Khazarian Mafia hedge funds."
"The other big theme being pushed by the Zionists is an escalating conflict between the
U.S. and China. The U.S. State Department propaganda machine is pushing a doctored document
known as "The Secret Speech of General Chi Haotian," which claims to contain secret Chinese
plans to invade the U.S., kill women and children and use biological warfare."
"Of course, the opposite is true, since everybody who read the Project for a New American
Century knows the Zionist regime has been touting race-specific or ethnic-specific biological
warfare as a "useful political tool." "
Or from July 27:
"The rest of the world, especially the main creditors Japan and China, are willing to
write off the debt but they want a change in management first. In other words, they want the
Americans to free themselves from the Babylonian debt slavery of the Khazarian mafia.
That process has started with arrests and extra-judicial killings of top Khazarian,
Satan-worshipping elites. The Bush family is gone, the Rockefellers lost the presidency when
Hillary Rockefeller was defeated, and many politicians and so-called celebrities have
vanished.
However, the situation is still like a lizard shaking off its tail in order to escape. The
real control of the United States is still in the hands of "
Sadly, the author is pretty much on-the-money. If Trump is for real, that is, if he
believes what he says, he has been completely incompetent at accomplishing anything. As for
the media, I'd disagree that they sometimes lie; they lie pretty much ALL the time.
What is especially dangerous about QAnon is not that it promotes dangerous extremism,
but that it urges complacency.
So does Trump and the GOP in general. The GOP, MAGA and NeverTrump alike, exists only to sap our will, acclimate us to defeat
and put us to sleep with the comforting illusion that some authority or institution is
fighting for us.
Until the American Right realizes this, it will never gain back one inch of ground. And no
one worth marching with or behind will join their ranks or rise from them.
I came late to the QAnon crap and saw it was the same soup as Black Lives Matter. Why, in
fact, wouldn't the same crooks behind the one not foment the other? One says "blacks gonna
make you kneel and take away all your stuff" while the other says, "don't worry, the least
effective president in history has got us covered."
There's no war in heaven. They're all in show biz and Americans just happen to be an
unusually gullible audience.
'
If Trump is for real, that is, if he believes what he says, he has been completely
incompetent at accomplishing anything.
That is the dilemma. I believe Trump is just another minion of the Deep State and is
acting in accordance with their wishes. He is helping play out a charade a good cop (Trump)
against a bad cop (Deep State). At any rate, he is not fulfilling his promises to those that
elected him whether through incompetence or scheme.
Uhhh, Donald Trump as well as Slickster Billy Bob was part of the Epstein network. This
piece jumps the shark and the rails right there at the start and goes further into PR
turd-polishing land after that.
The logic of Hood's article is hard to beat either way. Trump/QAnon are just there for
show, dangling hope in front of people that there's some person or entity that cares about
them. It's the same as the infamous Pentagon Papers fifty years ago: Even after Americans
knew the fix was in, the Vietnam War didn't stop until the plutocrats were good and ready to
end it.
The truth sets nobody free. Power is a vehicle to find truth and do something about it.
Truth without power just equals more frustration. And the world's full to bursting with
frustration already.
What is especially dangerous about QAnon is not that it promotes dangerous extremism,
but that it urges complacency. Its core message is that Donald Trump knows all about the
secret conspiracy running the world and has the power to crush it; after all, he's
President. All we have to do is wait.
Yup. The first sign of trouble was back when they adopted that ridiculous slogan, 'Trust
the plan.' Sorry: this is politics. And in politics, I trust no one. The Q ought to be
putting pressure on Trump (and the Republican Party generally), not sitting around waiting
for them to grow a pair and save the country.
The school system is promoting liberal indoctrination, and a whole bunch of kids are
dropping out. Why? Because they like weed and don't like math. I see QAnon the same way. Sure, the media can't be trusted. But the enemy of my enemy is
not my friend.
These guys are mostly mentally unstable white knights and while I'm not
much concerned that they will actually harm Justin Beiber by baselessly accusing him of rape,
their behavior contributes to the culture of white knighting and social media witch hunts I
mean citizen journalism which only strengthens the feminist movement.
"You have a duty to resist." The QAnon people, intellectual and moral descendants of the
Scofield Reference Bible, don't want to hear this. They just want to eat and watch TV. After
all, Ben Franklin and George Washington will save us just in time!
QAnon is just another Zionist-pro Israeli psyop. Q never talks about the Israel conspiracy
or how AIPAC controls America. Trump is always, about ready, to bring the hammer down on the
deep state, but never does as he appoints Neocon after Neocon, the latest is Elliott Abrams,
as bad or worse than John Bolton.
Remember back when Hillary was in chains, or Obama went to Gitmo and got executed? QAnon
is false hope being served up to Trump's conservative base who want the criminal government
exposed and prosecuted. But that never happens under Trump.
According to many researchers, including me, Beirut got nuked, and that story is already
gone, swept under the Jewmedia rug, written off as a fertilizer accident. Where's Q on that
one? No where to be found because Q is Jew protecting Israel at every turn.
You all listen to Q at your own peril. And oh yeah, have you noticed the world going to
hell? Where's Trump's secret plan you all? It's fake, Q Anon led you all into a blind alley,
it pacified you as your nation was stolen right in front of your eyes. Q is a pied piper for
adults who think like children. Q Anon was the latest hopium injected into the body politic,
Trump is the swamp, he is working for Israel, he is selling you out, he is the snake who
betrays you. But the q followers can't see that or even hear it because they need hope, and
the opposition is worse than Trump.
I'm not prepared to defend the Qanon thing but, clearly, it is more than a pysop. It has revealed enormous amounts of sordid detail about what really goes on this
country/ world and who many of the crooks are. The vast majority of the readers would
not have learned that info any other way. Period.
Now that a fair amount is exposed, it's up to Trump and Barr to indict and convict a slew
of high level people. If they don't then they are worthless and can go fvck themselves for
jerking the public around and not sealing the deal.
The Christians in the Repub Party are so easy to play. They are taught to 'follow the
leader' from Day 1 of their lives and Trump has provided himself as their golden savior to
worship and trust. God sent him to us, you know. (lol)
That segment of the Repub Party doesn't have a pair to grow. So, it won't happen. Marxism
is in our future, it's only a matter of time.
Very good.
A close friend of mine who I didn't consider too interested in these matters mentioned QAnon
to me while I was telling him how Trump is being sabotaged by some of his own people. I was
surprised he knew, probably more than me.
PS. I would wear a Q tee shirt except that I'm old school and 'Q' connotes queer. So maybe
an Anon one might do. (Big grin)
Great article. It covers the good and the bad and the hopelessly implausible very well. In
times of a pandemic of lying generated by the USA Media Leviathan, the vulture capitalism of
Wall Street, the exponentiating hate-Whitey rhetoric, the economy-killing Covid Scamdemic,the
dwindling Euro-demographic numbers, along with a vurulent virus called Cultural Marxism,
"extremism is no vice"
After laughing themselves silly over the gullible idiots who ran with their 911
'no-planes' psychological operation, the CIA bugmen cooked up a new one. They're laughing
themselves silly all over again.
"Journalists promote a conspiracy far more dangerous and deadly than QAnon. That is the
"white privilege" conspiracy theory. Many journalists and academics tell non-whites that
racist whites hold them down."
A very insightful analysis and I think I now understand Q Anon. This seems to be an
evolution from the people who early on were claiming that Trump was playing 4 (or 5 or 6)
dimensional chess. I never supported him and don't now. He couldn't play one dimensional
checkers if he wanted to and he probably doesn't.
...it
has awakened something of a frustration in a lot of people.
It has taken on a life of its
own, constantly adapting to changes in situation. I kind of follow it as an unintentional
experiment in human psychology. It's also interesting that it has absorbed a great deal of
Christian mythology without actually being a Christian religion. In the end though it is
people trying to feel they have some control (and indeed, considering the fear in the media)
that might be true.
[For fun, dig up and read Asimov's "I Spell My Name with an S" from 1958.]
There is no indication that anyone forced Trump into making any of the bad decisions
mentioned. Your first point is asking Hood to weave some fanciful alternative to what is
outright obvious. No serious author does that. If he were to have used "most likely" before
giving his sensible opinion, would that have satisfied you? The Easter Bunny holding a gun to
Trump's head and telling him to disavow Session is also a possibility, you know, but not a
likely one.
Frankly, I think you are the one who's intellectually deficient.
People who
actually have good instincts but just cannot bring themselves to face the harsh reality in
front of them.
The deplatforming of QAnon crap is not due to "Q" itself, but where "Q" supporters might
find themselves next, once this psyop has run its course. They wanna kill it now to keep the
delusion itself alive, lest all these "Q" true believer stumble into some anti-semitism and
other truths that actually challenge the status quo.
Being a true believer in "Q" is literally no different than being a true believer in the
Democrat-Republican kosher sandwich.
Correct. And when we're talking about the "Deep state," organized pedophilia, human
trafficking, etc, many of these "Q" people will inevitably find their way to the Rabbi behind
the curtain. It is the natural destination if one does not self-censor or cling to their
priors. There is no other destination, in fact.
William Binney is the former technical director of the U.S. National Security Agency who
worked at the agency for 30 years. He is a respected independent critic of how American
intelligence services abuse their powers to illegally spy on private communications of U.S.
citizens and around the globe.
Given his expert inside knowledge, it is worth paying attention to what Binney says.
In a media
interview this week, he dismissed the so-called Russiagate scandal as a "fabrication"
orchestrated by the American Central Intelligence Agency. Many other observers have come to
the same conclusion about allegations that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. elections with
the objective of helping Donald Trump get elected.
But what is particularly valuable about Binney's judgment is that he cites technical
analysis disproving the Russiagate narrative. That narrative remains dominant among U.S.
intelligence officials, politicians and pundits, especially those affiliated with the
Democrat party, as well as large sections of Western media. The premise of the narrative is
the allegation that a Russian state-backed cyber operation hacked into the database and
emails of the Democrat party back in 2016. The information perceived as damaging to
presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was subsequently disseminated to the Wikileaks
whistleblower site and other U.S. media outlets.
A mysterious cyber persona known as "Guccifer 2.0" claimed to be the alleged hacker. U.S.
intelligence and news media have attributed Guccifer as a front for Russian cyber
operations.
Notably, however, the Russian government has always categorically denied any involvement
in alleged hacking or other interference in the 2016 U.S. election, or elections
thereafter.
William Binney and other independent former U.S. intelligence experts say they can prove
the Russiagate narrative is bogus. The proof relies on their forensic analysis of the data
released by Guccifer. The analysis of timestamps demonstrates that the download of voluminous
data could not have been physically possible based on known standard internet speeds. These
independent experts conclude that the data from the Democrat party could not have been
hacked, as Guccifer and Russiagaters claim. It could only have been obtained by a leak from
inside the party, perhaps by a disgruntled staffer who downloaded the information on to a
disc. That is the only feasible way such a huge amount of data could have been released. That
means the "Russian hacker" claims are baseless.
Wikileaks, whose founder Julian Assange is currently imprisoned in Britain pending an
extradition trial to the U.S. to face espionage charges, has consistently maintained
that their source of files was not a hacker, nor did they collude with Russian intelligence.
As a matter of principle, Wikileaks does not disclose the identity of its sources, but the
organization has indicated it was an insider leak which provided the information on senior
Democrat party corruption.
William Binney says forensic analysis of the files released by Guccifer shows that the
mystery hacker deliberately inserted digital "fingerprints" in order to give the impression
that the files came from Russian sources. It is known from information later disclosed by
former NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden that the CIA has a secretive program – Vault 7
– which is dedicated to false incrimination of cyber attacks to other actors. It seems
that the purpose of Guccifer was to create the perception of a connection between Wikileaks
and Russian intelligence in order to beef up the Russiagate narrative.
"So that suggested [to] us all the evidence was pointing back to CIA as the originator
[of] Guccifer 2.0. And that Guccifer 2.0 was inside CIA I'm pointing to that group as the
group that was probably the originator of Guccifer 2.0 and also this fabrication of the
entire story of Russiagate," concludes Binney in his interview with Sputnik news
outlet.
This is not the first time that the Russiagate yarn has been debunked . But it is crucially important to make Binney's expert
views more widely appreciated especially as the U.S. presidential election looms on November
3. As that date approaches, U.S. intelligence and media seem to be intensifying claims about
Russian interference and cyber operations. Such wild and unsubstantiated "reports" always
refer to the alleged 2016 "hack" of the Democrat party by "Guccifer 2.0" as if it were
indisputable evidence of Russian interference and the "original sin" of supposed Kremlin
malign activity. The unsubstantiated 2016 "hack" is continually cited as the "precedent" and
"provenance" of more recent "reports" that purport to claim Russian interference.
Given the torrent of Russiagate derivatives expected in this U.S. election cycle, which is
damaging U.S.-Russia bilateral relations and recklessly winding up geopolitical tensions, it
is thus of paramount importance to listen to the conclusions of honorable experts like
William Binney.
The American public are being played by their own intelligence agencies and corporate
media with covert agendas that are deeply anti-democratic.
Well - who set up them up, converted from the OSS? The banksters.
"Wild Bill" Donovan worked for JP Morgan immediately after WWII.
"our" US intelligence agencies were set up by, and serve, the masters of high finance.
Is this in dispute?
meditate_vigorously , 11 hours ago
They have seeded enough misinformation that apparently it is. But, you are correct. It
is the Banksters.
Isisraelquaeda , 2 hours ago
Israel. The CIA was infiltrated by the Mossad long ago.
SurfingUSA , 15 hours ago
JFK was on to that truth, and would have been wise to mini-nuke Langley before his
ill-fated journey to Dallas.
Andrew G , 11 hours ago
Except when there's something exceptionally evil (like pedo/blackmail rings such as
Epstein), in which case it's Mossad / Aman
vova.2018 , 7 hours ago
Except when there's something exceptionally evil (like pedo/blackmail rings such as
Epstein), in which case it's Mossad / Aman
The CIA & MOSSAD work hand in hand in all their clandestine operations. There is not
doubt the CIA/MOSSAD are behind the creation, evolution, training, supplying weapons,
logistic-planning & financing of the terrorists & the destruction of the Middle
East. Anybody that believes the contrary has brain problems & need to have his head
examined.
CIA/MOSAD has been running illegal activities in Colombia: drug, arms, organs &
human (child-sex) trafficking. CIA/MOSAD is also giving training, logistic & arms to
Colombia paramilitary for clandestine operation against Venezuela. After Bolsonaro became
president, MOSSAD started running similar operation in Brazil. Israel & Brazil also
recognizes Guaido as the legit president of Venezuela.
CIA/MOSSAD have a long time policy of
assassinating & taking out pep who are a problem to the revisionist-zionist agenda, not
just in the M-East but in the world. The CIA/MOSSAD organizations have many connections in
other countries like the M-East, Saudi Arabia, UAE, et al but also to the UK-MI5.
The Israelis infiltrated the US to the highest levels a long time ago - Proof
Israel has & collects information (a database) of US citizens in coordination
with the CIA & the 5 eyes.
Israel works with the NSA in the liaison-loophole operations
Mossad undercover operations in WDC & all over the world
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee – AIPAC
People with 2 citizenships (US/Israel) in WDC/NYC (the real Power)
From Steve Bannon a christian-zionist: Collusion between the Trump administration and
Israel .
Funny how a number of the right wing conspiracy stories according to the MSM from a
couple years back were true from the get go. 1 indictment over 4 years in the greatest
attempted coup in this country's history. So sad that Binney and Assange were never
listened to. They can try to silence us who know of the truth, but as Winston Churchill
once said, 'Truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it. Ignorance may deride it. Malice
may distort it. But there it is.' KDP still censors my book on their advertising platform
as it
promotes conspiratorial theories (about the Obama led coup) and calls out BLM and Antifa
for what they are (marxists) . Yet the same platform still recommends BLM books stating
there is a pandemic of cops killing innocent blacks. F them!!!! #RIPSeth #FreeJulian
#FreeMillie
smacker , 11 hours ago
Yes, and we all know the name of the DNC leaker who downloaded and provided
WikiLeaks
with evidence of CIA and DNC corruption.
He was assassinated to prevent him from naming who Guccifer 2.0 was and where he is
located.
The Russia-gate farce itself provides solid evidence that the CIA and others are in bed
with DNC
and went to extraordinary lengths to prevent Trump being elected. When that failed, they
instigated
a program of x-gates to get him out of office any way they could. This continues to this
day.
This is treason at the highest level.
ACMeCorporations , 12 hours ago
Hacking? What Russian hacking?
In recently released testimony, the CEO of CrowdStrike admitted in congressional
testimony, under oath, that it actually has no direct evidence Russia stole the DNC
emails.
Nelbev , 9 hours ago
"The proof relies on their forensic analysis of the data released by Guccifer. The
analysis of timestamps demonstrates that the download of voluminous data could not have
been physically possible based on known standard internet speeds. ... a disgruntled
staffer who downloaded the information on to a disc. That is the only feasible way such a
huge amount of data could have been released. ... William Binney says forensic analysis
of the files released by Guccifer shows that the mystery hacker deliberately inserted
digital "fingerprints" in order to give the impression that the files came from Russian
sources. ... "
Any computer file is a bunch of 1s and 0s. Anyone can change anything with a hex editor.
E.g. I had wrong dates on some photographs once, downloaded as opposed to when taken, just
edited the time stamp. You cannot claim any time stamp is original. If true time stamps,
then the DNC files were downloaded to a thumb drive at a computer on location and not to
the internet via a phone line. However anyone can change the time stamps. Stating a
"mystery hacker deliberately inserted digital [Russian] 'fingerprints' " is a joke if
denying the file time stamps were not tampered with. The real thing is where the narrative
came from, political spin doctors, Perkins Coie law firm hired by DNC and Hillary campaign
who hired Crowdstrike [and also hired Fusion GPS before for pissgate dossier propaganda and
FISC warrants to spy on political opponents] and Perkins Coie edited Crowdstrike report
with Russian narrative. FBI never looked at DNC servers. This is like your house was broken
into. You deny police the ability to enter and look at evidence like DNC computers. You
hire a private investigator to say your neighbor you do not like did it and publicise
accusations. Take word of political consultants hired, spin doctor propaganda, Crowdstrike
narrative , no police investigation. Atlantic Council?
Vivekwhu , 8 hours ago
The Atlantic Council is another NATO fart. Nuff said!
The_American , 15 hours ago
God Damn traitor Obama!
Yen Cross , 14 hours ago
TOTUS
For the youngsters.
Teleprompter Of The United States.
Leguran , 6 hours ago
The CIA has gotten away with so much criminal behavior and crimes against the American
public that this is totally believable. Congress just lets this stuff happen and does
nothing. Which is worse - Congress or the CIA?
Congress set up the system. It is mandated to perform oversight. And it just sits on its
thumbs and wallows in it privileges.
This time Congress went further than ever before. It was behind and engaged in an
attempted coup d'état.
Know thy enemy , 10 hours ago
Link to ShadowGate (ShadowNet) documentary - which answers the question, what is the
keystone,,,,,
It's time for Assange and Wikileaks to name the person who they rec'd the info from. By
hiding behind the "we don't name names" Mantra they are helping destroy America by
polarizing its citizens. Name the damn person, get it all out there so the left can see
that they've been played by their leaders. Let's cut this crap.
freedommusic , 7 hours ago
...all the evidence was pointing back to CIA as the originator [of] Guccifer 2.0.
Yep, I knew since day one. I remember seeing Hillary Clinton talking about Guccifer . As
soon as uttered the name, I KNEW she with the CIA were the brainchild of this bogus
decoy.
They copy. They mimic. These are NOT creative individuals.
Perhaps hell is too good a place for them.
on target , 4 hours ago
This is old news but worth bringing up again. The CIA never wanted Trump in, and of
course, they want him out. Their fingerprints were all over Russiagate, The Kavanaugh
hearings, Ukrainegate, and on and on. They are just trying to cover their asses for a
string of illegal "irregularities" in their operations for years. Trump should never have
tried to be a get along type of guy. He should have purged the entire leadership of the CIA
on day one and the FBI on day 2. They can not be trusted with an "America First" agenda.
They are all New World Order types who know whats best for everyone.
fersur , 7 hours ago
Boom, Boom, Boom !
Three Reseachable Tweets thru Facebook, I cut all at once, Unedited !
"#SusanRice has as much trouble with her memory as #HillaryClinton. Rice testified in
writing that she 'does not recall' who gave her key #Benghazi talking points she used on
TV, 'does not recall' being in any meetings regarding Benghazi in five days following the
attack, and 'does not recall' communicating with anyone in Clinton's office about
Benghazi," Tom Fitton in Breitbart.
"Adam Schiff secretly subpoenaed, without court authorization, the phone records of Rudy
Giuliani and then published the phone records of innocent Americans, including
@realDonaldTrump 's lawyers, a member of Congress, and a journalist," @TomFitton .
BREAKING: Judicial Watch announced today that former #Obama National Security Advisor
and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, admitted in written responses given
under oath that she emailed with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Clinton's
non-government email account and that she received emails related to government business on
her own personal email account.
STONEHILLADY , 7 hours ago
It's not just the Democrats, the warmongering neocons of the Republican party are also
in on it, the Bush/Romney McCain/McConnell/Cheney and many more. It's called "Kick Backs"
Ever notice these so called retired Generals all end up working for all these spying
companies that span the 5eyes to Israel. It seems our POTUS has got his hands full swimming
up stream to get this stopped and actually get rid of the CIA. It's the number 1 reason he
doesn't trust these people, they all try to tell him stuff that is mis-directed.
Liars, leakers, and thieves are running not only our nation but the world, as George
Carlin said, "It's a Big Club, and we ain't in it." If you fall for this false narrative of
mail in voting and not actually go and vote on election day, you better start learning
Chinese for surely Peelosi and Schumer will have their way and mess up this election so
they can drag Trump out of office and possible do him and his family some serious harm, all
because so many of you listen to the MSM and don't research their phony claims.
Max21c , 7 hours ago
It's called "Kick Backs" Ever notice these so called retired Generals all end up
working for all these spying companies that span the 5eyes to Israel.
American Generals & Admirals are a lot more corrupt today than they were a few
generations back. Many of them are outright evil people in today's times. Many of these
people are just criminals that will steal anything they can get their banana republic
klepto-paws on. They're nothing but common criminals and thieves. No different than the
Waffen SS or any other group of brigands, bandits, and criminal gangsters.
Max21c , 7 hours ago
The CIA, FBI, NSA, Military Intelligence, Pentagon Gestapo, defense contractors are
mixed up in a lot of crimes and criminal activities on American soil against American
citizens and American civilians. They do not recognize borders or laws or rights of liberty
or property rights or ownership or intellectual property. They're all thieves and criminals
in the military secret police and secret police gangsters cabal.
BandGap , 7 hours ago
I have seen Binney's input. He is correct in my view because he
scientifically/mathematically proves his point.
The blinded masses do not care about this approach, just like wearing masks.
The truth is too difficult for many to fit into their understanding of the world.
So they repeat what they have been told, never stopping to consider the facts or how
circumstances have been manipulated.
It is frustrating to watch, difficult to navigate at times for me. Good people who will
not stop and think of what the facts show them.
otschelnik , 8 hours ago
It could have been the CIA or it could have been one of the cut-outs for plausible
deniability, and of all the usual suspects it was probably CrowdStrike.
- CGI / Global Strategy Group / Analysis Corp. - John Brennan (former CEO)
- Dynology, Wikistrat - General James L. Jones (former chairman of Atlantic Council, NSA
under Obama)
- CrowdStrike - Dmitri Alperovich and Shawn Henry (former chief of cyber forensics
FBI)
- Clearforce - Michael Hayden (former dir. NSA under Clinton, CIA under Bush) and Jim
Jones Jr. (son Gnrl James Jones)
- McChrystal Group - Stanley McChrystal (former chief of special operations DOD)
fersur , 8 hours ago
Unedited !
The Brookings Institute – a Deep State Hub Connected to the Fake Russia Collusion
and Ukraine Scandals Is Now Also Connected to China Spying In the US
The Brookings
Institute was heavily involved in the Democrat and Deep State Russia collusion hoax and
Ukraine impeachment fraud. These actions against President Trump were criminal.
This institute is influenced from foreign donations from entities who don't have an
America first agenda. New reports connect the Institute to Chinese spying.
As we reported previously, Julie Kelly at American Greatness
released a report where she addresses the connections between the Brookings Institute,
Democrats and foreign entities. She summarized her report as follows: Accepting millions
from a state sponsor of terrorism, foisting one of the biggest frauds in history on the
American people, and acting as a laundering agent of sorts for Democratic political
contributions disguised as policy grants isn't a good look for such an esteemed
institution. One would be hard-pressed to name a more influential think tank than the
Brookings Institution. The Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit routinely ranks at the top of
the list
of the best think tanks in the world; Brookings scholars produce a steady flow of reports,
symposiums, and news releases that sway the conversation on any number of issues ranging
from domestic and economic policy to foreign affairs.
Brookings is home to lots of Beltway power players: Ben
Bernanke and Janet Yellen, former chairmen of the Federal Reserve, are Brookings fellows.
Top officials from both Republican and Democrat presidential administrations lend political
heft to the organization. From 2002 until 2017, the organization's president was Strobe
Talbott. He's a longtime BFF of Bill Clinton; they met in the 1970s at Oxford University
and have been tight ever since. Talbott was a top aide to both President Bill Clinton and
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Kelly continued:
Brookings-based fellows working at Lawfare were the media's go-to legal "experts" to
legitimize the concocted crime; the outlet manipulated much of the news coverage on
collusion by pumping out primers and guidance on how to report collusion events from
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's appointment to his final report.
Now, testimony related to a defamation lawsuit against Christopher Steele, the author of
the infamous "dossier" on Donald Trump, has exposed his direct ties to Talbott in 2016 when
he was still head of Brookings. Talbott and Steele were in communication before and after
the presidential election; Steele wanted Talbott to circulate the dossier to his pals in
John Kerry's State Department, which reportedly is what Talbott
did . Steele also briefed top state department officials in October 2016 about his
work.
But this isn't the only connection between the Brookings Institute and the Russia
collusion and Ukrainian scandals. We were the first to report that the Primary Sub-Source
(PSS) in the Steele report, the main individual who supplied Steele with bogus information
in his report was Igor Danchenko.
In November 2019, the star witness for the Democrat Representative Adam Schiff's
impeachment show trial was announced. Her name was Fiona Hill.
Today we've uncovered that Hill is a close associate of the Primary Sub-Source (PSS) for
the Steele dossier – Igor Danchenko – the individual behind most all the lies
in the Steele dossier. No wonder Hill saw the Steele dossier before it was released. Her
associate created it.
Both Fiona Hill and Igor Danchenko are connected to the Brookings Institute.
They gave a presentation together as Brookings Institute representatives:
Kelly writes about the foreign funding the Brookings Institute partakes:
So who and what have been funding the anti-Trump political operation at Brookings over
the past few years? The think tank's top benefactors are a predictable mix of family
foundations, Fortune 100 corporations, and Big Tech billionaires. But one of the biggest
contributors to Brookings' $100 million-plus annual budget is the Embassy of Qatar.
According to financial reports, Qatar has donated more than $22 million to the think tank
since 2004. In fact, Brookings operates a satellite center in Doha, the
capital of Qatar. The wealthy Middle Eastern oil producer
spends billions on American institutions such as universities and other think
tanks.
Qatar also is a top state sponsor of terrorism, pouring billions into Hamas, al-Qaeda,
and the Muslim Brotherhood, to name a few. "The nation of Qatar, unfortunately, has
historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level," President Trump said in 2017. "We
have to stop the funding of terrorism."
An email from a Qatari official, obtained by WikiLeaks, said the Brookings
Institution was as important to the country as "an aircraft carrier."
The Brookings Institution, a prominent Washington, D.C., think tank, partnered with a
Shanghai policy center that the FBI has described as a front for China's intelligence and
spy recruitment operations, according to public records and federal court documents.
The Brookings Doha Center, the think tank's hub in Qatar, signed a memorandum of
understanding with the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences in January 2018, the
institution said . The academy is a policy center funded by the Shanghai municipal
government that has raised flags within the FBI.
The partnership raises questions about potential Chinese espionage activities at the
think tank, which employs numerous former government officials and nearly two dozen
current foreign policy advisers to Joe Biden's presidential campaign.
It is really frightening that one of two major political parties in the US is tied so
closely with the Brookings Institute. It is even more frightening that foreign enemies of
the United States are connected to this entity as well.
Let it Go , 8 hours ago
One thing for sure is these guys have far to much of our money to spend promoting their
own good.
fersur , 7 hours ago
Unedited !
Mueller Indictments Tied To "ShadowNet," Former Obama National Security Advisor and
Obama's CIA Director – Not Trump
According to a report in the Daily Beast, which cited the Wall Street Journal's
reporting of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into two companies, Wikistrat
and Psy Group, "The firm's advisory council lists former CIA and National Security Agency
director Michael Hayden, former national security adviser James L. Jones."
According to numerous reporting from major news outlets like the Wall Street Journal and
Daily Beast, both Wikistrat and Psy Group represent themselves as being social media
analysts and black PSYOP organizations. Both Wikistrat and Psy Group have foreign ownership
mixed between Israeli, Saudi (Middle East) and Russian. Here is what the Wall Street
Journal, The Daily Beast and pretty much everyone else out there doesn't know (or won't
tell you).
The fact Obama's former National Security Advisor, General James Jones, and former Obama
CIA director, Gen. Michael Hayden, are both on Wikistrat's advisory board may not seem
suspicious, but both of these general's have another thing in common, and that is the
ShadowNet. The ShadowNet, and its optional companion relational database, iPsy, were both
originally developed by the small, family owned defense contracting company, Dynology. The
family that owns Dynology; Gen. James Jones. I would add Paul Manafort and Rick Davis was
Dynology's partner at the time we were making the ShadowNet and iPsy commercially
available.
After obtaining the contract in Iraq to develop social media psychological warfare
capabilities, known in military nomenclature as Interactive Internet Activities, or IIA,
Gen. Jones kept the taxpayer funded application we developed in Iraq for the 4th
Psychological Operation Group, and made it commercially available under the trademark of
the "ShadowNet" and the optional black PSYOP component, "iPsy." If you think it is
interesting that one of the companies under Mueller's indictment is named, "Psy" Group, I
did as well. In fact, literally everything both publicly described in news reports, and
even their websites, are exactly the same as the ShadowNet and iPsy I helped build, and
literally named.
The only thing different I saw as far as services offered by Wikistrat, and that of
Dynology and the ShadowNet, was described by The Daily Beast as, "It also engaged in
intelligence collection." Although iPsy was a relational database that allowed for the
dissemination of whatever the required narrative was, "intelligence collection" struck
another bell with me, and that's a company named ClearForce.
ClearForce was developed as a solution to stopping classified leaks following the Edward
Snowden debacle in 2013. Changes in NISPOM compliance requirements forced companies and
government agencies that had employees with government clearances to take preventive
measure to mitigate the potential of leaking. Although the NISPOM compliance requirement
almost certainly would have been influenced by either Hayden, Jones or both, they once
again sought to profit from it.
Using components of the ShadowNet and iPsy, the ClearForce application (which the
company, ClearForce, was named after,) was developed to provide compliance to a regulation
I strongly suspect you will find Jones and Hayden had a hand in creating. In fact, I
strongly suspect you will find General Jones had some influence in the original requirement
for our Iraq contract Dynology won to build the ShadowNet – at taxpayer expense!
Dynology worked for several years incorporating other collection sources, such as
financial, law enforcement and foreign travel, and ties them all into your social media
activity. Their relationship with Facebook and other social media giants would have been
nice questions for congress to have asked them when they testified.
Part 1 of 2 !
fersur , 7 hours ago
Part 2 of 2 !
The ClearForce application combines all of these sources together in real-time and uses
artificial intelligence to predictively determine if you are likely to steal or leak based
on the behavioral profile ClearForce creates of you. It can be used to determine if you get
a job, and even if you lose a job because a computer read your social media, credit and
other sources to determine you were likely to commit a crime. It's important for you to
stop for a moment and think about the fact it is privately controlled by the former CIA
director and Obama's National Security Advisor/NATO Supreme Allied Commander, should scare
the heck out of you.
When the ClearForce application was complete, Dynology handed it off to ClearForce, the
new company, and Michael Hayden joined the board of directors along with Gen. Jones and his
son, Jim, as the president of ClearForce. Doesn't that kind of sound like "intelligence
collection" described by the Daily Beast in Wikistrat's services?
To wrap this all up, Paul Manafort, Rick Davis, George Nader, Wikistrat and Psy Group
are all directly connected to Mueller's social media influence and election interreference
in the 2016 presidential election. In fact, I believe all are under indictment, computers
seized, some already sentenced. All of these people under indictment by Mueller have one
key thing in common, General James Jones's and Michael Hayden's social media black PSYOP
tools; the ShadowNet, iPsy and ClearForce.
A recent meeting I had with Congressman Gus Bilirakis' chief of staff, Elizabeth Hittos,
is confirmation that they are reviewing my DoD memorandum stating the work I did on the IIA
information operation in Iraq, the Dynology marketing slicks for the ShadowNet and iPsy,
along with a screenshot of Goggle's Way-Back Machine showing Paul Manafort's partnership
with Dynology in 2007 and later. After presenting to her these facts and making clear I
have much more information that requires the highest classification SCIF to discuss and
requires being read-on to the program, Elizabeth contacted the office of Congressman Devin
Nunez to request that I brief the intelligence committee on this critical information
pertaining directly to the 2010 Ukrainian elections, Michael Brown riots, 2016 election
interference and the "Russia collusion" hoax. All of that is on top of numerous
questionable ethical and potentially illegal profits from DoD contracts while servings as
NATO Commander and Obama's National Security Advisor.
We also need to know if the ShadowNet and iPsy were allowed to fall into foreign hands,
including Russia, Saudi Arabia and Israel. I'm pretty sure South America is going to have a
few questions for Jones and Obama as well? Stay tuned!
Balance-Sheet , 4 hours ago
Intelligence Agencies of all countries endlessly wage war at all times especially
'Information Warfare' (propaganda/disinformation) and the primary target has always and
will always be the domestic population of the Intelligence Agency's country.
Yes, of course the CIA does target ALL other countries but the primary target will
always be the Americans themselves.
Balance-Sheet , 4 hours ago
Intelligence Agencies of all countries endlessly wage war at all times especially
'Information Warfare' (propaganda/disinformation) and the primary target has always and
will always be the domestic population of the Intelligence Agency's country.
Yes, of course the CIA does target ALL other countries but the primary target will
always be the Americans themselves.
The neoliberals own the media, courts, academia, and BUREAUCRACY (including CIA) and
they will do anything to make sure they retain power over everyone. These control freaks
work hard to create all sorts of enemies to justify their existence.
LaugherNYC , 15 hours ago
It is sad that this information has to be repeatedly published, over and over and over,
by SCI and other Russian. outlets.
Because no legit AMERICAN news outlet will give Binney or Assange the time of day or any
credence, this all becomes Kremlin-sponsored disinformation and denials. People roll their
eyes and say "Oh God, not the whole 'Seth Rich was murdered by the CIA' crap again!! You
know, his FAMILY has asked that people stop spreading these conspiracy theories and
lies."
SCI is a garbage bin, nothing more than a dizinformatz machine for Putin, but in this
case, they are likely right. It seems preposterous that the "best hackers in the world"
would forget to use a VPN or leave a signature behind, and it makes far more sense that the
emails were leaked by someone irate at the abuses of the DNC - the squashing of Bernie, the
cheating for Hillary in the debates - behavior we saw repeated in 2020 with Bernie shoved
aside again for the pathetic Biden.
Would that SOMEONE in the US who is not on the Kremlin payroll would pick up this
thread. But all the "investigative journalists" now work indirectly for the DNC, and those
that don't are cancelled by the left.
Stone_d_agehurler , 15 hours ago
I am Guccifer and I approve this message.
Sarc/
But i do share your opinion. They are likely right this time and most of the pundits and
media in the U. S. know it. That's what makes this a sad story about how rotten the U. S.
system has become.
Democrats will sacrifice the Union for getting Trump out of office.
If elections in Nov won't go their way, Civil War II might become a real thing in
2021.
PeterLong , 4 hours ago
If " digital "fingerprints" in order to give the impression that the files came from
Russian sources" were inserted in the leak by "Guccifer", and if the leak to wikileaks came
from Seth Rich, via whatever avenue, then the "Guccifer" release came after the wikileaks
release, or after wikileaks had the files, and was a reaction to same attempting to
diminish their importance/accuracy and cast doubt on Trump. Could CIA and/or DNC have known
the files were obtained by wikileaks before wikileaks actually released them? In any case
collusion of CIA with DNC seems to be a given.
RightlyIndignent , 4 hours ago
Because Seth had already given it to Wikileaks. There is no 'Fancy Bear'. There is no
'Cozy Bear'. Those were made up by CrowdStrike, and they tried the same crap on Ukraine,
and Ukraine told them to pound sand. When push came to shove, and CrowdStrike was forced to
say what they really had under oath, they said: "We have nothing."
novictim , 4 hours ago
You are leaving out Crowd Strike. Seth Rich was tasked by people at the DNC to copy data
off the servers. He made a backup copy and gave a copy to people who then got it to Wiki
leaks. He used highspeed file transfers to local drives to do his task.
Meanwhile, it was the Ukrainian company Crowd Strike that claimed the data was stolen
over the internet and that the thieves were in Russia. That 'proof" was never verified by
US Intelligence but was taken on its word as being true despite crowd strike falsifying
Russian hacks and being caught for it in the past.
Joebloinvestor , 5 hours ago
The "five eyes" are convinced they run the world and try to.
That is what Brennan counted on for these agencies to help get President Trump.
As I said, it is time for the UK and the US to have a serious conversation about their
current and ex-spies being involved in US elections.
Southern_Boy , 5 hours ago
It wasn't the CIA. It was John Brennan and Clapper. The CIA, NSA FBI, DOJ and the
Ukrainian Intelligence Service just went along working together and followed orders from
Brennan who got them from Hillary and Obama.
Oh, and don't forget the GOP Globalist RINOs who also participated in the coup attempt:
McCain, Romney, Kasich, Boehner, Lee and Richard Burr.
With Kasich now performing as a puppy dog for Biden at the Democrat Convention as a
Democrat DNC executive, the re-alignment is almost complete: Globalist Nationalist
Socialist Bolshevism versus American Populism, i.e. Elites versus Deplorables or Academics
versus Smelly Wal-Mart people.
on target , 5 hours ago
No way. CIA up to their eyeballs in this as well as the State Department. Impossible for
Russiagate or Ukrainegate without direct CIA and State involvement.
RightlyIndignent , 4 hours ago
Following Orders? How did that argument go at Nuremberg? (hint: not very well)
LeadPipeDreams , 6 hours ago
LOL - the CIA's main mission - despite their "official" charter, has always been to
destabilize the US and its citizens via psyops, false flags, etc.
Covid-1984 is their latest and it appears most successful project yet.
Iconoclast27 , 5 hours ago
The CIA received a $200 million initial investment from the Rockefeller and Carnegie
foundations when it was first established, that should tell you everything you need to know
how who they truly work for.
A_Huxley , 6 hours ago
CIA, MI6, 5 eye nations.
All wanted to sway the USA their own way.
Let it Go , 8 hours ago
Almost as frightening as the concentrated power held by companies such as Facebook and
Google is the fact Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon and the world's richest man, is the person who
owns and controls the Washington Post. It is silly to think Jeff Bezos purchased the
Washington Post in 2013 because he expected newspapers to make a lucrative resurgence.
It is more likely he purchased the long-trusted U.S. newspaper for the power it would
ensure him in Washington when wielded as a propaganda mouthpiece to extend his ability to
both shape and control public opinion. More on this subject in the article below.
How it is the Democrats, the Deep State, and the legacy media are still able to cling to
the remnants of these long discredited narratives is a mystery.
avoiceofliberty , 6 hours ago
At the official level, you have a point.
However, even before Mueller was appointed, a review of the materials in the extant
public record of both the DNC "hack" and the history of Crowdstrike showed the narrative
simply did not make sense. A detailed investigation of materials not made public was not
necessary to shoot down the entire narrative.
Indeed, one of the great scandals of the Mueller probe is the way it did not bring
prudential skepticism to the question of the DNC "hack". When building a case, either for
public debate or for public trial, a dose of skepticism is healthy; it leads to a careful
vetting of facts and reasoning.
Alice-the-dog , 6 hours ago
The CIA has been an agency wholly independent of the US government almost since its
inception. It is not under any significant control by the government, and has its own
agenda which may occasionally coincide with that of the government, but only
coincidentally. It has its own view of how the world should look, and will not balk at any
means necessary to achieve such. Including the murder of dis-favorable members of
government.
snodgrass , 6 hours ago
It's the CIA and the FBI, Obama and people in his administration who cooked up
Russiagate.
Floki_Ragnarsson , 7 hours ago
The CIA whacked JFK because he was going to slow the roll to Vietnam AND disband the CIA
and reform it.
It is broken and needs to be disbanded and reformed along lines that actually WORK! The
CIA missed the fall of the USSR, 9/11, etc. HTF does THAT happen?
DeportThemAll , 6 hours ago
The CIA didn't "miss" 9/11... they participated in it.
Let it Go , 8 hours ago
The CIA is a tool that when improperly used can do great damage.
Anyone who doesn't believe that countries use psychological warfare and propaganda to
sway the opinions of people both in and outside of their country should be considered
naive. Too many people America is more than a little hypocritical when they criticize other
countries for trying to gain influence considering our history of meddling in the affairs
of other countries.
Americans have every reason to be concerned and worried considering revelations of just
how big the government intelligence agencies have grown since 9-11 and how unlimited their
spying and surveillance operations have become. The article below explores this growth and
questions whether we have lost control.
The idea of Binney and Jason Sullivan privately working to 'secure the vote' is
something that I actually consider to be very eyebrow raising and alarming.
Son of Captain Nemo , 8 hours ago
Bill Binney under "B" in the only "yellow pages" that show a conscience and a
soul!...
This is the dumbest article ever. Russiagate is a total fabrication of the FBI as per
Clinesmith, CIA provided information that would have nipped it at the bud. Read the real
news.
bringonthebigone , 9 hours ago
Wrong. this article is one small piece of the puzzle. Clinesmith is one small piece of
the puzzle. The Flynn entrapment is one small piece of the puzzle. The Halper entrapment
was one small piece of the puzzle.
Because Clinesmith at the FBI covered up the information saying Page was a CIA source
does not mean it was a total FBI fabrication and does not mean the CIA was not involved and
does not mean the DNC server hack is irrelevant.
Sundance does a better job pulling it all together.
PKKA , 14 hours ago
Relations have already soured between Russia and the United States, and sanctions have
been announced. Tensions have grown on the NATO-Russia border. The meat has already been
rolled into the minced meat and it will not be possible to roll the minced meat back into
the meat. The CIA got it. But the Russian people now absolutely understand that the United
States will always be the enemy of Russia, no matter whether socialist or capitalist. But I
like it even more than the feigned hypocritical "friendship". Russia has never reached such
heights as during the good old Cold War. All Russians have a huge incentive, long live the
new Cold War!
smacker , 12 hours ago
More and more people have worked out that the fabricated tensions between the US and
Russia
and US and China have little to do with those two countries posing any sort of threat to
world peace.
It is all about the US trying to remain in No.1 position as uni-polar top dog via the
Anglo American Empire.
We see examples of this every day in the M/E, South China Sea, Taiwan, Libya all over
Eastern Europe,
Ukraine, Iran and now Belaruse. HK was added along the way.
Both Russia and China openly want a multi-polar world order. But the US will never
accept that.
Hence the prospect of war. The only unknown today is what and where the trigger will
be.
smacker , 12 hours ago
More and more people have worked out that the fabricated tensions between the US and
Russia
and US and China have little to do with those two countries posing any sort of threat to
world peace.
It is all about the US trying to remain in No.1 position as uni-polar top dog via the
Anglo American Empire.
We see examples of this every day in the M/E, South China Sea, Taiwan, Libya all over
Eastern Europe,
Ukraine, Iran and now Belaruse. HK was added along the way.
Both Russia and China openly want a multi-polar world order. But the US will never
accept that.
Hence the prospect of war. The only unknown today is what and where the trigger will
be.
hang_the_banksters , 31 minutes ago
the best proof thAt Guccifer 2 was CIA hacking themselves to frame Wikileaks is
this:
Guccifer has not yet been identified, indicted and arrested.
you'd think CIAFBINSA would be turning over every stone to the ends of the earth to bust
Guccifer. we just had to endure 4 years of hysterical propaganda that Russia had hacked our
election and that Trump was their secret agent. so Guccifer should be the Most Wanted Man
on the planet. meanwhile, it's crickets from FBI. they arent even looking for him. because
Guccifer is over at Langley. maybe someone outta ask Brennan where G2 is now.
remember when DOJ indicted all those GRU cybersoldiers? the evidence listed in the
indictment was so stunning that i dont believe it. NSA so thoroughly hacked back into GRU
that NSA was watching GRU through their own webcams and recording them doing Google
searches to translate words which were written in Guccifer's blog posts about the DNC email
leaks. NSA and DOJ must think we are all stupid, that we will believe NSA is so powerful to
do that, yet they cant identify Guccifer.
i say i dont believe that for a second because no way Russian GRU are so stupid to even
have webcams on the computers they use to hack, and it is absurd to think GRU soldiers on a
Russian military base would be using Google instead of Yandex to translate words into
English.
lay_arrow
ConanTheContrarian1 , 1 hour ago
As a confirmed conspiracy theorist since I came back from 'Nam, here's mine: The
European nobility recognized with the American and French revolutions that they needed a
better approach. They borrowed from the Tudors (who had to deal with Parliament) and began
to rule by controlling the facade of representative government. This was enhanced by
funding banks to control through currency, as well as blackmail and murder, and morphed
into a complete propaganda machine like no other in history. The CIA, MI6 and Mossad, the
mainstream media, deep plants in bureaucracy and "democratic" bodies all obey their
dictates to create narratives that control our minds. Trump seems to offer hope, but
remember, he could be their latest narrative.
greatdisconformity , 1 hour ago
A Democracy cannot function on a higher level than the general electorate.
The intelligence and education of the general electorate has been sliding for
generations, because both political parties can play this to their advantage.
It is no accident that most of the messages coming from politicians are targeted to
imbeciles.
The Mueller 'gang' as I'll call them has been caught with their pants down. The
official FBI lawyer team-member of the Mueller gang is now under criminal
indictment. A criminal indictment has been filed against former FBI Attorney Kevin Clinsesmith.
H is criminal action occurred while he was a part of the Mueller Investigative Team . This
crime is detailed in the Information Charging Document filed by the United States Department of
Justice with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, wherein it
documents that "on or about June 19, 2017" Kevin Clinesmith "did willfully and knowingly make
and use a false writing and document, knowing the same to contain materially false, fictitious,
and fraudulent statement and entry in a matter before the jurisdiction of the executive branch
and judicial branch of the Government of the United States".
Kevin Clinesmith while he was part of the Mueller Team did this while President Trump was in
office.
-- "Count One" violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (a) (3), that specifically says Clinesmith
"shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves
international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8
years, or both" -- the critical meaning of which is that Clinesmith is not only facing 5-years
in prison, but could see his sentence having another 8-years added on if the crime he committed
was domestic terrorism as defined by 18 U.S. C. § 2331.Definitions -- a definition
that makes it a domestic terrorism crime "to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion" -- and is a domestic terrorism crime.
Clinesmith effectively admitted to committing this crime when he sent a text saying "I Have
Initiated the Destruction of the Republic" -- that explains why Clinesmith has agreed to a plea
deal with US Attorney Durham that will see him pleading guilty and giving evidence against
other coup plotters.
Clinesmith is proving to be a linchpin of the Operation Crossfire Hurricane investigation
that the FBI used to illegally target the Trump campaign in which Clinesmith took part in the
decision to send an FBI special agent into a counterintelligence briefing with Donald Trump and
General Michael Flynn. Clinesmith being one of the FBI lawyers who took part in interviews with
George Papadopoulos -- as well as Clinesmith was one of the plotters behind the FISA warrant
having been illegally obtained to spy on President Trump after he was in office. Clinesmith did
with joy as evidenced by his 22 November 2016 text disdaining Trump's election victory saying
Viva le
Resistance , of which caught Clinesmith by his short-hairs and he now fearing dread knowing
he stuck his foot in his mouth so-to-speak.
It is now Trump's turn to take down all of the membership of the attempted Coup d'Etat. Pop
your popcorn, get out your beer and sodas, and settle in. The show is just getting started.
Even though we assume (the case is not clear yet) this is all about Clinsesmith reversing
the meaning of a document submitted to the FISA court, about as bad act a senior FBI lawyer
can get up to, they are nowhere near as confident as yourself about the potential outcome of
this case over at the CTH.
Much more along the lines of this being another James Wolfe situation. Like Wolfe,
Clinsesmith knows too much and if he spills it all hell lets loose. However, to show there is
justice for all he, again like Wolfe, will spend a short amount of time in a white collar
jail and that's it.
By pleading guilty he has saved himself a small fortune in lawyers fees. Nice one.
I agree that he has made a deal with Durham but if Durham presses him he must tell all
about all or loose the deal and become the cutest fellow in the cell block.
Someone asked that I paint a bird's eye, 20,000 mile high view of the why's and
wherefore's for this whole fiasco, and I'd like feedback.
I draw a direct line from Russiagate to the West's NATO/EU expansion it's collusion with
fascist forces to Regime Change(TM) Ukraine in '14
• where Manafort was working to promote Ukraine's EU accession (AGAINST Russia's
interests)
• backed by the Clinton, Obama, McCain, Kerry, Nuland State Department, and the
establishment media
• leading Crimeans to vote 95% for annexation with Russia, to escape the Ukraine
civil war
prompting punishing sanctions to damage the recovery of Russia
• which was looted by the oligarchs under Clinton/Yeltsin/Summers "shock therapy" in
the '90s.
• including by oligarch tax cheat Bill Browder who lied to promote the extra-judicial
and bogus Magnitsky Act (REAL reason for Trump Tower meeting)
• all hiding behind a massive psy-op campaign of McCarthyite anti-Russia, anti-Putin
hysteria
• brought to you by the (corrupt) FBI, CIA, NSA, MI-6, Five Eyes, all led by the nose
by John Brennan, and
• and the disinfo industry and a spy network which laid out the breadcrumbs of
distraction, while trying to entrap bozos George Papadopolous, Carter Page, Roger Stone,
etc.
• ALL because Trump (via Manafort) would know the truth, and not see Russia as THE
ENEMY - which would totally blowing their cover.
So, the incompetent Dems handed Trump his re-election victory and sparked a dangerous new
Cold War (World War?) and nuclear M.A.D.
No one benefits from this other than the military/national security/information industry
complex.
"I draw a direct line from Russiagate to the West's NATO/EU expansion it's collusion with
fascist forces to Regime Change(TM) Ukraine in '14" Do you think the Russians were guilty or
not?
Plead guilty to a crime and you lose your bar license. I guess Clinesmith was not ready to
fall back being only a bar-tender after all, so he is now wiggling out of his "plea
agreement". The gulf between pleading guilty and pleading nolo contendre now appears
insurmountable.
Reality bites, along with the drawn-out difficulty getting justice in any of this Spygate
takedown. Humbles one about the amount of time it takes to actually build a beyond a
reasonable doubt case against any of these now exposed players, when the defendant can
successfully argue - I didn't intend to commit a crime, and/or I can't recall or I don't
remember anything about this incident.
Carry on Barr-Durham You have my very best wishes and even prayers. Just like Benghazi,
something happened, but you just can't prove something happened. Is that justice served or a
miscarriage of justice?
An alternate theory that I find very plausible is that FBI contractors were using the NSA
database for political opposition research. When the NSA found out and closed that avenue
there was a movement to hide that activity. Russia Collusion provided that opportunity as the
Clinton campaign funded Steele Dossier got laundered by Fusion GPS, DOJ official Bruce Ohr
and with the support of Obama White House became the basis to launch a counter-intelligence
investigation. After Trump got elected this operation moved to hide and obfuscate. Getting
Flynn out became priority one and Trump obliged by firing him. Mueller was the additional
option to prevent exposure and Trump once gain acceded by not declassifying.
As documents get declassified now the public, at least those following this story, get to
see how law enforcement and intelligence were used to interfere in a presidential election
and frame an opposition political candidate and duly elected president as a Manchurian
Candidate. Even more importantly we see how the entire justice system got weaponized using
false evidence and secret courts as well as a campaign of disinformation using the media who
were in cahoots to destroy the Trump presidency.
Clinesmith's plea deal is an important cornerstone in uncovering both the malfeasance and
the violation of law. He knowingly submitted false evidence to FISC to obtain a FISA warrant.
The only open question is how far and deep does Bill Barr want to go?
Begging your indulgence for my 'stream-of-consciousness' argument. Just trying to connect
so many points and history into a concise post.
My view of Russia under Putin has been of a country initially leaning West but unwilling
to give up its sovereignty to US diktat, given the history of NATO aggression.
It was the logical course of events which convinced me Putin was not the aggressor in
Ukraine. First, the Sochi Olympics with all of the media potshots at Russia/Putin, concurrent
and immediately followed by the Maidan coupe and ultra-right attacks on eastern Ukrainians,
especially the fiery massacre in the Odessa Trade Union building killing nearly nearly 50,
with 200 injured.
In the public record at the time was NATO's position that Ukraine must cancel a lease
given the Russians to keep its centuries old naval fleet (it's only warm water base) on the
Crimean peninsula. So, the accession of Crimea to the Russian federation by democratic vote
seemed only too logical, considering it had historically been considered part of Russia.
Otherwise, Russia foreign policy appears to be a model for the world, when compared
side-by-side with that of the U.S., IMHO.
The late June 'Russian bounties in Afghanistan' story lasted no longer than a mere week
given that some of the very publications pushing it
were forced to walk it back based on not only key claims not bearing out, but a slew of top
intel officials and Pentagon generals saying it was baseless.
And then like many other 'Russiagate'-inspired narratives (in this case Trump was accused of
essentially 'looking the other way' while Russians supposedly paid the Taliban to kill US
troops), it was memory-holed.
But this apparently hasn't stopped the State Department or the Pentagon from using it as
leverage while talking to the Russians. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned his counterpart,
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, that "there will be an enormous price to pay" if the Kremlin
did indeed pay Afghan fighters to attack Americans or other Westerners .
"That's what I shared with Foreign Minister [Sergey] Lavrov," Pompeo said. "I know our
military has talked to their senior leaders as well. We won't brook that; we won't tolerate
that."
Russia has of course, denied involvement in any such operation, which many analysts have
pointed out would carry major risk of stoking military conflict with the United States but with
little positive gain in the region.
Pompeo also said in the interview
: "We will do everything we need to do to protect and defend every American soldier and, for
that matter, every soldier from the Czech Republic or any other country that's part of the
Resolute Support Mission to make sure that they're safe."
Importantly, it marks the first time any US official has broached the Russian bounties story
with a Kremlin officials .
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
But again, it's somewhat strange given the US administration (and multiple
US intelligence agencies ) has repeatedly denied that it has any merit. Trump has gone so
far as to all it a "hoax". Thus Pompeo's message to the Russians appears a pure tactic for
achieving leverage.
Or alternately, it could be that Pompeo is just plain undermining Trump on this one.
Unitended Consequences , 5 minutes ago
Pompeo is a Deep State mole.
David Wooten , just now
There is still a big disconnect between Trump and the 'Trump' administration.
Have to wonder at the re-emergence of Russiagate. Seems a major reason for its emergence
is to shame voters into voting for Biden. If you do not vote for Biden, you are Putin's
useful idiot. In particular aimed at African Americans. Recently a NYT reporter claimed that
it was Russian mean tweets, etc that caused a very dramatic drop in African American turn out
in 2016. See screen shot by Aron Mate as the NYT reporter deleted the tweets.
Looks like the DNC may be very nervous about Black turnout after Biden's many racial
gaffes. Imagine Black turnout if he chooses Susan Rice as his VP. The DNC may have to go to
Putin to ask for his help.
Were you aware that the Steele dossier had a significant other?
"Rep Devin Nunes:
"You may remember that the State Department was involved and there were additional
dossiers that weren't the Steele dossier- except that they mirrored the Steele dossier.
And we think there is a connection between the [former] president of Brookings
and those dossiers that were given to the State Department."
"
...
Also from article:
"
The "additional dossiers that weren't the Steele dossier" addressed by Nunes
is a reference to a lesser known dodgy dossier produced by Brookings-affiliated
journalist Cody Shearer (brother-in-law of Strobe Talbott) which was crafted
explicitly to validate the wildly unsupported claims found in Steele's dossier.
"
I know it sounds wacky to those of you who still put some store in MSM nonsense,
but I still believe that what we know as "Russiagate" was a carefully planned operation
to:
initiate a new anti-Russia McCarthyism -
after Trump's election, MSM repeated Russigate accusations about Russian meddling
every night for months;
elect MAGA Nationalist (Trump, not Hillary!) -
as Kissinger had called for in his Aug 2014 WSJ Op-Ed;
discredit Wikileaks/Assange;
lead to a vindictive settling of scores with Assange, Flynn, Manafort.
Also: It's likely that Skripal was the true "primary sub-source" and that he was drugged
because he planned to flee back to Russia because he realised that he knew too much. He knew
that the "dirty dossier" was meant to be untrue and easily debunked. It would never actually
tarnish Trump - only Russia. Not surprisingly, Trump's MAGA Nationalism has been
strengthened by Russiagate allegations while the anti-Russia sentiment remains.
From the document: "Binney is quoted as being convinced by Campbell's analysis and now
believes the DNC data was hacked."
This person gets it wrong. What Binney concluded was that the data was *manipulated" and
therefore can not be used to establish much of anything. However, the point that the data
could not be transmitted at the speed estimated in 2016 is still basically valid and that the
data was loaded onto removable storage is also still likely. *However*, that fact has always
been mostly irrelevant, since no one knows how many times it was moved and by what means.
Almost certainly it was moved by an external storage device at some point before ending up in
Wikileaks. Craig Murray pretty much said as much.
How I would have done it is sit outside the DNC server location with a decent high-speed
WiFi connection to their wireless network (I presume they have one, everyone does these
days), and after doing whatever was necessary, either as an employee or a spy, to connect to
the network, I would have downloaded the data to my wireless device (laptop, presumably). The
NSA would be oblivious to this transfer, although depending on my anti-forensics skill, it
might still have been detected internally by a computer forensics expert. CrowdStrike never
found the actual leaker or the exfiltration method AFAIK; all they found was some malware -
which means whoever took it was either authorized to do so (or used the credentials of
someone else authorized to do so - standard operating procedure for either external or
internal spies) or was very good at anti-forensics. Or CrowdStrike was simply incompetent. Or
all three.
What the data analysis *does* do is disprove the US allegation that Russians extracted the
data *over the Internet* *directly* to Wikileaks. Nothing in the Mueller report suggests the
data was moved by external storage media. Binney's statement that if it was moved over the
Internet, the NSA would know it and could prove it remains true. That they never have is one
huge red flag about the Mueller claims.
The rest of the conspiracy analysis in the linked document is only minimally interesting.
The 5G stuff just shows the writer to be a non-scientist, as they fully admit, while still
suggesting that 5G is some sort of health threat. I wouldn't be surprised if it is to some
degree. The problem is that no one outside the non-ionizing radiation scientific community
has any real clue to *what* degree. If the international organizations have concluded it is
not, it takes, as they say, "extraordinary evidence" to prove them wrong. None of that has
been forthcoming, in particular nothing by Snake here. So it's a waste of time to take it
seriously. I've asked Snake for *one* single experiment done by *anyone* with real
credentials that uses the actual level of radiation from either a 5G phone or a tower to
cause subjects to get the virus. AFAIK there is no such experiment done anywhere by anyone.
So there is no evidence it happens - or for that matter, no evidence it doesn't except
current recognized science. Which, as I say, has been dismissed by the real experts.
Everything else is speculation - and conspiracy theory.
In general, I like conspiracy theories. They provide a fertile field for investigation -
if someone has the means to do so. Most conspiracy theorists don't have the means. They just
regurgitate the available reports - which, by definition, are unreliable - and engage in
"analysis", which really means speculation. Only on the ground investigation can begin to get
at the truth.
Back in 1968 or 1969, I forget which, I actually went to Point Pleasant, West Virginia, to
talk to people about the legendary "Mothman" that journalist John Keel had written about. I
talked to the cops involved, a stringer reporter who had accompanied Keel in his
investigations, and some of the UFO witnesses in the area. I couldn't establish what actually
happened from this, but it *did* confirm what Keel had written was what he was told.
Keel was an "old-school" journalist who believed in "ground truth". The problem with most
conspiracy theorists is that most of them don't have either the technical expertise or the
resources to get "ground truth". Keel himself told me once that he would go to a location, do
some investigation, deliver a talk of some sort, and write off his expenses as tax
write-offs, which he said the IRS was not happy about. And he was by no means rich, his books
never sold that much. Without a significant income, it's next to impossible to determine the
truth of 99% of the events in any given conspiracy theory.
Or for that matter, the truth in 99% of the main stream news. But it's not 100%. The other
problem conspiracy theorists have - and we see it here daily - is that just because a report
comes from the MSM, it *has* to be false in its *entirety*. Which is ridiculous. Most of the
MSM news is valid reporting. It's just how much is left out and how the spin is applied from
the wording or who the source was that is the problem. A few things might be completely made
up, but most things aren't. But if the reporter hasn't himself done the leg-work to verify
the statements of the sources, then it has to be considered unreliable or at least
incomplete.
"The Sedwill/Younger narrative of what happened on the day, the British prosecution case
against two GRU agents for the novichok attack, and the ongoing inquest into the cause of
Dawn Sturgess's death remain at risk of exposure; to reduce that risk and move on to a new
policy towards Russia and other enemies, Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings have now forced
Sedwill and Younger into retirement, concealing the purge and their purpose": John
Helmer."Dances with Bears" website.
Thanks to Mark2 for the YouTube link on the 77th brigade. You may find Helmer's
investigations as fascinating as I do.
And as an adjunct to uncle tungsten's comments re. the round table and Rhodes scholarship
recipients. Susan Rice is a Rhodes scholar. This is portentous.
"The long read [...] does not account for who or what instigated the British spies into
launching their campaign against Trump. My hunch is that then CIA director John Brennan was
the central person behind it."
You're starting from the assumption that our British "cousins" are junior partners in the
American hegemon's globalist designs, but in fact American imperialism is a departure from
its founding principles, in which willing Anglophiles (Aaron Burr, J.P. Morgan, the Dulles
Bros., to name a few -- you get the picture) have always subverted efforts by US leaders to
break from British geopolitics as formulated by Halford Mackinder, etc., for whom the
survival of Atlanticist world power still depends on preventing US-Russia collaboration to
bring about a world anti-colonialist order. This oligarchy, whose species memory far
surpasses that of the clueless masses for whom they rewrite history, can still feel the burn
of Catherine the Great's support for the American Revolution when she refused George III
Russia's help suppressing rebellion in the American colonies, or when Alexander II deployed
two whole fleets of the Russian Navy to prevent the British from bailing out the failing
Confederacy. More recently, Franklin Roosevelt sent Churchill into apoplectic rage when he
categorically rejected that racist pig's demand to return her colonies back to Britain at the
end of the war.
Since at least the assassination of Lincoln (or earlier, when British soldiers came down
from Canada to burn down Washington in 1814) the British Empire and its surviving heirs have
always been at the core of efforts to denature America, replacing win-win Hamiltonian
economics with a phony "free-trade" ideology increasingly adopted as gospel by "western"
economic authorities, and sabotaging every effort by Americans to play a productive,
cooperative role with other nations in world affairs. Just like Hillary Clinton and her
crazed minions refuse to acknowledge the election of Donald Trump, the Brits never accepted
the loss of their former colonies, and have never missed an opportunity to subvert the
uniquely American System by which we became a world power -- no thanks to any kind of
"special relationship" with Britain, which quickly sank its hooks into our finances by
establishing Wall Street as an outpost of the City of London, and infiltrating all of our
political and economic as well as cultural and academic institutions (Harvard, e.g.) with
devotees of that financial empire. True American interests have always been betrayed by
Anglophile fifth-columnists aligned with the Brits -- more broadly defined as a true
oligarchy that goes back to Venice and its alliance with the Ottoman Empire to bring down
Constantinople, the gateway to a Eurasian powerhouse which then and now threatens to weaken
these globalists' hold over world affairs.
So "Rule Britannia" is still the battle cry of the Five Eyes "intelligence community" as
it spins out wild, implausible narratives to demonize every alternative to the necrotic
vulture capitalism behind globalist hegemony, which most mistakenly see as an American
enterprise but in reality is the essence of the "Deep State" that so-called patriots believe
they oppose. Such is these psy-warriors' control of collective awareness, through mainstream
media and well-placed mouthpieces, as well as, increasingly, "independent" social media and
education itself, that red-blooded Americans who instinctively deplore this usurpation of
their sovereignty blame Russia, or China, or whomever, and mindlessly parrot absurd
"intelligence community" slanders against any country standing up to the status quo
Perfidious Albion has been craftily building since... well, since the day after Yorktown. Any
initial skepticism at this historical perspective, protestations that such claims are
preposterous and the British Empire died long ago, will quickly fall away as the origin of
every fake news item used against the Trump administration is examined, whether paid for by
the Democratic Party, the FBI, etc. Consider this a mere primer in a much-needed re-framing
of strategic analyses at this time. As Leviathan lashes out in increasing pain at an
encroaching multi-polar paradigm of development and growth, its DNA will become increasingly
apparent.
My hunch is that the "long read," by omitting this piece of the puzzle, is a bit of
a cover-up... or, as they say, "limited hangout."
a bit of a cover-up... or, as they say, "limited hangout."
I concur with that.
I believe that the operation was approved by bigwigs in both the US and UK
establishment.
Gina Haspel's presence in London is not likely to be an accident. If the operation was
supposed to elect Hillary instead of Trump, I suspect she wouldn't be CIA Director today.
We should not underestimate the angst in 2013 and 2014 at Russia's interventions in Syria
and Ukraine. Russian assertiveness showed that their alliance with China was serious.
The poms have a way of getting away with this kind of stuff - have been doing it for their
entire history. Lots of conspiring, lots of coverupping. But when the Americans are
actively involved I guess things can get complicated.
Thank you for that post. re Skripals - it is also possible that the two 'Russian chaps'
picked up what they were after (left at a drop by Sergei) and returned to London as planned
and then on to Russia that night. When the MI6 imagined rendezvous between the Russian chaps
and Skripals failed to materialise and then things went pear shape at the pub, MI6 decided to
fix the Skripals. Perhaps they left the 'Russian chaps' alone as it was all too late or too
dangerous for MI6 to grab them as well. Perhaps Sergei gave them material that was promptly
uploaded and sent home as the two rode the train to London. They caught the 1300 train afaik
and the Skripals were 'hit' at 1700 more or less.
But something critical seems to have gone down at the pub and MI6 was not in that loop.
Mayhem ensued as the Skripals then walked away to their doom.
Pure speculation on my part as I seek logic in a black ops world.
Thank you for the advice on Susan Rice. Rhodes Scholar data base here for barflies to ponder . See Alumni and
Volunteers for a roadmap etc.
Even before Rep. Tulsi Gabbard threatened to
boycott the October 15th Dem debate as the DNC usurps the role of voters in the Democratic primacy 2020 election and with an
impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump on the table, the Swamp was stirred and its slimy muck may be about to come to
the surface as never before.
If so, those revelations are long overdue.
It is no secret to the observant that since the 2016 election, the Democratic Party has been in a state of near-collapse, the
victim of its own hubris, having lost their moral compass with unsubstantiated Russisgate allegations; those accusations continue
as a futile exercise of domestic regime change.
Today's Dems are less than a bona fide opposition party offering zero policy solutions, unrecognizable from past glories and
not the same political party many of us signed up for many years ago. Instead, the American public is witnessing a frenzied, unscrupulous
strategy.
Desperate in the denial of its demise, confronting its own shadow of corruption as the Dems have morphed into a branch of the
CIA – not unlike origins of the East German Stasi government.
It should not be necessary to say but in today's hyper volatile political climate it is: No American should be labelled as anything
other than a loyal American to be deeply disturbed by the Democrat/CIA collusion that is currently operating an unprecedented
Kangaroo Court in secret, behind closed doors; thus posing an ominous provocation to what remains of our Constitutional Republic.
As any politically savvy, independent thinking American might grasp, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck
Schumer and their entire coterie of sycophants always knew that Russiagate was a crock of lies.
They lied to their willing Democratic rank n file, they lied to American public and they continue to lie about their bogus Impeachment
campaign.
It may be that whistleblower
Ed Snowden's revelations about the NSA surveillance state was the first inkling for many Americans that there is a Big Problem
with an out-of-control intelligence community until Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer warned that
Trump was being 'really dumb " in daring to question Intel's faulty conclusion that Russia hacked the 2016 election.
"Let me tell you. You take on the intelligence community = they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you."
Inescapably, Schumer was suggesting that the Congress has no oversight, that there is no accountability and that the US has lost
its democratic roots when a newly elected President does not have the authority to question or publicly disagree with any of the
Intel agencies.
Since the 2016 election, there has been a steady drumbeat of the US Intel's unabashed efforts to undermine and otherwise prevent
a newly elected President from governing – which sounds like a clear case of insubordination or some might call it treasonous.
The Intel antipathy does not appear to be rooted in cuts to a favorite social services program but rather protecting a power,
financial and influence agenda that
goes
far deeper and more profound than most Americans care to contemplate.
Among a plethora of egregious corporate media reactions, no doubt stirred by their Intel masters, was to a
July, 2018 summit meeting between Russian President Putin and Trump in Helsinki emblematic of illegitimate censures from Intel
veterans and its cronies:
Not one praised Trump for pursuing peace with Russia.
And yet, fellow Americans, it is curious to consider that there was no outrage after the 911 attacks in 2001 from any member of
Congress, President Bush or the Corporate Media that the US intelligence community had utterly failed in its mission to keep the
American public safe.
There was no reckoning, not one person in authority was held accountable, not one person who had the responsibility to 'know'
was fired from any of the Intel agencies. Why is that?
As a result of the corrupt foundation of the Russiagate allegations, Attorney General Bob Barr and Special Investigator John Durham
appear
hot on the trail with law enforcement in Italy as they have apparently scared the bejesus out of what little common sense remains
among the Democratic hierarchy as if Barr/Durham might be headed for Obama's Oval Office.
Barr's earlier comment before the Senate that " spying did occur' and that '
it's a big deal' when
an incumbent administration (ie the Obama Administration) authorizes a counter-Intelligence operation on an opposing candidate (ie
Donald Trump) has the Dems in panic-stricken overdrive – and that is what is driving the current Impeachment Inquiry.
With the stark realization that none of the DNC's favored top tier candidates has the mojo to go the distance, the Democrats have
now focused on a July 25th
phone call between Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in which Trump allegedly ' pressured ' Zelenskyy to investigate
Joe Biden's relationship with Burisma, the country's largest natural gas provider.
Zelenskyy, who defeated the US-endorsed incumbent President Petro Poroshenko in a landslide victory, speaks Russian, was elected
to clean up corruption and end the conflict in eastern Ukraine. The war in the Donbass began as a result of the US State Department's
role in the
overthrow of democratically elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014.
Trump's first priority on July 25th was
Crowd Strike , a cybersecurity firm with links to the HRC campaign which was hired by the DNC to investigate Russian hacking
of its server.
The Dems have reason to be concerned since it is worth contemplating why the FBI did not legally mandate that the DNC turn its
server over to them for an official Federal forensic inspection.
One can only speculate those chickens may be coming home to roost.
Days after an anonymous whistleblower (not to be confused with a real whistleblower like Edward Snowden) later identified as a
CIA analyst with a professional history linked to Joe Biden,
publicly released a
Complaint against
Trump.
House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi announced
the initiation of an ambiguous Impeachment Inquiry campaign with little specificity about the process. The Complaint is suspect since
it reads more like a professionally prepared Affidavit and the Dems consider Pelosi's statement as sufficient to initiate a formal
process that fails to follow the time-honored path of a full House vote predicating a legitimate impeachment inquiry on to the Judiciary
Committee.
Of special interest is how the process to date is playing out with the House Intelligence Committee in a key role conducting what
amounts to
clandestine meetings , taking depositions and witness statements behind closed doors with a still secret unidentified whistleblower's
identity and voice obscured from Republican members of the Intel Committee and a witness testifying without being formally sworn
in – all too eerily similar to East Germany.
The pretense of shielding the thinly veiled CIA operative as a whistleblower from public exposure can only be seen as an overly-dramatic
transparent performance as the Dems have never exhibited any concern about protecting real whistleblowers like Snowden, Chelsea Manning,
Bill Binney, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, Julian Assange, Jeffrey Sterling and others who were left to fend for themselves as the
Obama Administration prosecuted more true, authentic whistleblowers than any other administration since the
Espionage Act of 1917 .
As the paradigm shift takes its toll on the prevailing framework of reality and our decayed political institutions, (the FBI and
DOJ come to mind as the Inspector General's report is due at week's end), how much longer does the Democratic Party, which no longer
serves a useful public purpose, deserve to exist?
Russia is backing Donald Trump, China is supporting Joe Biden and Iran is seeking to sow
chaos in the US presidential election, a top intelligence official has warned in a sobering
assessment of foreign meddling.
The
statement on Friday by William Evanina, director of the National Counterintelligence and
Security Center, raises fears of a repeat of the 2016 election, when Russia manipulated social
media to help Trump and hurt his opponent Hillary Clinton.
"Russia is using a range of measures to primarily denigrate former Vice President Biden and
what it sees as an anti-Russia 'establishment'," Evanina said. "This is consistent with
Moscow's public criticism of him when he was Vice President for his role in the Obama
Administration's policies on Ukraine and its support for the anti-Putin opposition inside
Russia."
Evanina identified Andriy Derkach, a pro-Russia Ukrainian politician, as "spreading claims
about corruption – including through publicized leaked phone calls" to attack Biden's
campaign.
The Washington Post reported that Derkach has met repeatedly with Trump's personal lawyer,
Rudy Giuliani, who has pushed conspiracy theories about the former
vice-president.
Evanina also warned that some "Kremlin-linked actors" were spreading false claims about
corruption to undermine Biden, while others were trying to "boost President Trump's candidacy
via social media and Russian television".
Evanina, the top intelligence official monitoring threats to the election, is a Trump
appointee. His statement lists China before Russia but presents less specific evidence of
direct interference by Beijing.
"We assess that China prefers that President Trump – whom Beijing sees as
unpredictable – does not win re-election," Evanina said. "China has been expanding its
influence efforts ahead of November 2020 to shape the policy environment in the United States,
pressure political figures it views as opposed to China's interests, and deflect and counter
criticism of China."
He added: "Beijing recognizes that all of these efforts might affect the presidential
race."
Evanina highlighted China's criticism of Trump's handling of the coronavirus pandemic, the
closure of China's consulate in Houston and the White House responses to Chinese actions in
Hong Kong and the South China Sea.
On Friday, the US imposed sanctions on Hong Kong's chief executive, Carrie Lam, and 10
other senior officials. Trump has also ordered crackdowns on the
Chinese owners of the popular apps TikTok and WeChat.
Iran, meanwhile, was seeking to undermine US democratic institutions and Trump, and to
divide the country ahead of the 2020 elections, Evanina's statement said.
"Iran's efforts along these lines probably will focus on on-line influence, such as
spreading disinformation on social media and recirculating anti-US content. Tehran's motivation
to conduct such activities is, in part, driven by a perception that President Trump's
reelection would result in a continuation of US pressure on Iran in an effort to foment regime
change."
Trump pulled the US out of a nuclear deal agreed by Barack Obama and imposed various
sanctions on Tehran.
The anti-Trump pressure group National Security Action denied that China's public actions
rose to the level of Russia's covert election interference. "Jarringly, the statement attempted
to minimize what Russia is doing – again attacking our democracy in a bid to secure
Trump's reelection – by comparing it to China's public criticism of the administration's
recent punitive measures against Beijing," a spokesperson, Ned Price, said. "Any interference
in our democracy is unacceptable, but there is no equivalence between the two efforts."
In a press conference at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, on Friday evening, Trump
reacted to the assessment by insisting: "I think that the last person Russia wants to see in
office is Donald Trump because nobody's been tougher on Russia than I have, ever.
"China would love us to have an election where Donald Trump lost to 'Sleepy' Joe Biden. They
would own our country. If Joe Biden was president, China would own our country ... Iran would
love to see me not be president."
The president added: "I'll make this statement. If and when we win, we will make deals with
Iran very quickly. We'll make deals with North Korea very quickly. Whatever happened to the war
in North Korea? You haven't seen that, have you?"
A hacking and social media campaign by Russia in 2016 is credited by US intelligence with
helping Trump to victory. It triggered the special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation,
which described Russian meddling
but did not conclude that there had been direct collusion by Trump or his campaign.
The November election is already under siege from the coronavirus pandemic, concerns over
whether the system can handle a surge in mail-in voting and constant attacks by Trump on the
integrity of the process.
Evanina warned that foreign adversaries may try to interfere with election systems by trying
to sabotage the voting process, stealing election data or questioning the validity of results:
"Foreign efforts to influence or interfere with our elections are a direct threat to the fabric
of our democracy."
The report raised concern on Capitol Hill. Marco Rubio and Mark Warner, the top Republican
and Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, said they "encourage political leaders on
all sides to refrain from weaponizing intelligence matters for political gain".
Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate majority leader, said: "It is no surprise our
adversaries have preferences in our elections. Foreign nations have tried to influence our
politics throughout American history. As Director Evanina's statement makes clear, Russian
malign influence efforts remain a significant threat. But it would be a serious mistake to
ignore the growing threats posed by China and Iran."
What MoA is focusing on here – that the body of the NY Times article lacks any
specific allegations to back up the scare headline – closely parallels the "Russian
bounties" story from a few weeks ago.
In that case as well, someone who actually read the initial, supposedly blockbuster
piece, found nothing to support the headline or provide details beyond the lead sentence or
two of the piece. And I'm speaking in objective terms: leaving aside whether a reader might
or might not find any specific alleged findings credible, they simply weren't there.
The follow-up "Russian bounties" articles added a very few specific allegations. These
were unconvincing, but more to the point, nobody paid attention to them or seemed to feel
they were needed, and they ceased within a few days. This was because the initial article had
served its purpose simply by putting this one sentence out there: "Russia is paying bounties
to the Taliban to kill U.S. soldiers."
That one bare assertion is now established as a meme (in more like the original sense
of the word than the funny pictures everyone sends around) that impersonates as an
established fact, and now regularly appears in establishment narratives, such as remarks by
members of Congress, and other corporate media pieces, e.g. this week's interview of Trump by
Jonathan Swan, which itself got a lot of coverage: ("Trump didn't bring up the bounties in
his phone conversation with Putin!").
The Times article MoA tries to examine today, only to find it doesn't actually exist in
substance beyond the headline, serves the same purpose, but for this sentence: "Russian
meddling in U.S. elections continues in 2020." This is necessary for the narrative managers
so that they aren't limited to referring to "meddling" as a mere historic event from 2016,
and can treat it as a live – and established as true – threat now. (Of course,
the meddling in 2016 was itself a phony story, and this shows how these manufactured memes
can be stacked one on top of the other to create the false edifice that the Beltway consensus
successfully purveys as the real world to most people in the U.S.)
There is little incentive for the Times and their intelligence-community "sources" to spin
more elaborate lies when the media-political-intellectual culture has degraded to the point
that no one thinks beyond the level of the naked meme. They thus avoid two problems
associated with staging more elaborate hoaxes: (1) it's more work; (2) specific falsehoods
can be disproven with facts. The sole major lesson the Beltway establishment took from the
2003 Iraq-WMD fiasco is to try to avoid lies specific enough that they can be disproven.
That's always been the purpose of intelligence agencies - in every nation throughout
history.
Government agencies work for their own benefit, without exception. And the leaders of
government always work the same way, regardless of the actual "national interests" or
"public interest".
The problem is that everyone believes the fantasy that somehow they can "elect" leaders
and government workers who don't do this. But all elections are manipulated by the
political elites themselves to insure that no one gets into power who might the remotest
notion of upsetting the profitable apply cart. And if any movement arose that sought to
prevent the manipulation of elections - say, a "third party" or some movement to de-fund
parties by elites - that movement itself would be deflected or undermined or taken
over.
It's a circus and you all are the circus animals. Get used to it.
I don't know where the idea that China wants Biden to win came from. The consensus I get
from reading actual PRC media in native Chinese is certainly the opposite: They are 100%
sure the Cold War 2.0 is going to escalate either way, so they will rather have Trump's
outward incompetence than another Obama-like knife-behind-the-smile schemer.
It is the rulers themselves and those who rule the rulers, who are fearful of losing
control of the levers of power. I recall the British in Egypt boasting: 'we don't rule
Egypt, we rule the rulers.'
It is not the accumulation of power for its own sake that is the intoxicating elixir of
the ruling elite. It is furthering their objectives, both open and hidden.
To understand their primary objectives one should ask: just what is the single most bi
partisan policy objective of US presidents, since Woodrow Wilson, with a few minor
differences of opinion and emphasis from Eisenhower and Kennedy? Just what was the first
priority item on the agenda at both the 1919 Paris 'Peace' Conference and the first United
Nations meetings at Lake Success?
It was amending the title deeds of Palestine and attempting to confer some kind of quasi
legitimacy on the new title deed holders.
The rulers are very afraid the future of the Zionist project is slipping away from their
control. So in their rabid and delusional minds anything goes from now on in the
furtherance of that self inflicted nightmare and the elimination of anyone or any country
that inhibits that objective. Watch out.
That's always been the purpose of intelligence agencies - in every nation throughout
history.
Government agencies work for their own benefit, without exception. And the leaders of
government always work the same way, regardless of the actual "national interests" or
"public interest".
The problem is that everyone believes the fantasy that somehow they can "elect" leaders
and government workers who don't do this. But all elections are manipulated by the
political elites themselves to insure that no one gets into power who might the remotest
notion of upsetting the profitable apply cart. And if any movement arose that sought to
prevent the manipulation of elections - say, a "third party" or some movement to de-fund
parties by elites - that movement itself would be deflected or undermined or taken
over.
It's a circus and you all are the circus animals. Get used to it.
I don't know where the idea that China wants Biden to win came from. The consensus I get
from reading actual PRC media in native Chinese is certainly the opposite: They are 100%
sure the Cold War 2.0 is going to escalate either way, so they will rather have Trump's
outward incompetence than another Obama-like knife-behind-the-smile schemer.
It is the rulers themselves and those who rule the rulers, who are fearful of losing
control of the levers of power. I recall the British in Egypt boasting: 'we don't rule
Egypt, we rule the rulers.'
It is not the accumulation of power for its own sake that is the intoxicating elixir of
the ruling elite. It is furthering their objectives, both open and hidden.
To understand their primary objectives one should ask: just what is the single most bi
partisan policy objective of US presidents, since Woodrow Wilson, with a few minor
differences of opinion and emphasis from Eisenhower and Kennedy? Just what was the first
priority item on the agenda at both the 1919 Paris 'Peace' Conference and the first United
Nations meetings at Lake Success?
It was amending the title deeds of Palestine and attempting to confer some kind of quasi
legitimacy on the new title deed holders.
The rulers are very afraid the future of the Zionist project is slipping away from their
control. So in their rabid and delusional minds anything goes from now on in the
furtherance of that self inflicted nightmare and the elimination of anyone or any country
that inhibits that objective. Watch out.
The first and the most important fact that there will no elections in November -- both candidates represent the same oligarchy,
just slightly different factions of it.
Look like NYT is controlled by Bolton faction of CIA. They really want to overturn the
results of 2020 elections and using Russia as a bogeyman is a perfect opportunity to achieve this
goal.
Neocons understand very well that it is MIC who better their bread, so amplifying rumors the simplify getting additional budget
money for intelligence agencies (which are a part of MIC) is always the most desirable goal.
Notable quotes:
"... But a new assessment says China would prefer to see the president defeated, though it is not clear Beijing is doing much to meddle in the 2020 campaign to help Joseph R. Biden Jr. ..."
"... The statement then claims: "Ahead of the 2020 U.S. elections, foreign states will continue to use covert and overt influence measures in their attempts to sway U.S. voters' preferences and perspectives, shift U.S. policies, increase discord in the United States, and undermine the American people's confidence in our democratic process." ..."
"... But how do the 'intelligence' agencies know that foreign states want to "sway preferences", "increase discord" or "undermine confidence" in elections? ..."
"... But ascribing motive and intent is a tricky business, because perceived impact is often mistaken for true intent. [...] Where is the evidence that Russia actually wants to bring down the liberal world order and watch the United States burn? ..."
"... Well there is none. And that is why the 'intelligence' agencies do not present any evidence. ..."
"... Is there a secret policy paper by the Russian government that says it should "increase discord" in the United States? Is there some Chinese think tank report which says that undermining U.S. people's confidence in their democratic process would be good for China? ..."
"... If the 'intelligence' people have copies of those papers why not publish them? ..."
"... Let me guess. The 'intelligence' agencies have nothing, zero, nada. They are just making wild-ass guesses about 'intentions' of perceived enemies to impress the people who sign off their budget. ..."
"... Nowadays that seems to be their main purpose. ..."
But when one reads the piece itself one finds no fact that would support the 'Russia
Continues Interfering' statement:
Russia is using a range of techniques to denigrate Joseph R. Biden Jr., American intelligence
officials said Friday in their first public assessment that Moscow continues to try to
interfere in the 2020 campaign to help President Trump.
At the same time, the officials said China preferred that Mr. Trump be defeated in
November and was weighing whether to take more aggressive action in the election.
But officials briefed on the intelligence said that Russia was the far graver, and more
immediate, threat. While China seeks to gain influence in American politics, its leaders have
not yet decided to wade directly into the presidential contest, however much they may dislike
Mr. Trump, the officials said.
The assessment, included in a
statement released by William R. Evanina, the director of the National
Counterintelligence and Security Center, suggested the intelligence community was treading
carefully, reflecting the political heat generated by previous findings.
The authors emphasize the scaremongering hearsay from "officials briefed on the
intelligence" - i.e. Democratic congress members - about Russia but have nothing to back it
up.
When one reads the
statement by Evanina one finds nothing in it about Russian attempts to interfere in the
U.S. elections. Here is the only 'evidence' that is noted:
For example, pro-Russia Ukrainian parliamentarian Andriy Derkach is spreading claims about
corruption – including through publicizing leaked phone calls – to undermine
former Vice President Biden's candidacy and the Democratic Party. Some Kremlin-linked actors
are also seeking to boost President Trump's candidacy on social media and Russian television.
After a request from Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's personal attorney, a Ukrainian
parliamentarian published Ukrainian
evidence of Biden's very real interference in the Ukraine. Also: Some guest of a Russian TV
show had an opinion. How is either of those two items 'evidence' of Russian interference in
U.S. elections?
The statement then claims: "Ahead of the 2020 U.S. elections, foreign states will continue to use covert and overt
influence measures in their attempts to sway U.S. voters' preferences and perspectives, shift
U.S. policies, increase discord in the United States, and undermine the American people's
confidence in our democratic process."
But how do the 'intelligence' agencies know that foreign states want to "sway preferences",
"increase discord" or "undermine confidence" in elections?
The mainstream view in the U.S. media and government holds that the Kremlin is waging a
long-haul campaign to undermine and destabilize American democracy. Putin wants to see the
United States burn, and contentious elections offer a ready-made opportunity to fan the
flames.
But ascribing motive and intent is a tricky business, because perceived impact is often
mistaken for true intent. [...] Where is the evidence that Russia actually wants to bring
down the liberal world order and watch the United States burn?
Well there is none. And that is why the 'intelligence' agencies do not present any
evidence.
Even the NYT writers have to
admit that there is nothing there:
The release on Friday was short on specifics, ...
and
Intelligence agencies focus their work on the intentions of foreign governments, and steer
clear of assessing if those efforts have had an effect on American voters.
How do 'intelligence' agencies know Russian, Chinese or Iranian 'intentions'. Is there a
secret policy paper by the Russian government that says it should "increase discord" in the
United States? Is there some Chinese think tank report which says that undermining U.S.
people's confidence in their democratic process would be good for China?
If the 'intelligence' people have copies of those papers why not publish them?
Let me guess. The 'intelligence' agencies have nothing, zero, nada. They are just making
wild-ass guesses about 'intentions' of perceived enemies to impress the people who sign off
their budget.
Nowadays that seems to be their main purpose.
Posted by b on August 8, 2020 at 18:08 UTC |
Permalink
Many people have asked me why I haven't written a book since the start of my reporting on
the FBI's debunked investigation into whether President Donald Trump's campaign conspired with
Russia.
I haven't done so because I don't believe the most important part of the story has been
told: indictments and accountability. I also don't believe we actually know what really
happened on a fundamental level and how dangerous it is to our democratic republic. That will
require a deeper investigation that answers the fundamental questions of the role played by
former senior Obama officials, including the former President and his aides.
We're getting closer but we're still not there.
Still, the extent of what happened during the last presidential election is much clearer now
than it was years ago when trickles of evidence led to years of what Fox News host Sean Hannity and I
would say was peeling back the layers of an onion. We now know that the U.S. intelligence and
federal law enforcement was weaponized against President
Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and administration by a political opponent. We now know how
many officials involved in the false investigation into the president trampled the
Constitution.
I never realized how terrible the deterioration inside the system had become until four
years ago when I stumbled onto what was happening inside the FBI. Those concerns were brought
to my attention by former and current FBI agents, as well as numerous U.S. intelligence
officials aware of the failures inside their own agencies. But it never occurred to me when I
first started looking into fired FBI Director
James Comey and his former side kick Deputy Director A ndrew
McCabe that the cultural corruption of these once trusted American institutions was so
vast.
I've watched as Washington D.C. elites make promises to get to the bottom of it and bring
people to justice. They appear to make promises to the American people they never intended to
keep. Who will be held accountable for one of the most egregious abuses of power by bureaucrats
in modern American political history? Now I fear those who perpetuated this culture of
corruption won't ever really be held accountable.
These elite bureaucrats will, however, throw the American people a bone. It's how they
operate.
One example is the most recent decision by the Justice Department to ask that charges be
dropped on former national security advisor Michael Flynn. It's just a bone because we know now
these charges should have never been brought against the three-star general but will anyone on
former Special Counsel
Robert Mueller's team have to answer for ruining a man's life. No, they won't. In fact,
Flynn is still fighting for his freedom.
Think about what has already happened? From former Attorney General Jeff Session's
appointment of Utah Prosecutor John Huber to the current decision by Attorney General William
Barr to appoint Connecticut prosecutor John Durham to investigate the malfeasance what has been
done? Really, nothing at all. No one has been indicted.
The investigation by the FBI against Trump was never predicated on any real evidence but
instead, it was a set-up to usurp the American voters will. It doesn't matter that the
establishment didn't like Trump, in 2016 the Americans did. Isn't that a big enough reason to
bring charges against those involved?
His election was an anomaly for the Washington elite. They were stunned when Trump won and
went into full gear to save their own asses from discovery and target anyone who supported him.
The truth is they couldn't stand the Trump and American disruptors who elected him to
office.
Now they will work hand in fist to ensure that this November election is not a repeat win of
2016. We're already seeing that play out everyday on the news.
But Barr and Durham are now up against a behemoth political machine that seems to be
operating more like a steam roller the closer we get to the November presidential
elections.
Barr told Fox News in June that he expects Durham's report to come before the end of summer
but like always, it's August and we're still waiting.
Little is known about the progress of Durham's investigation but it's curious as to why
nothing has been done as of yet and the Democrats are sure to raise significant questions or
concerns if action is taken before the election. They will charge that Durham's investigation
is politically motivated. That is, unless the charges are just brought against subordinates and
not senior officials from the former administration.
I sound cynical because I am right now. It doesn't mean I won't trying to get to the truth
or fighting for justice.
But how can you explain the failure of
Durham and Barr to actually interview key players such as Comey, or former Director of
National Intelligence James Clapper, or former CIA Director John Brennan. That is what we're
hearing from them.
If I am going to believe my sources, Durham has interviewed former FBI special agent Peter
Strzok, along with FBI Special agent
Joe Pientka, among some others. Still, nothing has really been done or maybe once again
they will throw us bone.
If there are charges to be brought they will come in the form of taking down the
subordinates, like Strzok, Pientka and the former FBI lawyer
Kevin Clinesmith , who altered the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act application
against short term 2016 campaign advisor Carter Page.
Remember DOJ Inspector General
Michael Horowitz's report in December, 2019: It showed that a critical piece of evidence
used to obtain a warrant to spy on Page in 2016 was falsified by Clinesmith.
But Clinesmith didn't act alone. He would have had to have been ordered to do such a
egregious act and that could only come from the top. Let's see if Durham ever hold those Obama
government officials accountable.
I don't believe he will.
Why? Mainly because of how those senior former Obama officials have behaved since the troves
of information have been discovered. They have written books, like Comey, McCabe, Brennan and
others, who have published Opinion Editorials and have taken lucrative jobs at cable news
channels as experts.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
It's frankly disgusting and should anger every American. We would never get away with what
these former Obama officials have done. More disturbing is that the power they wield through
their contacts in the media and their political connections allows these political 'oligarchs'
unchallenged power like never before.
Here's one of the latest examples.
Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's top prosecutor Andrew Weissmann just went after Barr
in a New York Times editorial on Wednesday. He went so far as to ask the Justice Department
employees to ignore any direction by Barr or Durham in the Russia investigations. From
Weissmann's New York Times Opinion Editorial:
Today, Wednesday, marks 90 days before the presidential election, a date in the calendar
that is supposed to be of special note to the Justice Department. That's because of two
department guidelines, one a written policy
that no action be influenced in any way by politics. Another, unwritten norm urges officials to defer
publicly charging or taking any other overt investigative steps or disclosures that could
affect a coming election.
Attorney General William Barr appears poised to trample on both. At least two developing
investigations could be fodder for pre-election political machinations. The first is an
apparently
sprawling investigation by John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, that began as
an examination of the origins of the F.B.I. investigation into Russia's interference in the
2016 election. The other , led
by John Bash, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas, is about the so-called
unmasking of Trump associates by Obama administration officials. Mr. Barr personally
unleashed both investigations and handpicked the attorneys to run them.
But Justice Department employees, in meeting their
ethical and legal obligations , should be well advised not to participate in any such
effort.
I think Barr and Durham need to move fast if they are ever going to do anything and if they
are going to prove me wrong. We know now that laws were broken and our Constitution was torched
by these rogue government officials.
We shouldn't give the swamp the time-of-day to accuse the Trump administration of playing
politics or interfering with this election. If the DOJ has evidence and is ready to indict they
need to do it now.
If our Justice Department officials haven't done their job to expose the corruption, clean
out our institutions and hold people accountable then it will be a tragedy for our nation and
the American people. I'm frankly tired of the back and forth. I'm tired of being toyed with and
lied to. I believe they should either put up or shut up.
Oh Please, JFK, MLK,RFK and MX were all just a few.
50 Years after JFK, still cannot release info?
Just who the hell are we kidding?
lay_arrow
Westcoaster , 4 hours ago
You're absolutely right. And don't get me started on 9/11. The country needs an old
fashion PURGE.
play_arrow
ebworthen , 4 hours ago
This is how empires collapse.
Cognitive Dissonance , 4 hours ago
There are two things a sociopath acquires on the way up the socioeconomic ladder.
1) Power
2) Knowledge of where all the dead bodies are.....especially the ones he or she
personally buried.
lay_arrow 1
NeitherStirredNorShaken , 4 hours ago
Sara must have missed my detailed facts and evidence over the last five years or so
proving the entire government guilty of sedition, treason, complete failure of fiduciary
duty and seemingly endless more crimes. Waiting for the hierarchy to prosecute itself is
a waste of time.
Instead of a book start putting together something like Citizens Arrest teams.
Gold Banit , 4 hours ago
Nobody has been charged and nobody has gone to jail and nobody will be charged or go
to jail cause DemoRats and Republicans are best of friends....Fact
I have a question for all of the American posters here!
How did you all get so dumb naive brainwashed and FN Stupid?
Is Hillary in jail ?V
play_arrow
LEEPERMAX , 3 hours ago
It's called " Running out the Clock " by almost every criminal on the planet.
WE'VE ALL BEEN PLAYED FROM THE GET GO .
play_arrow
yerfej , 3 hours ago
Its interesting that there are people out there who actually think this progressive
push can be stopped, it is now impossible. Sixty or seventy years ago there might have
been enough people with morals to fight but not anymore, the majority of people in the
media, courts, academia, and bureaucracy are immoral thieves who are only interested in
lining their pockets. They are HAPPY to see as many people as necessary sacrificed so
they can get theirs, everyone else be damned. Not sure what the exact turning point was
but its long ago.
ay_arrow
sborovay07 , 3 hours ago
Love Sarah and John. She's 100% right as unless the top treasonists pay for their
crimes it was nothing more of a shame investigation by Durnham. The victory laps taken by
Hannity and others is nothing more than hot air. Easy to bring down the little guys, but
the Comey's, Brennan's and Clapper's have to pay. Trump's trust in Barr is waning as we
get closer to the election. Most who have followed all of this the past 4 years know the
criminals are still within the bureaucracies that attempted to overthrow a sitting
President. Only if Assange would have been granted immunity to testify. Now we are
dependent on career government officials to bring justice. #RIPSeth.
Farmer Tink , 2 hours ago
Weissmann's oped in the NYT strikes me as a threat against any DOJ attorney who dares
work on any of Durham's cases. The Obama people would not have any compunctions against
trying to ruin the lives of any attorney there who doesn't defy Barr. I wouldn't expect
to be hired by any private firm ever again, I'd look for an attorney to represent me
before the disciplinary committee off my bar association and I would assume that I'd be
harassed and forced out by the next Dem AG if I did stay at DOJ.
Rather than see this as a symptom of strength, I see this as panic. If Durham has
nothing or will do nothing, then why threaten junior lawyers? Weissmann's an unethical
snake, but I think that he's rather nervous.
play_arrow
geo_w , 17 minutes ago
My respect for the FBI is gone.
Soloamber , 20 minutes ago
I would like to see what Weissmann's $haul was from the "Mueller " investigation .
Sessions was a joke and the Mueller financed fraud should never have taken place .
Trump has been blind sided over and over by intel at the FBI and DOJ .
They take care of themselves .
play_arrow
InTheLandOfTheBlind , 4 hours ago
Justice dept doesnt hold people accountable. They have to prove the opposite and let a
jury or judicial, not administrative, employee impose judgements.
It would be interesting to see how many of inhabitants of CHAZ zone, who experinced the "summer of love" will vote for Trump in
Novemebr.
Notable quotes:
"... The land of soy milk and honey was disbanded on July 1 and was duly eulogised by the usual suspects as basically an extended block party. A month on, the NY Times finally got around to sending a reporter to speak to the people who lived and worked in the area before the protestors moved in and produced an admittedly excellent piece of reportage on the situation. ..."
"... The piece, as journalist Michael Tracey observed on Twitter, would have been dismissed as right-wing propaganda just a month ago and shows that this little experiment in anarcho-communism was a million miles away from paradise. ..."
"... The picture painted by the residents is one of gangs of armed thugs running protection rackets and widespread vandalism. The first person mentioned in the piece, a gay man of Middle Eastern extraction named Faizel Khan, reveals that to get to the coffee shop he runs he had to get permission from "gun wielding white men" who at one point barricaded him and all his customers in the store. ..."
"... In his pre-CHOP days, Mr Hearns was a security guard for many years, but after the police vacated the area (their precinct was taken over by protesters and then promptly set on fire) he became part of the "Black Lives Matter Community Patrol". This patrol had locals "pay for their protection." ..."
"... It doesn't sound like they were particularly good at ensuring community cohesion either, considering six people were shot under their jurisdiction and two of them died. ..."
"... Observers also noted that rather than being a multi-racial melting pot of equality, the CHOP turned into a "white occupation" as the numbers of Antifa activists began to outnumber the BLM protesters. They also established "black only segregated areas" within the CHOP, making it frightening similar to the Confederacy, which also, coincidentally, seceded from the union. ..."
"... The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT. ..."
Following
an investigative report the paper of record has revealed that business owners who were stuck in the Capitol Hill Organised Protest
'aren't so sure about abolishing the police'. No sh*t Sherlock.
The New York Times has done something distinctly out of character and actually produced some decent journalism. Taking a break
from getting editors sacked for allowing Republican senators to write op-eds and forcing out the few remaining sane people on their
staff for not quaffing the identity politics Cool-Aid enthusiastically enough, they dispatched a reporter to
Seattle to pick through the remnants
of the CHOP , a month after it closed.
The Capital Hill Organised Protest, formally CHAZ (Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone), was the area of the city that, for 23 glorious
days, declared independence from the United States. A bunch of Black Lives Matter and Antifa radicals hoofed out the police and decided
to try and run the area as some sort of Marxist utopia. What they actually established was a gang run hellhole that made the Wild
West look like Switzerland.
It wasn't described as such at the time of course. Seattle's mayor said the city was in for a "summer of love"
and most
of the left-wing press would have had you believe that it was pretty much a hippy commune full of free vegan food and urban collective
farms.
The land of soy milk and honey was disbanded on July 1 and was duly eulogised by the usual suspects as basically an extended block
party. A month on, the NY Times finally got around to sending a reporter to speak to the people who lived and worked in the area
before the protestors moved in and produced an admittedly excellent piece of reportage on the situation. It was headlined,
"Abolish
the Police? Those Who Survived the Chaos in Seattle Aren't So Sure." The piece, as journalist Michael Tracey observed on Twitter,
would have been dismissed as right-wing propaganda just a month ago and shows that this little experiment in anarcho-communism was
a million miles away from paradise.
To say they "aren't sure" has to be the understatement of the year. The picture painted by the residents is one of gangs
of armed thugs running protection rackets and widespread vandalism. The first person mentioned in the piece, a gay man of Middle
Eastern extraction named Faizel Khan, reveals that to get to the coffee shop he runs he had to get permission from "gun wielding
white men" who at one point barricaded him and all his customers in the store.
Mr Khan's experiences during these three and a bit weeks of lawlessness were so horrendous that he and a host of other small business
owners, described as "lonely voices in progressive areas," are suing Seattle after the local police force refused to respond
to their calls for the duration of the CHOP. And as the litany of horrors they were subjected to is laid bare in the NY Times article,
it is not hard to see why.
Another character we meet in this saga is Rick Hearns. In his pre-CHOP days, Mr Hearns was a security guard for many years, but
after the police vacated the area (their precinct was taken over by protesters and then promptly set on fire) he became part of the
"Black Lives Matter Community Patrol". This patrol had locals "pay for their protection." Now what other organisation does
that remind you of? If you can't think of it, may I suggest you watch virtually any Martin Scorsese movie and I think you'll get
the picture.
It doesn't sound like they were particularly good at ensuring community cohesion either, considering
six people were shot
under their jurisdiction and two of them died. Interestingly, since they were replacing the "institutionally racist"
police force, (run by a black woman incidentally but why let facts spoil it) one of the victims was a black teenager.
Observers also noted that rather than being a multi-racial melting pot of equality, the CHOP turned into a "white occupation"
as the numbers of Antifa activists began to outnumber the BLM protesters. They also established "black only segregated areas"
within the CHOP, making it frightening similar to the Confederacy, which also, coincidentally, seceded from the union. Oh, and
they had a Warlord, Raz from CHAZ, too, just as an icing on the cake.
Quite why these so-called activists felt the need to see how anarchy turns out in a world where Somaila exists is beyond me, and
frankly any sane person who is even vaguely aware of history. I'm sure if they'd managed to get hold of the port it wouldn't have
been long before they decided to give piracy on the high seas a try, but alas they didn't have the time.
This just makes the tone of the NY Times piece all the more baffling. While it does chart the horrors of the zone well, framing
the notion of "abolishing the police" as anything other than irredeemably stupid is frankly ridiculous. I suppose they do
deserve praise for finally telling the story, but in no way does it make up for the way they have fomented and given succour to the
absurd and dangerous ideas that gave rise to the CHOP for so long.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
Guy Birchall, British journalist covering current affairs, politics and free speech issues. Recently published in The Sun and
Spiked Online. Follow him on Twitter @guybirchall 7 Aug, 2020 22:11
Get short URL
CHAZ/CHOP protesters remove man for bothering them, June 13, 2020
WASHINGTON -- Russia is using a range of techniques to denigrate Joseph R. Biden Jr.,
American intelligence officials said Friday in their first public assessment that Moscow
continues to try to interfere in the 2020 campaign to help President Trump.
At the same time, the officials said China preferred that Mr. Trump be defeated in November
and was weighing whether to take more aggressive action in the election.
But officials briefed on the intelligence said that Russia was the far graver, and more
immediate, threat. While China seeks to gain influence in American politics, its leaders have
not yet decided to wade directly into the presidential contest, however much they may dislike
Mr. Trump, the officials said.
The assessment, included in a
statement released by William R. Evanina, the director of the National Counterintelligence
and Security Center, suggested the intelligence community was treading carefully, reflecting
the political heat generated by previous findings.
The White House has
objected in the past to conclusions that Moscow is working to help Mr. Trump, and Democrats
on Capitol Hill have expressed growing concern that the intelligence agencies are not being
forthright enough about Russia's preference for him and that the agencies are introducing
China's anti-Trump stance to balance the scales.
The assessment appeared to draw a distinction between what it called the "range of measures"
being deployed by Moscow to influence the election and its conclusion that China prefers that
Mr. Trump be defeated.
It cited efforts coming out of pro-Russia forces in Ukraine to damage Mr. Biden and
Kremlin-linked figures who "are also seeking to boost President Trump's candidacy on social
media and Russian television."
China, it said, has so far signaled its position mostly through increased public criticism
of the administration's tough line on China on a variety of fronts.
An American official briefed on the intelligence said it was wrong to equate the two
countries. Russia, the official said, is a tornado, capable of inflicting damage on American
democracy now. China is more like climate change, the official said: The threat is real and
grave, but more long term.
Democratic lawmakers made the same point about the report, which also found that Iran was
seeking "to undermine U.S. democratic institutions, President Trump, and to divide the country"
ahead of the general election.
"Unfortunately, today's statement still treats three actors of differing intent and
capability as equal threats to our democratic elections," Speaker Nancy Pelosi and
Representative Adam B. Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said in a
joint statement.
Asked about the report during a news conference on Friday night at his golf club in New
Jersey, Mr. Trump said, "The last person Russia wants to see in office is Donald Trump because
nobody's been tougher on Russia than I have." He said that if Mr. Biden won the presidency,
"China would own our country."
Aides and allies of Mr. Biden assailed Mr. Trump, saying that he had repeatedly sided with
President Vladimir V. Putin on whether Russia had intervened to help him in 2016 and that he
had been impeached by the House for trying to pressure Ukraine into helping him undercut Mr.
Biden.
"Donald Trump has publicly and repeatedly invited, emboldened and even tried to coerce
foreign interference in American elections," said Tony Blinken, a senior adviser to the former
vice president.
It is not clear how much China is doing to interfere directly in the presidential election.
Intelligence officials have briefed Congress in recent days that much of Beijing's focus is on
state and local races. But Mr. Evanina's statement on Friday suggested China was on weighing an
increased effort.
"Although China will continue to weigh the risks and benefits of aggressive action, its
public rhetoric over the past few months has grown increasingly critical of the current
administration's Covid-19 response, closure of China's Houston Consulate and actions on other
issues," Mr. Evanina said.
Mr. Evanina pointed to growing tensions over territorial claims in the South China Sea, Hong
Kong autonomy, the TikTok app and other issues. China, officials have said, has also tried to
collect information on the presidential campaigns, as it has in previous contests.
The release on Friday was short on specifics, but that was largely because the intelligence
community is intent on trying to protect its sources of information, said Senator Angus King,
the Maine independent who caucuses with the Democrats.
"The director has basically put the American people on notice that Russia in particular,
also China and Iran, are going to be trying to meddle in this election and undermine our
democratic system," said Mr. King, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Intelligence officials said there was no way to avoid political criticism when releasing
information about the election. An official with the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence said that the goal was not to rank order threats and that Russia, China and Iran
all pose a danger to the election.
Fighting over the intelligence reports, the official said, only benefits adversaries trying
to sow divisions.
While both Beijing and Moscow have a preference, the Chinese and Russian influence campaigns
are very different, officials said.
Outside of a few scattered examples, it is hard to find much evidence of intensifying
Chinese influence efforts that could have a national effect.
Much of what China is doing currently amounts to using its economic might to influence local
politics, officials said. But that is hardly new. Beijing is also using a variety of means to
push back on various Trump administration policies, including tariffs and bans on Chinese tech
companies, but those efforts are not covert and it is unclear if they would have an effect on
presidential politics.
Russia, but not China, is trying to "actively influence" the outcome of the 2020 election,
said the American official briefed on the underlying intelligence.
"The fact that adversaries like China or Iran don't like an American president's policies is
normal fare," said Jeremy Bash, a former Obama administration official. "What's abnormal,
disturbing and dangerous is that an adversary like Russia is actively trying to get Trump
re-elected."
Russia tried to use influence campaigns during 2018 midterm voting to try to sway public
opinion, but it did not successfully tamper with voting infrastructure.
Mr. Evanina said it would be difficult for adversarial countries to try to manipulate voting
results on a large scale. But nevertheless, the countries could try to interfere in the voting
process or take steps aimed at "calling into question the validity of the election
results."
The new release comes on the heels of congressional briefings that have alarmed lawmakers,
particularly Democrats. Those briefings have described a stepped-up Chinese pressure campaign,
as well as efforts by Moscow to paint Mr. Biden as corrupt.
"Ahead of the 2020 U.S. elections, foreign states will continue to use covert and overt
influence measures in their attempts to sway U.S. voters' preferences and perspectives, shift
U.S. policies, increase discord in the United States, and undermine the American people's
confidence in our democratic process," Mr. Evanina said in a statement.
The statement called out Andriy Derkach, a pro-Russia member of Ukraine's Parliament who has
been involved in releasing information about Mr. Biden. Intelligence officials said he had ties
to Russian intelligence.
Intelligence officials have briefed Congress in recent weeks on details of the Russian
efforts to tarnish Mr. Biden as corrupt, prompting
senior Democrats to request more information.
A Senate committee led by Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, has been leading an
investigation of Mr. Biden's son Hunter Biden and his work for Burisma, a Ukrainian energy
firm. Some intelligence officials have said that a witness the committee was seeking to call
was a witting or unwitting agent of Russian disinformation.
Democrats had pushed intelligence officials to release more information to the public,
arguing that only a broad declassification of the foreign interference attempts can inoculate
voters against attempts by Russia, China or other countries to try to influence voting.
In
meetings on Capitol Hill , Mr. Evanina and other intelligence officials have expanded their
warnings beyond Russia and have included China and Iran, as well. This year, the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence put Mr. Evanina in charge of election security briefings to
Congress and the campaigns.
Intelligence and other officials in recent days have been stepping up their releases
of information about foreign interference efforts, and the State
Department has sent texts to cellphones around the world advertising a $10 million reward
for information on would-be election hackers.
How effective China's campaign or Russia's efforts to smear Mr. Biden as corrupt have been
is not clear. Intelligence agencies focus their work on the intentions of foreign governments,
and steer clear of assessing if those efforts have had an effect on American voters.
The first reactions from Capitol Hill to the release of the assessment were positive. A
joint statement by the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee
praised it, and asked colleagues to refrain from politicizing Mr. Evanina's statement.
Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, the acting Republican chairman of the committee, and Senator
Mark Warner of Virginia, the Democratic vice chairman, said they hoped Mr. Evanina continued to
make more information available to the public. But they praised him for responding to calls for
more information.
"Evanina's statement highlights some of the serious and ongoing threats to our election from
China, Russia, and Iran," the two men's joint statement said. "Everyone -- from the voting
public, local officials, and members of Congress -- needs to be aware of these threats."
Maggie Haberman contributed reporting from New York.
Behind every narrative
unfriendly to US geopolitical aims is a Russian proxy typing madly away, according to the Global Engagement Center (GEC), the
State Department's "counter-propaganda" vehicle, which released a report to that effect on Wednesday titled
"Pillars
of Russia's Disinformation and Propaganda Ecosystem."
More than half of the
76-page paper consists of
"proxy site profiles"
– writeups of websites deemed to be
secretly (or not-so-secretly) operated by the Kremlin. While some are openly connected to the Russian government (New Eastern
Outlook, an official publication of the Russian Academy of Sciences), others – like Montreal-based Global Research – are not.
In the eyes of the GEC,
however, all
"serve no other purpose but to push pro-Kremlin content"
(which might
be news to the websites' operators). Most have previously appeared on lists of "Russian propaganda websites" such as the
sprawling blacklist published by PropOrNot – a
shady
outfit
linked to pro-war think tank, the Atlantic Council – in November 2016.
While the report is
supposedly dedicated to
"exposing Russia's tactics so that partner and allied
governments, civil society organizations, academia, the press, and the international public"
can arm themselves against
evil Kremlin propaganda, its focus on specific websites, their social media follower counts, and the amount of traffic they
get seems tailor-made for legitimizing government censorship. Any ideas which resemble the content of these particular
websites are to be squashed, sidelined, and suppressed, as are any other sites who publish writers associated with the "proxy
sites."
The
"ecosystem"
metaphor
is deployed to explain why some alleged Russian proxies occasionally come out with material opposing the Russian government
line – they're just
"muddying the waters of the information environment in order to
confuse those trying to discern the truth."
As for
"truth,"
the
report has an interesting interpretation of the concept. The claims that it deems to constitute
"disinformation"
include
the assertion that
"financial circles and governments are using the coronavirus to
achieve [their] own financial and political goals"
(are there
any
that
aren't?).
They also include claims
that
"EU bureaucrats and affiliated propaganda bodies are blaming Russia for the crisis
over the outbreak of coronavirus"
(who knew the
Financial
Times
was a Kremlin disinfo outlet too?)
Also included are claims
that
"George Soros' tentacles entangle politics and generate chaos around the world"
(if
the shoe
fits
).
The GEC report wouldn't be
a Russia scare-sheet if it didn't include a heavy dose of projection, and this one does not disappoint. The Kremlin's
"weaponization
of social media"
and
"cyber-enabled disinformation"
are deemed
"part
of its approach to using information as a weapon,"
while Moscow is accused of
"invest[ing]
massively in its propaganda channels, its intelligence services and its proxies to conduct malicious cyber activity to support
their disinformation efforts."
But the CIA and US
military intelligence have been engaging in pre-emptive cyber-warfare for two years with the full knowledge and consent of the
executive branch – a legitimization of
covert
activities
that previously ran on a don't-ask-don't-tell basis dating at least back to the development of the Stuxnet
virus that devastated Iran's nuclear sites over a decade ago.
US weaponization of social
media is so pervasive the US Army was recently
booted
off
streaming platform Twitch for relentlessly propagandizing teenage users. The Pentagon has been
spreading
pro-US
propaganda using hordes of "sock puppets" – fake social media accounts purporting to be real people – for upwards of a decade.
Indeed, the report hints at these very operations, praising the "thriving counter-disinformation community" that is "pushing
back" against those naughty Russians.
With social media
platforms jittery over the looming US election in November, the report appears designed to serve as a handy cheat-sheet as to
which opinions to censor to avoid a repeat of President Donald Trump's upset victory in 2016 – even though none of the listed
"proxies" could be considered pro-Trump by any stretch of the imagination. It also provides a portable reference for Americans
worried about committing thought-crime, though the complete lack of fanfare accompanying its publication – Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo mentioned it in passing during a press conference on Wednesday – would seem to suggest it is not meant for the hoi
polloi.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
"... Furthermore, it is pretty obvious to the Russians that while Crimea and MH17 were the pretexts for western sanctions against Russia, they were not the real cause. The real cause of the West's hatred for Russia is as simple as it is old: Russia cannot be conquered, subdued, subverted or destroyed. They've been at it for close to 1,000 years and they still are at it. In fact, each time they fail to crush Russia, their russophobia increases to even higher levels (phobia both in the sense of "fear" and in the sense of "hatred"). ..."
"... I would argue that since at least Russia and the AngloZionist Empire have been at war since at least 2013, when Russia foiled the US plan to attack Syria under the pretext that it was "highly likely" that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons against civilians (in reality, a textbook case of a false flag organized by the Brits), This means that Russia and the Empire have been at [Cold] war since at least 2013, for no less than seven years (something which Russian 6th columnists and Neo-Marxists try very hard to ignore). ..."
"... True, at least until now, this was has been 80% informational, 15% economic and only 5% kinetic, but this is a real existential war of survival for both sides: only one side will walk away from this struggle. The other one will simply disappear (not as a nation or a people, but as a polity; a regime). The Kremlin fully understood that and it embarked on a huge reform and modernization of the Russian armed forces in three distinct ways: ..."
"... While some US politicians understood what was going on (I think of Ron Paul, see here ), most did not. They were so brainwashed by the US propaganda that they were sure that no matter what, "USA! USA! USA!". Alas for them, the reality was quite different. ..."
Truth be told, most Russian politicians (with the notable exception of the official Kremlin
court jester, Zhirinovskii) and analysts never saw Trump as a potential ally or friend. The
Kremlin was especially cautious, which leads me to believe that the Russian intelligence
analysts did a very good job evaluating Trump's psyche and they quickly figured out that he was
no better than any other US politician.
Right now, I know of no Russian analyst who would predict that relations between the US and
Russia will improve in the foreseeable future. If anything, most are clearly saying that "guys,
we better get used to this" (accusations, sanctions, accusations, sanctions, etc. etc.
etc.).
Furthermore, it is pretty obvious to the Russians that while Crimea and MH17 were the
pretexts for western sanctions against Russia, they were not the real cause. The real cause of
the West's hatred for Russia is as simple as it is old: Russia cannot be conquered, subdued,
subverted or destroyed. They've been at it for close to 1,000 years and they still are at it.
In fact, each time they fail to crush Russia, their russophobia increases to even higher levels
(phobia both in the sense of "fear" and in the sense of "hatred").
Simply put -- there is nothing which Russia can expect from the upcoming election. Nothing
at all. Still, that does not mean that things are not better than 4 or 8 years ago. Let's look
at what changed.
I would argue that since at least Russia and the AngloZionist Empire have been at war
since at least 2013, when Russia foiled the US plan to attack Syria under the pretext that it
was "highly likely" that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons against civilians (in
reality, a textbook case of a false flag organized by the Brits), This means that Russia and
the Empire have been at [Cold] war since at least 2013, for no less than seven years (something
which Russian 6th columnists and Neo-Marxists try very hard to ignore).
True, at least until now, this was has been 80% informational, 15% economic and only 5%
kinetic, but this is a real existential war of survival for both sides: only one side will walk
away from this struggle. The other one will simply disappear (not as a nation or a people, but
as a polity; a regime). The Kremlin fully understood that and it embarked on a huge reform and
modernization of the Russian armed forces in three distinct ways:
A "general" reform of
the Russian armed forces which had to be modernized by about 80%. This part of the reform is
now practically complete. A specific reform to prepare the western and southern military
districts for a major conventional war against the united West (as always in Russian history)
which would involve the First Guards Tank Army and the Russian Airborne Forces. The development
of bleeding-edge weapons systems with no equivalent in the West and which cannot be countered
or defeated; these weapons have had an especially dramatic impact upon First Strike Stability
and upon naval operations.
While some US politicians understood what was going on (I think of Ron Paul, see
here ), most did
not. They were so brainwashed by the US propaganda that they were sure that no matter what,
"USA! USA! USA!". Alas for them, the reality was quite different.
Russian officials, by the way,
have confirmed that Russia was preparing for war . Heck, the reforms were so profound
and far reaching, that it would have been impossible for the Russians to hide what they were
doing (see here for details; also
please see Andrei Martyanov's excellent primer on the new Russian Navy here ).
While no country is ever truly prepared for war, I would argue that by 2020 the Russians had
reached their goals and that now Russia is fully prepared to handle any conflict the West might
throw at her, ranging from a small border incident somewhere in Central Asia to a full-scaled
war against the US/NATO in Europe .
Folks in the West are now slowly waking up to this new reality (I mentioned some of that
here
), but it is too late. In purely military terms, Russia has now created such a qualitative gap
with the West that the still existing quantitative gap is not sufficient to guarantee a US/NATO
victory. Now some western politicians are starting to seriously freak out (see this lady ,
for example), but most Europeans are coming to terms with two truly horrible
realities:
Russia is much stronger than Europe and, even much worse, Russia will never
attack first (which is a major cause of frustration for western russophobes)
As for the obvious solution to this problem, having friendly relations with Russia is simply
unthinkable for those who made their entire careers peddling the Soviet (and now Russian)
threat to the world.
But Russia is changing, albeit maybe too slowly (at least for my taste). As I mentioned last
week, a number of Polish, Ukrainian and Baltic politicians have declared that the Zapad2020
military maneuvers which are supposed to take place in southern Russia and the Caucasus could
be used to prepare an attack on the West (see here
for a rather typical example of this nonsense). In the past, the Kremlin would only have made a
public statement ridiculing this nonsense, but this time around Putin did something different.
Right after he saw the reaction of these politicians, Putin ordered a major and UNSCHEDULED
military readiness exercise which involved no less than 150,000 troops, 400 aircraft
& 100 ships ! The message here was clear:
Yes, we are much more powerful than
you are and No, we are not apologizing for our strength anymore
And, just to make sure that the message is clear, the Russians also tested the readiness of
the Russian Airborne Forces units near the city of Riazan, see for yourself:
This response is, I think, the correct one. Frankly, nobody in the West is listening to what
the Kremlin has to say, so what is the point of making more statements which in the future will
be ignored equally as they have been in the past.
If anything, the slow realization that Russia is more powerful than NATO would be most
helpful in gently prodding EU politicians to change their tune and return back to reality.
Check out this recent video of Sarah Wagenknecht, a leading politician of the German Left and
see for yourself:
https://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/x7uu5fk
The example of Sahra Wagenknecht is interesting, because she is from Germany, one of the
countries of northern Europe; traditionally, northern European powers have been much more
anti-Russian than southern Europeans, so it is encouraging to see that the anti-Putin and
anti-Russia hysteria is not always being endorsed by everybody.
But if things are very slowly getting better in the EU, in the bad old US of A things are
only getting worse. Even the Republicans are now fully on board the Russia-hating float (right
behind a "gay pride" one I suppose) and they are now contributing their own insanity to the
cause, as this article entitled "
Congressional Republicans: Russia should be designated state sponsor of terror " shows
(designating Russia as a terrorist state is an old idea of the Dems, by the way).
Russian options for the Fall
In truth, Russia does not have any particularly good options towards the US. Both parties
are now fully united in their rabid hatred of Russia (and China too, of course). Furthermore,
while there are many well-funded and virulently anti-Russian organizations in the US (Neo-cons,
Papists, Poles, Masons, Ukrainians, Balts, Ashkenazi Jews, etc.), Russian organizations in the
US like this one , have
very little influence or even relevance.
Banderites marching in the US
However, as the chaos continues to worsen inside the US and as US politicians continue to
alienate pretty much the entire planet, Russia does have a perfect opportunity to weaken the US
grip on Europe. The beauty in the current dynamic is that Russia does not have to do anything
at all (nevermind anything covert or illegal) to help the anti-EU and anti-US forces in Europe:
All she needs to do is to continuously hammer in the following simple message: "the US is
sinking -- do you really want to go down with it?".
There are many opportunities to deliver that message. The current US/Polish efforts to
prevent the EU from enjoying cheap Russian gas might well be the best example of what we could
call "European suicide politics", but there are many, many more.
Truth be told, neither the US nor the EU are a top priority for Russia, at least not in
economic terms. The moral credibility of the West in general can certainly be described as dead
and long gone. As for the West military might, it is only a concern to the degree that western
politicians might be tempted to believe their own propaganda about their military forces being
the best in the history of the galaxy. This is why Russia regularly engages in large surprise
exercises: to prove to the West that the Russian military is fully ready for anything the West
might try. As for the constant move of more and more US/NATO forces closer to the borders of
Russia, they are offensive in political terms, but in military terms, getting closer to Russia
only means that Russia will have more options to destroy you. "Forward deployment" is really a
thing of the past, at least against Russia.
With time, however, and as the US federal center loses even more of its control of the
country, the Kremlin might be well-advised to try to open some venues for "popular diplomacy",
especially with less hostile US states. The weakening of the Executive Branch has already
resulted in US governors playing an increasingly important international role and while this is
not, strictly speaking, legal (only the federal government has the right to engage in foreign
policy), the fact is that this has been going on for years already. Another possible partner
inside the US for Russian firms would be US corporations (especially now that they are hurting
badly). Finally, I think that the Kremlin ought to try to open channels of communication with
the various small political forces in the US which are clearly not buying into the official
propaganda: libertarians, (true) liberals and progressives, paleo-conservatives.
What we are witnessing before our eyes is the collapse of the US federal center. This is a
dangerous and highly unstable moment in our history. But from this crisis opportunities will
arise. The best thing Russia can do now is to simply remain very careful and vigilant and wait
for new forces to appear on the US political scene.
I really agree with you that the “blame Russia” and “blame China”
thing has gotten out of hand in US politics. Whether it will turn into a shooting war seems
doubtful to me, as the government is still full of people who are looking out for their own
interests and know that a full-sized war with Russia, China, Iran or whoever will not advance
their interests.
But who would have guessed, a few years ago, that “Russian asset” would become
the all-purpose insult for Democrats to use, not just against Republicans, but against other
Democrats?
With Republicans I think that “blame China” is stronger. China makes a good
scapegoat for the economic situation in the United States. But convincing the working class
that China is the source of their problems (and that Mr. MAGA is going to solve those
problems by standing up to China) requires ignorance of the crucial facts about the trade
relationship between those two countries.
Namely, that the trade deficit exists only because the Federal Reserve chooses to
create huge amounts of new dollars each year for export to other countries, and it’s
only possible for US exports to fall behind imports so badly (and thus put so many American
laborers out of work) because the Fed is making up the difference by exporting dollars.
Granted, it isn’t a policy that the US can change without harming the interests of its
own upper classes; at the same time, it isn’t a policy that China could force on the US
without the people in charge of the United States wanting it.
This is a topic I’ve dealt with a few times on my own blog.
Natalie Wynn also refers to Jo Freeman's 1976 piece on "Trashing," in which she describes
her experience of being ostracized by fellow feminists for alleged ideological deviation. The
dynamic of cancellation predates the internet.
(I don't know where a young you-tuber probably not born before the millennium encountered
Shulamith Firestone's old partner in crime, but I am delighted that she did! I know it shows my
age, but I think that young activists today could benefit a lot from reading what my
generation's activists wrote. Also, from getting off my lawn.)
This is a shadow of USSR over the USA. Dead are biting from the grave.
Notable quotes:
"... Over the course of the period from the heyday of McCarthyism to the present, the percentage of the American people not feeling free to express their views has tripled. In 2019, fully four in ten Americans engaged in self-censorship. Our analyses of both over-time and cross-sectional variability provide several insights into why people keep their mouths shut. We find that: ..."
"... those possessing more resources (e.g., higher levels of education) report engaging in more self-censorship ..."
"... fully 40% of the American people today reported being less free to speak their minds than they used to. That so many Americans withhold their political views is remarkable -- and portentous. ..."
"... Self-censorship is defined as intentionally and voluntarily withholding information from others in [the] absence of formal obstacles ..."
Over the course of the period from the heyday of McCarthyism to the present, the
percentage of the American people not feeling free to express their views has tripled. In 2019,
fully four in ten Americans engaged in self-censorship. Our analyses of both over-time and
cross-sectional variability provide several insights into why people keep their mouths shut. We
find that:
(1) Levels of self-censorship are related to affective polarization among the mass public,
but not via an "echo chamber" effect because greater polarization is associated with more
self-censorship.
(2) Levels of mass political intolerance bear no relationship to self-censorship, either at
the macro- or micro-levels.
(3) Those who perceive a more repressive government are only slightly more likely to engage
in self-censorship. And
(4) those possessing more resources (e.g., higher levels of education) report engaging
in more self-censorship .
Together, these findings suggest the conclusion that one's larger macro-environment has
little to do with self-censorship. Instead, micro-environment sentiments -- such as worrying
that expressing unpopular views will isolate and alienate people from their friends, family,
and neighbors -- seem to drive self-censorship.
We conclude with a brief discussion of the significance of our findings for larger democracy
theory and practice. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3647099
There can be little doubt that Americans today are deeply divided on their values, many
issue preferences, and their ideological and partisan attachments (e.g., Druckman and
Levendusky 2019). Indeed, these divisions even extend to the question of whom -- or what kind
of person -- their children should marry (Iyengar et al. 2019)!
A concomitant of these divisions is that political discourse has become coarse, abrasive,
divisive, and intense. When it comes to politics today, it is increasingly likely that even an
innocent but misspoken opinion will cause a kerfuffle to break out.
It therefore should not be surprising to find that a large segment of the American people
engages in self-censorship when it comes of expressing their views.1 In a nationally
representative survey we conducted in 2019 (see Appendix A), we asked a question about
self-censorship that Samuel Stouffer (1955) first asked in 1954, with startling results:
fully 40% of the American people today reported being less free to speak their minds than
they used to. That so many Americans withhold their political views is remarkable -- and
portentous.
... ... ...
===
1 Sharvit et al. put forth a useful definition of self-censorship (2018, 331): "
Self-censorship is defined as intentionally and voluntarily withholding information from
others in [the] absence of formal obstacles ." Studies of self-censorship have taken many
forms, ranging from philosophical inquiries (e.g., Festenstein 2018) to studies of those
withholding crucial evidence of human rights abuses (e.g., Bar-Tal 2017) to studies of
self-censorship among racial minorities (e.g., Gibson 2012).
Trump DID commit obstruction of justice... he refused to force HIS Dept of Justice to indict Hillary, Comey, Brennan and Clapper
for their obvious major felonies.
The Guardian is running a more sophisticated version of the story. It claims the Russians
hacked the papers and gave them to Jeremy Corbyn so he could win the General Elections of
December 2019:
The stolen documents – a 451-page dossier of emails – ultimately ended up in
the hands of Jeremy Corbyn during last winter's election campaign after Russian actors
tried to disseminate the material online.
They had been posted on the social media platform Reddit and brought to the attention of
the then Labour leader's team. Corbyn said the documents revealed the NHS "was on the
table" in trade talks with the US.
Details of Russia's targeting of Fox's emails were first revealed on Monday by Reuters,
which said his account was accessed several times between 12 July and 21 October last year.
It was unclear if the documents were obtained when the staunch leave supporter was still
trade secretary; he was dropped by Boris Johnson on 24 July.
However, it still is keeping the earliest date as July 12th, thus reproducing the entire
Reuters' version.
My guess is that The Guardian adapted the story to its center-left (i.e. Blairite)
audience, in a way both Corbyn and the Conservative and Unionist Party could be melded
together as a single evil force. If that's the case, then it is circumstantial evidence for a
highly and centrally coordinated propaganda machine in the UK, possibly ran directly from the
MI5/6, which directly involves all the important British newspapers, TV channels and
more.
It's interesting to see how The Guardian sophisticated the clearly fake story. In the
excerpt I quoted above, it is clear the source of the leak could've only been secretary Fox
(or Fox served as the sacrificial lamb, it doesn't matter for the sake of the argument
here).
Then, it connected Fox's leak with Raab's public accusation of Russia (that story where he
accused Russia in the name of the British government, but didn't reveal the evidence).
To end with a high note, the Guardian then revived a story of hacked e-mails from 2012 and
2017.
You can then see how the British are capable of recycling old, failed propaganda
attacks/fake news to transform then into a new "truth". Very curious and sophisticated
methodology of building a long-term, sustained, false narrative. It almost mirrors the
Christian method of typology, where a previous event is brought up from oblivion to serve as
a prelude for the new event (i.e. the newest fake news).
"The attack bore the hallmarks of a state-backed operation."
There is no such thing.
Look at the Twitter hack last week. Everyone said "must be some sophisticated actor,
possibly state-sponsored". Turns out it was a 17-year-old in Florida. That has happened
repeatedly in the last ten years or more: hacks that looked "sophisticated" turned out to be
done by a single individual. People forget that some organized crime hacker groups earn
millions of dollars from their hacks and can afford to put quite an effort into the
development of sophisticated hacking tools that are the equal of anything a state
intelligence agency can produce.
People in infosec know the truth: it's not that hard to compromise any corporation or
individual. And "attribution by target" - that is, the notion that because a particular
person or organization is government or media, therefore it has to be a state-related hacker
- is completely false. *Any* hacker will hit *any* target that provides 1) a challenge,
and/or 2) personal identification information, and/or intellectual property that can be sold
on the Dark Web.
Only situations where specialized knowledge that is not commonly available to individuals
or civilian groups was used in the hack can clearly indicate a state actor. Stuxnet is the
classic example, requiring access to and the ability to test the malware with specific pieces
of hardware that aren't commonly available to persons outside of industrial or nuclear
engineering.
Stealing some papers from a government individual off his phone or home or office desktop
is almost trivial in comparison.
"his account was accessed several times between 12 July and 21 October"
So for three months they did nothing to fix his security? Good work, guys...you're fired.
This is typical - hackers sitting in a corporation's network for months or even years without
being detected. It's likely they didn't even notice the unauthorized access until they
decided to look back. Not to mention that a government worker isn't supposed to be using
"personal email" to host classified information. So the idiot involved should be fired.
Typical infosec clusterfuck. That's assuming it happened at all, of course, which is
doubtful.
Well, lost two post due to the VPN being on...sigh...
OK, to quote the old British comedy radio show, "I'm Sorry, I'll Read That Again"...
"...the attack bore the hallmarks of a state-backed operation."
There is no such thing. *Any* hacker will hack *any* target provided it provides 1) a
challenge, and/or 2) personal identification information, and/or 3) intellectual property,
the latter two being sold on the Dark Web. Trying to attribute the hacker based on his target
is a fool's game - not that there is any lack of fools in the infosec space who use such
attribution as marketing, such as CrowdStrike.
Then there's the fact that this guy's account was accessed several times over a
three-month period - meaning no one was monitoring his email security, least of all him. Not
to mention that he was passing classified papers over a personal email account - which should
get him fired. Email is *insecure*, period, unless encrypted between the parties involved.
And even then, you just compromise one party's desktop, laptop or phone, and bingo,
encryption bypassed. And compromising an individual's or organization's email system is not
particularly hard, as any penetration tester knows. One phishing email targeted to the right
person usually does it.
This is the purpose of the Russia-is-responsible-for-all-malign-events disinformation
campaigns as stated by a junior deep-stater:
"An analysis of the UK experience offers some indicators as to what deters Russia .Taken
together, this swift, coordinated national response backed by the weight of the international
community and imposition of punitive measures exposed Russian malign influence activities and
incompetence, embarrassing Russia in the eyes of its citizens. Over time, such reputational
damage could cause more serious problems for the Russian government vis-à-vis the
Russian people."
As 5-Eyes nations fall further behind Russia & China, the outright lies and
disinformation will increase as they'll no longer be capable of honest competition--and
that's just the business sphere. In the social sphere, as living standards continue to fall
for 5-Eyes residents relative to Russia and China, the shrillness and mendacity of the lying
will escalate to cover for the vast political failure that's responsible for the decline. As
some have noted, there's been a reversal of positions with the Outlaw US Empire becoming ever
more degraded like the USSR previously. Both UK and USA continually behave as spoilt brats,
taking their ball home when no longer allowed to win. Self-examination is Taboo. Those
watching rightly question how it was that such people rose to dominant positions--completely
accidental is the answer.
By
Caitlin
Johnstone
, an independent journalist based in Melbourne, Australia. Her website is
here
and
you can follow her on Twitter
@caitoz
In the American corporatist system, where wealthy elites control the elected government through lobbyists, corporate media is
state media, promoting narratives that help maintain the corporate-approved status quo.
The New York Times
published an astonishingly horrible
article
the
other day titled
"Latin America Is Facing a 'Decline of Democracy' Under the Pandemic"
accusing
governments like Venezuela and Nicaragua of exploiting Covid-19 to quash opposition and oppress democracy.
The article sources its jarringly propagandistic claims in multiple US government-funded narrative management operations like
the
Wilson Center
and the National Endowment for
Democracy
-sponsored
Freedom
House
, the
extensively
plutocrat-funded Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, and the United States Naval Academy.
The crown jewel of this piece of State Department stenography reads as follows:
"Adding to these challenges, democracy in Latin America has also lost a champion in the
United States, which had played an important role in promoting democracy after the end of the Cold War by financing good
governance programs and calling out authoritarian abuses."
The fact that America's most widely regarded newspaper feels perfectly comfortable making such a spectacularly in-your-face
lie on behalf of the US government tells you everything you need to know about what the mass media in America really are and
what they do.
The United States has never at any time been a champion of democracy in Latin America, before or since the Cold War. It has
intervened hundreds of
times
in
the continent's affairs throughout history, with everything from murderous corporate
colonialism
to deadly
CIA regime-change
operations
to overt
military
invasions
.
It is currently trying to orchestrate a
coup
in
Venezuela after
failing
to
stage one during the Bush administration, it's pushing regime
change
in
Nicaragua, and
The New York Times
itself
admitted
this
year that it was wrong to promote the false US government
narrative
of
electoral shenanigans in Bolivia's presidential race last year, a narrative which
facilitated
a bloody
fascist
coup
.
This is propaganda. There is no other word for it. And yet the only time Western politicians and news reporters use that word
is to talk about nations like Russia and China.
Why is propaganda used in an ostensibly free democracy with an ostensibly free media? Why are its news media outlets so
consistently in alignment with every foreign policy objective of US government agencies, no matter how destructive and
inexcusable? If the media and the government are two separate institutions, why do they so consistently function as though
they are not separate?
Well, that's easy. It's because they aren't separate. The only thing keeping this from being seen is the fact that America's
real government isn't located where people think it is.
In a corporatist system of government, where no hard lines are drawn between corporate/financial power and state power,
corporate media is state media. Since bribery is legal in the US political
system
in
the form of corporate lobbying and campaign donations, America's elected government is controlled by wealthy elites who have
money to burn and who benefit from maintaining a specific status quo arrangement.
The fact that this same plutocratic class
also
owns
America's media, which is now so consolidated that it's almost entirely run by just six
corporations
,
means that the people who run the government also run the media. This allows America's true rulers to set up a system which
promotes
narratives
that
are favorable to their desired status quo.
Which means that the US has state propaganda. They just don't call it that themselves.
Strip away the phony two-handed sock puppet show of US electoral politics and look at how power actually moves in that
country, and you just see one more tyrannical regime which propagandizes its citizens, brutally cracks down on
protesters
, deliberately
keeps its populace
impoverished
so
they don't get powerful enough to change things, and attacks any nation which dares to
disobey
its
dictates.
Beneath the thin layer of narrative overlay about freedom and democracy, the US is just one more despotic, bloodthirsty
empire. It's no better than any of the other despotic, bloodthirsty empires throughout history. It just has good PR.
Plutocrats not only exert control over America's media and politics, they also form alliances with the secretive government
agencies whose operators remain amid the comings and goings of the official elected government. We see examples of this in the
way new-money tech plutocrats like
Jeff
Bezos
,
Peter
Thiel
and
Pierre
Omidyar
have direct relationships with the CIA and its proxies.
We also see it in the sexual blackmail
operation
which
was facilitated by the late Jeffrey Epstein in connection with billionaire Leslie Wexner and Israeli
intelligence
,
along with potentially the
FBI
and/or other
US intelligence
agencies
.
Today the internet is
abuzz
as newly
unsealed court
documents
relating
to Epstein and
his
co-conspirator Ghislaine
Maxwell reveal witness testimony regarding underage sex trafficking, with such high-profile names appearing in the documents
as
Alan
Dershowitz
,
Bill
Clinton
and
Prince
Andrew
.
The Overton window of acceptable political discourse has been
shrunk
into
such a narrow spectrum of debate that talking about even well-known and extensively documented facts involving the real nature
of America's government and media will get you laughingly dismissed as a conspiracy theorist, which is itself a symptom of
tight narrative control by a ruling class which much prefers Americans thinking they live in a free democracy whose government
they control with their votes.
In the old days you used to be able to tell who your rulers were because they'd sit on thrones and wear golden crowns and make
you bow before them. Human consciousness eventually evolved beyond the acceptability of such brazen indignities, so it became
necessary for rulers to take on more of a background role while the citizenry clap and cheer for the illusory puppet show of
electoral politics.
But the kings are still among us, just as cruel and tyrannical as ever. They've just figured out how to mask their tyranny
behind the facade of freedom.
But 2020 has been a year of
revelations
,
a trend which seems likely to continue
accelerating
.
Truth cannot stay hidden forever.
Think your friends would be
interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
I have a comment that was moderated in the vaccine thread that speaks to this. Some yahoo
claimed that those engaged in the vaccine hype are on the up and up and have the same
motivation all of us unwashed have for an effective and affordable vaccine.
These are the people in charge and we're to believe they are on the up and up and have our
best interests at heart -- that they are magnanimous people with the utmost integrity? Yeah,
no, I don't think so.
The irony is, a vaccine gone wrong, because caveat emptor is now the rule of the day, will
be the REAL Novichok writ large on the world at large.
So the story about the "perfume bottle" was as fictitious as it sounded? I wonder about
the rumors that the Skripals were knocked out with fentanyl might be true.
It always seemed to me that Dawn S was just an afterthought. A woman, who was known to use
drugs, died (unclear how) – and wouldn't it just help our case if we linked it to
Skripals' troubles? The story of a sealed perfume bottle – which seemed to have no
effect on her partner – was always something out of an Alice-in- Wonderland
narrative.
And to think that there is a whole department, somewhere in the bowels of MI6 – that is
paid to come up with such nonsense.
Lies, upon lies, upon more lies. My first reaction on seeing Helmer's report last week was
'et tu, FT-us?' There simply is not a single western media outlet that can be trusted not to
lie.
And if anyone is still confused – just think about this: where are the Skripals? We've
not seen or heard of them in about two years. Julia is a Russian citizen – who seems to
have been kidnapped by another govt (UK). Imagine if Russians had done something like
that.
And as usual we will only have to wait for some appropriate amount of time to pass before
we get the next British rendition of the story. It'll be a good one because it's possible the
British could be dragged into the Hague for this, isn't it?
Delay and delay until people say "who are the Skripals?" Already people are saying "what's
the Steele dossier?" (Just googled Steele, comes at 16th place, page two)
"Austria officially confirmed this week that the British Government's allegation that
Novichok, a Russian chemical warfare agent, was used in England by GRU, the Russian military
intelligence service, in March 2018, was a British invention."
Er, OK, could we perhaps have a link to this official confirmation, or at least a summary of
what the Austrian government is supposed to have said? Otherwise it's just an assertion
without any evidence.
Helmer seems a bit confused. All the article says is that it's been established by the
bar-code that the ultimate source of the copy of the OPCW report used by the FT was the
Austrians , who as a state party would routinely have received a copy of the report. Since
the FT presumably wanted to protect their sources they obscured the origins. And since it's
highly unlikely the whoever leaked a copy of the report would have handed it directly to the
FT (why would they?) it's likely that it came through intermediaries. He doesn't claim to
have seen the report himself, and in the long and complicated story of his to which he links
simply quotes an anonymous "expert" who hasn't seen the report either. Bricks wthout
straw
It was obvious at the time, and still is, that there was something weird about the Skripal
affair, but this doesn't get us any further forward, I'm afraid.
I am confused as well. The oe24 website doesn't say anything about the contents of the
report, and does not say that Austria wrote the report, or that Austria did their own
research.
All it says is that Marsalek had the Austrian copy of the document.
John Helmer seems to spend a lot of words dancing around so that he can selectively quote
the the following two paragraphs:
The OPCW's findings confirm the United Kingdom's analysis of the identity of the toxic
chemical. It supports our finding that a military grade nerve agent of a type known as
Novichok was used in Salisbury. DSTL, our laboratories at Porton Down, established the
highest concentrations of the agent were found on the handle of Mr Skripal's front
door.
But of course, while the identification of the nerve agent used is an essential piece of
technical evidence in our investigation, neither DSTL's analysis, nor the OPCW's report,
identifies the country or laboratory of origin of the agent used in this attack.So let me
also set out the wider picture, which leads the United Kingdom to assess that there is no
plausible alternative explanation for what happened in Salisbury than Russian State
responsibility. We believe that only the Russian Federation had the technical means,
operational experience, and the motive to target the Skripals.
I.e. Everyone involved is confident Novichok was used, but they were unable to track it to
a specific Russian lab. Given all the other evidence, this is hardly exculpatory, nor is it
contradictory, unless there have previously been high-profile claims that the specific source
of the Novichok was identified. Checking Wikipedia and sources back in 2018 finds multiple
statements, including from the UK government, that they had not be able to track down the
exact source of the nerve agent.
That's how I read it as well. The Austrians reported that they found no traces of Novichok
or other nerve agent in the Skripals' blood samples. At that point, you'd think, they would
have run further tests to determine what agent was involved. The smartest poison would have
been one that left no trace. So that lets out the "technical means" of the Russian state
– it clearly was never needed.
But that's the weird thing. Helmer says:
"Austria officially confirmed this week that the British Government's allegation that
Novichok, a Russian chemical warfare agent, was used in England by GRU, the Russian military
intelligence service, in March 2018, was a British invention."
But his only link is the Oe24 website, and it does not say anything like that. It only
says that the Austrian government had a copy of the OPCW report, and this particular copy was
leaked to Marsalek.
The Oe24 website does not say anything about the content of that report, and it does not
say that the Austria government did any research of their own.
Perhaps Helmer has other sources, but I can't find them. In particular, I would have
expected a link to the official confirmation by the Austrian government, if there is such a
thing
I don't think "the Austrians" have played any role in this at all, in spite of Helmer's
confusing suggestions. As OPCW state parties they would have received a copy of the report.
That's it. The OE24 story is just that their own copy leaked in some way, which is
embarrassing for the Austrian government since these reports are confidential. But there's no
suggestion that the Austrians played any other role, or even that they could have if they
wanted to. (Why would they?).
To answer your question properly, you'd need an organic chemist who was a specialist in nerve
agents. Remember that "Novichok" is not a nerve agent: it just means something like "new
one", and is the generic name for at least five known nerve agents developed by the Soviet
Union before the end of the Cold War. Each presumably has common characteristics but also
differences, and you'd need an expert to tell you what traces they leave, how fast these
traces decay, and so on. It may simply have been that, whilst the symptoms of the Skripals
were consistent with the use of one or more of the agents, it couldn't be shown clearly
exactly what the agent was. Certainly the careful statements of the UK government at the time
would support that interpretation.
Don't forget by the way that the Russians, as OPCW state parties, would have a copy of the
report, and may have decided that it would suit their interests if it became public in some
roundabout manner.
I asked Helmer on his own website for the same. There is one step missing from the
argument – the content of the OPCW memo. Apparently Helmer in another piece quotes a
chemist who appears to have seen the document and says the FT could not have had material
which confirmed the British government story. But we are not in a position to judge for
ourselves.
The way the other piece reads, the memo may be on the Austrian newspapers website. But
when I clicked on the link I could not find it. Quite often, sensitive links like this are
moved to prevent a snowjob falling apart. So its possible Helmer might have linked to it and
the link was moved. But I cannot say.
However I have to disagree regarding whether this adds information. The FT presented their
story to make it appear the document had been leaked by the Russians. They didnt obscure the
source, they misrepresented it. Curiouser still is the involvement of the FT Russian
correspondent.
But I suspect this is just one installment in the story. I await Mr. Helmer's
clarification.
It was obvious at the time, and still is, that there was something weird about the
Skripal affair, but this doesn't get us any further forward, I'm afraid.
Agreed. The level of reporting here fails to even clear the bar of "anonymous people close
to the matter" sourcing that we would be excoriating mainstream media for: he doesn't offer
us the contents of the report, or claim to have seen it, or even provide testimony of someone
who does claim to have seen it. Helmer comes off, at best, as a crank, and at worst
intentionally obfuscatory. Is this typical of his work?
What's the bet that in a coupla years, that there will be a showcase trial of some
Russians like they are doing in the Netherlands at the moment over the MH17 shoot down. You
would think that being in the same country that they could do it through the International
Criminal Court at the Hague. Only problem here is that they cannot stop the accused giving
evidence in defence but they can through these show trials. To think that the OPCW had such a
great reputation just a few years ago but now they have been corrupted.
Meanwhile in Oz, I see advertised on TV a three-part series coming here called "The
Salisbury Poisoning." I can hardly wait-
I have seen these two strange looking persons here in Esher, south west London. I don't
know if they are he's or she's or them's but sure as fek they are evil russkies with their
backpacks full of nasty substances.
Save for somewhat lighter facial and bodily complexion they are same as the beach vendors
i encountered in Jamaica many years ago, who were not only offering ackee and fish but also a
whole array of chemical mind altering substances as well as privileged access to all and any
members of their supposed family, especially those of self declared female persuasion.
But but but Bellingcat, which is a totally independent organization interested only in
exposing the truth said that it was proven that Russia did it it with the super duper evil
novichoks!
And if the official story doesn't quite hang together and the Skripals don't need to be
"kept safe", then that begs the question of where are they?
Aren't there treaties to not develop nerve agents? So not just the question of who
supplied and administered the agent, but being caught at breaking the treaty?
Rules are for little people, not "state actors." "A fig for your treaty." Remember, of
course, the sell substantiated comment that the US (and its imperial minions and lackeys"
is/are not "agreement-capable."
Interesting, the rigorous and gimlet-eyed analysis being applied to Helmer's article. Too
bad people who are doing that did not also apply the same rigor and skepticism to the
"government" fish story
"We'll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public
believes is false." Evil CIA Director William Casey, Feb. 1981. https://amallulla.org/casey/
These agents were developed before the entry into force of the CWC, and it appears that
they were deliberately designed to circumvent its likely provisions. According to various
published sources, some of the agents were "binaries", ie they were agents which would be
created in the field from precursors which would not themselves be subject to the Treaty. It
has been suggested that they were developed hidden within a much larger agricultural
pesticide programme. The old Soviet regime always drew a distinction between signing a Treaty
(which was a political act) and implementing it, which was another matter. I doubt if much
has changed in Moscow since then.
just to add to what appears to be the majority of posts on this matter -- I find the
article from Helmer entirely unconvincing, and certainly doesn't supply any evidence, or
reasoning, that would justify the view that the Brits claim of Russian use of a Novichock
type agent on the Skripals "looks to have fallen apart"
Helmer's article was either very badly written, or very cleverly composed to give it the
"look and feel" of a well researched and well footnoted article despite an underlying
disconnect between evidence provided and verdict announced.
It's almost impossible to refute such an article, beyond returning it to the author for a
rewrite.
I wouldn't go to the wall defending the Brits version of events, but at this point it hangs
together WAY better than Mr. Helmer's article does
For those interested in better understanding the agents in question, here's a link to a
discussion at the time on a well known chemistry blog with chemistry commenters, In the
Pipeline:
Like other commenters I'm not exactly sure what is being asserted by whom here. But I
would say generally, given the context of who the Skripals were and the timing with Russian
signaling, not to mention the Russians having excellent chemistry capabilities, nobody I know
in the chemistry community doubted it was the Russians. I'd struggle to believe they were set
up. And if it were traced back conclusively to a Russian fingerprint, that would be a feature
not a bug, to keep the expats in line.
1) The Uk has fairly good chemistry capabilities too. And so conveniently located
2) The timing was terrible for Russia. But excellent for the UK. Cui bono?
3) This article suggests that the chemical in question was not what was reported in the
media. Its interesting that this material is not public domain. The Russians announced the
confidential Lab analysis result was BZ. They were ignored. Naturally
4) The Skripals fed ducks by hand after leaving home. They gave bread to local children to
feed the ducks. Neither the kids nor the ducks suffered any ill effects.
5) UK government timeline makes no sense
6) Dawn Sturgess' partner is adamant that the "perfume" he gave her was still in its
cellophane wrap. There is no explanation for how it was there given the charity bin he took
it from had been emptied several times.
7) A doctor at the local hospital wrote a letter to the Times disputing the notion of any
poisoning in the area.
This list of inconsistencies is not complete. There are many others. Which is not to say i
know what happened. Just that the story the UK told approximates impossible.
1. The UK is certainly capable. However these aren't synthetically difficult, the hard
part is not killing yourself in the process.
2. I think it fits with Putin's messaging, and maybe they expected to pull this off like a
heart attack or drug OD and the agent screwed up. Historically some of their foreign
assassinations were designed to be written off as accidents or suicides.
3. Chemistry reporting is generally terrible so yes. And there are tons of things, not
just chemical warfare but even mundane things like cosmetic formulations, that are not in the
public domain. As a chemist I wouldn't believe what Russia said unless I'd heard it confirmed
through the gravevine. In any case we certainly know it's a nerve agent, and therefore
deliberate.
4. Agree that the delivery method isn't clear, but I don't find it hard to believe they
came into contact with a sophisticated poison and that once that happened, we saw the result.
There are a lot of ways to deliver a poison e.g. remember the ricin umbrella incident. I
don't think the UK correctly figured it out.
5,6. I agree, and it's related to 4.
7. Honestly doctors are so generally underinformed that when chemists manage to poison
themselves at work, someone else from the lab has to go with them to help the hospital
understand how to treat. So I don't put any weight on this.
I think it's possible to agree that the UK story has issues, probably due to not having
proper investigation by actual experts, without that eliminating the possibility of the
Russian angle. The Russians have a long and storied history of poisoning dissidents in pretty
dramatic ways in foreign countries this matches their pattern. Remember the polonium
incident? That was messy and they didn't care. And if the UK was doing it 'in house' there
would be a lot more pressure not to have collateral damage on a setup like this. Given that
history, I think that invoking a setup takes a lot more evidence, when it's already credible
that the Russians did it again given who Skripal was.
"If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to
interfere with the election," he said. "And just the historical practices of the Russians,
who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever,
which is a typical Russian technique. So, we were concerned." https://observer.com/2017/05/james-clapper-russia-xenophobia/
I'll clarify my statements and say that they are specific to the Russian government. I
have personally had long working relationships with Russian scientists, and they are
excellent scientists and people who are deservedly part of the international scientific
community. Russian chemistry and physics are first rate.
If you don't like these links, a Google search will show you there are a lot more than
just a few people. The Russian government certainly has a track record with this, and I think
it's fair to state this criticism publicly.
"The Russians have a long and storied history of poisoning dissidents in pretty dramatic
ways in foreign countries"
links please and I'll need more than one about Litvinenko or the familiar Russo-phobic
screed from a deranged British anti-communist still living in the '50's.
No one has explained how the Scripals could have pure novichok on their hands for appox.
4hours feeling fine drinking in the Mill pub and then going for a meal in a Zizzi restaurant
and then both very suddenly, a man twice the weight and age of his
daughter, together become. very ill at exactly the same moment
Oh and hey those professional Russian assasins stroll out of Salisbury station undesguised
at about 11.30am knowing full well that CCT will catch them out and walk up to the Scripal
M16 funded house on a Sunday lunchtime with the Scripals in at the time!
How likely is it that the first person to come to the aid of the Skripals just happened to
be
Colonel Alison McCourt, chief nursing officer in the British Army. This fact was kept secret
for months afterwards, and only came to be known through happenstance.
McCourt joined the Army in 1988 and became Chief Nursing Officer for the Army on February 1,
2018, just a month before the Skriprals' poisoning. She received the OBE (Officer of the Most
Excellent Order of the British Empire) honour from the Queen in 2015. The biography, which
includes a posed photo of McCourt outside the prime minister's residence 10 Downing Street,
notes, "Alison has deployed to Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Sierra Leone." Subsequent assignments
include Officer Instructor at the Defence Medical Services Training Centre and a deployment
to Kosovo as the Senior Nursing Officer for 33 Field Hospital in 2001. During that
operational tour she was the in-theatre lead for the establishment of the joint UK/US
hospital facility at Camp Bondsteel."
I read the FT.
It's a neoliberal joke.
I enjoy making comments, giving an alternative explanation of events.
The funniest bit.
The curse of FT.
They always promote neoliberals and are convinced neoliberal leaders will bring success to a
country.
It always turns into a disaster.
Another amusing aspect is when they give the game away accidently.
The FT had graphs of growth over the years.
A quick glance revealed that growth was much higher in the Keynesian era, even in the
1970s.
The FT did a timeline of financial crises with each one marked by a vertical bar.
There were lots before the Keynesian era, and lots after the Keynesian era, but hardly any
during the Keynesian era.
Surprisingly the FT journalist missed the obvious.
If they had realised they wouldn't have put the timeline in.
Anybody coming new to the Skripal story could do worse than read this blog, which covers
all the absurdities and improbabilities and impossibilities of the official British
government story:
Well, we seem to have arrived at a consensus that Helmer has published a story with a
click-bait title and introduction making accusations which he doesn't even try to
substantiate. Either he's completely confused, or he's just publishing propaganda. Whichever,
I won't take him seriously as a journalist any more: a pity, because some of the things he's
written in the past have been quite informative.
"... The U.S. has spent a century or more trying to install a U.S.-friendly government in Moscow. Following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the U.S. sent neoliberal economists to loot the country as the Clinton administration, and later the Obama administration, placed NATO troops and armaments on the Russian border after a negotiated agreement not to do so . Subsequent claims of realpolitik are cover for a reckless disregard for geopolitical consequences. ..."
"... The paradox of American liberalism, articulated when feminist icon and CIA asset Gloria Steinem described the CIA as ' liberal, nonviolent and honorable ,' is that educated, well-dressed, bourgeois functionaries have used the (largely manufactured) threat of foreign subversion to install right-wing nationalists subservient to American business interests at every opportunity. ..."
"... To the point made by Christopher Simpson , the CIA could have achieved better results had it not employed former Nazi officers, begging the question of why it chose to do so? ..."
"... Russiagate is the nationalist party line in the American fight against communism, without the communism. Charges of treason have been lodged every time that military budgets have come under attack since 1945. In 1958 the senior leadership of the Air Force was charging the other branches of the military with treason for doubting its utterly fantastical (and later disproven) estimate of Soviet ICBMs. Treason is good for business. ..."
"... Shortly after WWII ended, the CIA employed hundreds of former Nazi military officers, including former Gestapo and SS officers responsible for murdering tens and hundreds of thousands of human beings , to run a spy operation known as the Gehlen Organization from Berlin, Germany. Given its central role in assessing the military intentions and capabilities of the Soviet Union, the Gehlen Organization was more likely than not responsible for the CIA's overstatement of Soviet nuclear capabilities in the 1950s used to support the U.S. nuclear weapons program. Former Nazis were also integrated into CIA efforts to install right wing governments around the world. ..."
"... Under the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act passed by Congress in 1998, the CIA was made to partially disclose its affiliation with, and employment of, former Nazis. In contrast to the ' Operation Paperclip ' thesis that it was Nazi scientists who were brought to the U.S. to labor as scientists, the Gehlen Organization and CIC employed known war criminals in political roles. Klaus Barbie, the 'Butcher of Lyon,' was employed by the CIC, and claims to have played a role in the murder of Che Guevara . Wernher von Braun, one of the Operation Paperclip 'scientists,' worked in a Nazi concentration camp as tens of thousands of human beings were murdered. ..."
"... To understand the political space that military production came to occupy, from 1948 onward the U.S. military became a well-funded bureaucracy where charges of treason were regularly traded between the branches. Internecine battles for funding and strategic dominance were (and are) regularly fought. The tactic that this bureaucracy -- the 'military industrial complex,' adopted was to exaggerate foreign threats in a contest for bureaucratic dominance. The nuclear arms race was made a self-fulfilling prophecy. As the U.S. produced world-ending weapons non-stop for decades on end, the Soviets responded in kind. ..."
"... Long story short, the CIA employed hundreds of former Nazi officers who had the ideological predisposition and economic incentive to mis-perceive Soviet intentions and misstate Soviet capabilities to fuel the Cold War. ..."
"... the U.S. had indicated its intention to use nuclear weapons in a first strike -- and had demonstrated the intention by placing Jupiter missiles in Italy, nothing that the U.S. offered during the Missile Crisis could be taken in good faith. ..."
"... Following the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, the Cold War entered a new phase. Cold War logic was repurposed to support the oxymoronic 'humanitarian wars' -- liberating people by bombing them. In 1995 'Russian meddling' meant the Clinton administration rigging the election of Boris Yeltsin in the Russian presidential election. Mr. Clinton then unilaterally reneged on the American agreement to keep NATO from Russia's border when former Baltic states were brought under NATO's control . ..."
"... The Obama administration's 2014 incitement in Ukraine , by way of fostering and supporting the Maidan uprising and the ousting of Ukraine's democratically elected President, Viktor Yanukovych, ties to the U.S. strategy of containing and overthrowing the Soviet (Russian) government that was first codified by the National Security Council (NSC) in 1945. The NSC's directives can be found here and here . The economic and military annexation of Ukraine by the U.S. (NATO didn't exist in 1945) comes under NSC10/2 . The alliance between the CIA and Ukrainian fascists ties to directive NSC20 , the plan to sponsor Ukrainian-affiliated former Nazis in order to install them in the Kremlin to replace the Soviet government. This was part of the CIA's rationale for putting Ukrainian-affiliated former Nazis on its payroll in 1948. ..."
"... That Russiagate is the continuation of a scheme launched in 1945 by the National Security Council, to be engineered by the CIA with help from former Nazi officers in its employ, speaks volumes about the Cold War frame from which it emerges ..."
"... Its near instantaneous adoption by bourgeois liberals demonstrates the class basis of the right-wing nationalism it supports. That liberals appear to perceive themselves as defenders 'democracy' within a trajectory laid out by unelected military leaders more than seven decades earlier is testament to the power of historical ignorance tied to nationalist fervor. Were the former Gestapo and SS officers employed by the CIA 'our Nazis?' ..."
"... Furthermore, are liberals really comfortable bringing fascists with direct historical ties to the Third Reich to power in Ukraine? And while there are no good choices in the upcoming U.S. election, the guy who liberals want to bring to power is lead architect of this move. ..."
The political success of Russiagate lies in the vanishing of American history in favor of a
façade of liberal virtue. Posed as a response to the election of Donald Trump, a
straight line can be drawn from efforts to undermine the decommissioning of the American war
economy in 1946 to the CIA's alliance with Ukrainian fascists in 2014. In 1945 the NSC
(National Security Council) issued a series of directives that gave logic and direction to the
CIA's actions during the Cold War. That these persist despite the 'fall of communism' suggests
that it was always just a placeholder in the pursuit of other objectives.
The first Cold War was an imperial business enterprise to keep the Generals, bureaucrats,
and war materiel suppliers in power and their bank accounts flush after WWII. Likewise, the
American side of the nuclear arms race left former
Gestapo and SS officers employed by the CIA to put their paranoid fantasies forward as
assessments of Russian military capabilities. Why, of all people, would former Nazi officers be
put in charge military intelligence if accurate assessments were the goal? The Nazis hated the
Soviets more than the Americans did.
The ideological binaries of Russiagate -- for or against Donald Trump, for or against
neoliberal, petrostate Russia, define the boundaries of acceptable discourse to the benefit of
deeply nefarious interests. The U.S. has spent a century or more
trying to install a U.S.-friendly government in Moscow. Following the dissolution of the USSR
in 1991, the U.S. sent neoliberal economists to
loot the country as the Clinton administration, and later the Obama administration, placed
NATO troops and armaments on the Russian border after a
negotiated agreement not to do so . Subsequent claims of realpolitik are cover for a
reckless disregard for geopolitical consequences.
The paradox of American liberalism, articulated when feminist icon and CIA asset Gloria
Steinem described the CIA as ' liberal,
nonviolent and honorable ,' is that educated, well-dressed, bourgeois functionaries have
used the (largely manufactured) threat of foreign subversion to install right-wing nationalists
subservient to American business interests at every opportunity. Furthermore, Steinem's
aggressive ignorance of the actual history of the CIA illustrates the liberal propensity to
conflate bourgeois dress and attitude with an imagined
gentility . To the
point made by Christopher Simpson , the CIA could have achieved better results had it not
employed former Nazi officers, begging the question of why it chose to do so?
On the American left, Russiagate is treated as a case of bad reporting, of official outlets
for government propaganda serially reporting facts and events that were subsequently disproved.
However, some fair portion of the American bourgeois, the PMC that acts in supporting roles for
capital, believes every word of it. Russiagate is the nationalist party line in the American
fight against communism, without the communism. Charges of treason have been lodged every time
that military budgets have come under attack since 1945. In 1958 the senior leadership of the
Air Force was charging the other branches of the military with treason for doubting its utterly
fantastical (and later disproven) estimate of Soviet ICBMs. Treason is good for business.
Shortly after WWII ended, the CIA employed hundreds of former Nazi military officers,
including former
Gestapo and SS officers responsible for murdering tens and hundreds of thousands of human
beings , to run a spy operation known as the Gehlen Organization from Berlin,
Germany. Given its central role in assessing the military intentions and capabilities of the
Soviet Union, the Gehlen Organization was more likely than not responsible for the CIA's
overstatement of Soviet nuclear capabilities in the 1950s used to support the U.S. nuclear
weapons program. Former Nazis were also integrated
into CIA efforts to install right wing governments around the world.
By the time that (Senator) John F. Kennedy claimed a U.S. 'missile gap' with the Soviets in
1958, the CIA was providing estimates of Soviet ICBMs (Inter-continental Ballistic Missiles),
that were
wildly inflated -- most likely provided to it by the Gehlen Organization. Once satellite
and U2 reconnaissance estimates became available, the CIA lowered its own to 120 Soviet ICBMs
when the actual number
was four . On the one hand, the Soviets really did have a nuclear weapons program. On the
other, it was a tiny fraction of what was being claimed. Bad reporting, unerringly on the side
of larger military budgets, appears to be the constant.
Under the
Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act passed by Congress in 1998, the CIA was made to partially
disclose its affiliation with, and employment of, former Nazis. In contrast to the '
Operation Paperclip ' thesis that it was Nazi scientists who were brought to the U.S. to
labor as scientists, the Gehlen Organization and CIC employed known war criminals in
political roles. Klaus Barbie, the 'Butcher of Lyon,' was employed by the CIC, and claims to
have played a role in the murder of Che
Guevara . Wernher von Braun, one of the Operation Paperclip 'scientists,' worked in a Nazi
concentration camp as tens of thousands of human beings were murdered.
The historical sequence in the U.S. was WWI, the Great Depression, WWII, to an economy that
was heavily dependent on war production. The threatened decommissioning of the war economy in
1946 was first met with an
honest assessment of Soviet intentions -- the Soviets were moving infrastructure back into
Soviet territory as quickly as was practicable, then to the military budget-friendly claim that
they were putting resources in place to invade Europe. The result of the shift was that the
American Generals kept their power and the war industry kept producing materiel and weapons. By
1948 these weapons had come to include atomic bombs.
To understand the political space that military production came to occupy, from 1948 onward
the U.S. military became a well-funded bureaucracy where charges of treason were regularly
traded between the branches. Internecine battles for funding and strategic dominance were (and
are) regularly fought. The tactic that this bureaucracy -- the 'military industrial complex,'
adopted was to exaggerate foreign threats in a contest for bureaucratic dominance. The nuclear
arms race was made a self-fulfilling prophecy. As the U.S. produced world-ending weapons
non-stop for decades on end, the Soviets responded in kind.
What ties the Gehlen Organization to CIA estimates of Soviet nuclear weapons from 1948
– 1958 is 1) the Gehlen Organization was central to the CIA's intelligence operations
vis-à-vis the Soviets, 2) the CIA had limited alternatives to gather information on the
Soviets outside of the Gehlen Organization and 3) the senior leadership of the U.S. military
had
long demonstrated that it approved of exaggerating foreign threats when doing so enhanced
their power and added to their budgets. Long story short, the CIA employed hundreds of former
Nazi officers who had the ideological predisposition and economic incentive to mis-perceive
Soviet intentions and misstate Soviet capabilities to fuel the Cold War.
Where this gets interesting is that American whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg was working for the Rand
Corporation in the late 1950s and early 1960s when estimates of Soviet ICBMs were being put
forward. JFK had run (in 1960) on a platform that included closing the Soviet – U.S. '
missile
gap .' The USAF (U.S. Air Force), charged with delivering nuclear missiles to their
targets, was estimating that the Soviets had 1,000 ICBMs. Mr. Ellsberg, who had limited
security clearance through his employment at Rand, was leaked the known number of Soviet ICBMs.
The Air Force was saying 1,000 Soviet ICBMs when the number confirmed by reconnaissance
satellites was four.
By 1962, the year of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the CIA had shifted nominal control of the
Gehlen Organization to the BND, for whom Gehlen continued to work. Based on ongoing satellite
reconnaissance data, the CIA was busy lowering its estimates of Soviet nuclear capabilities.
Benjamin Schwarz, writing
for The Atlantic in 2013, provided an account, apparently informed by the CIA's lowered
estimates, where he placed the whole of the Soviet nuclear weapons program (in 1962) at roughly
one-ninth the size of the U.S. effort. However, given Ellsberg's known count of four Soviet
ICBMs at the time of the missile crisis, even Schwarz's ratio of 1:9 seems to overstate Soviet
capabilities.
Further per Schwarz's reporting, the Jupiter nuclear missiles that the U.S. had placed in
Italy prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis only made sense as first-strike weapons. This
interpretation is corroborated by Daniel Ellsberg , who argues
that the American plan was always to initiate the use of nuclear weapons (first strike). This
made JFK's posture of equally matched contestants in a geopolitical game of nuclear chicken
utterly unhinged. Should this be less than clear, because the U.S. had indicated its intention
to use nuclear weapons in a first strike -- and had demonstrated the intention by placing
Jupiter missiles in Italy, nothing that the U.S. offered during the Missile Crisis could be
taken in good faith.
The dissolution of the USSR in 1991 was met with a promised reduction in U.S. military
spending and an end to the Cold War, neither of which ultimately materialized. Following the
election of Bill Clinton in 1992, the Cold War entered a new phase. Cold War logic was
repurposed to support the oxymoronic 'humanitarian wars' -- liberating people by bombing them.
In 1995 'Russian meddling' meant the Clinton administration rigging
the election of Boris Yeltsin in the Russian presidential election. Mr. Clinton then
unilaterally reneged on the American agreement to keep NATO from Russia's border when former
Baltic
states were brought under NATO's control .
The Obama administration's 2014 incitement in Ukraine , by way of
fostering and supporting the Maidan uprising and the ousting of Ukraine's democratically
elected President, Viktor Yanukovych, ties to the U.S. strategy of containing and overthrowing
the Soviet (Russian) government that was first codified by the National Security Council (NSC)
in 1945. The NSC's directives can be found here and here .
The economic and military
annexation of Ukraine by the U.S. (NATO didn't exist in 1945) comes under NSC10/2
. The alliance between the CIA and Ukrainian fascists ties to directive NSC20 , the plan
to sponsor Ukrainian-affiliated former Nazis in order to install them in the Kremlin to replace
the Soviet government. This was part of the CIA's rationale for putting Ukrainian-affiliated
former Nazis on its payroll in 1948.
That Russiagate is the continuation of a scheme launched in 1945 by the National Security
Council, to be engineered by the CIA with help from former Nazi officers in its employ, speaks
volumes about the Cold War frame from which it emerges.
Its near instantaneous adoption by
bourgeois liberals demonstrates the class basis of the right-wing nationalism it supports. That
liberals appear to perceive themselves as defenders 'democracy' within a trajectory laid out by
unelected military leaders more than seven decades earlier is testament to the power of
historical ignorance tied to nationalist fervor. Were the former Gestapo and SS officers
employed by the CIA 'our Nazis?'
The Nazi War
Crimes Disclosure Act came about in part because Nazi hunters kept coming across Nazi war
criminals living in the U.S. who told them they had been brought here and given employment by
the CIA, CIC, or some other division of the Federal government. If the people in these agencies
thought that doing so was justified, why the secrecy? And if it wasn't justified, why was it
done? Furthermore, are liberals really comfortable bringing fascists with direct historical
ties to the Third Reich to power in Ukraine? And while there are no good choices in the
upcoming U.S. election, the guy who liberals want to bring to power is lead architect of this
move.Cue the Sex
Pistols .
Austria officially confirmed this week that the British Government's allegation that
Novichok, a Russian chemical warfare agent, was used in England by GRU, the Russian military
intelligence service, in March 2018, was a British invention.
Investigations in Vienna by four Austrian government ministries, the BVT intelligence
agency, and by Austrian prosecutors have revealed that secret OPCW reports on the blood testing
of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, copies of which were transferred to the Austrian government, did
not reveal a Russian-made nerve agent.
Two reports, published in Vienna this week by the OE media group and reporter Isabelle
Daniel, reveal that the Financial Times publication of the cover-page of one of the OPCW
reports exposed a barcode identifying the source of the leaked documents was the Austrian
government. The Austrian Foreign Ministry and the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz und
Terrorismusbekämpfung (BVT), the domestic intelligence agency equivalent to MI5 or FBI,
have corroborated the authenticity of the documents.
The Austrian disclosures also reveal that in London the Financial Times editor, Roula
Khalaf, four of the newspaper's reporters, and the management of the Japanese-owned company
have fabricated a false and misleading version of the OPCW evidence and have covered up British
government lying on the Skripal blood testing and the Novichok evidence.
On Wednesday afternoon this week, OE24, a news portal of the OE media group in Vienna, broke
the first story (lead image, right) that the barcode found on the OPCW document photograph
published in London had been traced to several Austrian state
ministries . The next day, OE political editor Isabelle Daniel reported the Austrian
Foreign, Defence and Economics Ministries had received copies of the barcoded OPCW dossier, and
that the Justice Ministry and prosecutors were investigating "potential moles".
Daniel also
quoted a Foreign Ministry source as saying its copy of the documents had been securely
stored in its disarmament department safe, and that there were "no tips" the leak had come from
there. Daniel also quoted a BVT spokesman as confirming the authenticity of the OPCW file had
been verified. "We have checked it recently. Officially it has not come to us."
Left: Isabelle Daniel of OE, Vienna. Right, Roula Khalaf Razzouk, editor of the
Financial Times since her recent appointment by the Nikkei group, the newspaper's owner. Her
full name and concealment of her Lebanese political and business interests can be followed
here . The names of
the four Financial Times reporters who have participated in the misrepresentation and cover-up
are Paul Murphy, investigations editor; Dan McCrum, a reporter; Helen Warrell, NATO
correspondent; and Max Seddon of the Moscow bureau.
The leak had been an "explosive secret betrayal" and a criminal investigation was under way,
OE24 reported. OE is a privately owned Austrian media group, based in Vienna. It
publishes a newspaper, the news portal OE.at, radio and television.
The Financial Times report first exposing the
OPCW documents appeared on July 9. Details of how the newspaper fabricated the interpretation
the OPCW had corroborated Russian involvement in the Novichok attack can be read
here . For the full Skripal story, read the
book .
At an OPCW Executive Council meeting on April 14, 2018, five weeks after the Skripal attack,
the British Government confirmed that a few days earlier "all States parties" had received
copies of the OPCW dossier. This included Austria, as the Viennese sources now acknowledge.
"The OPCW responded promptly to our request to send their experts to the United Kingdom,"
declared Peter Wilson, the British representative to the OPCW on April 14, 2018.
"They conducted a highly professional mission. The OPCW's designated laboratories have
also responded professionally and promptly. What the Director-General said was really
important on this, and the Technical Secretariat's presentation shows how professional that
work was. The report the Technical Secretariat presented to us on 11 April was thorough and
methodical. The Technical Secretariat responded quickly to our request to share that report
with all States Parties. All have had the chance to see the quality of that work."
Wilson went on to say:
"As you know, on 4 March Yulia and Sergei Skripal were poisoned in Salisbury, the United
Kingdom, with a chemical weapon, which United Kingdom experts established to be a Novichok.
OPCW has now clearly verified those findings."
The Austrian copy of the OPCW file now confirms this was a misrepresentation of the chemical
formula and other evidence the OPCW had gathered.
Wilson went on to conclude:
"the identification of the nerve agent used is an essential piece of technical evidence in
our investigation, neither DSTL's [Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down]
analysis, nor the OPCW's report, identifies the country or laboratory of origin of the agent
used in this attack. So let me also set out the wider picture, which leads the United Kingdom
to assess that there is no plausible alternative explanation for what happened in Salisbury
than Russian State responsibility. We believe that only the Russian Federation had the
technical means, operational experience, and the motive to target the Skripals."
The first qualifying sentence was the British truth; the conclusion was the British lie. The
Austrian evidence now verifies there was no evidence of a Russian source in the blood and other
test samples; no evidence of Novichok; and no evidence to corroborate the British allegations
of a Russian chemical warfare attack.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
In its report, the Financial Times displayed a partial photograph of the cover-page of one
of the OPCW documents in its possession (lead image, left). A classification stamp appears to
be showing through the title page, but no barcode is visible. The London newspaper appears to
have cropped the published picture so as to hide the barcode . That concealment -- proof of the
Austrian source – allowed the newspaper reporters to claim the source of the document was
unknown, probably Russian, as the headline implied: "Wirecard executive Jan Marsalek touted
Russian nerve gas documents."
A British military source was reported as claiming "the documents were 'unlikely' to have
come from OPCW member states in western Europe or the US." Khalaf and her reporters added: "The
OPCW, which is based in The Hague, said this week that it was investigating the matter, but
declined further comment. The Kremlin did not immediately respond to a request for comment."
With the barcode in their possession but hidden, they knew they were publishing a combination
of disinformation and lies.
The disclosure of the barcode to the Austrians appears to have followed after they had
requested it from Khalaf. She checked with her superiors in the newspaper management before
handing it over. They believed they were doing so in secret.
It is not known if Motohiro Matsumoto , the
Nikkei executive responsible for the London publishing company, was alerted and gave his
authorization; he refuses to answer questions. Matsumoto, one of the five directors of
Financial Times Ltd., is the general manager of Nikkei's global business division. He takes his
running orders from Nikkei's chairman and a long-time media executive, Tsuneo Kita. Matsumoto
replaced Hirotomo Nomura at the head of the Financial Times on March 25, 2020. When Nikkei
bought the newspaper from Pearson Plc in 2015, Nikkei became its sole proprietor.
The Austrian press has yet to report how the barcode was obtained from the newspaper.
Because the BVT and state prosecutors in Vienna are involved in their search for the "moles",
it is likely they contacted their counterparts at MI5 and the Home Office, and that the
newspaper agreed to hand over its copy of the OPCW file to the latter. The collaboration of the
journalists with the secret services to falsify evidence against Moscow in the Novichok story
remains a sensitive secret.
Khalaf has refused repeated requests for comment. Max Seddon, the newspaper's Moscow
reporter, was also asked for additional information about the photograph of the cover-page. He
will not answer.
The Dems. are absolute champions of hypocrisy and hysterical obfuscations. They are also
rather primitive and short-sighted, which all added up means they perpetually accuse others
of their own sins, in narcissistic manipulatory fashion. (Like the abusive husband - prove
you wasn't unfaithful - the teen vicious girl bully - you are a slut - etc.)
"Trump won't accept the election results" is a meme that has been going around for ages.
Now he hinted he might not accept, everyone is all agog. All it signals is that the Dems. are
preparing the ground to contest the results and create serious mayhem. (See the prelude
BLM.)
In 2016 they were taken up short, thru lack of attention, stupidity and hubris - typical
of a small cadre or consigliere group imagining they control everything. They haven't exited
that bubble because they can't - reform is impossible. Their choice of Biden as a possible
placeholder (he might be 'retired' and replaced, or a VP slot might be the P pick, etc.)
probably seems like a good strategy to them, canny and all. Well over 70, brain damaged,
senile and with a reputation of sniffing up little girls, the very idea of 'a leader' is dead
at the door.
All it evidences is that the whole 'primary process' and what one might generously dub
'will of the ppl' as the Dems institute it is a total sham (see Sanders), a transparent
masquerade. Plus that the Dems have no viable, interesting candidate - the last stab was
Obama, whom the Clintons loathed, and many in top spots opposed - but then the 'vote' still
counted (even if manipulations were going on - imho only for under 5% of the vote and this
was accepted by all parties) so Obama was a sure win. Then he was forced of course to
nominate Killary this was seen as a temp. aberration to be dealt with.
Ok, the repubs. So is Trump their candidate or what? :) The democratic 'process' in the US
was always an affair of convos in smoke-filled back rooms, and mucho corruption, dirty
dealing. What is happening now is that the system is cracking fast and nobody knows if they
want dikes to shore it up, to pretend this or that, or to profit from a or b, or to ally with
x or y, or to check out, etc. The masks are coming off (oh wait) one thing is for sure is the
US population will not move or do anything.
jack at 56 I agree, Skripals being 3-way spies is nonsense. Skripal senior was a
washed-out guy who did get some 'kudos' grudgingly from the 'spy' community - ex. he came
here (Switz.) and gave some weak talks etc. I reckon he did want to go back to Russia and may
have made some feelers or requests to do so, but he would have been ignored or at best shoved
to the back of the queue. The Brits never informed him of anything much (imho), etc. Plus,
all this going down when his daughter was there makes no sense for a savvy person, etc. No,
the unravelling of that story will turn out to be quite humdrum, with a lot of 'accidents'
and 'mistakes' etc. (if we ever find out..) with the usual Brit. *Russia Russia Russia* crowd
cashing in opportunistically.
Democrat politicians will keep their knee on the throat of small businesses for as long as
they possibly can for the sole purpose of crippling the economy to defeat Trump in November.
They don't care about the damage this causes. Keeping schools closed in the fall will result
in single parents staying home from work to care for their kids. At very least it stifles the
economy.
Send kids back to school, the majority wants this.
Vote in person November 3rd, make your vote count.
kaiserhoffredux , 3 hours ago
Exactly. There is no logic, reason, or precedent for quarantining healthy people.
To stop a virus, of all things? Ridiculous.
Ignatius , 2 hours ago
They've perverted the language as regards "cases."
A person could test positive and it might well be the most healthy situation: his body
encountered the virus, fought it off, and now though asymptomatic, retains antibodies from a
successful body response. The irony is that what I've described is the very response the vaxx
pushers expect from their vaccines.
Shameless political posturing.
coletrickle45 , 2 hours ago
So if you have 99 - 99.8% chance of surviving this faux virus
But a 100% chance of destroying lives through poverty, bankruptcy, small business
collapse, job losses, domestic abuse, depression, anxiety, fear.
What would you choose? Cost benefit analysis seems pretty obvious.
Gold Banit , 2 hours ago
Most people just regurgitate things they hear, they have lost the ability of creative and
free thought.They have been deliberately dumbed down. The entire system has created a mutant
society which is easy to control and manipulate.
"The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent
guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of
the masses." ― Malcolm X ay_arrow
sensibility , 2 hours ago
The COVID-19 Hoax has "Nothing" to do with "Real" Science, It's 100% about "Political"
Science.
Therefore, No Matter What, Politicians will Bend and Manipulate this for "Political"
Gain.
Who Stirred and Exposed the Swamp?
The Swamp Inhabitants Desperately Want & Intend to do Whatever it Takes to Return to
the Old Pre Trump Days of Operating Above the Law Without Exposure and Impunity.
Consequently, Those who Support the COVID-19 Hoax are Swamp Members & Supporters.
Know your Adversary!
monty42 , 2 hours ago
Trump didn't drain, stir, or expose the swamp, sorry that dog don't hunt. He has appointed
recycled establishment swamp creatures his entire term. He appointed Fauci to the Covidian
Taskforce. He says wearing masks is patriotic.
The promises he made his followers did not manifest. Another 4 years after being lied to
is just the same old routine, nothing new.
Until you people are honest about the reality of the situation, you'll never stop the
cycle of D/R destruction.
"... Case in point, reporting today on the newly disclosed Ghisline Maxwell documents only mentioned Prince Andrew and not a word about Bill Clinton ..."
"... believe James Murdoch was part of the "we are all gonna die in <11 years" Green New Deal school of thought. ..."
"James Murdoch, the younger son of media mogul Rupert Murdoch, has resigned from the board
of News Corporation citing "disagreements over editorial content".
In a filing to US regulators, he said he also disagreed with some "strategic decisions" made
by the company.
The exact nature of the disagreements was not detailed.
... ... ..,
I watch a lot of TeeVee news on all the major networks including the two Foxnews
channels.
It has become apparent to me over the last year or so that there is an internal ideology
contest at Fox between the hard core conservatives like Dobbs. Carlson, Mark Levin, Bartiromo,
Degan McDowell, etc. and a much more liberal set of people like Chris Wallace, Cavuto and the
newer reporters at the White House. I expect that the departure of James Murdoch will result in
more uniformly conservative reporting and commentary on Fox. I say that presuming that James
Murdoch was a major force in trying to push Foxnews toward the left.
I am surprised that Murdoch sent his son to Harvard. pl
Been noticing a lot of irresponsible reporting of late in the WSJ - not on the opinion
page, but in some pretty sloppy reporting with a lot of editorial bias in what is included
and what is intentionally left out.
Case in point, reporting today on the newly disclosed Ghisline Maxwell documents only
mentioned Prince Andrew and not a word about Bill Clinton . Doesn't WSJ know its readers
draw from multiple media sources that have provided original content? Everyday there are
several similar, bias by omission, articles.
One can only hope newly constituted management team will finally get rid of Peggy
Noonan.
John Helmer thinks Skripal was going to bring back to Russia info related to Porton Down
and military secrets.
But I suspect that Skripal was actually the true "primary sub-source" for Steele's "dirty
dossier" (I've voiced this suspicion several times now at moa). I think Skripal knew that
that material in the dossier was false and that it was MEANT to be false. Because it was
intended to throw shade on Russia without actually tarnishing Trump.
Why would Hillary and the Democrats want a dossier that wasn't true? Trick question! CIA
wanted to elect Trump as a nationalist President that would counter Russia and China. Hillary
was almost certainly in on it - along with other top US officials (each of whom feel it was
the patriotic thing to do).
IMO Skripal was probably trying to run back to Russia. Not necessary to bring British
secrets but because he didn't feel safe because he knew too much about the operation to elect
Trump.
That's my conspiracy theory -story and I'm stickin' to it! LOL. Until/unless
there's info that disproves it.
The US MSM is a giant propaganda machine used by the elites to control major narratives in
the heads of the public. They have learned the lesson well from the British and US Empires:
divide and conquer – keep the people in fear and hatred fighting with each other so the
elites can continue to acquire more power and money and wars while they drop crumbs to the
people.
The elites have bought off everything in the US – that is the gift of turbo charged
capitalist neoliberal economics which went on a privatization tear after the end of Cold War
v1.
They made millions on the outsourcing of jobs and industry to Asia but now that the
pickings are getting slim and China is going its own way they are running demonization
narratives on China to march the American people into another Cold War while they make more
millions (since they are still the insiders pushing the buttons).
And most Americans are just childlike and ignorant enough to march along blaming China for
their jobs going overseas. This will go on until US elites have turned America into a dried
out husk.
Tucker Carlson described former President Obama as "one of the sleaziest and most dishonest
figures in the history of American politics" after his eulogy at the funeral of civil rights
icon Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) on Thursday.
Carlson, who also described the former president as "a greasy politician" for calling on
Congress to pass a new Voting Rights Act and to eliminate the filibuster, which Obama described
as a relic of the Jim Crow era that disenfranchised Black Americans, in order to do so.
"Barack Obama, one of the sleaziest and most dishonest figures in the history of American
politics, used George Floyd's death at a funeral to attack the police," Carlson said before
showing a segment of Obama's remarks.
Pelosi upbraids counterintel chief in private briefing over Russian meddling
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other top House Democrats admonished the country's top
counterintelligence official during a classified election security briefing Friday, accusing
him of keeping Americans in the dark about the details of Russia's continued interference in
the 2020 campaign. Pelosi hinted at the conflict upon emerging from the briefing Friday
morning, saying she thought the administration was "withholding" evidence of foreign election
meddling.
U.S. Officials Disseminate Disinformation About 'Virus Disinformation'Getald
, Jul 29 2020 17:44 utc |
1
In another round of their anti-Russian disinformation campaign 'U.S. government officials'
claim that some websites loosely connected to Russia are spreading 'virus
disinformation'.
However, no 'virus disinformation' can be found on those sites.
The Associated Press as well as the New York Times were briefed by the
'officials' and provided write ups.
Two Russians who have held senior roles in Moscow's military intelligence service known as
the GRU have been identified as responsible for a disinformation effort meant to reach
American and Western audiences, U.S. government officials said. They spoke to The
Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak
publicly.
The information had previously been classified, but officials said it had been
downgraded so they could more freely discuss it. Officials said they were doing so now to
sound the alarm about the particular websites and to expose what they say is a clear link
between the sites and Russian intelligence.
Between late May and early July, one of the officials said, the websites singled out
Tuesday published about 150 articles about the pandemic response, including coverage aimed
either at propping up Russia or denigrating the U.S.
Among the headlines that caught the attention of U.S. officials were "Russia's Counter
COVID-19 Aid to America Advances Case for Détente," which suggested that Russia had
given urgent and substantial aid to the U.S. to fight the pandemic, and "Beijing Believes
COVID-19 is a Biological Weapon," which amplified statements by the Chinese.
There is zero 'virus disinformation' in the Korybko piece. The aid flight did happen and
was widely reported. In a response to the allegations the proprietors of O neWorldpoint out that
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a recent Q&A also alluded to a new détente with
Russia. Was that also 'virus disinformation'?
The second piece the 'officials' pointed out, Beijing believes COVID-19 is a biological weapon , was
written In March by Lucas Leiroz, a "research fellow in international law at the Federal
University of Rio de Janeiro". It is an exaggerating analysis of the comments and questions a
spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry had made about the possible sources of the
Coronavirus.
The original spokesperson quote is in the piece. Referring to additional sources the
author's interpretation may go a bit beyond the quote's meaning. But it is certainly not
'virus disinformation' to raise the same speculative question about the potential sources of
the virus which at that time many others were also asking.
The piece was published by InfoBRICS.org, a "BRICS information portal" which
publishes in the languages of the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South
Africa). It is presumably financed by some or all of those countries.
Another website the 'U.S. officials' have pointed out is InfoRos.ru which publishes in Russian and English. The
AP notes of it:
A headline Tuesday on InfoRos.ru about the unrest roiling American cities read "Chaos in
the Blue Cities," accompanying a story that lamented how New Yorkers who grew up under the
tough-on-crime approach of former Mayors Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg "and have zero
street smarts" must now "adapt to life in high-crime urban areas."
Another story carried the headline of "Ukrainian Trap for Biden," and claimed that
"Ukrainegate" -- a reference to stories surrounding Biden's son Hunter's former ties to a
Ukraine gas company -- "keeps unfolding with renewed vigor."
U.S. officials have identified two of the people believed to be behind the sites'
operations. The men, Denis Valeryevich Tyurin and Aleksandr Gennadyevich Starunskiy, have
previously held leadership roles at InfoRos but have also served in a GRU unit specializing
in military psychological intelligence and maintain deep contacts there, the officials
said.
InfoRos calls itself a 'news agency' and has some rather boring general interest
stuff on its site. But how is its writing in FOX News style about unrest in U.S.
cities and about Biden's escapades in the Ukraine 'virus disinformation'? I fail to find any
on that site.
In 2018 some "western intelligence agency"
told the Washington Post , without providing any evidence, that InfoRos
is related to the Russian military intelligence service GU (formerly GRU):
Unit 54777 has several front organizations that are financed through government grants as
public diplomacy organizations but are covertly run by the GRU and aimed at Russian
expatriates, the intelligence officer said. Two of the most significant are InfoRos and the
Institute of the Russian Diaspora.
So InfoRos is getting some public grants and was allegedly previously run by two
people who before that worked for the GU. What does that say about the current state and the
content it provides? Nothing.
The NYTadds
that hardly anyone is reading the websites the 'U.S. officials' pointed out but that their
content is at times copied by more prominent aggregator sites:
"What we have seen from G.R.U. operations is oftentimes the social media component is a
flop, but the narrative content that they write is shared more broadly through the niche
media ecosystem," said Renee DiResta, a research manager at the Stanford Internet
Observatory, who has studied the G.R.U. and InfoRos ties and propaganda work.
There are plenty of sites who copy content from various outlets and reproduce it under
their name. But that does not turn whatever they publish into disinformation.
All the pieces mentioned by AP and NYT and attributed to the 'Russian'
sites are basically factual and carry no 'virus disinformation'. That makes the
'U.S.officials' claims that they do such the real disinformation campaign.
And the AP and NYT are willingly falling for it.
People being
prepared for Russia having the worlds first covid19 vaccine, the US will of course say it was
stolen from them. Infantile politicians create infantile press to feed infantile articles to
adult children. Critical thinking skills do not exist in the US population.
The development of propagation of information/disinformation through the internet eroded
the power of the old newspapers/news agencies. It's not that this or that particular website
is getting more views, but that the web of communications - the the imperialistic blunders +
decline of capitalism post-2008 -, as a whole, weakened what seemed to be an unshakeable
trust on the MSM (the very fact that this term exists already is historical evidence of their
loss of power).
And this process manifests itself not only in loss of power, but also loss of money: this
is particularly evident in the social media, where Facebook (Whatsapp + Facebook proper) and
Google are beginning to siphon advertisement money from both TV and the traditional
newspapers (printed press). When those traditional printed newspapers went digital, they
behaved badly, by using paywalls - this marketing blunder only accelerated their decline in
readership and thus further advertisement money, generating a vicious cycle for them.
The loss of influence of public opinion for the MSM also inaugurated another very
important societal shift: the middle class' loss of monopoly over opinion and formation of
opinion. Historically, it was the role of the middle class to be highly educated, to go to
academia (college) and, most importantly, to daily read the newspapers while eating the
breakfast. The middle class was the class of the intellectuals by definition, thus served as
the clerical class of the capitalist class, the priests of capitalism. With the
popularization of the internet, the smartphone and social media, this sanctity was broken or,
at least, begun to deteriorate. We can attest this class conflict phenomenon by studying the
rise of the term "expert" as a pejorative one. In the West's case, this shift begun through
the far-right side of the political spectrum, but the shift is there.
The popularization of what was once a privilege is nothing new in capitalism. The problem
here is that capitalism depends on infinite growth to merely exist (i.e. it can't survive on
zero growth, it is mathematically impossible), so it has to "monetize" what still isn't
monetize in order to find/create more vital space (Lebensraum - a term coined by the
hyper-capitalist Nazis) for its expansion and thus survival. Hence the popularization of
college education in the USA (then in Europe). Hence the popularization of daily news through
the internet/social media. This process, of course, has its positives and negatives (as is
the case with every dialectical process) - the fall of the MSM is one of the positives.
So, in fact, when the likes of AP, Reuters, NYT, WaPo, Guardian, Fox, CNN spread
disinformation against "alt-media", they are really just protecting their market share - the
fact that it implies in suppression of freedom of speech and to mass disinformation and,
ultimately, to war and destruction, is merely collateral damage of the business they operate
in. They are, after all, capitalist enterprises above all.
Excellent analysis, as always, by b. And vk's points are very pertinent too. One tiny
quibble: I doubt that the Nazis coined, though they certainly popularised, the term
lebensraum.
There is an air of desperation about these campaigns against "Russian" "disinformation"
massive changes are occurring, and, because they are so vast, they are moving relatively
slowly.
The old media model, now totally outdated, was the first thing to fall. Now capitalism itself
is collapsing as a result of the primary contradiction that, left to itself, the marketplace
will solve all problems.
As Washington, where magical thinking is sovereign, is demonstrating, left to itself the
hidden hand will bring only misery, famine, death and the Apocalypse. This was once very well
understood, as a brief look at the history of the founding of the UN will show, now it is the
subject of frantic denial by capitalism's priesthood who have grown to enjoy the glitter and
sensuality of life in a brothel. It is a sign of their mental decay that they can do no
better than to blame Russians.
One should presume the anonymous officials responsible for this ground-breaking report (sarc)
are close to the various "combatting Russian disinformation" NGOs. They are merely living up
to the mission statements of their benefactors. AP and NYTimes are being unprofessional and
spreading fake news by failing to reveal their sources. It's mind-numbing - the BS one must
wade through.
Good point however with one glaring contradiction in your thinking.
You make valid a very criticism of capitalism yet you tend to applaud Chinese capitalist
growth (although you tend to deny Chinese capitalist growth is capitalist, a feat of
breathtaking magical thinking).
The great Chinese wealth is fully 75% invested in bubblicious real estate valuations of
non-commercial real estate built on a mountain of construction debt. Sound familiar?
The irony is Chinese growth since 2008 has been goosed along entirely by the very same
financialized hyper capitalist traits as US: great gobs of debt creating supply-side
"growth", huge amounts of middle wealth tied to asset inflated bubbles, and of course the
resulting income and wealth inequality that rivals US inequality and continues to increase
over time.
I snorted coffee out my nose when Gruff tried to totally excuse Chinese income inequality
for being only slightly less than US level....how about the truth? Chinese inequality is
heinous, only slightly less than the also heinous US level.
The diseased working class in China only has an an arm and two legs hacked off while the
diseased US working class is fully quadriplegic. Much, much better to be a fucked over by
globalization Chinese citizen! Lmao
@ b who ended his posting with
"
And the AP and NYT are willingly falling for it.
"
Sorry b, but AP and NYT are active participants in the disinformation campaign of failing
empire and are not falling for anything
The folks that are falling for it are the American public that has lost its ability to
discriminate with the fire hose volume of lies told to them on a daily basis.
Empire is in the process of defeating itself which is the only safe way of ending the
tyranny of global private finance. I commend China and Russia for having the patience and
fortitude to hold the safe space for the dysfunctional social contract having private control
of the lifeblood of human commerce to self destruct.
This is SO hilarious! The propagandists are worried about Russian virus dis-information when
most dis-information has come from the US government in the person of Trump and from the CDC,
which spent months discrediting the effectiveness of face masks!!!
Theses propagandists need to get real jobs dealing with real world problems.
This is SO hilarious! The propagandists are worried about Russian virus dis-information when
most dis-information has come from the US government in the person of Trump and from the CDC,
which spent months discrediting the effectiveness of face masks!!!
Theses propagandists need to get real jobs dealing with real world problems.
there has been no national response to coronavirus but there must be a national acceptance
that this national non-response is China's fault. and any sources reporting truthfully about
the US or disseminating statements easily found elsewhere, as long as they are Russian,
Chinese, Venezuelan, Cuban, Iranian, etc., is pure disinformation. How brittle and weak the
US is. Where's the Pericles to say to the Spartans, "enter our city and inspect our
defenses"? The US is a nation of heavily-armed mice and sheep.
btw, the China love on display around here is pretty funny. in that the Chinese government
has mounted a national response to a very serious threat, China is a nation in a way that the
US is not. There is no US or we would not have 50 states doing different things in response
to the corona outbreak. the US is already dead. But China is a thoroughly authoritarian
capitalist state. they are who they are in a dialectic competition with the US and other
capitalist powers, not because of some Maoist-Confucian amalgam that inspires such wisdom in
their brilliant leaders, who are just as quick to destroy their environment for capitalist
gain as anyone on this planet is. The decline of the US will not make China or Russia or any
"emerging" power less authoritarian or violent. au quite the contraire. They are Shylocks who
will try to better instruction.
However, none of this is of concern to people in the US, whose only concern is the Nazi
spawn who've been running "the West" for much longer than the last 75 years. but it's time to
kill the bitch, not let it keep screwing us and breeding.
As others already said, this is a bit rich, considering that virus disinformation comes from
Trump himself, both live and on Twitter, quoting genuine hacks and megalomaniac doctors,
depending on the week.
Reality check: Russians will be able to travel across the world way before Americans, for
obvious healthcare reasons.
Bevin, I agree, I once had a short exchange on Mondoweiss about the term Lebensraum, it
had been used in some type of marketing by my favorite Swizz supermarket. Which then,
apparently caused an uproar. The term Lebensraum on its own is rather innocent. Leben (life)
Raum (space), a noun compound. Context matters. And I am sure I checked it, and Micros
definitively did not use it in any type of world conquering settler context. I haven't
stumbled yet across a Micros supermarket anywhere outside Switzerland, ;)
I'm under the impression that Info Ros is a Russian government-funded, supported, backed,
site, it certainly looks like it and its reportage is decidedly 'neutral'.
This is SO hilarious! The propagandists are worried about Russian virus dis-information
when most dis-information has come from the US government in the person of Trump and from the
CDC, which spent months discrediting ...
Posted by: JohnH | Jul 29 2020 19:21 utc | 8
This is close to my overall take on matters. But I wouldn't put so much emphasis on
face masks but on something along the lines of Covid is notthing but a flu. Face masks were
initially discussed quite controversially everywhere.
Were it gets interesting is here:
A report published last month by a second, nongovernmental organization, Brussels-based EU
DisinfoLab, examined links between InfoRos and One World to Russian military intelligence.
The researchers identified technical clues tying their websites to Russia and identified some
financial connections between InfoRos and the government.
They have a competitor which seems Bruxelles based too, Patrick Armstrong alerted me to
a while ago: https://euvsdisinfo.eu/
EUvsDisinfo is the flagship project of the European External Action Service's East StratCom
Task Force
************
But yes, on first sight InfoRos seems to be neatly aligned with US alt-Right-Media in
basic outlook. More than with the US MSM.
And now I first have to read what has been on Andrew Korybko's mind lately. ;)
Many Americans of all walks of life do not trust their own government, yet most people here
seem to have faith that their media outlets are telling the truth. How do you break through
to the public that has utter faith in whatever newspaper or television channel they prefer
and highlight the lies in a way which gains real traction?
I believe it takes leadership, which, for Americans, mean celebrities have to endorse the
idea or it likely won't be taken seriously. This cult of celebrity is mirrored on social
media platforms, where millions flock to be a part of some beautiful person's beautiful
photograph or some known personalities acceptable opinion du jour.
There is a great bond gripping the minds of American media consumers. They have trained
their entire lives to worship at the cult of celebrity and this is the key to breaking the
entire media landscape down for them.
This also is the key to unlocking the voices of those who know better with regards to
media lies, but keep silent out of fear.
Will a Joe Rogan or Tucker Carlson be able to break the spell? I think it will never
happen based on how Hollywood gatekeeps celebrity and based on how hopelessly apathetic most
are to Julian Assange.
Lol I write for One World. I'm an American who has never had a piece edited or been told what
to write. I was allowed to write a piece about Russia where I was critical of their policy of
backing the STC in Yemen (I thought it was bad to divide Yemen). No one makes anybody tow any
specific line. I decided not to publish my piece on Russia and the STC in Yemen because I
didn't find the topic interesting enough, but I was 100% allowed to be critical of Russia.
Lol I write for One World. I'm an American who has never had a piece edited or been told
what to write.
...
Posted by: Ben Barbour | Jul 29 2020 22:36 utc | 23
Is it possible that you're just the in-house joke at OW?
If they don't care that you'd write "tow" instead of "toe" or that you're too
lazy/thoughtless to reproduce the full name of the entity for which STC is an acronym, before
using the acronym, then it suggests that One World's Editorial Standards are as lax as your
own :-)
"... Two Russians who have held senior roles in Moscow's military intelligence service
known as the GRU have been identified as responsible for a disinformation effort meant to
reach American and Western audiences, U.S. government officials said. They spoke to The
Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak
publicly ..."
Of course GRU agents always work in pairs, guided only by the mysterious telepathic powers
of the Russian President and no-one or nothing else, as Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov
did in Salisbury in March 2018 when they supposedly tried to assassinate or send a warning to
Sergei Skripal, and as Dmitri Kovtun and Andrei Lugovoy did in London in November 2006 when
they apparently put polonium in a pot of tea served to Alexander Litvinenko in full view of
patrons and staff at a hotel restaurant. It's as if each agent carries only half a brain and
each half is connected to its complement by the corpus callosum that is Lord Vlademort
Putin's thoughts beaming oing-yoing-yoing-like through the atmosphere until they find their
targets.
And of course US government officials always speak on condition of anonymity.
As Agence Presse News puts it:
"... The information had previously been classified, but officials said it had been
downgraded so they could more freely discuss it. Officials said they were doing so now to
sound the alarm about the particular websites and to expose what they say is a clear link
between the sites and Russian intelligence ..."
So if US government officials can now freely discuss declassified news, why do they insist
on being anonymous? This would be the sort of news announced at a US national press club
meeting with Matt Lee in the front row asking awkward and discomfiting questions.
The malicious cultivation (including Gain of Function research) and implantation of this
biowarfare agent (and other ones such as Swine Fever) by the U.S. Intelligence services in
various places around the world (especially in China and Iran), the intentional faulty
responses and deceptive statistics administered by the monopoly-controlled medical
establishment, the feigned inability to provide adequate testing, care, and treatment, along
with planned economic destruction as a means of restoring investor losses and control of
populations through stifling of dissent, are at the heart of the deflection and projection of
blame. That broadly-based subject is barely discussed in alternative media and is totally
obfuscated in MSM, because the "denier-debunkers" dispute the possibility of such extreme
malice existing in our institutions, in spite of previous experience with events such as 9/11
and the '08 financial crisis.
...
So if US government officials can now freely discuss declassified news, why do they insist on
being anonymous?
...
Posted by: Jen | Jul 29 2020 23:29 utc | 25
Precisely.
My guess is that they don't know when to quit.
and/or
They embrace the Mythbusters motto...
"If a thing's worth doing, it's worth overdoing."
"Is it possible that you're just the in-house joke at OW?
If they don't care that you'd write "tow" instead of "toe" or that you're too
lazy/thoughtless to reproduce the full name of the entity for which STC is an acronym, before
using the acronym, then it suggests that One World's Editorial Standards are as lax as your
own :-)"
Fair point on tow vs toe. That's why editing exists when writing articles. As for the STC
part, that is common knowledge if you follow basic geopolitics. When making a post in a
comment thread, should I write out "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" before using the acronym
ISIS? If I am posting in a comment thread about Iran, do I need to write out "Mujahedin-e
Khalq" instead of just using MEK?
It just displays a massive level of ignorance on your part. Nice try though.
Global media moguls are blaming the 1,000 American deaths per day from the Wuhan coronavirus
on Donald Trump to finally get him out of the way. But they are silent on their and the
Democrats complicity in the death toll due to the lack of a national public health system or
the funding to pay for it.
The USA is going to hell. A scapegoat is needed. For the media and Democrats, Russia is to
blame. Anybody else rather than themselves, the true culprits. Donald Trump blames China for
the pandemic if he acknowledges it at all but that is where all of Tim Cook's iPhones are
made. Blaming China is globalist heresy.
I think there's a reasonable case to be made that this is what has occurred.
And, if true, it is covered up by sly suggestions that nCov-19 was man-made with hints or
a smug attitude that convey the message that China created the virus. As well as a
virtual black-out in Western media of Chinese suggestions that the virus may have started in
USA or been planted in Wuhan.
But then, I already stand accused of attributing magical powers of self-interested
foresight and boldness to US Deep-State due to my belief that Trump was their choice to lead
USA in 2016. And so I expect you're theory will receive the same derision. Yet Empires have
not been shy about killing millions when it was in their interest to do so.
In any case, I've written many times that USA/West's unwillingness to fight the virus has
been dressed up as innocent mistakes. Even if the West wasn't the source of the virus they
have much to answer for. Yet very few have taken note of the way that USA/West have played
the pandemic to advance their interests - from lining the pockets of Big Pharma to blaming
China for their own "incompetence" (a misnomer: the power-elite are very competent at
advancing their interests!).
It seems disinformation has been redefined to mean information that counters someone else's
(yours) belief. We pretend to be in an Age of Reason but really, we have just replaced
religious beliefs with secular beliefs. Science has been taken over by pseudoscientists that
have replaced priests. The conflict of interest by the science/priests who profit from their
deceptions is beyond criminal.
To know what is the truth you just have to look at whats being censored. Nobody being
censored for supporting mask mandates, claiming vaccines are safe, and not questioning the
blatant data manipulation of COVID cases that anyone with an open mind and IQ of 100 , and
who reads the data, definitions and studies can see through.
It seems people on both sides of the fence have replaced their brains with their chosen
ideology. Its like watching a Christian, Jew and Muslim arguing which is the best or true
religion. No point in it.
so, lets say GRU agents are feeding russian propaganda sites... how does that compare to
all the CIA-FBI agents and has been hacks working for the western msm?? seems a bit rich for
the pot to be calling a kettle black, even if they are lying thru their teeth! i am sure if
someone did a story on how many CIA - m16 people are presently working with the western msm,
they would have a story with some legs... this shite from anonymous usa gov't officials is
just that - shite..
@ Ben, or Benson Barbour .. thanks for your comments!
Lol I write for One World. I'm an American who has never had a piece edited or been told
what to write. I was allowed to write a piece about Russia where I was critical of their
policy of backing the STC in Yemen (I thought it was bad to divide Yemen). No one makes
anybody tow any specific line. I decided not to publish my piece on Russia and the STC in
Yemen because I didn't find the topic interesting enough, but I was 100% allowed to be
critical of Russia.
There's such a thing as self-censorship. Mainstream US news has effectively brought up
folks to be this way: stay in line or become unemployed- doesn't need to be stated. Not aimed
at you, but it needs to be said (und understood).
@35 That's a very good point. I completely agree. Self-censorship and group think are two of
the biggest problems in modern journalism/analysis. One World consistently publishes
pro-Pakistan and pro-China articles. When I was first sending them submissions, I did a piece
on US vs China in Sudan and South Sudan. I considered omitting China's culpability in
escalating the conflicts, and instead focus on laying the blame squarely at the feet of the
US. In the end I told the truth about both countries' imperialist escalations (to the best of
my ability).
There is a lot of incentive to self-censor at just about any outlet. It's more comfortable
to fit in with a site's brand.
In the case of the Russia-STC article, I really just found the subject matter to be thin.
Russia's support of the STC is mostly just diplomatic. Not a lot to write about.
The Americans are increasingly unhinged in their spittle-flecked accusations against not only
Russia, but also China, Iran, Venezuela, etc.
It's so pathetic as to be humorous.
Underlying the USA's Two Minutes of Hate campaigns, however, is a deeper disease that
defines Americans as a nation and as a people.
Namely, Americans have an inbred fundamentalist belief in their own Moral Superiority as
the Beacon of Liberty, Land of the Free, blah, blah, blah--no matter how many nations they
have bombed back to the Stone Age, invaded, colonized, regime changed, sanctioned, or
economically raped in the name of Freedom and Democracy™.
Donald Trump is half correct.
The United States of America is truly a great nation alright--but great only in terms of
its deceit, great in terms of its delusions, and great in terms of the horrors that it has
inflicted on much of the world.
Comparing America to the Nazis would be a high insult ... to Nazi Germany, as the Third
Reich only lasted about 12 years, while the American Reich has unfortunately lasted well over
200 years and gotten away with its crimes against humanity by possessing what are likely the
greatest propaganda machine and political deception in human history: the American Free Press
and the world historic lie called "American Freedom."
Harold Pinter in his 2005 Nobel Literature Prize speech briefly but powerfully exposes
this heart of American darkness:
"The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless,
but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has
exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for
universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.
I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road.
Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a
salesman it is out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self love. It's a
winner."
"Top US immunologist Dr Anthony Fauci is now saying citizens are not "complete" in
protecting themselves from the Covid-19 pandemic unless they go beyond wearing a mask and add
in eye protection like goggles, too."
More provocation from the oligarchy. Now, that masks are becoming less controversial, time
to step up the provocation, division and control.
Fauci is also behind the anti-hydroxychloroquine propaganda, as well, that even b has
swallowed. This, despite it being used effectively in other countries. All of this simply
because Trump supports it (ergo, it must be bad) and Big Pharma (who control Fauci,
CDC abd WHO) can't profit significantly from its use.
"During the course of the debate, Kennedy also talked about the regular vaccines most
people take, from Hepatitis B to the flu shot, emphasizing that no proper testing had ever
been done, which is mandatory for any other medication. Vaccines "are the only medical
product that does not have to be safety-tested against a placebo," he explained."
Kennedy said
"it's not hypothetical that vaccines cause injury, and that injuries are not rare. The
vaccine courts have paid out four billion dollars" over the past three decades, "and the
threshold for getting back into a vaccine court and getting a judgment – [the
Department of Health and Human Services] admits that fewer than one percent of people who are
injured ever even get to court."
So, how well has the Russian vaccine been tested? Does anyone know?
It is interesting how USAians are being played by the oligarchy.
On foreign policy, the dems and reps are in basic agreement and the propaganda is to bring
the masses together to hate Russia, Chaina and anyone else who the Western (US) oligarchy has
targeted.
Domestically, unity is the enemy of the oligarchy. The masses must be controlled through
division and diversion, so the dems and reps play good cop, bad cop (bad and good being
relative to the supporter) to ensure the masses are diverted from important oligarch issues
to issues of irrelevance to the oligarchs, but easily manipulated emotionnally by the
oligarchs for the beast.
"[...]Donald Trump blames China for the pandemic if he acknowledges it at all but that is
where all of Tim Cook's iPhones are made. Blaming China is globalist heresy."
Then why do you phrase it the "Wuhan coronavius" yourself?
For those interested in corona virus truth,
I am interested in the question -- - was it spread by negligence or deliberately?
That question must be relivant to this debate on MOA.
I ask this now becouse -- --
Tonight on bbc 'panorama' there investigating the spread of the virus from Hospital to care
homes !! I'm told there is some pretty shocking information exposed.
Some may wish to catch that prog. Heads up.
I just add an obversation. -- western psychopathic disinformation and projection has led
to a confused public. A public deciding to disengage with politics. To the gain of the
psychopaths.
A new candidate to the demonization and disinfo operations has been added...Germany...which
has been labeled "delinquent" by the POTUS...in a clear exercise of projection...
Of course, to not be insulted or labeled delinquent, you must act as these other countries
enumerated by Southcom commander, to work for the US ( not your country...) and moreover pay
for it....Typical mafia extortion, isn´t it?
That broadly-based subject is barely discussed in alternative media and is totally
obfuscated in MSM, because the "denier-debunkers" dispute the possibility of such extreme
malice existing in our institutions, in spite of previous experience with events such as
9/11 and the '08 financial crisis.
YES to that and thank you for that post. That the institutions of state and private
sectors are the incubators and propagators of extreme malice is axiomatic in the UKUSAI and
its five eyed running dogs is beyond doubt. They attack and scorn any critic or unbeliever.
They assault and pillory truth speakers and those who might question 'their narrative'.
Then if all that fails the hunt them down and make preposterous claims about them being
anti semitic of anti religion or anti their nation.
Mendacity is the currency of the permanent state and its minions and they need to be outed
and shamed and challenged at every opportunity.
Fort Detrick coronavirus would be on the mark and as you most likely know, you cannot
trust the USA lying eyes once you have served them in their killing fields.
Even that right wing ex special forces advocate Steve Pieczenic testifies to the fact of a
deadly virus in USA in November/December plus his beloved bloggers say way earlier than that
around Maryland etc. Then there is the small problem of the 'vaping' illness that generated
lots of pneumonia like fatalities in June/July. And then the instant closure of Fort Detrick
due to its leaking all over the place through a totally inadequate waste water treatment
plant that couldn't scrub a turd let alone a virus.
The problem with presstitutes, possibly including Ben Barbour , (disclaimer: I've
never read any media products that particular individual generated) goes beyond the point
made by Seer @35 . To be sure, there is no chance that a presstitute would bite the
hand that feeds it, but there is more depth to the problem of why they all suck so
badly, at least the ones in the US. While journalism degrees are the university equivalent of
Special Education (nowadays referred to as "Exceptional Student Education" , which is
very fitting for students from such an "exceptional" nation), they still prepare the
future presstitute to understand that their capitalist employers have interests beyond their
immediately apparent ones. That is, more important to a capitalist employer than tomorrow's
sales and profits is the preservation of capitalism itself.
But the problem is deeper still. The presstitute that is successfully employed by a
capitalist enterprise will invariably be one that knows not to criticize the employer's
business, the capitalist system it depends upon, and the empire that improves that employer's
profitability. More importantly, that successful hireling will additionally have been
brainwashed from infancy that all of these things are good and necessary aspects of the
modern world that need to be ideologically defended. The prospective presstitute will be one
that not only voluntarily, but eagerly serves its capitalist masters varied interests. After
all, when there are plenty of whores to choose from, would you hire one that requires
explicit instructions on every last thing you expect from them and just follows those
instructions mechanically or the the one that puts effort into figuring out what would please
you and delivers that with enthusiasm? Keeping this dynamic in mind will allow one to better
understand the capitalist mass media's products.
The contempt at which the American ruling class hold their citizens is galling. The US
corporate media operates as if their targeted audience are all morons.
Mark2 @45: "...was it [ novel coronavirus] spread by negligence or
deliberately?"
Most likely both.
There is evidence to suggest that the virus was circulating in the US prior to it being
discovered in China. While it is possible this could have been the results of testing the
transmissibility of the virus, it seems more probable that it was an accidental release from
Fort Detrick. This would explain the facility being shut down last year. Military facilities
are never shut down simply for breaking a few rules but because those rule violations led to
something unpleasant.
An accidental release, coupled with the fact that the synthetic origin of the virus would
become apparent to scientists worldwide, resulted in a need to quickly establish an alternate
explanation for the virus. Since the US was losing its trade war with China, and use of a
bioweapon to turn the tide was already gamed out and on the table anyway, the virus (or
possibly a very similar strain that had been pre-selected for the attack) was deliberately
sprayed around a market in Wuhan.
The CDC and CIA probably thought that the virus was contained in the West and that since
it was a surprise to the Chinese it would run rampant there and result in their economy
shutting down and their borders being closed, decoupling China from the world. With the
Chinese treating the virus as a bio attack and defeating its spread, followed by the virus
rampaging through the West, the dynamic changed. Now in order for the virus to decouple China
it must become endemic in the West. The Chinese must be made to close their borders in fear
of becoming infected from the rest of the world. To make this backup plan a reality, and to
get the economies moving again as fast as possible, some western leaders have decided to
accelerate the spread in the hopes of quickly developing "herd immunity" . Taking out
some retirees whom the capitalists view as a burden on the economy is just some nice icing on
the cake.
@ 51 & @ 52
I'd say not ! I'm confided Vietnam Vet is doing 'balenced' Reporting ! The subject of this
post. Take another look at both this post and his comment. A lesson in how to be unbiased but
truthfull.
Soooo any one got a definition of fake news.
Mine would be Truth before personal agenda.
William Gruff @ 53
I think yours is just about the most clear and concise summary of this whole virus
catastrophe that I have seen so far. And that's a hell of a statement !
Unrelated I wonder what would have happened if the Chinese whistle blower had not blown the
whistle ? Now that's one to ponder ? As bad as this all is world wide, where would be right
now ? Dose not bare thinking about.
What are you trying to tell me? Anyone that does not acknowledge the virus originated in
China and that China didn't respond as fast as it could have? And more polemically: there is
some kind of African Marxist heading WHO who obfuscated China's late information to the
WHO?
There is a dot of truth in everything. There is also a dot of truth in the fact that Trump
or his relevant admin was informed early enough.
We've been acquainted with this virus about 7 months or so and it is difficult to separate
reliable information from disinformation. We know very little about it, eg, we don't know
whether those who recover can be reinfected. Is it like the common cold, against which there
is no immunity? We just have to assume that the Trump virus has infected every level of the
administration so that there is ignorance and unadulterated stupidity from the lowest level
in the ministry of propaganda to the secretary of state and, of course, the president himself
currently celebrating the wisdom of an animist/Christian hybrid doctor from Africa spewing
the foulest disinformation one can imagine.
Big @ 57 What ?
Posted by: Mark2 | Jul 30 2020 12:27 utc | 58
babbling: look if this is the good old VV from SST, I wouldn't want to nail him on the
usage of Wuhan virus. But on the larger content of his comment, I am wondering.
Full discovery: I entered the US conspiracy universe shortly after 9/11. I'll probably
never forget there was this one commenter that completely out of then current preoccupations
within the diverse theories, you recall?, suggested that the Chinese were approaching via the
Southern borders.
There surely should be a way how the US and Russia
There surely should be a way how the US and Russia
There surely should be a way how the US and Russia repartition their claims. After all
historically the Russian had some type of partly real Yellow threat too ... :)
Except the "whistle blower" was not a whistle blower since local, provincial, and nations
institutions were already advised or in the process of being advised. Dr Wenliang posted his
information in a private chatroom with other medical professionals on December 30th. Timeline
of events:
Dec 27 -- Dr. Zhang Jixian, director of the respiratory and critical care medicine
department of Hubei Provincial Hospital, files a report to the hospital stating that an
unknown pneumonia has developed in three patients and they are not responding to influenza
treatment.
Dec 29 -- Hubei Provincial Hospital convened a panel of 10 experts to discuss the now
seven cases. Their conclusion that the situation was extraordinary, plus information of two
similar cases in other hospitals, prompted the hospital to report directly to the municipal
and provincial health authorities.
Dec 30 -- The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission issued an urgent notification to medical
institutions under its jurisdiction, ordering efforts to appropriately treat patients with
pneumonia of unknown cause.
Dec 31 -- The National Health Commission (NHC) made arrangements in the wee hours, sending
a working group and an expert team to Wuhan to guide epidemic response and conduct on-site
investigations. The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission released a briefing on its website
about the pneumonia outbreak in the city, confirming 27 cases and telling the public not to
go to enclosed public places or gather. It suggested wearing face masks when going out. The
Wuhan Municipal Health Commission released briefings on the pneumonia outbreak in accordance
with the law. WHO's Country Office in the PRC relayed the information to the WHO Western
Pacific Regional Office, then to the international level headquarters.
Jan 1 -- The NHC set up a leading group to determine the emergency response to the
epidemic. The group convened meetings on a daily basis since then.
Jan 2 -- The Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (China CDC) and the Chinese
Academy of Medical Sciences (CAMS) received the first batch of samples of four patients from
Hubei Province and began pathogen identification. The NHC came up with a set of guidelines on
early discovery, early diagnosis and early quarantine for the prevention and control of the
viral pneumonia of unknown cause.
Jan 3 -- Dr. Wenliang signs a statement not to post unsubstantiated rumors.
There's no "whistle blowing" as the information of the cases were already going up the
chain of command. These are facts that can be sourced by multiple media outlets. I can't
believe this fallacy keeps floating and doesn't flush.
In retrospective analyses, SARS-COV-2 was found in routinely collected samples of European
sewage water dating back to at least december 2019. A french doctor reviewed archived medical
samples and imagery from patients who had fallen mysteriously ill in the latter half of 2019
and also found that some had been early cases of COVID-19.
The real coronavirus whistle-blower is a doctor in Washington state USA who tested for the
virus in Januari 2020 and was silenced by USA medical and federal authorities.
I am afraid that there will never be a sincere investigation into the real cause of the
"vaping disease" that caused many deaths from sudden respiratory failure in the USA in the
summer of 2019. Tell me again when Ft. Detrick labs was shut down exactly?
What are you trying to tell me? Anyone that does not acknowledge the virus originated in
China and that China didn't respond as fast as it could have? And more polemically: there is
some kind of African Marxist heading WHO who obfuscated China's late information to the WHO?
There is a dot of truth in everything. There is also a dot of truth in the fact that Trump
or his relevant admin was informed early enough.
Posted by: vig | Jul 30 2020 12:21 utc | 57
vig repeats widely spread arguments, basically, the "official propaganda" from offices
related to an orange-American (excessive time spend on golf courses changes skin color,
perhaps in combination with sunscreen, without sunscreen you would get a "redneck look").
1. Origin: somewhat debatable, but any virus has to originate somewhere. Every country was
on receiving end of pathogens from other countries.
2. China did not respond as fast as it could have. Now, how fast and effective was USA?
One has to note that clusters of fatal lung infections happen regularly, but this is because
of mutations that increase impact on health, while separate mutations increase (or decrease)
the transmission. Draconian measures are necessary if you get both, but you do not lock
cities, provinces, introduce massive quarantine programs until you know that they are
necessary. For the same reasons, the response in Western Europe and USA was not as fast as it
could have.
3. "African Marxist heading WHO mislead poor naive Americans". What is the budget of
American intelligence, and American disease control? Do they collect information, do they
have experts? In particular, American authorities knew pretty much what Chinese authorities
knew, and they had benefit of several weeks of extra time to devise wise strategy. Giving
this benefit to people with limited mental capacities has a limited value. Perhaps China is
at fault here too, Pompeo reported about pernicious impact of Chinese Communist Party on PPT
meeting in USA, that could have deleterious impact on education and thus on mental
capacities.
Pompeo himself may be a victim. He excelled as a West Point student, but if the content of
education was crappy, diligence impacted his brain deeper and not for the better. But nobody
attempts to blame CCP for that.
For starters, the "whistleblower" wasn't a whistleblower at all: he thought he had found a
resurgence of SARS, not a new pandemic. Secondly, the head of respiratory diseases at the
region already was investigating some cases of a "mysterious pneumonia" since end of November
or mid-December - so the investigation already was well under way.
Discovering a new disease is not magic: a doctor cannot simply go the market, see a random
person, and claim he/she discovered a new virus. Doctors are not gods: they can only diagnose
the patients under their care.
The point of discord that the Western MSM capitalized upon was the fact that some random
officer from the local police intercepted his private social media and made him sign a letter
of reprimand. No Law is ever perfect, and these episodes of false triggers do happen even in
Western Democracies.
Little known fact (one which the Western MSM censored) is that the so-called
"whistleblower" was a member of the CCP. After knowing the details of the situation
(including that the disease was already being investigated), he quickly realized the
state-of-the-art and went to the frontlines to fight the pandemic - as any member of the CCP
would've done. Revolutionary communist parties have this tradition that comes since the
Bolshevik Party, where the leadership always leads by example. The Bolsheviks themselves lost
the vast majority of their elite in the Civil War, as they always led in the front
(vanguard). Fidel Castro himself led his army in the front when the invasion of the Bay of
Pigs begun. So, it is not surprising this doctor, once having the facts on the field, quickly
shut up and went to the frontline as a vanguard soldier.
After the whole truth came to the forefront, the Western MSM quickly begun to meltdown
over the fake story they fantasized, and the Taiwanese MSM invented a story of some another
whistleblower who had discovered the virus "at the end of November". That one never truly
gained traction, and silently died out.
But all of this is moot point for the West, because Trump and the other European liberal
powers refused to believe either that the virus was real or that it could reach them until
February the next year.
I think it is OK that b nails the US makes yet another display of stupidity.... on the other
hand I presume that b also has other things to care about, I mean exposing the US as a "fake"
nation is a full time job!
Americans have at least the last 50 years been known for fails, even Churchill commented
something like "the Americans will fail numerous times, but eventually they will get it
right" well that was back then! Today it is fail upon fail. I know that there must be bright
people over there, but it is my sincere impression, that they are a very small minority.
Maybe their schooling system has all gone bonkers ?
"3% of all Americans believe the Earth is flat! WTF!!!
America is on a steep slope downward.
I am personally not worried much about Covid 19, although I am 63 and live in Sweden, the
"black Sheep" in Europe because of our rather lax restrictions, the Swedes themselves are
rather good at keeping distance and using common sense.
I am much more worried that the American culture of ignorance, brain farts, stupidity and low
IQ media will infest my country further and maybe completely ruin it.
Especially by the junk that comes out of Hollywood, pure Sh*t served nice and hot!
I am happy I know, I have not got to endure further 30 years of this.
A few months ago, b posted a link to a Canadian vlogger who lives in Nanning, China. The
vlogger took us on a tour of a so called Wet Market. Here, the vlogger takes us to another
Wet Market tour. He does a good job dispelling racist stereotypes and showing real life in
China.
One to many @ 64
Thanks ! So there was a group of whistle blowers then. It's down to definitions again.
Perhaps mine is a little more loose. But it's of no concern.
For the sake of this excellent thread, perhaps we could all be a little less pedantic. VK ?
Also relevant - Crimson Contagion - the pandemic simulation run by the US government from
January to August 2019 and was based on an infectious coronavirus coming from a food market
in China
Everywhere u go in this world you'll find some version or an "murican" in every country.
Even a country like modern first world Switzerland has its "mountain folk".
In my personal experience with Americans I'm most often pleasantly surprised at their levels
of sophistication and introspection over their American experiences. An enjoyable and as
pleasant a people as anywhere. This may be clouded by mostly meeting these people outside of
the US where unless tourists are well educated and travelled and by default more aware of a
negative view of their homeland that exists outside of the US. For some reason most of these
Americans I've met abroad are decidedly non republican in nature and are mostly
from California and North and North Eastern States. Fellow future Canadians I would call
them.
The other side of the coin is when I've travelled to the states. Texas, Florida, Arizona.
Whew! What a difference. I've learned that talking politics is impossible and the natives are
almost entirely ignorant of anything outside their bubble. Outside of talking points there is
no information behind their arguments. Their knowledge of the outside world is incredibly
lacking and the view of the US in it is overwhelmingly positive.
It isn't Americans its America and its leadership, its influences, systems and all the other
shit that make the US the salad it is. The people r redeemable.
Calling the professionals doing their jobs in China "whistleblowers" is inaccurate.
"Whistleblower" implies revealing information that others are trying to hide. In this
case the suggestion is that the Chinese government was trying to hide the outbreak. This is
nonsense as the Chinese government was unaware of an outbreak until after the relevant
professionals had determined that there was an outbreak. There is no way the Chinese
government could have known about an outbreak before the outbreak was identified by the
professionals tasked with identifying outbreaks. The only ones who knew about the outbreak
before the outbreak occurred were the US "intelligence community" .
Roberto is what folks in Latin America would deem is "un gusano sin vergüenza'. A
willing neo-colonial lapdog for the ghoulish intelligence agencies. You can disregard this
sad waste of matter. The governments of Brasil & Ecuador are willingly allowing their
countries to succumb to COVID-19. Bio-genocide, in other words. It's a nightmare.
UK 'Russia report' fear-mongers about meddling yet finds no evidence
10,974 views•25 Jul 2020
The Grayzone
111K subscribers
Pushback with Aaron Maté
A long-awaited UK government report finds no evidence of Russian meddling in British
domestic politics, including the 2016 Brexit vote. But that hasn't stopped the
fear-mongering: the report claims the UK government didn't find evidence because it didn't
look for it, and backs increased powers for intelligence agencies and media censorship as a
result. Afshin Rattansi, a British journalist and host of RT's "Going Underground",
responds.
Guest: Afshin Rattansi, British journalist and host of RT's "Going Underground."
More willful blindness by the media on spying by Obama administration
By Jonathan Turley
July 27, 2020 " Information Clearing House " - The Washington
press corps seems engaged in a collective demonstration of the legal concept of willful
blindness, or deliberately ignoring the facts, following the release of yet another
declassified document which directly refutes prior statements about the investigation into
Russia collusion. The document shows that FBI officials used a national security briefing of
then candidate Donald
Trump and his top aides to gather possible evidence for Crossfire Hurricane, its code name
for the Russia investigation.
It is astonishing that the media refuses to see what is one of the biggest stories in
decades. The Obama administration targeted the campaign of the opposing party based on false
evidence. The media covered Obama administration officials ridiculing the suggestions of spying
on the Trump campaign and of improper conduct with the Russia investigation. When Attorney
General William Barr told the Senate last year that he believed spying did occur, he was
lambasted in the media, including by James Comey and others involved in that investigation. The
mocking "wow" response of the fired FBI director received extensive coverage.
The new document shows that, in summer 2016, FBI agent Joe Pientka briefed Trump campaign
advisers Michael Flynn and Chris Christie over national security issues, standard practice
ahead of the election. It had a discussion of Russian interference. But this was different. The
document detailing the questions asked by Trump and his aides and their reactions was filed
several days after that meeting under Crossfire Hurricane and Crossfire Razor, the FBI
investigation of Flynn. The two FBI officials listed who approved the report are Kevin
Clinesmith and Peter Strzok.
No Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media
Clinesmith is the former FBI lawyer responsible for the FISA surveillance conducted on
members of the Trump campaign. He opposed Trump and sent an email after the election declaring
"viva the resistance." He is now under review for possible criminal charges for altering a FISA
court filing. The FBI used Trump adviser Carter Page as the basis for the original FISA
application, due to his contacts with Russians. After that surveillance was approved, however,
federal officials discredited the collusion allegations and noted that Page was a CIA asset.
Clinesmith had allegedly changed the information to state that Page was not working for the
CIA.
Strzok is the FBI agent whose violation of FBI rules led Justice Department officials to
refer him for possible criminal charges. Strzok did not hide his intense loathing of Trump and
famously referenced an "insurance policy" if Trump were to win the election. After FBI
officials concluded there was no evidence of any crime by Flynn at the end of 2016, Strzok
prevented the closing of the investigation as FBI officials searched for any crime that might
be used to charge the incoming national security adviser.
Documents show Comey briefed President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden on the
investigation shortly before the inauguration of Trump. When Comey admitted the communications
between Flynn and Russian officials appeared legitimate, Biden reportedly suggested using the
Logan Act, a law widely seen as unconstitutional and never been used to successfully convict a
single person, as an alternative charge against Flynn. The memo contradicts eventual claims by
Biden that he did not know about the Flynn investigation. Let us detail some proven but mostly
unseen facts.
First, the Russia collusion allegations were based in large part on the dossier funded by
the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The Clinton campaign repeatedly
denied paying for the dossier until after the election, when it was confronted with irrefutable
evidence that the money had been buried among legal expenditures. As New York Times reporter
Maggie Haberman wrote, "Folks involved in funding this lied about it and with sanctimony for a
year."
Second, FBI agents had warned that dossier author Christopher Steele may have been used by
Russian intelligence to plant false information to disrupt the election. His source for the
most serious allegations claims that Steele misrepresented what he had said and that it was
little more than rumors that were recast by Steele as reliable intelligence.
Third, the Obama administration had been told that the basis for the FISA application was
dubious and likely false. Yet it continued the investigation, and then someone leaked its
existence to the media. Another declassified document shows that, after the New York Times ran
a leaked story on the investigation, even Strzok had balked at the account as misleading and
inaccurate. His early 2017 memo affirmed that there was no evidence of any individuals in
contact with Russians. This information came as the collusion stories were turning into a
frenzy that would last years.
Fourth, the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller and inspectors general found no
evidence of collusion or knowing contact between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. What
inspectors general did find were false statements or possible criminal conduct by Comey and
others. While unable to say it was the reason for their decisions, they also found statements
of animus against Trump and his campaign by the FBI officials who were leading the
investigation. Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein testified he never would have
approved renewal of the FISA surveillance and encouraged further investigation into such
bias.
Finally, Obama and Biden were aware of the investigation, as were the administration
officials who publicly ridiculed Trump when he said there was spying on his campaign. Others,
like House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, declared they had evidence of collusion
but never produced it. Countless reporters, columnists, and analysts still continue to deride,
as writer Max Boot said it, the spinning of "absurd conspiracy theories" about how the FBI
"supposedly spied on the Trump campaign."
Willful blindness has its advantages. The media covered the original leak and the collusion
narrative, despite mounting evidence that it was false. They filled hours of cable news shows
and pages of print with a collusion story discredited by the FBI. Virtually none of these
journalists or experts have acknowledged that the collusion leaks were proven false, let alone
pursue the troubling implications of national security powers being used to target the
political opponents of an administration. But in Washington, success often depends not on what
you see but what you can unsee.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington
University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley . - "
Source " -
The Deep state coup attempt (sometimes called the soft coup or the
"insurance policy" ) was an effort by high-level Obama administration intelligence
community officials and holdovers to sabotage the agenda of President Donald Trump , remove him
from power, and hide the illegal actions of the Obama administration.
Tashina "Tash" Gauhar, also goes by Tanisha Guahar, is the Deputy Assistant Attorney General
(DAAG) in the Department of Justice National Security
Division (NSD). Gauhar is a FISA
lawyer. Tash was at the DOJ since 2001, and she formerly served as assistant counsel and chief of
operations in what was then called the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review. She worked for
DAG Rosenstein as she did for DAG Sally Yates. Tash Gauhar was the DAG's executor and enforcer
for national security. Tashina Gauhar was/is best friends with Lisa Page . Tashina is reported to have attempted
to get access to highly compartmentalized NSA information, and lied about being an appropriately
cleared recipient.
Guahar is said to have been removed from her position in charge of FISA applications
immediately after IG Michael Horowitz submitted his first draft
report to Attorney General Bill
Barr for classification review. Gauhar now reportedly works for Boeing . [1]
She is the DOJ/FBI lawyer at the heart of the Clinton-email investigation; the DOJ/FBI lawyer
hired by Eric Holder at
his firm and later at the DOJ; the DOJ/FBI lawyer who was transferred to the Clinton probe; the
DOJ/FBI lawyer at the epicenter of the Weiner laptop issues, the only one from MYE who spoke to
New York; the DOJ/FBI lawyer who constructs the FISA applications on behalf of Main Justice; .
just happens to be the same DOJ/FBI lawyer recommending to AG Jeff Sessions that he recuse
himself. Tashina Gauhar -
Conservapedia
Keep hearing these things about Tashina "Tash" Gauhar, head of DoJ National Security
Division seems to always be involved with all these things -- Clinton Emails, DNC/Weiner,
Sessions recusal, Mueller liaison at DoJ, FISA warrants.
27 JULY 2020The Curious Silence of the Traitors by Larry C Johnson
Remember when John O. Brennan--Obama's CIA Director--and disgraced FBI agent, Peter Strzok,
were regularly spewing anti-Trump diatribes on Twitter? Well, Strzok went silent on 11 July
2020 and Brennan did the same a week later (18 July 2020). I do not think that is a
coincidence.
I have now heard from three separate sources that John Durham will have plea deals and/or
indictments before 1 September 2020. Two of the first heads to roll likely will be lying lawyer
Kevin Clinesmith , who deliberately withheld exculpatory from a FISA application to spy on
Carter Page, and lover boy, Peter Strzok.
And then there is the retarded fool, John Brennan, who fancies himself as the Mozart of the
Intelligence Community. Sorry John, you do not even qualify to clean Salieri's toliet. Until 9
days ago, John was a regular tweeter hurling foul invectives at Donald Trump.
Here are two examples of their July 11 screeds:
Trump's commutation of Stone apparently pushed them over the edge. Boo hoo. But since then
it has been crickets from these two chowderheads. Has the past caught up with them? At least in
Strzok's case he has retained legal representation. No indicator yet about Brennan. A competent
lawyer would understand that tweets, especially those attacking the Trump Administration, is a
potentially dangerous, self-incriminating activity.
More than two weeks of silence from Strzok and one week from Brennan does not appear to be a
mere instance of having nothing to say. Lack of substance has not prevented these two buffoons
from shooting their mouths off in the past. Is the day of reckoning nigh?
I sure hope so, but I'm not optimistic.
The swamp will not go willingly and Barr, for all his comments about "justice", is still a
member in good standing.
Look at how the FBI is still out of control, hiding and shredding documents and the "career"
lawyers are still operating the DOJ as an arm of the Democrat party.
How long did Martha Stewart end up in the slammer? How much time did the Varsity Blues
parents get in the Big House? People still do go to jail in this country for messing around
with the facts.
Are Brennan and Strozk immune after trying to take down a sitting President, but trying to
get your stupid kid into USC by cheating gets a prolonged close encounter with Bubba?
Surely, we don't have two systems of justice. One for government employees and one for the
rest of us. I gather one does not "plea bargain" unless there is a case. Though Gen Flynn can
still beg to differ with that presumption. Surely we are not intro framing suspects, even
though their possible charge was framing the President.
Does the DOJ have clean hands at last, on Russiagate. And will a possible plea bargain
finally lead to loss of their security clearances? And pensions. Did Clapper flip.
Why was the "essential question" to only investigate the Trump campaign.
Facts in evidence clearly show Clinton was the one getting the Russians to interfere in
the 2016 campaign. How is her Twitter account doing right now. Did she too drop into this
sudden cone of silence?
Keep hearing these things about Tashina "Tash" Gauhar, head of DoJ National Security
Division seems to always be involved with all these things -- Clinton Emails, DNC/Weiner,
Sessions recusal, Mueller liaison at DoJ, FISA warrants.
Thanks for the write up Larry. The sounds of silence are deafening. The silence of riots
apparently being news, until this instant, when Congressman Nadler was forced to see five
minutes of it via video in the hearing room on Congress, to which he chastised the ranking
member for not giving him 48 hours warning that truth would be shown. I wonder what antifa's
masters have in store for us for the rest of the week, given their narrative is losing them
voter support.
Strzok has a book coming out, "Compromised: Counterintelligence and the Threat of Donald
J. Trump". I'd rather see him sweating bullets before the Sep 8 release. Thanks Larry!
Once behind bars, Strzok can't profit from his crime so this must be a frantic
ghost-written doozie. And all Russia, Russia, Russia again. Talk about an issue that
generates zero traction.
I think we can all write the plot upfront (OrangemanBad), upon with he will hang the most
gauzy of facts Too bad he could not get Team Mueller to agree with him when it counted.
I mourn the trees sacrificed to his tawdry cause. Maintaining a wife and mistress at the
same time however, does add up.
Go back and watch the sad spectacle for yourself on C-SPAN's website, if you'd like. I
wouldn't recommend it. As a preview of coming attractions, Chairman Nadler -- who recently
dismissed the
serious, documented violence in Portland as
a "myth" -- concluded his harried Q&A with this: "Shame on you, Mr. Barr."
... Like many of his colleagues, Nadler repeatedly interrupted Barr's attempts to even begin
to respond to the accusations being hurled at him, then concluded his scripted performance with
a dramatic "shame on you!" And so it has gone. Alternating parcels of Five Minutes' Hate,
interspersed with Republicans playing defense and scoring their own points. Occasional actual
questions have slipped through the theater, but the overall episode has been largely
useless.
From Berr opning statement:
Ever since I made it clear that I was going to do everything I could to get to the bottom
of the grave abuses involved in the bogus "Russiagate" scandal , many of the Democrats on
this Committee have attempted to discredit me by conjuring up a narrative that I am simply
the President's factotum who disposes of criminal cases according to his instructions.
Judging from the letter inviting me to this hearing, that appears to be your agenda
today.
So let me turn to that first. As I said in my confirmation hearing, the Attorney General
has a unique obligation. He holds in trust the fair and impartial administration of justice.
He must ensure that there is one standard of justice that applies to everyone equally and
that criminal cases are handled even-handedly, based on the law and the facts, and without
regard to political or personal considerations...
Indeed, it is precisely because I feel complete freedom to do what I think is right that
induced me serve once again as Attorney General. As you know, I served as Attorney General
under President George H. W. Bush.
After that, I spent many years in the corporate world. I was almost 70 years old, slipping
happily into retirement as I enjoyed my grandchildren. I had nothing to prove and had no
desire to return to government. I had no prior relationship with President Trump.
Watch the whole thing here , or read the full transcript
here . I'll leave you with this.
For much of the past year Trump has caused angst among allies by maintaining a consistent
position that Russia should be invited back into the Group of Seven (G7), making it as it was
prior to 2014, the G-8.
Russia had been essentially booted from the summit as relations with the Obama White House
broke down over the Ukraine crisis and the Crimea issue. Trump
said in August 2019 that Obama had been "outsmarted" by Putin.
But as recently as May when Germany followed by other countries rebuffed Trump's plans to
host the G7 at Camp David, Trump blasted the "very outdated group of countries"
and expressed that he planned to invite four additional non-member nations, mostly notably
Russia .
Germany has rejected a proposal by U.S. President Donald Trump to invite Russian President
Vladimir Putin back into the Group of Seven (G7) most advanced economies , German Foreign
Minister Heiko Maas said in a newspaper interview published on Monday.
Interestingly enough the Ukraine and Crimea issues were raised in the interview: "But Maas
told Rheinische Post that he did not see any chance for allowing Russia back into the G7 as
long as there was no meaningful progress in solving the conflict in Crimea as well as in
eastern Ukraine," according to the report.
People's old ways of understanding what's going on in the world just aren't holding together
anymore.
Trust in the mass media is at an all-time low, and it's only getting lower.
People are more aware than ever that anything they see can be propaganda or
disinformation.
Deepfake technology will soon be so advanced and so accessible that nobody will even trust
video anymore.
The leader of the most powerful country on earth speaks in a way that has no real
relationship with facts or reality in any way, and people have just learned to roll with
it.
Ordinary people are hurting financially but Wall Street is booming, a glaring plot hole in
the story of the economy that's only getting more pronounced.
The entire media class will now spend years leading the public on a wild goose chase for
Russian collusion and then act like it's no big deal when the whole thing turned out to be
completely baseless.
... ... ...
New Cold War escalations between the U.S.-centralized empire and the unabsorbed governments
of China and Russia are going to cause the media airwaves around the planet to become saturated
in ever-intensifying propaganda narratives which favor one side or the other and have no
interest in honestly telling people the truth about what's going on.
It's difficult to understand what's going on in the world because powerful people actively
manipulate public understanding of what's going on in the world.
Powerful people actively manipulate public understanding of what's going on in the world
because if the public understood what's going on in the world, they would rise up and use their
strength of numbers to overthrow the powerful.
The public would rise up and use their strength of numbers to overthrow the powerful if they
understood what's going on in their world because then they would understand that the powerful
have been exploiting, oppressing, robbing, cheating and deceiving them while destroying the
ecosystem, stockpiling weapons of Armageddon and waging endless wars, for no other reason than
so that they can maintain and expand their power.
The public do not rise up and use their strength of numbers to overthrow the powerful
because they have been successfully manipulated into not wanting to.
The Russian-born Danchenko, who was living in the U.S. on a work visa, was released from
jail on the condition he undergo drug testing and "participate in a program of substance abuse
therapy and counseling," as well as "mental health counseling," the records show. His lawyer
asked the court to postpone his trial and let him travel to Moscow "as a condition of his
employment." The Russian trips were granted without objection from Rosenstein. Danchenko ended
up several months later entering into a plea agreement and paying fines.
In 2006, Danchenko was arrested in Fairfax, Va., on similar offenses, including "public
swearing and intoxication," criminal records show. The case was disposed after he paid a
fine.
At the time, Danchenko worked as a research analyst for the Brookings Institution, where he
became a protégé of Hill. He collaborated with her on at least two Russian policy
papers during his five-year stint at the think tank and worked with another Brookings scholar
on a project to
uncover alleged plagiarism in Russian President Vladimir Putin's doctoral dissertation --
something Danchenko and his lawyer boasted about during their meeting with FBI agents. (Like
Hill, the other scholar, Clifford Gaddy, was a Russia hawk. He and Hill in 2015 authored "Mr.
Putin: Operative in the Kremlin," a book strongly endorsed by Vice President Joe Biden at the
time.)
"Igor is a highly accomplished analyst and researcher," Hill noted on his LinkedIn page in
2011.
"He is very creative in pursuing the most relevant of information and detail to support
his research."
Strobe Talbott of Brookings with Hillary Clinton: He connected with Christopher Steele and
passed along a copy of his anti-Trump dossier to Fiona Hill. AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster
Hill also vouched for Steele, an old friend and British intelligence counterpart. The two
reunited in 2016, sitting down for at least one meeting. Her boss at the time, Brookings
President Strobe Talbott, also connected with Steele and
passed along a copy of his anti-Trump dossier to Hill. A tough Trump critic, Talbott
previously worked in the Clinton administration and rallied the think tank behind Hillary.
If an asteroid runs into the earth, any surviving press will blame it on Russia...
The Guardian a few days ago carried a
very strange piece [which has since been removed] under the heading "Stamps celebrating
Ukrainian resistance in pictures." The first image displayed a stamp bearing the name of the
Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA).
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.398.1_en.html#goog_29180504 NOW PLAYING
Russian envoy dismisses claims Moscow tried to steal virus vaccine research
Matt Hancock: British police are not like American police
Labour agrees to pay 'substantial damages' to Panorama whistleblowers
Second Cummings lockdown trip 'not true', says Grant Shapps
Ministers will make decisions on easing two-metre rule, says Sunak
Labour under Starmer is politically competitive again, says Blair
Minister defends Government's 'stay alert' message
Tliab In Trouble In Re-Election Bid
The UPA was, without any shadow of a doubt, responsible for the slaughter of at least
200,000 Polish civilians; they liquidated whole Polish communities in Volhynia and Galicia,
including the women and children. The current Polish government, which is as anti-Russian and
pro-NATO as they come, nevertheless has declared
this a genocide.
It certainly was an extremely brutal ethnic cleansing. There is no doubt either that at
times between 1942 and 1944 the UPA collaborated with the Nazis and collaborated in the
destruction of Jews and Gypsies. It is simplistic to describe the UPA as fascist or an
extension of the Nazi regime; at times they fought the Nazis, though they collaborated more
often.
There is a real sense in which they operated at the level of medieval peasants, simply
seizing local opportunities to exterminate rural populations and seize their land and assets,
be they Polish, Jew or Gypsy. But on balance any reasonable person would have to conclude that
the UPA was an utterly deplorable phenomenon. To publish a celebration of it, disguised as a
graphic art piece, without any of this context, is no more defensible than a display of Nazi
art with no context.
In fact, The Guardian's very brief text was still worse than no context.
"Ukrainian photographer Oleksandr Kosmach collects 20th-century stamps issued by Ukrainian
groups in exile during the Soviet era.
Artists and exiles around the world would use stamps to communicate the horrors of Soviet
oppression. "These stamps show us the ideas and values of these people, who they really were
and what they were fighting for," Kosmach says."
That is so misleadingly partial as a description of the art glorifying the UPA movement as
to be deeply reprehensible. It does however fit with the anything- goes stoking of Russophobia,
which is the mainstay of government and media discourse at the moment. Even at the height of
the Cold War, we never saw such a barrage of unprovable accusations leveled at Russia through
the media by "security service sources."
Attack on UK Vaccine Research
A whole slew of these were rehearsed by Andrew Marr on his flagship BBC1 morning show. The
latest is the accusation that Russia is responsible for a cyber attack on Covid-19 vaccination
research. This is another totally evidence-free accusation. But it misses the point anyway.
Andrew Marr, center, in 2014. (Financial Times, Flickr)
The alleged cyber attack, if it happened, was a hack not an attack -- the allegation is that
there was an effort to obtain the results of research, not to disrupt research. It is appalling
that the U.K. is trying to keep its research results secret rather than share them freely with
the world scientific community.
As I have reported
before , the U.K. and the USA have been preventing the WHO from implementing a common
research and common vaccine solution for Covid-19, insisting instead on a profit driven
approach to benefit the big pharmaceutical companies (and disadvantage the global poor).
What makes the accusation that Russia tried to hack the research even more dubious is the
fact that Russia had
just bought the very research specified. You don't steal things you already
own.
Evidence of CIA Hacks
If anybody had indeed hacked the research, we all know it is impossible to trace with
certainty the whereabouts of hackers. My VPNs [virtual private networks] are habitually set to
India, Australia or South Africa depending on where I am trying to watch the cricket, dodging
broadcasting restrictions.
More pertinently, WikiLeaks' Vault 7 release of CIA material showed the specific programs for the CIA in how to leave clues
to make a leak look like it came from Russia. This irrefutable evidence that the CIA do
computer hacks with apparent Russian "fingerprints" deliberately left, like little bits of
Cyrillic script, is an absolutely classic example of a fact that everybody working in the
mainstream media knows to be true, but which they all contrive never to mention.
Thus when last week's "Russian hacking" story was briefed by the security services -- that
former Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn deployed secret documents on U.K./U.S. trade talks
which had been posted on Reddit, after being stolen by an evil Russian who left his name of
Grigor in his Reddit handle -- there was no questioning in the media of this narrative.
Instead, we had another round of McCarthyite witch-hunt aimed at the rather tired looking
Corbyn.
Personally, if the Russians had been responsible for revealing that the Tories are prepared
to open up the NHS "market" to big American companies, including ending or raising caps on
pharmaceutical prices, I should be very grateful to the Russians for telling us. Just as the
world would owe the Russians a favor if it were indeed them who leaked evidence of just how
systematically the DNC rigged the 2016 primaries against Bernie Sanders.
But as it happens, it was not the Russians. The latter case was a leak by a disgusted
insider, and I very much suspect the NHS U.S. trade deal link was also from a disgusted
insider.
When governments do appalling things, very often somebody manages to blow the
whistle.
Crowdstrike's Quiet Admission
If you can delay even the most startling truth for several years, it loses much of its
political bite. If you can announce it during a health crisis, it loses still more. The world
therefore did not shudder to a halt when the CEO of Crowdstrike admitted there had never been
any evidence of a Russian hack of the DNC servers.
Crowdstrike's Shawn Henry presenting at the International Security Forum in Vancouver,
2009.
(Hubert K, Flickr)
You will recall the near incredible fact that, even through the Mueller investigation, the
FBI never inspected the DNC servers themselves but simply relied on a technical report from
Crowdstrike, the Hillary Clinton-related IT security consultant for the DNC.
It is now known for sure that Crowdstrike had been peddling fake news for Hillary. In fact,
Crowdstrike had no record of any internet hack at all. There was no evidence of the email
material being exported over the internet. What they claimed did exist was evidence that the
files had been organized preparatory to export.
Remember the entire "Russian hacking" story was based ONLY on Crowdstrike's say so. There is
literally no other evidence of Russian involvement in the DNC emails, which is unsurprising as
I have been telling you for four years from my own direct sources that Russia was not involved.
Yet finally declassified congressional testimony revealed that Shawn Henry stated on oath that
"we did not have concrete evidence" and "There's circumstantial evidence , but no evidence they
were actually exfiltrated."
This testimony fits with what I was told by Bill Binney, a former technical director of the
National Security Agency (NSA), who told me that it was impossible that any large amount of
data should be moved across the internet from the USA, without the NSA both seeing it happen in
real time and recording it. If there really had been a Russian hack, the NSA would have been
able to give the time of it to a millisecond.
That the NSA did not have that information was proof the transfer had never happened,
according to Binney. What had happened, Binney deduced, was that the files had been downloaded
locally, probably to a thumb drive.
Bill Binney. (Miquel Taverna / CCCB via Flickr)
So arguably the biggest news story of the past four years -- the claim that Putin
effectively interfered to have Donald Trump elected U.S. president -- turns out indeed to be
utterly baseless. Has the mainstream media, acting on security service behest, done anything to
row back from the false impression it created? No it has doubled down.
Anti-Russia
Theme
The "Russian hacking" theme keeps being brought back related to whatever is the big story of
the day.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Brexit? Russian hacking.
U.K. general election 2019? Russian hacking
Covid-19 vaccine? Russian hacking.
Then we have those continual security service briefings. Two weeks ago we had unnamed
security service sources telling The New York Times that Russia had offered the Taliban
a
bounty for killing American soldiers. This information had allegedly come from
interrogation of captured Taliban in Afghanistan, which would almost certainly mean it was
obtained under torture.
It is a wildly improbable tale. The Afghans have never needed that kind of incentivization
to kill foreign invaders on their soil. It is also a fascinating throwback of an accusation
– the British did indeed offer Afghans money for, quite literally, the heads of Afghan
resistance leaders during the first Afghan War in 1841, as I detail in my book "Sikunder
Burnes."
Taliban in Herat, Afghanistan, 2001. (Wikipedia)
You do not have to look back that far to realize the gross hypocrisy of the accusation. In
the 1980s the West was quite openly paying, arming and training the Taliban -- including Osama
bin Laden – to kill Russian and other Soviet conscripts in their thousands. That is just
one example of the hypocrisy.
The U.S. and U.K. security services both cultivate and bribe senior political and other
figures abroad in order to influence policy all of the time. We work to manipulate the result
of elections -- I have done it personally in my former role as a U.K. diplomat. A great deal of
the behavior over which Western governments and media are creating this new McCarthyite
anti-Russian witch hunt, is standard diplomatic practice.
My own view is that there are malign Russian forces attempting to act on government in the
U.K. and the USA, but they are not nearly as powerful as the malign British and American forces
acting on their own governments.
The truth is that the world is under the increasing control of a global elite of
billionaires, to whom nationality is irrelevant and national governments are tools to be
manipulated. Russia is not attempting to buy corrupt political influence on behalf of the
Russian people, who are decent folk every bit as exploited by the ultra-wealthy as you or I.
Russian billionaires are, just like billionaires everywhere, attempting to game global
political, commercial and social structures in their personal interest.
The other extreme point of hypocrisy lies in human rights. So many Western media
commentators are suddenly interested in China and the Uighurs or in restrictions on the LBGT
community in Russia, yet turn a completely blind eye to the abuse committed by Western "allies"
such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.
As somebody who was campaigning about the human rights of both the Uighurs and of gay people
in Russia a good decade before it became fashionable, I am disgusted by how the term "human
rights" has become weaponized for deployment only against those countries designated as enemy
by the Western elite.
Finally, do not forget that there is a massive armaments industry and a massive security
industry all dependent on having an "enemy." Powerful people make money from this Russophobia.
Expect much more of it. There is money in a Cold War. Sign in to comment Viewing Options
arrow_drop_down
All Comments 45
jmNZ , 2 hours ago
Most of this can be traced to a group of fanatical Dr Strangeloves in the UK, known as the
"The Integrity Initiative" (sic) , now continuing under a new name since its cover was blown
by ukcolumnnews.
This group is handsomely funded from the public purse by the Foreign Office and its
influence is spread by the BBC and a corps of "disinformation officers" known as the 77th
brigade and 13 Signals, all under the control of the British cabinet office.
They are the ones trying to destabilize America via the Democratic (sic) Party.
And their cover is weekly Russia-bashing stories.
bumboo , 6 hours ago
Craig Murray sounds a reasonable voice. He quit or was fired from his Ambassador job in
Uzbekistan on Iraq war issue. Compare him with our Gen. Collin Powell, Mr. Clean, who lied
about Iraqi WMD in UN, covered up My Lia massacre for a lousy promotion. Now writing books,
public speaking for money and appearing on TVs as a wiseman. Wow.
Thutmoses , 7 hours ago
I think it wont be Russia, it will be China.
If an asteroid runs into the earth, any surviving press will blame it on China
Scipio Africanuz , 8 hours ago
Thanks Craig..
Any renewed cold War will freeze the instigators, and should it get hot, then they burn as
well..
Unfortunately, in the hot version, mankind gets roasted as well and not just by bombs, but
by..
As for the cold version however, the script had flipped thus..
As Sólómọ́nì Wise averred wisely, the borrower is slave
to the lender, and it doesn't matter if the duplicitous borrower tries to stiff the
lender..
The debts will be paid one way or another..
As for those bamboozled into unsustainable liabilities, there's always the merciful
jubilee, but first things first, lessons must be learned, thinking rejuvenated, lifestyle
changed, recalibration engaged, and vigilance imbibed..
To ensure serfdom culs de sac are avoided once the deceived by delusions are
salvaged..
And thus Craig, the necessity of experience that's bitter, so folks may learn by
necessity, what they chose not to learn via humility..
Cheers...
Really_Brit , 8 hours ago
The fundamental problem with this kind of revisionist narrative - that the Russian
leadership has been wildly misinterpreted as hostile to the west - is actually the existence,
in full sight, of Russia's most obvious propaganda tool - RT. What was called Russia Today
until someone in Moscow twigged that almost nothing being broadcast was about Russia that was
at all likely to upset Putin and his oligarchy or hint at the countries inferiority complex
viz a viz the West. So not what would be seen as free press and free broadcasting.
Nothing remotely like the programs RT / Russia Today has put together (or bought) that
describe civil unrest in the developed world. Or civil unrest in the developing world but
caused by the machinations of the developed world.
The closure or restrictions on Western NGO's in Russia intentionally stops any attempt to
replicate RT / Russia Today. So we will never see the Russian equivalents of recognisable US
ex-TV anchors or ex-CIA sounding off, within Russia , about corruption and criminality in
their motherland. Even sounding off about Russia outside in the developed world carries a
heavy price - just remind ourselves of poisoned ex-spies and Salisbury door knobs!
Tarjan , 2 hours ago
"Salisbury door knobs!"
You're chitting me, right?
~
jmNZ , 51 minutes ago
Ha! Ha!
You're as unreal a Brit as can be imagined.
No one believes the Skripal pantomime. Nor the MH17 'narrative'. Nor the farce where a
supposedly democratic country like the UK supports one of the richest and most arbitrary
regimes, Sadist Barbaria, in the wanton destruction of one of the poorest, the Yemen. And how
many times have the US/UK been caught out cooperating with fanatical jihadis terrorizing
Syria, the only parliamentary, secular state in the ME?
We wouldn't know any of this from the BBC.
desertboy , 8 hours ago
" It is appalling that the U.K. is trying to keep its research results secret rather than
share them freely with the world scientific community."
Assumes the intent is to make people healthier.
capital101 , 9 hours ago
War is a racket , from Smedley Butler, should be mandatory reading in school.
I think there is a positive side to this western animosity against Russia and China too.
Because Russia and China now have no good reason to respect western imperialism in the rest
of the world.
During the last Cold War, Russia and China helped many countries in Africa and Asia throw
off their yoke of western imperialism and have some alternatives for their trade and
development. And now we are getting a similar situation.
Russia and China are developing financial tools for international trade independent of the
US dollar. Which in the future will limit US power to impose sanctions and interfere with
trade between other countries. And of course, both Russia and China have goods and
technologies that rival those of western countries. They can provide a complete alternative
for countries that the West is trying to isolate and subjugate.
Perhaps western animosity isn't good for world peace or for the people in Russia and
China. But there is some benefit in this for many less developed countries who need an
alternative to the West for their trade and development.
We have some real competition now, where the competitors aren't colluding with each other.
Which is good for developing countries that need some real alternatives for their trade and
development.
PT , 9 hours ago
"...First they were our enemies. Then they were our friends. Then they were our enemies
again. Then they were our friends again..." - Mad Magazine was pointing this out in the 1970s
... or was it the 1960s?
Judging by the wording and the artwork, probably the '60s.
Fun side note: Compare Mad Magazines from each decade. Which ones had the higher quality
writers? Which ones had the higher quality art work? The answer is clearly visible. The
older, the better.
The UK and US have accused Russia of launching a weapon-like projectile from a
satellite in space. In a statement, the head of the UK's space directorate said: "We are concerned by the
manner in which Russia tested one of its satellites by launching a projectile with the
characteristics of a weapon."
The statement said actions like this "threaten the peaceful use of space".
The USA and UK's constant, unremitting "Putin stole my baby's candy" stories that
nobody expects them to prove are merely making the pair of them look ridiculous. If you're
trying to get Code-Red support for war, step up to the mark and take your shot, instead of
constantly sniveling and making it sound like nobody can draw a peaceful breath until the
Russians have been eliminated from the planet. But I promise you if you do, you are
going to be so sorry. Russia is not Grenada. Time again to trot out my favourite maxim
– 'experience keeps a hard school, but fools will learn at no other'.
Or the US's recently stood up Space Force(skin) USSF – spaceforce.mil (.mil = as
in military). Maybe that is why the UK is whining about it, i.e. to put space between the
US? Oh, and the Brits don't have a capability, having given up launchers in the 1960s.
"Space is the world's newest war-fighting domain," President Trump said during the
signing ceremony. "Amid grave threats to our national security, American superiority in
space is absolutely vital. And we're leading, but we're not leading by enough. But very
shortly we'll be leading by a lot."
"This is not a farce. This is nationally critical," Gen. John Raymond, who will lead
the Space Force, told reporters on Friday. "We are elevating space commensurate with its
importance to our national security and the security of our allies and partners."
About 16,000 Air Force active duty and civilian personnel are being assigned to the
Space Force. There's still a lot to figure out, including the force's uniform, logo, and
even its official song.
The Space Force will fall within the Department of the Air Force, but after one year
it will have its own representation on the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
The new service branch essentially repackages and elevates existing military missions
in space from the Air Force, Army and Navy, said Todd Harrison, who directs the Aerospace
Security Project at the Center for Strategic & International Studies.
"It's about, you know, all the different types of missions our military already does
in space -- just making sure that we're doing them more effectively, more efficiently,"
said Harrison.
"It will create a centralized, unified chain of command that is responsible for
space, because ultimately when responsibility is fragmented, no one's responsible," he
added.
####
The most interesting bit about the article above is the ommission, i.e. it doesn't
mention offensive space capabilities, even though we know about the robotic Boing X57*
winged spaceplane that swans about for up to a year.
No. Everyone should wait for the US to deploy its weapon systems and then follow!
That would be fair and just because the US is a Democracy and it has earned the right and
more importantly, the benefit of the doubt ad infinitum. Or is the X-37 just there
to sprinkle calming holy water on America's adversaries? ODFO!
The good , a 5 minute segment where a guest picked winner / loser countries post
covid19 world.
Winners: Germany, Taiwan, and Russia, Loser: United States.
It was amusing to watch Zakaria's face contort at the mention of Russia being named a winner,
'wha-whaaaaaaat?' The guest had to reassure Zakaria that Russia is a crap country and only
benefits because of Putin's Fortress Russia campaign and low debt making it capable of
weathering storms. Zakaria's face still frozen in a mask of horror.
The bad a rather long segment on Russia, China, and Iran's meddling campaign for
our next election. This was more painful to me then when I had appendicitis and had to wait
several hours before anyone could drive me to the emergency room.
1. Two experts, a China hater and a Russia hater from different 'Institutes'
2. The gratuitous adding of Iran to the list without explanation. Pro-Iranian views are
invisible.
3. Russian hatefest was over the top. It was a classic case of accusing Russia of what we
do. Russia (aka United States) nihilistically creates trouble and by amplifying discord in
other countries in order to deflect from their own domestic problems and foreign adventurism
in places like Syria and Ukraine.
Nihilistic spoilers? We the U.S. lost in Syria but are now trying to create a quagmire for
Russia and are pulling out all of the stops to make Syrians brutally suffer with a full scale
trade embargo and partition of their country.
The Washington Post has settled a $250 million defamation lawsuit filed by Covington
Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann for an undisclosed amount, after the teen claimed
the left-leaning news outlet 'led the hate campaign' against him following a racially charged
January, 2019 incident at the March for Life Rally at the Lincoln Memorial.
Sandmann was viciously attacked by left-leaning news outlets over a deceptively edited video
clip from the incident, in which the teenager, seen wearing a MAGA hat, appeared to be mocking
a Native American man beating a drum (a known political grifter who
lied about the incident , and
stole valor ).
The following day, a longer version of the video revealed that Sandmann did absolutely
nothing wrong - as the Native American, Nathan Phillips, aggressively approached Sandmann and
beat a drum in his face.
In a tweet on his 18th birthday, Sandmann wrote "On 2/19/19, I filed $250M defamation
lawsuit against Washington Post. Today, I turned 18 & WaPo settled my lawsuit."
https://lockerdome.com/lad/13084989113709670?pubid=ld-dfp-ad-13084989113709670-0&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com&rid=www.zerohedge.com&width=890
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Sandmann is also suing ABC, CBS, The Guardian, The Hill and NBC Universal.
The kid needs to add NPR to his hit list. Their reporting of it made me permanently
stop listening to that channel (in a vain attempt to hear both sides of the narrative,
you know give the MSM a chance to be honest etc). Good on him for suing and winning
because that's the only way we'll be able to get rid of the drivel that calls itself news
these days.
ay_arrow
VideoEng_NC , 9 minutes ago
Every one of these news sources is screwed, it's going to be euphoric knowing each
judgment means their accounting dept has to cut a fat check. Nick, don't forget the
individuals on the list like Sen Warren & Ellen. Redistribute their wealth to your
account young man, tell em' it's for a cause they should be supporting.
y_arrow
Mzhen , 22 minutes ago
A Washington Post reporter was retweeting the viral video clip by 8:00 a.m. the next
morning. The first Washington Post story was being published online that day (Saturday)
at the same time a group of about 60 Indians was descending on the Bascilica of the
National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception with the intention of disrupting the mass
and reading their list of "demands," which included college educations being denied to
Nick and his classmates.
The Post really played up the anti-Catholic angle in ensuing stories. So if there was
email coordination between the Indian march organizers and the Post , they couldn't
afford to have it come out in discovery.
play_arrow
nsurf9 , 30 minutes ago
His lawyers should have required WaPo publish an apology and name those on its staff
that were responsible for their intentional libel - in bold, headline font - right on its
figging FRONT PAGE - FOR A SOLID MONTH !
Steele's "Primary Subsource" Was Alcoholic Russian National Who Worked With Trump
Impeachment Witness At Brookings by Tyler Durden Sat, 07/25/2020 - 16:50
Twitter Facebook Reddit EmailPrint
The mysterious "Primary Subsource" that Christopher Steele has long hidden behind to defend
his discredited Trump-Russia dossier is a former Brookings Institution analyst -- Igor "Iggy"
Danchenko, a Russian national whose past includes criminal convictions and other personal
baggage ignored by the FBI in vetting him and the information he fed to Steele , according to
congressional sources and records obtained by RealClearInvestigations. Agents continued to use
the dossier as grounds to investigate President Trump and put his advisers under
counter-espionage surveillance.
The 42-year-old Danchenko, who was hired by Steele in 2016 to deploy a network of sources to
dig up dirt on Trump and Russia for the Hillary Clinton campaign, was arrested, jailed and
convicted years earlier on multiple public drunkenness and disorderly conduct charges in the
Washington area and ordered to undergo substance-abuse and mental-health counseling, according
to criminal records.
Fiona Hill: She worked at the Brookings Institution with dossier "Primary Subsource" Igor
"Iggy" Danchenko (top photo), and testified against President Trump last year during
impeachment hearings. AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta
In an odd twist, a 2013 federal case against Danchenko was prosecuted by then-U.S Attorney
Rod Rosenstein, who ended up signing one of the FBI's dossier-based wiretap warrants as deputy
attorney general in 2017.
Danchenko first ran into trouble with the law as he began working for Brookings - the
preeminent Democratic think tank in Washington - where he struck up a friendship with Fiona
Hill, the White House adviser who testified against Trump during last year's impeachment
hearings. Danchenko has described Hill as a mentor, while Hill has sung his praises as a
"creative" researcher.
Hill is also close to his boss Steele, who she'd known since 2006 . She met with the former
British intelligence officer during the 2016 campaign and later received a raw, unpublished
copy of the now-debunked dossier.
It does not appear the FBI asked Danchenko about his criminal past or state of sobriety when
agents interviewed him in January 2017 in a failed attempt to verify the accuracy of the
dossier, which the bureau did only after agents used it to obtain a warrant to surveil Trump
campaign adviser Carter Page. The opposition research was farmed out by Steele, working for
Clinton's campaign, to Danchenko, who was paid for the information he provided.
A newly declassified FBI summary of the FBI-Danchenko meeting reveals agents learned that
key allegations in the dossier, which claimed Trump engaged in a "well-developed conspiracy of
cooperation" with the Kremlin against Clinton, were largely inspired by gossip and bar talk
among Danchenko and his drinking buddies, most of whom were childhood friends from Russia.
The FBI memo is heavily redacted and blacks out the name of Steele's Primary Subsource. But
public records and congressional sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirm the
identity of the source as Danchenko.
In the memo, the FBI notes that Danchenko said that he and one of his dossier sources "drink
heavily together." But there is no apparent indication the FBI followed up by asking Danchenko
if he had an alcohol problem, which would cast further doubt on his reliability as a source for
one of the most important and sensitive investigations in FBI history.
The FBI declined comment. Attempts to reach Danchenko by both email and phone were
unsuccessful.
The Justice Department's watchdog recently debunked the dossier's most outrageous
accusations against Trump, and faulted the FBI for relying on it to obtain secret wiretaps. The
bureau's actions, which originated under the Obama administration, are now the subject of a
sprawling criminal investigation led by special prosecutor John Durham.
Rod Rosenstein: In an odd twist, a 2013 drunkenness case against Danchenko was prosecuted by
then-U.S Attorney Rod Rosenstein, who ended up signing one of the FBI's dossier-based wiretap
warrants as deputy attorney general in 2017. (Greg Nash/Pool via AP)
One of the wiretap warrants was signed in 2017 by Rosenstein, who also that year appointed
Special Counsel Robert Mueller and signed a "scope" memo giving him wide latitude to
investigate Trump and his surrogates. Mueller relied on the dossier too. As it happens,
Rosenstein also signed motions filed in one of Danchenko's public intoxication cases, according
to the documents obtained by RCI.
In March 2013 -- three years before Danchenko began working on the dossier -- federal
authorities in Greenbelt, Md., arrested and charged him with several misdemeanors, including
"drunk in public, disorderly conduct, and failure to have his [2-year-old] child in a safety
seat," according to a court
filing . The U.S. prosecutor for Maryland at the time was Rosenstein, whose name
appears in the docket filings .
The Russian-born Danchenko, who was living in the U.S. on a work visa, was released from
jail on the condition he undergo drug testing and "participate in a program of substance abuse
therapy and counseling," as well as "mental health counseling," the records show. His lawyer
asked the court to postpone his trial and let him travel to Moscow "as a condition of his
employment." The Russian trips were granted without objection from Rosenstein. Danchenko ended
up several months later entering into a plea agreement and paying fines.
In 2006, Danchenko was arrested in Fairfax, Va., on similar offenses, including "public
swearing and intoxication," criminal records show. The case was disposed after he paid a
fine.
At the time, Danchenko worked as a research analyst for the Brookings Institution, where he
became a protégé of Hill. He collaborated with her on at least two Russian policy
papers during his five-year stint at the think tank and worked with another Brookings scholar
on a project to
uncover alleged plagiarism in Russian President Vladimir Putin's doctoral dissertation --
something Danchenko and his lawyer boasted about during their meeting with FBI agents. (Like
Hill, the other scholar, Clifford Gaddy, was a Russia hawk. He and Hill in 2015 authored "Mr.
Putin: Operative in the Kremlin," a book strongly endorsed by Vice President Joe Biden at the
time.)
"Igor is a highly accomplished analyst and researcher," Hill noted on his LinkedIn page in
2011.
"He is very creative in pursuing the most relevant of information and detail to support
his research."
Strobe Talbott of Brookings with Hillary Clinton: He connected with Christopher Steele and
passed along a copy of his anti-Trump dossier to Fiona Hill. AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster
Hill also vouched for Steele, an old friend and British intelligence counterpart. The two
reunited in 2016, sitting down for at least one meeting. Her boss at the time, Brookings
President Strobe Talbott, also connected with Steele and
passed along a copy of his anti-Trump dossier to Hill. A tough Trump critic, Talbott
previously worked in the Clinton administration and rallied the think tank behind Hillary.
Talbott's brother-in-law is Cody Shearer, another old Clinton hand who disseminated his own
dossier in 2016 that echoed many of the same lurid and unsubstantiated claims against Trump.
Through a mutual friend at the State Department, Steele obtained a copy of Shearer's dossier
and reportedly submitted it to the FBI to help corroborate his own.
In August 2016, Talbott personally called Steele, based in London, to offer his own input on
the dossier he was compiling from Danchenko's feeds. Steele phoned Talbott just before the
November election, during which Talbott asked for the latest dossier memos to distribute to top
officials at the State Department. After Trump's surprise win, the mood at Brookings turned
funereal and Talbott and
Steele strategized about how they "should handle" the dossier going forward.
During the Trump transition, Talbott encouraged Hill to leave Brookings and take
a job in the White House so she could be "one of the adults in the room" when Russia and
Putin came up. She served as deputy assistant to the president and senior director for European
and Russian affairs on the National Security Council from 2017 to 2019.
She left the White House just before a National Security Council detailee who'd worked with
her, Eric Ciaramella, secretly huddled with Democrats in Congress and
alleged Trump pressured the president of Ukraine to launch an investigation of Biden and
his son in exchange for military aid. Democrats soon held hearings to impeach Trump, calling
Hill as one of their star witnesses.
Congressional investigators are taking a closer look at tax-exempt Brookings, which has
emerged as a nexus in the dossier scandal. As a 501(c)(3) non-profit, the liberal think tank is
prohibited from lobbying or engaging in political campaigns. Gryffindor/Wikimedia
Under questioning by Republican staff, Hill disclosed that Steele reached out to her for
information about a mysterious individual, but she claimed she could not recall his name. She
also said she couldn't remember the month she and Steele met.
"He had contacted me because he wanted to see if I could give him a contact to some other
individual, who actually I don't even recall now, who he could approach about some business
issues," Hill told the House
last year in an Oct. 14 deposition taken behind closed doors.
Congressional investigators are reviewing her testimony, while taking a closer look at
tax-exempt Brookings, which has emerged as a nexus in the dossier scandal.
Registered with the IRS as a 501(c)(3) non-profit, the liberal think tank is prohibited from
lobbying or engaging in political campaigns. Specifically, investigators want to know if
Brookings played any role in the development of the dossier.
"Their 501(c)(3) status should be audited, because they are a major player in the dossier
deal," said a congressional staffer who has worked on the investigation into alleged Russian
influence.
Hill, who returned to Brookings as a senior fellow in January, could not be reached for
comment. Brookings did not respond to inquiries.
Ghost Employee
As a former member of Britain's secret intelligence service, Steele hadn't traveled to
Russia in decades and apparently had no useful sources there . So he relied entirely on
Danchenko and his supposed "network of subsources," which to its chagrin, the FBI discovered
was nothing more than a "social circle."
It soon became clear over their three days of debriefing him at the FBI's Washington field
office - held just days after Trump was sworn into office - that any Russian insights he may
have had were strictly academic.
Danchenko confessed he had no inside line to the Kremlin and was "clueless" when Steele
hired him in March 2016 to investigate ties between Russia and Trump and his campaign
manager.
Christopher Steele, former British spy, leaving a London court this week in a libel case
brought against him by a Russian businessman. Dossier source Danchenko's drinking pals fed him
a tissue of false "rumor and speculation" for pay -- which Steele, in turn, further embellished
with spy-crafty details and sold to his client as "intelligence." (Victoria Jones/PA via
AP)
Desperate for leads, he turned to a ragtag group of Russian and American journalists,
drinking buddies (including one who'd been arrested on pornography charges) and even an old
girlfriend to scare up information for his London paymaster, according to the FBI's January
2017 interview memo, which runs 57 pages. Like him, his friends made a living hustling gossip
for cash, and they fed him a tissue of false "rumor and speculation" -- which Steele, in turn,
further embellished with spy-crafty details and sold to his client as "intelligence."
Instead of closing its case against Trump, however, the FBI continued to rely on the
information Danchenko dictated to Steele for the dossier, even swearing to a secret court that
it was credible enough to renew wiretaps for another nine months.
One of Danchenko's sources was nothing more than an anonymous voice on the other end of a
phone call that lasted 10-15 minutes.
Danchenko told the FBI he figured out later that the call-in tipster, who he said did not
identify himself, was Sergei Millian, a Belarusian-born realtor in New York. In the dossier,
Steele labeled this source "an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican U.S. presidential
candidate Donald Trump," and attributed Trump-Russia conspiracy revelations to him that the FBI
relied on to support probable cause in all four FISA applications for warrants to spy on Trump
adviser Carter Page -- including the Mueller-debunked myth that he and the campaign were
involved in "the DNC email hacking operation."
Danchenko explained to agents the call came after he solicited Millian by email in late July
2016 for information for his assignment from Steele. Millian told RCI that though he did
receive an email from Danchenko on July 21, he ignored the message and never called him.
"There was not any verbal communications with him," he insisted. "I'm positive, 100%,
nothing what is claimed in whatever call they invented I could have said."
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Millian provided RCI part of the email, which was written mostly in Russian. Contact
information at the bottom of the email reads:
Igor Danchenko
Business Analyst
Target Labs Inc.
8320 Old Courthouse Rd, Suite 200
Vienna, VA 22182
+1-202-679-5323
At the time, Danchenko listed Target Labs, an IT recruiter run by ethnic-Russians, as an
employer on his resumé. But technically, he was not a paid employee there. Thanks to a
highly unusual deal Steele arranged with the company, Danchenko was able to use Target Labs as
an employment front.
It turns out that in 2014, when Danchenko first started freelancing regularly for Steele
after losing his job at a Washington strategic advisory firm, he set out to get a security
clearance to start his own company. But drawing income from a foreign entity like Steele's
London-based company, Orbis Business Intelligence, would hurt his chances.
So Steele agreed to help him broker a special "arrangement" with Target Labs, where a
Russian friend of Danchenko's worked as an executive, in which the company would bring
Danchenko on board as an employee but not put him officially on the payroll. Danchenko would
continue working for Steele and getting paid by Orbis with payments funneled through Target
Labs. In effect, Target Labs served as the "contract vehicle" through which Danchenko was paid
a monthly salary for his work for Orbis, the FBI memo reveals.
Though Danchenko had a desk available to use at Target Labs, he did most of his work for
Orbis from home and did not take direction from the firm. Steele continued to give him
assignments and direct his travel. Danchenko essentially worked as a ghost employee at Target
Labs.
Asked about it, a Target Labs spokesman would only say that Danchenko "does not work with us
anymore."
Brian Auten: He wrote the memo on the FBI's interview with the Primary Subsource, which is
silent about Danchenko's criminal record. Patrick Henry College
Some veteran FBI officials worry Moscow's foreign intelligence service may have planted
disinformation with Danchenko and his network of sources in Russia. At least one of them,
identified only as "Source 5" in the FBI memo, was described as having a Russian "kurator," or
handler.
"There are legions of 'connected' Russians purveying second- and third-hand -- and often
made-up -- due diligence reports and private intelligence," said former FBI assistant
director Chris Swecker. "Putin's intelligence minions use these people well to plant
information."
Danchenko has scrubbed his social media account. He told the FBI he deleted all his
dossier-related electronic communications, including texts and emails, and threw out his
handwritten notes from conversations with his subsources.
In the end, Steele walked away from the dossier debacle with at least $168,000, and
Danchenko earned a large undisclosed sum.
The FBI interview memo, which is silent about Danchenko's criminal record, was written by
FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Brian Auten, who was called out in the Justice inspector
general report for ignoring inconsistencies, contradictions, errors and outright falsehoods in
the dossier he was supposed to verify.
It was also Auten's duty to vet Steele and his sources. Auten sat in on the meetings with
Danchenko and also separate ones with Steele. He witnessed firsthand the countless red flags
that popped up from their testimony. Yet Auten continued to tout their reliability as sources,
and give his blessing to agents to use their dossier as probable cause to renew FISA
surveillance warrants to spy on Page.
As RCI first reported, Auten teaches a national security course at a Washington-area college
on the ethics of such spying .
Former Flynn Deputy K.T. McFarland claims the Durham criminal inquiry into the friggin' in
the riggin' of the "Russia Investigation" and who knew what and when at the FBI and elsewhere
is just about ready to wrap up, and teases that we can expect indictments by the end of the
summer. Solid documentary evidence in the form of meeting notes, email exchanges and the like
has emerged, she says.
When schools in Britain
eventually reopen in September, children filling into the classrooms won't just be learning their reading, writing and
arithmetic. On top of these fundamentals, their teachers will spoon-feed them blatant propaganda that would make Herr Goebbels
blush.
The propaganda source in
question is The Day, a news site founded by a team of established journalists and directed at teens. Designed for use in the
classroom, each of The Day's stories is presented alongside a range of thought-provoking questions and exercises to help young
people learn to
"think for themselves and engage with the world."
Though UK-focused, The Day
is used in classrooms around the world as a teaching aid.
A recent article
describes
Russian
President Vladimir Putin as
"the most dangerous man in the world"
and suggests
"nothing
can be done to bring this rogue state [Russia] to heel."
Moscow's entire foreign policy is
"shameless"
and
Putin is described as a man who delights in stoking unrest in the West. The widely-debunked accusations of Russian
interference into the 2016 US election are treated as fact, as are the rumors that Putin meddled in the UK's Brexit referendum
and in last year's general election.
The children are also
offered Bill Browder's opinion that Russia is a
"mafia state running a mafia operation."
Browder,
the site omits, is a magnate and fraudster who made billions of dollars in Russia during the privatization rush of the 1990s
and
reinvented
himself
as an anti-Putin activist once his revenue stream was cut off.
Below the article, kids
are asked to answer a number of questions, such as
"Should Russia be expelled from the
United Nations?"
and even to write a creative story about what it would be like to meet Putin during his KGB days. For
good measure, the New York Times' recent
evidence-free
and
widely criticized story claiming Russia paid bounties to the Taliban to kill US troops in Afghanistan is suggested as further
reading to help kids become an
"expert"
on all things Putin.
The Day does not bill itself as an anti-Russia think tank for kids. Quite the opposite. Ironically, its founder, Richard
Addis, wanted to set up the site to fight deceptive journalism, hoaxes,
"slanted
reporting"
and
"stories where the truth is contentious"
-- fake news in other
words.
He was supported in this
quest by the British government's Commission on Fake News and the Teaching of Critical Literacy Skills in Schools, which
partnered with The Day to compile a damning
report
in
2018, revealing that only two percent of British youngsters have the critical thinking skills to spot phony news.
"It is clear that our schools are absolutely vital in encouraging children to burrow
through the rubbish and rootle out the truth,"
Addis said at the time. Stories on the site with titles like 'Putin the
terrible' and 'Toxic Putin on mission to poison the West' are clearly what Addis considers balanced journalism.
Balance, however, is not a common trait among British Russia-watchers. Parliament's long-awaited 'Russia report'
relies
almost
wholesale on
"allegations"
to back up its claim that Moscow
"poses
a significant threat to the UK."
The report even relies on articles by BuzzFeed to substantiate its shaky claims.
As slanted as its coverage
is, The Day's message may fall on deaf ears. According to the same government report, only a quarter of older children
actually trust the news they read online. As such, The Day's propagandizing might all be in vain.
One by one the so-called Russiagate "evidence" have collapsed. The fake Steele Dossier,
"Russian spy" Joseph Mifsud who is actually a self-admitted member of the Clinton Foundation,
Roger Stone's non-existant Wikileaks contacts, Russian Afgan bounties, etc. But the neoliberal
mainstream media still presents these as "facts" with no retractions.
This is not journalism, its disinformation designed to distract the American public from the
failures of capitalism.
There some interesting parts of this analysis. But as soon as a Professor shows that he believes that The Internet
Research Agency (IRA) troll factory influence 2016 elections his credibility falls to zero. The same is true about believing that
Gussifer 2.0 was not a false play operation by some US actors.
The key problem in the USA foreign policy toward Russia is the concept of "Full Spectrum Dominance" cherished by Washington
Neocons and foreign policy establishment (which are of ten the same people). Add to this a crown of greedy and unprincipled
chickenhawks (the Blob) who play the anti-Russian for their own advancement, obtaining lucrative positions and
enrichment (Fiona Hill, Victoria Nuland and company) and you see the problem. \
Destruction of the UN attempted by the USA after the dissolution of the USSR is a really tragic event, which probably will
backfire for the USA sooner of later
Notable quotes:
"... The Putin elite had earlier welcomed Trump's election, but in practice relations deteriorated further. The foreign policy establishment is deeply sceptical that the EU will be able to act with 'strategic autonomy'. Above all, Russo-Western relations have entered into a statecraft 'security dilemma': ..."
"... Currently, we are again faced with a situation in which mutual intentions are assessed by Washington and Moscow as subversive, while each side considers the statecraft employed by the other side as effective enough to achieve its malign goals. At the same time, each side is more sceptical about its own statecraft and appears (or pretends) to be scrambling to catch up (Troitskiy 2019 ). ..."
Russia today is presented as out to subvert the West. The chosen means are meddling in elections and sowing discord
in Western societies. Russia in this imaginary looms over an unsuspecting West, undermining democracy and supporting
disruptive forces. No longer couched in terms of the Cold War struggle between capitalism and communism, this is a
reversion to great power politics of the rawest sort. However, is this analysis correct? Is Vladimir Putin out to
undermine the West to achieve his alleged goal of re-establishing some sort of post-Soviet 'greater Russia' imperial
union in Russia's neighbourhood, to weaken the Atlantic power system and to undermine the liberal international
order? The paper challenges the view that Russia is trying to reconstitute a Soviet-type challenge to the West, and
provides an analytical framework to examine the dynamics of Russian foreign policy and on that basis assesses
Russia's real rather than imaginary aspirations.
It has become orthodoxy that Russia under an embittered and alienated Vladimir Putin is out to subvert the West. The
chosen means are taken to be meddling in elections and sowing discord in Western societies. The various special
operations include propelling Donald J. Trump to the White House and fixing the Brexit vote in 2016 (Snyder
2018
).
Putin's Russia in this imaginary looms over an unsuspecting West, undermining democracy and supporting disruptive forces
(Shekhovtsov
2017
;
Umland
2017
).
From this perspective, post-communist Russia is up to its old tricks, with the image of the Russian bear threatening the
honour of a defenceless Europe dusted off from the Crimean War and the era of the great game in the late nineteenth
century. No longer couched in terms of the Cold War struggle between capitalism and communism, this is a reversion to
great power politics of the imperial sort. It also represents the application of the weapons of the weak, since Russia
by any definition is but a shadow of the former Soviet Union, with less than half the population and an economy at most
one-tenth the size of that of the USA. Is this analysis correct? Is Putin out to undermine the West to achieve his
alleged goal of re-establishing some sort of post-Soviet union in Russia's neighbourhood and to weaken the Atlantic
power system so that the liberal international order is eroded from within? In other words, is Russia today a
revisionist power out to create a greater Russia?
Before attempting an answer we need to define our terms. What does it mean to be a revisionist power today, and how can
a strategy designed to 'subvert' be analysed and measured? Some fundamental methodological problems render study of the
question inherently difficult. How can revisionism and subversion be measured? How can the specific actors involved in
such actions be identified and disaggregated? At what point do normal policy differences between states become an
existential challenge to an existing order? The answer will take four forms, each of which further defines the question.
First, an assessment of the charge of Russian subversion and the various approaches that can be used to examine the
simple but endlessly complex question: is there a new quality to Russia actions that build on Soviet era 'active
measures' to denigrate and ultimately to destroy an opponent. This requires an examination of the logic of Russian
motives and policy-making, including examination of the structure of the international system and the dynamics of
Russian international politics, which will be presented in the second section. Third, an assessment of some of the
Kremlin's subversive behaviour in recent years, examined in the light of the earlier sections. Fourth, analysis of the
character of Russia's challenge assesses whether Russia today really is an insurgent and revisionist power.
Active measures and the subversion of American democracy
Is Russia really out to subvert the West? Much of the American political establishment believe that this is the case.
A comprehensive list of Russian sins is presented by Biden and Carpenter (
2018
),
including tyranny at home, the violation of the sovereignty of neighbours, meddling in the affairs of countries on
the road to NATO membership, 'soft subversion' through electoral interference in the USA and France, the manipulation
of energy markets and the 'weaponisation' of corruption. In his warning not to overreact to the Chinese challenge,
Zakaria (
2020
,
p. 64) notes that its actions, such as stealing military secrets and cyber-warfare, 'are attempts to preserve what
China views as its sovereignty'. However, these actions are 'nothing like Moscow's systematic efforts to disrupt and
delegitimize Western democracy in Canada, the United States and Europe'. Why do Russia's actions in his view fall
into an entirely different category?
One answer is that it is a question of political culture. The study of
Moscow Rules
by
Giles (
2019a
,
p. 23) argues that Russia's 'instinctive rejection of cooperative solutions is reinforced by the belief that all
great nations achieve security through the creation and assertion of raw power', and this in turn means that Russia
believes 'that the insecurity of others makes Russia itself more secure', predicated 'on the dubious principle that
there is only a finite amount of security in the world'. Elsewhere (Giles
2019b
)
sums up the policy implications in ten key points, which together do not leave much room for diplomatic manoeuvre or
even engagement with such a wily adversary who 'takes a very expansive view of what constitutes Russian territory'.
Treating it as an equal by normalising relations, as during Barack Obama's reset, 'delivered entirely the wrong
messages to Moscow' (Giles
2019a
,
p. 25). There can be no common ground with such an existential foe, and any substantive engagement smacks of
appeasement.
A second perspective focuses on Russophobia, which builds on the political culture notion of some inalienable and
ineradicable essence to Russian behaviour. The concept of Russophobia is often used to discount what may well be
legitimate criticism of Kremlin policies, but it nevertheless accurately conveys an approach that denigrates not only
Russia's leaders but the people as a whole (Mettan
2017
;
Tsygankov
2009
).
In an interview in May 2017 former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper argued that Russians 'are almost
genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favour, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique' (Koenig
2017
).
The work of Smith (
2019
)
complements that of Foglesong (
2007
)
on long-standing American anxieties about Russia. Smith argues that recurrent bouts of Russophobia are prompted by
what he calls the 'Russia anxiety', a long-term pattern of thinking and sentiments about Russia that alternate
between fear, contempt and disregard for the country. The cycle began in the sixteenth century when Russia joined the
nascent European international society. Anxiety that Russia threatens Western civilisation was accompanied by various
versions of 'fake history', as in the publication in nineteenth-century France of Russia's 14-point plan for world
domination -- the Testament of Peter the Great. This forgery is just one example of what Smith calls the 'black legend'
of Russian history: the idea that aggression, expansionism and authoritarianism are inherent features of Russia's
national character. Smith aims to demonstrate that Russia is far from exceptional, and instead its behaviour is
predictable and in conformity with traditional patterns of a country defending its national interests, or as Zakaria
argues with reference to China, its sovereignty. The major exception was the Soviet period, but this in many ways ran
against Russia's national identity and represented an imposition based on chance and contingency. In his view, Russia
today is doing no more than any other state, and its external actions are no more egregiously malevolent than any
other.
A third approach looks at Soviet legacies and systemic characteristics. From this perspective, Russia has undergone
an 'unfinished revolution' (McFaul
2001
),
allowing the Soviet era anti-Western and anti-democratic forces to regroup after the fall of communism. This
particularly concerns the so-called
siloviki
(the security apparatus and its
acolytes), as well as the transformed Soviet
apparatchiks
who became the core of
Putin's model of statist oligarchic capitalism. This 'crony capitalism' spreads its subversion by abusing Western
legal and financial institutions for their own malign purposes (Belton
2020
;
Dawisha
2014
).
Despite the change of regime and the end of old-style ideological confrontation, the Soviet system in certain
fundamental respects has reproduced itself. This is why the repertoire of tactics is sometimes described as a
continuation of Soviet era 'active measures' (
aktivnye meropriyatiya
) (Rid
2020
).
These are designed to undermine 'support in the United States and overseas for policies viewed as threatening to
Moscow, discrediting US intelligence and law enforcement agencies, weakening US alliances and US relations with
partners, and increasing Soviet power and influence across the globe' (Jones
2019
,
p. 2). The term is now used indiscriminately to encompass disinformation and cyber activities as elements of a
sustained strategy undertaken by the Soviet and now the Russian security services to undermine an enemy by exploiting
divisions and the vulnerabilities of competitive and open democratic societies.
The Communist International (Comintern) was established in March 1919 to spread the revolution globally and prompted
the Palmer raids in November of that year in the USA as part of the first Red Scare. During the Cold War there were
plenty of times when Moscow tried to influence US politics (Haslam
2012
).
In 1948 the Soviet Union backed the Progressive Party's Henry Wallace, who had been Franklin D. Roosevelt's vice
president but split with the Democratic Party over President Harry Truman's hawkish Cold War stance. In 1964 Soviet
and Czechoslovak agencies smeared the Republican candidate, Barry Goldwater, as a racist and Ku Klux Klan supporter.
In 1968 the Soviet Union offered an unprecedented level of support for the Democratic candidate, Hubert Humphrey,
including financial aid (which naturally was refused). In 1976 the KGB adopted 'active measures' against Democratic
Senator Henry 'Scoop' Jackson, a virulent anti-Soviet hawk. In 1980 and again in 1984 it appears that Senator Edward
Kennedy sought Soviet support for his presidential campaign (Kengor
2018
).
In 1983 KGB agents were instructed to help defeat Reagan in his bid for re-election. The Soviet goals outlined above
hold to this day in conditions of renewed Cold War, and this is why the term has regained currency (Abrams
2016
).
This is understandable, given the long history of Cold War conflict and renewed confrontation.
What is striking, however, is that most Soviet actions were inept and remarkably ineffective (Robinson
2019
).
We can also add that today such actions are also intensely counterproductive, arousing the hostility of the
authorities against which they are directed and discrediting what may be legitimate policy differences with these
countries. Political opponents are tarred with the brush of 'collusion' with an external enemy, as was the case
during the second Red Scare in the post-war years overseen by Senator Joseph McCarthy. This is also the case, as we
shall discuss below, in the 'Russiagate' collusion allegations, asserting that Trump worked with Moscow in 2016 to
get himself elected (Sakwa
2021
).
The question then becomes: why does Russia do it? Is it part of a single and coordinated strategy of subversion using
covert means, reflecting an overarching doctrine?
This is where the fourth approach, the ideational, comes in. From this perspective, the struggle between communism
and capitalism has given way to the conflict between democracies and autocracies, with the latter developing a
repertoire of techniques to keep democracy at bay (Hall and Ambrosio
2017
).
Each tries to subvert the other using a range of instruments, while advancing soft power agendas (Sherr
2013
).
Since at least 2004 Russia has been concerned with preventing what it calls 'colour revolutions', in which civil
society is mobilised by Western agencies to achieve regime change (Horvath
2011
,
2013
).
This was the issue addressed by Valerii Gerasimov (
2013
),
the Chief of the Russian General Staff, in his landmark article. The lesson of the Arab spring, he argued, was that
the rules of war had changed. Viable states could quickly descend into armed conflict and become victims of foreign
intervention and sink into an abyss of state collapse, civil conflict and humanitarian catastrophe. The article was a
response to what was perceived to be new forms of Western 'hybrid warfare'. He noted that 'Frontal engagements of
large formations of forces at the strategic and operational level are gradually becoming a thing of the past.
Long-distance, contactless actions against the enemy are becoming the main means of achieving combat and operational
goals'. He identified eight features of modern hybrid warfare that were applied to subvert states and to gain control
of territory without resorting to conventional arms. Regime change could be achieved by the use of civil methods such
as propaganda, funding and training of protest groups, and information campaigns aimed at discrediting the opponent.
He stressed that the 'very rules of war have changed', arguing that non-military means such as the 'use of political,
economic and informational, humanitarian, and other non-military measures -- applied in coordination with the protest
potential of the population', can exceed 'the power of force of weapons in their effectiveness, and 'that the open
use of forces -- often under the guise of peace-keeping and crisis regulation -- is resorted to only at a certain stage,
primarily for the achievement of final success in the conflict'.
Gerasimov discounted the element of popular protest against corrupt and authoritarian systems in the Middle East,
North Africa and post-Soviet Eurasia and instead framed these events as part of the radicalised West's regime change
strategies. Following the Russian actions in Crimea and the Donbas in 2014, the term 'hybrid warfare' was applied to
Russia's use of mixed methods (propaganda, disinformation, information warfare and special forces) to achieve what
came to be known as a 'nonlinear' military operations (Fridman
2018
).
What Gerasimov had identified as the Western strategy against Russia was now interpreted as the blueprint for the
Kremlin's attempts to destabilise its neighbours and Western democracies.
As for motivation, this is where a fifth approach comes in, focusing on questions of identity and Russia's search for
status in a competitive international environment. From this perspective, the idealism of Mikhail Gorbachev's 'new
political thinking' in international relations in the late 1980s 'offered a global mission that would enhance Soviet
international status while preserving a distinctive national identity'. In this way, the Soviet Union could forge a
'shortcut to greatness' by winning great power status not through economic might and military power but through
normative innovation and the transformation of international politics (Larson and Shevchenko
2003
).
This instrumental view of ideational innovation is challenged by English (
2000
),
who stresses the long-term maturation of an intellectual revolution in Soviet thinking, which then carried over into
Russian debates. As we shall see, there are many layers to Russia's foreign policy identity, although there is a
clear evolution away from an initial enthusiasm for all things European and alignment with the West towards the
stronger articulation of a great power version of Russian national interests. These great power aspirations have been
interpreted as a type of aspirational constructivism directed towards the identity needs of domestic audiences rather
than the expression of an aggressive policy towards the historic West (Clunan
2009
).
Status issues are important (Krickovic and Weber
2018
),
but they have to be understood as part of a larger ensemble of motivations within the structure of international
relations.
The final approach focuses on the structural characteristics of international politics, whose specific post-Cold War
manifestation will be examined below. Briefly put, defensive neorealism argues that in an anarchic international
environment states typically seek to preserve the status quo to maintain their security by preserving the balance of
power (Waltz
1979
,
p. 121). Offensive realists focus on the maintenance of hegemony in the international system and the struggle to
prevent usurpation (Mearsheimer
2001
,
p. 21). Revisionism assumes that the balance of power does not adequately guarantee a state's security, hence it
seeks to change the balance of power; or that is assumes that the balance of power has changed enough to mount a
challenge to the status quo. In Russia's case, classical neorealism of either type would accept regional hegemony,
with offshore balancing an adequate mechanism to ensure that it did not mount a global challenge. However, the
liberal internationalism that predominated after 1989 makes no provision for regional hegemony of any sort, hence
Russia was unable to exert the sort of influence to which it felt entitled, and hence its revisionist challenge was
manifested in attacks on Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014. This, at least, is the liberal structural perspective,
and even the defensive realist position has guarded against any reassertion of Russia's great power ambitions, hence
the concern to ensure that Ukraine was distanced as far as possible from any putative Russian 'sphere of influence'
(Brzezinski
1994
,
1997
).
How are we to adjudicate between these six different presentations of Russian interests and concerns? What is the
standard against which we can measure the dynamics of Russian identity formation and foreign policy? Is Putin really
trying to create a 'greater Russia' by not only challenging the established powers but also by waging a covert war to
shape electoral outcomes while destroying the foundations of democracy itself? Undoubtedly, certain Cold War
practices of propaganda and covert influence campaigns have been revived, while some (such as deep espionage
operations) never stopped, accompanied now by 'black cash' flows (untraceable and illicit payments) to sympathetic
movements, cyber-enhanced intelligence operations and outright cyber-warfare. Some of this predates the Cold War and
is part of traditional statecraft, some is part of revived Cold War confrontation, while some is new and takes
advantage of developing social media and communication technologies. Together they reflect the logic of conflict
stopping short of kinetic military action.
Post-Cold War reconstruction of the West and the international system
What is the character of the conflict? We argue here that this is a structural feature of post-Cold War international
politics. Two very different and incommensurate models of post-Cold War order were advanced after 1989 (Sakwa
2017a
,
pp. 12–19). The logic of
expansion
made perfect sense from the perspective of what
came to be seen as the 'victors' at the end of the Cold War. The long-term adversary had not only renounced the
ideology in whose name the struggle against capitalist democracy had been waged, but the country itself
disintegrated. This really did look like 'the end of history', with no sustained ideological alternative to
capitalist modernity on offer. From the first, the logic of expansion was opposed by Russia, the continuer state to
the Soviet Union. From Moscow's perspective, the end of the Cold War was a mutual victory -- the triumph of the new
political thinking that had matured in various academic institutes and think tanks (Bisley
2004
;
English
2000
).
This is why the logic of expansion was countered by the logic of
transformation
,
the view that the end of the Cold War offered a unique opportunity to move beyond ideological confrontation between
and within states. The idea of revolutionary socialism and class war would give way to a politics of reconciliation
and all-class development. This is more than a 'shortcut to greatness' or a strategy for status advancement (although
it is both of these), but a proposal for a structural transformation of the conduct of international politics. This
demand lies at the base of normative developments in international law over the last century as well as in various
peace and environmental movements today. There are plenty of credible realist arguments to dismiss such
transformative approaches as hopelessly idealistic, but repeated financial and pathogenic shocks and the enduring
threats of environmental catastrophe and nuclear annihilation provide the continuing impulse for transformative
thinking (Lieven
2020
).
This relates to a key point at the heart of Russian post-communist self-identity -- the ambition to join not the West as
it exists within the accustomed binaries but a transformed West where Cold War antagonisms are structurally
transcended. After 1989 the stated Russian ambition was to join the political West as it existed at the time, defined
as the embodiment of the democratic ideal, the rule of law, defensible property rights, and above all the realm of
freedom and independent associational life. However, because of the way that the political West evolved during the
Cold War, when the larger political civilisation, termed after the Cold War the liberal international order, melded
with the Atlantic power system, for a large part (but not all) of the Russia elite this became impossible. The power
system at the heart of the liberal normative order endows US power with a unique character. The hegemonic aspect
provided a range of international public goods, including the framework for economic globalisation. However, this was
accompanied by the practices of primacy, which we can credibly describe as dominion, an ascendancy that has spawned a
vast literature describing the USA as an empire (indicatively, Bacevich
2003
;
Johnson
2002
;
Mann
2005
).
Russian leaders from Gorbachev to Putin insisted that the Cold War West -- what in Russian parlance became known as the
'historic West' -- would have to change with the end of the Cold War to become a 'greater West'. This was effectively
the condition for Russia to join the expanded community, but in the end it turned out impossible for both sides to
make the necessary adjustments. The greater West would not have to repudiate hegemony -- that was too much even for a
demandeur
state
such as Russia to ask -- but Moscow's leaders did seek a change in the terms of dominion through the creation of what it
insisted should be a mutually inclusive security order. Hegemony was to a degree acceptable as long as it was
constrained by the system of international law grounded in the post-1945 international system, represented above all
by the United Nations. Russian neo-revisionism challenges dominance in its various manifestations (empire, primacy,
exceptionalism or greatness), but can live with constrained hegemony.
In sum, the fundamental post-Cold War process in the Russian view was to be mutual
transformation
,
whereas the Western view envisaged a straightforward process of
enlargement
. In
the context in which the main antagonist had itself repudiated the ideology on which it had based its opposition to
the historical West since 1917, and which in 1991 disintegrated as a state, the Atlanticist pursuit of expansion and
its accompanying logic of dominion was understandable (Wohlforth and Zubok
2017
).
Victory in the Cold War and the disintegration of the historic enemy (the Soviet Union) not only inhibited
transformative processes in the historic West but in the absence of a counter-ideology or an opposing power system,
encouraged the radicalisation of its key features (Sakwa
2018a
).
The original liberal world order after 1945 developed as one of the major pillars (the Soviet Union was the other)
within a bipolar system and was initially a relatively modest affair, based on the UN Charter defending the
territorial integrity of states (although also committed to anti-colonial national self-determination), multilateral
institutions, open markets that was later formulated as the 'four freedoms' of labour, capital, goods and services,
accompanied by a prohibition on the use of force except in self-defence. After 1989 the liberal world order, as the
only surviving system with genuinely universal aspirations, assumed more ambitious characteristics, including a
radical version of globalisation, democracy promotion and regime change.
The framing of the 'historic West' against a putative 'greater West' repeats the recurring Russian cultural trope of
contrasting 'good' and 'bad' Europes or Wests, 'with which Russians can seek to make common cause in domestic power
struggles' (Hahn
2020
;
see also Neumann
2016
).
As the historic West radicalised, it also enlarged. On the global scale its normative system, the liberal
international order, made universalist claims, while its power system (dominion) in Europe brought NATO to Russia's
western borders and drove the European Union deep into what had traditionally been Russia's economic and cultural
sphere. This would be disruptive in the best of circumstances, but when it became part of the expansion of an
Atlantic power system accompanied by the universalising practices of the liberal international order, it provoked a
confrontation over Ukraine and the onset of a renewed period of confrontation that some call a New Cold War (Legvold
2016
;
Mastanduno
2019
;
Monaghan
2015
).
In the absence of ideational or institutional modification, let alone innovation, after 1989, there was 'no place for
Russia' (Hill
2018
,
p. 8 and
passim
) in this new order.
Does this mean that Russia has become a revisionist power, out to destroy the historic West? Russia's ambition has in
fact been rather different, but in the end no less challenging: to change the practices of the power system at the
core of the historic West. Once mutual transformation was no longer an option and the idea of a greater West receded
(although it remains a residual feature of Russian thinking), Russia turned to neo-revisionism, a rather more modest
ambition to change practices rather than systems (Sakwa
2019
).
This was the culmination of an extended thirty-year period of experimentation. Contrary to the view of the Russian
power system as some immutable and unchangeable malign force (Lucas
2008
,
2013
),
the first and second models outlined above, foreign policy and more broadly Russia's engagement with the historic
West since the end of the Cold War has evolved through four distinct periods. Periodisation is an important heuristic
device and in methodological terms repudiates the view that there is some enduring essence to Russian foreign policy
behaviour, with 'active measures' seamlessly transferred from the Soviet Union to post-communist Russia. It is
important to note that the periodisation outlined here is
layered
. In other words,
each phase does not simply give way to the next, but builds on and incorporates the earlier one, while changing the
emphasis and introducing new elements.
The first period in the early 1990s was characterised by an enthusiastic Westernism and embrace of liberal
Atlanticism (Kozyrev
2019
).
In conditions of catastrophic social and economic conditions at home and assertions of US hegemony and dominion
abroad (although exercised rather reluctantly in Bosnia and elsewhere at this time), this gave way to a more
assertive neo-Soviet era of competitive coexistence, masterminded by the foreign minister from January 1996, Yevgeny
Primakov, who between September 1998 and May 1999 was prime minister. His assertion of multipolarity, alignment with
India and China (the beginning of the RIC's grouping) and foreign policy activism received a harsh rebuff in the NATO
bombing of Serbia from March 1999. Putin came to power in 2000 in the belief that the two earlier strategies were
excessive in different directions, and through his policy of 'new realism' tried to find a middle way between
acquiescence and assertion. Gorbachev-era ideas of 'normality' were revived, and Putin insisted that Russia would be
a 'normal' great power, seeking neither favours from the West nor a privileged position for itself (Sakwa
2008
).
This strategy of positive engagement was thrown off course by the expansive dynamic of the Atlantic power system,
including the war in Iraq in 2003, NATO enlargement and the Libyan crisis of 2011. As for Russia, the commodities
boom of the 2000s fuelled an unprecedented period of economic growth, accompanied by remarkably successful reforms
that transformed the Russian armed forces (Renz
2018
).
These fed ideas of Russian resurgence and appeared to provide the material base for a more assertive politics of
resistance.
When Putin returned to the Kremlin in May 2012 the new realism gave way to the fourth phase of post-communist Russian
foreign policy, the strategy of neo-revisionism. Already in his infamous Munich speech in February 2007, Putin (
2007
)
objected to the behaviour of the US-led Atlantic power system, but in substance the fundamentals of the new realist
strategy continued. Now, however, neo-revisionism challenged the universal claims of the US-led liberal international
order and resisted the advance of the Atlantic power system by intensifying alternative integration projects in
Eurasia and accelerating the long-term 'pivot to Asia'. By now Moscow was convinced that the normative hegemonic
claims of the liberal international order were only the velvet manifestation of the iron fist of American dominion at
its core. Russia, and its increasingly close Chinese partner, stressed the autonomy of international governance
institutions, insisting that they were not synonymous with the universal claims of the liberal international order.
This, in essence, is the fundamental principle of neo-revisionism: a defence of sovereign internationalism and the
autonomy of the international system bequeathed by the Yalta and Potsdam conferences of 1945. This is accompanied by
a rejection of the disciplinary practices of the US-led hegemonic constellation, including democracy promotion,
regime change, humanitarian intervention and nation building (what Gerasimov identified as Western hybrid warfare)
(Cunliffe
2020
).
In effect, this means a rejection of the practices of US-led international order, but not of the system in which it
operates.
Putin defends a model of conservative (or sovereign) internationalism that maps on to a ternary understanding of the
international system. On the top floor are the multilateral institutions of global governance, above all the UN (in
which Russia has a privileged position as permanent member (P5) of the Security Council); on the middle floor states
compete and global orders (like the US-led liberal international order) seek to impose their hegemony; while on the
ground floor civil society groups and civil associations try to shape the cultural landscape of politics (such as
groups trying to push responses to the climate catastrophe and nuclear threats up the global agenda). Putin and his
foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, condemn the liberal order for not living up to its own standards. As Lavrov (
2019
)
argued, 'How do you reconcile the imperative of defending human rights with the bombardment of sovereign states, and
the deliberate effort to destroy their statehood, which leads to the death of hundreds of thousands of people?'.
This is the neo-revisionist framework, which exposes the gulf between hegemonic principles and practices of dominion.
It is revisionist to the degree that it repudiates the application of US dominion to itself, but is willing to work
with that hegemony on major international issues as long as Russia's status as an autonomous diplomatic interlocutor
is recognised (Lo
2015
).
Neo-revisionism is the natural culmination of a policy stance torn by two contradictory positions. The revisionist
impulse seeks to reassert Russia into an international system in which great power diplomacy after the end of the
Cold War in 1989 had given way to a hegemonic universalism that by definition repudiated the traditional instruments
of great power diplomacy, such as spheres of influence, great power summitry and grand bargains. On the other side,
Russia remains a conservative status quo power intent on maintaining the post-1945 international system, which grants
it the supreme privilege of P5 membership as well as providing a benign framework to advance its model of sovereign
internationalism. This is a model of world order favoured by China, India and many other states, wary not so much of
the hegemonic implications of the liberal international order but of the power hierarchy associated with the
practices of dominion. This is the framework in which Russia (and China) can engage in globalisation but repudiate
the universalist ambitions of the power system with which it is associated.
With the USA under Trump withdrawing from multilateral commitments to focus on bolstering its ascendancy in the world
of states (the second level), Russia (and China) inevitably stood up in defence of multilateralism, in which they
have such a major stake. This is far from a revisionist position, and instead neo-revisionism defends the present
international system but critiques the historical claim of the liberal international order to be identical with the
multilateral order itself (Sakwa
2017a
).
Of course, the US-led liberal order has indelibly marked international society, but this does not entail a
proprietary relationship to that society (Dunne and Reut-Smith (
2017
).
Russia emerges as the defender of the international system as it is presently constituted, but at the same time
advances an alternative (non-hierarchical) idea of how it should operate. On occasion this may entail revisionist
acts, such as the annexation of Crimea, which from Moscow's perspective was a defensive reaction to a
Western-supported putsch against the legitimate authorities in Kiev (Treisman
2016
),
but they are not part of a consistent revisionist strategy. Both at home and abroad Russia is a status quo power.
Putin railed against the West's perceived revisionism in both aspects, but the main point of resistance is the
element of dominion at the heart of the Atlantic power system. In both respects there is no evidence that Russia
seeks to destroy the international system as presently constituted.
This structural interpretation, in which incompatible models of international politics contest, is overwhelmingly
rejected by the partisans of what can be called post-Cold War monism. From this perspective, there is only one viable
order, the one generated by the USA and its allies. There can be pluralism within that order, but not between orders.
This monist perspective is challenged by some recent international relations literature (Acharya
2017
;
Flockhart
2016
)
and of course by states defending a more pluralist understanding of the international system (for example, English
School approaches, Buzan
2014
).
In practical terms the monist imperative, when couched in liberal order terms but rather less so when applied in the
language of Trumpian 'greatness', renders Russia the structural equivalent of the Soviet Union, or even the dreaded
image of Tsarist Russia.
This leads to a fundamental category error. Russia is not a 'revolutionary power' in the sense defined by Henry
Kissinger (
2013
,
p 2), a country that can never be reassured of its security and consequently seeks absolute security at the expense
of others. Napoleonic France or Hitlerite Germany were determined to overthrow the international systems of their
times to create one more suited to their needs.
Russia today is a conservative power, alarmed by the way that the
international system that it had helped create at the end of the Second World War became radicalised after the end of
the Cold War. Critics argue that this radicalised version of liberal hegemony was 'bound to fail', since its
ambitions were so expansive as to classify as delusional, and which in the end provoked domestic and external
resistance (Mearsheimer
2018
,
2019
).
Russia's neo-revisionism after 2012 sought to defend the autonomy of the multilateralism inaugurated by the
victorious powers after 1945 and was ready to embrace the 'hegemonic' goals of the liberal order as presented in the
Cold War years, but came to fear the revisionism implicit in the 'exceptionalist' ideology of the post-Cold War
version of the liberal order, especially when it was accompanied by what was perceived as the aggressive expansion of
the dominion of the unipolar Atlantic power system.
The Kremlin and subversion
In the context of the distinction between the hegemony of the liberal international order and the dominion of the
Atlantic power system, both Russia and China reaffirm their commitment to the normative principles underlying the
international system as it developed after the Second World War. These include the primacy of state sovereignty,
territorial integrity, the significance of international law and the centrality of the United Nations (Wilson
2019
).
However, both are challenger powers in two respects: first, in questioning the assertive universalism that was
radicalised at the end of the Cold War, including various practices of humanitarian intervention and democracy
promotion, accompanied by regime change strategies; and second, dissatisfaction with the existing distribution of
power in the international system, hence challenge American primacy and hegemonic practices. This combination of
commitment to the international system but challenges to the pre-eminence of a particular order in that system is
what renders the two states neo-revisionist rather than outright revisionist powers. To label them as such is a
category error, with grave and dangerous policy consequences.
This error has now become enshrined doctrinally. The US
National Security Strategy
(
2015
)
already warned that Washington 'will continue to impose significant costs on Russia through sanctions' and would
'deter Russian aggression'. Trump's proclaimed intention of improving relations with Russia provoked a storm of
hostility in which Republican neo-conservatives and Democrat liberal internationalists united to stymie moves in that
direction. This is why the US
National Security Strategy
(
2017
,
p. 25), at the end of Trump's first year in power, warned against the 'revisionist powers of China and Russia',
ranked alongside the 'rogue powers of Iran and North Korea' and the 'transnational threat organisations, particularly
jihadist groups'. The National Defense Strategy (
2018
,
p. 2) also identified Russia and China as revisionist states, seeking 'to shape a world consistent with their
authoritarian model -- gaining veto authority over other nation's economic, diplomatic and security decisions'. The
emergence of challengers undoubtedly came as a shock for a power and normative system that had enjoyed largely
unquestioned pre-eminence. Responses to that shock range from intensified neo-conservative militarism, democratic
internationalist intensification of ideological struggle to delegitimise Russia's aspirations, as well as an
increasingly vocal 'realist' call for a return to the diplomatic practices of pre-Cold War sovereign
internationalism.
The first two responses make common cause against Russia's perceived revisionist challenge and have mobilised a
network of think tanks and strategies against Russia's instruments of subversion. The far from exhaustive list
presented here indicates the scope of Moscow's armoury of subversion, as well as the methodological and practical
problems in assessing their scale, motivation and effect. The first is support for insurgent populist movements in
the West. Russia rides the wave of populist and nationalist insurgency, but it does not mean either that Russia is
the main instigator or beneficiary. The Russian leadership has long complained about the 'hermetic' character of the
Atlantic power system and thus welcomes the breach in the impregnable walls of rectitude created from within by the
various national populisms of left and right. In other words, Moscow perceives national populist insurgency as a
struggle for ideational pluralism within the liberal international order, but above all as allies in the struggle for
geostrategic pluralism against the monism of the Atlantic power system. Russia supports some of these movements, but
not to the extent of jeopardising the existing structures of the international system. Once again, the tempered
challenge of neo-revisionism predominates over the insurrectionary behaviour that would characterise a genuinely
revisionist power.
The Alliance for Securing Democracy identified at least 60 instances of Russia funding political campaigns beyond its
borders, although many of the cases are circumstantial (Foer
2020
).
In his notorious interview with the
Financial Times
on the eve of the Osaka G20
summit in June 2019, Putin asserted that 'the liberal idea' has 'outlived its purpose' as publics turned against
immigration, open borders and multiculturalism, but he immediately brought in the structural context: '[Liberals]
cannot simply dictate anything to anyone just like they have been attempting to do over recent decades' (Barber and
Foy
2019
,
p. 1). The Kremlin has gone out of its way to identify with right wing (and occasionally left wing) 'populists' who
argue for a revision of the EU's relations with Russia, including a dismantling of the sanctions regime. Thus, in the
2017 French presidential election Putin welcomed the head of National Rally (formerly the Front National) Marine Le
Pen to Moscow, a move that still attracts widespread condemnation in France. Earlier, a Russian bank had made a €9.4
million loan to her party. Even this needs to be seen in context. Putin's favoured candidate in the 2017 French
presidential election was not Le Pen but the more conventional social conservative François Fillon. When the latter's
campaign as the nominee of the traditional Gaullist party imploded, Moscow was left bereft of a mainstream candidate
calling for a revision of the post-Cold War dominion strategy. As for the funding for Le Pen, the loan was called in
prematurely, and the bank was closed down as part of the Central Bank of Russia's attempt to clean up the financial
sector.
As for Italy, the leader of the Lega (formerly Lega Nord) party, Matteo Salvini, was one of the strongest advocates
of resetting relations with Russia as he entered government following the March 2018 elections as part of the
coalition with the Five Star Movement. The relationship was no more than a 'marriage of convenience', with Moscow
only engaged to the extent that it could advance the goal of weakening the EU's sanctions regime (Makarychev and
Terry
2020
).
In a subsequent scandal, one of Salvini's closest associates and the president of Lombardy Russia, Gianluca Savoini,
was taped talking in the Metropol Hotel in Moscow about an illicit scheme to funnel funds through oil sales to
support the League's electoral campaigns (Nardelli
2019
).
On his visit to the Vatican in July 2019 Putin met with the national populists, or otherwise put, the geopolitical
revisionists. This was his third meeting with Pope Francis, and Putin sounded more Catholic than the Pope: 'Sometimes
I get the feeling that these liberal circles are beginning to use certain elements and problems of the Catholic
Church as a tool for destroying the Church itself' (Horowitz
2019
).
The substantive issue remains. National populists in the West repudiate much of the social liberalism that has now
become mainstream, but most also reject the geopolitical orthodoxy that in their view has provoked the Second Cold
War with Russia. On that basis there is clearly common cause between the populist insurgency in Europe and the
Kremlin. For defenders of the liberal order, this commonality turns the populists into a Moscow-inspired fifth
column. The old division between capitalist democracy and communism after the Cold War has given way to a new binary,
between liberal democracy and authoritarianism. The fundamental divide shifts on to new ground, which can variously
be seen as one between patriotism and cosmopolitanism, which is a variant of the tension between revived nationalist
movements opposed to the erosion of state efficacy by neoliberalism within the framework of globalisation. Many share
concerns about the influx of refugees and fear even greater flows of migrants in the future, which in their view will
erode the civic and cultural bonds of Western societies. National populists challenge cosmopolitan liberalism
(Eatwell and Goodwin
2018
)
and thus align with the cultural conservatism that characterises the neo-revisionist period in Russian foreign policy
(Robinson
2017
).
In this new political spectrum, Russia emerges as an ally of the patriots and the anti-globalisers and is condemned
for funding and variously supporting the anti-liberal insurgency in the West. Whole institutes (such as the Political
Capital Institute in Hungary headed by Péter Krekó and the Henry Jackson Society in London) are devoted to exposing
these links and the various alleged illicit cash flows and networks. There are certainly plenty of lurid tales and
examples of European politicians who have been supported by factions in Russia without being transparent about these
links.
However, the common anti-liberal platform with Moscow is only part of the story. The geopolitical factor is no less
important, with both left and right populists rejecting elements of US dominion in the Atlantic security system, and
question the wisdom of the inexorable drive to the East that inevitably alienates Russia. Here they make common cause
with international relations realists as well as pragmatists like George Kennan, who in 1998 warned of the
deleterious effects on European security of Moscow's inevitable response to NATO enlargement (Friedman
1998
).
Today these groups are in the vanguard in calling for an end to the sanctions regime, which in their view misses the
point -- that Russia's actions in Ukraine and elsewhere after 2014 was a response to the provocative actions of the
Atlantic power system in the first place. In other words, anti-liberalism is only one dimension of the putative
alliance between national populism in Europe and Moscow. Geopolitical revisionism is perhaps the most important one,
and thus national populist movements incur the wrath of the national security establishments. In the UK this led to
the creation of the Integrity Initiative and its various European and American affiliates, sponsored by the shadowy
so-called Institute of Statecraft, funded by the British state.
There is a third dimension -- in addition to geopolitical revisionism and anti-cosmopolitanism -- in the putative alignment
of national populism with Moscow, and that is the question of pluralism. Post-Cold War liberalism entered a
paradoxical turn that in the end forswore the fundamental principles on which it is based -- tolerance and pluralism
(Horsfield
2017
).
In a situation where the liberal idea faced no serious domestic or geopolitical opposition, it became radicalised and
thus eroded its own values. The US-led liberal international order, as suggested above, posed as synonymous with
order itself. There could be no legitimate outside to its own expansive ambitions. The counterpart to universalism is
monism, which eroded the coherence of liberalism in domestic and foreign policy (Sakwa
2017b
,
2018b
).
This helps explain why relations with the EU deteriorated so drastically after 2004.
The influx of East European
countries accentuated monism by embracing the security guarantees offered by American dominion. Extreme partisans of
this view have little time for the hegemonic normative agenda and view the EU as just part of the Atlantic alliance
system, and not necessarily the most important one. They radically repudiate Gorbachevian ideas about a common
European home or a greater Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok and condemn those who suggest rapprochement with Moscow
as 'Trojan horses' (Orenstein and Keleman
2017
),
the name of a series of Atlantic Council reports exposing Russian contacts in the West. For them, security guarantees
from Washington are the priority. Thus, pan-continental ideas gave way to an intensified Atlanticism, and dominion
prevailed over hegemony. One manifestation of this was the Polish-inspired Eastern Partnership, which in the end
became an instrument for the expansion of the EU's geopolitical influence in its neighbourhood, provoking the Ukraine
crisis in 2014 (Mearsheimer
2014
).
The European Neighbourhood Policy thereafter became more differentiated and thus accepted the pluralism that it had
earlier been in danger of repudiating.
In short, geopolitical revisionist forces are at play in Europe and the USA, and Russian neo-revisionism makes common
cause with them to the degree that they offer more pluralist perspectives on international politics and challenge the
monist dominion of the Atlantic power system, but the degree to which Moscow supports let alone sponsors this
challenge to the post-Cold War order is questionable. This links to a second form of Russian subversion, namely
collusion with anti-establishment figures. The most spectacular case of this is the charge that Moscow colluded with
Trump to steal the 2016 presidential election.
After nearly two years of work, in March 2019 the Robert Mueller
Special Counsel Report into Russiagate boldly asserted that 'The Russian government interfered in the 2016 election
in sweeping and systematic fashion' (Mueller
2019
,
Vol. 1, p. 1). However, it then rather lamely conceded that 'the investigation did not establish that members of the
Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities'
(Mueller
2019
,
Vol. 1, pp. 5 and 173). Once again reinforcing the geopolitical concerns underlying charges of Russian subversion,
the instigators of Russiagate became the heart of the 'resistance' to the president. Alongside credible concerns
about his impact on American democratic institutions, they also opposed the rapprochement with Russia that Trump had
proclaimed as one of his campaign goals.
In his major foreign policy speech delivered at the Mayflower Hotel in
Washington on 27 April 2016, Trump argued that 'I believe an easing of tensions and improved relations with
Russia -- from a position of strength -- is possible. Common sense says this cycle of hostility must end. Some say the
Russians won't be reasonable. I intend to find out'. Trump promised that America would get 'out of the
nation-building business and instead [focus] on creating stability in the world' (Transcript
2016
).
This represented a radical rethinking of foreign policy priorities, and although some of the themes had sounded
before, together they challenged the foundations of the post-Cold War international order. They also suited Russia,
since the expansive Atlantic system had increasingly become a matter of concern in the Kremlin. This geopolitical
coincidence of interests intersected with domestic US political conflicts to create Russiagate, which stymied
putative moves towards a new détente.
The third subversive strategy imputed to Russia is cyber-warfare in various forms. There are plenty of cases of
Russian hacking, including the attack on the German parliament in 2015, which the German chancellor Angela Merkel
condemned as 'outrageous', noting that it impeded her attempts 'to have a better relationship with Russia' (Bennhold
2020
).
She had been equally outraged when she discovered that her office had been bugged by the NSA. In France, 2 days
before the second-round presidential vote on 7 May 2017 20,000 campaign emails from the Emmanuel Macron campaign were
uploaded to Pastebin, a file-sharing site, and then posted on 4chan, an anonymous message board. The Macron team
denounced Russia for a 'high level attack', but even the Atlantic Council reported that the relevant French security
agency 'declared that no conclusive evidence pointed to Russian groups', and 'that the simplicity of the attacks
pointed toward an actor with lower capabilities' (Galante and Ee
2018
,
p. 12). The regulation of hostile cyber activity is crucial, especially when accurate attribution is so difficult and
'false flag' attacks so easy.
This applies to the key Russiagate charge that Russian military intelligence (the GRU) 'hacked' into the server of
the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Democratic Campaign Congressional Committee (DCCC) and released
embarrassing materials to WikiLeaks, the web-based investigative site founded by Julian Assange in 2006. The
publication of the emails was allegedly coordinated in some way with the Trump team. The material revealed that the
DNC opposed the campaign of the independent left-leaning senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, to ensure Clinton's
nomination. The hackers also gained access to the emails of Clinton's campaign director, John Podesta, following a
successful spearphishing email sent on 19 March 2016. The 50,000 Podesta emails exposed Clinton's ties with Wall
Street bankers, high speaking fees and apparent hypocrisy in condemning privilege while enjoying its benefits. The
Russian hackers undoubtedly sought to mine political intelligence, but whether they intended specifically to help
Trump is more questionable. The Mueller report detailed the specific GRU cyber-warfare units which hacked the Clinton
campaign and the DNC and then released the emails through Russian-sponsored cut-outs, Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks, as
well as WikiLeaks. These were 'designed and timed to interfere with the 2016 US presidential election and undermine
the Clinton Campaign' (Mueller
2019
,
Vol. 1, p. 36).
Strikingly, the FBI or Mueller never conducted forensic examinations of their own and instead relied on CrowdStrike,
a private contractor hired by the Democrats to examine their servers. The material was then published, according to
the report, through DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0, 'fictitious online personas' created by the GRU, and later through
WikiLeaks. Mueller argues that Guccifer 2.0 was the source of the emails and that he was a persona managed by Russian
operators (Mueller
2019
,
Vol. 1, p. 47). Mueller alleges that Assange worked for or conspired with Russian agencies, but Assange states
unequivocally that the Russian government was not the source of the emails, and (surprisingly), he was never
questioned by Mueller. The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) group argues that the DNC emails were
physically downloaded and then transferred (by unknown persons) to WikiLeaks rather than being extruded via an
electronic download (Binney and McGovern
2017
).
In Congressional testimony in December 2017 CrowdStrike president Shawn Henry (
2017
)
admitted that he could not confirm that material had actually been exfiltrated from the DNC servers.
The fourth major subversive strategy is disinformation as well as media manipulation. The Internet Research Agency
(IRA) based in St Petersburg deployed sock puppet accounts (trolls) and their automated versions (bots) to influence
public debate by sharing accounts and voicing divisive opinions. These allegedly shaped voter preferences and
depressed turnout among some key constituencies, above all people of colour, in the 2016 US election. The US
Intelligence Community Assessment (
2017
,
p. 1) on 6 January 2017 accused Russia of trying to undermine American democracy and charged with 'high confidence'
that Putin personally ordered 'an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election, the consistent
goals of which were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her
electability and potential presidency'. The ICA was issued in the name of 17 intelligence agencies, although later it
became clear that it had been prepared by a 'hand-picked' group selected by Office of the DNI head, James Clapper
(Full Transcript
2017
).
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (
2020
,
Vol. 4, p. 6) in April 2020 issued its fourth report in its Russia investigation arguing that 'the ICA presents a
coherent and well-constructed basis for the case of unprecedented Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential
election', a view that is at odds with most commentary on what is usually considered a slipshod and poorly sourced
document (for a summary of critiques, see McCarthy
2019
,
2020; Gessen
2017
).
The coronavirus pandemic in 2020 prompted a new wave of criticism of Russia's disinformation efforts. The Strategic
Communications and Analysis division of the European External Action Service, colloquially known as EUvsDisinfo,
identified a 'trilateral convergence of disinformation narratives' being promoted by China, Iran and Russia (Jozwiak
2020
).
The work of EUvsDisinfo work was examined by the Reframing Russia group at the University of Manchester (Hutchings
and Tolz
2020
).
They examined the specific stories that had been identified as disinformation, and took a broader look at reportage
of the pandemic on Russian television, in particular on Channel 1. They found that 'there was little sign here of the
coordinated pro-Kremlin "conspiracy theory propaganda" flagged by EUvsDisinfo'. They went further to note that its
misrepresentation of Russian Covid-19 coverage was 'troubling' in two respects. First, through 'omission', with
sentences taken out of context and 'rephrased in the form of summaries and headlines which make them sound
particularly outrageous'. The second way is through 'blatant distortion'. For example, EUvsDisinfo claimed that
Sputnik Latvia stated that 'Covid-19 had been designed specifically to kill elderly people', whereas in fact the
article had ridiculed such conspiracy theories and highlighted 'their idiocy'. Reframing Russia questioned
EUvsDisinfo's methodology, assuming that 'random websites without any traceable links to Russian state structures'
were analogous to state-funded media agencies, and that all were part of a coordinated Kremlin-run campaign. It even
included 'conspirological, far-right websites which are actually critical of Putin'. They conclude that
'EUvsDisinfo's headlines and summaries border on disinformation'. Examination of the source material 'cited by
EUvsDisinfo demonstrates that the Russian state is, in fact, not targeting Western countries with an organised
campaign around the current public health crisis'. They ask how a situation was created in which 'an EU-funded body
set up to fight disinformation ends up producing it'. Reframing Russia advances two hypotheses to explain how things
could be got so wrong. The first is 'a profound misunderstanding of how the media in neo-authoritarian systems such
as Russia's work', with not everything managed by the Kremlin. Second, 'The outsourcing of services by state
institutions to third parties without a proper assessment of their qualifications to do the required work', In the
case of EUvsDisinfo, research is outsourced to some 400 volunteers, who are 'operating in a post-Soviet space
saturated by anti-Russian attitudes'.
It is in this context that a burgeoning literature examines possible responses. An article in
Foreign
Policy
in July 2019 argued that 'Moscow now acts regularly against US interests with impunity'. The question, in
the view of the author, was how to rebuild deterrence -- 'how to get Putin to start fearing the United States again'.
The problem was defined in broad terms: 'how to convince Putin that he can't afford to keep trying to disrupt the
global order and undermine the United States, the West, and democracy itself'. The charge list was a long one:
Over the
last decade, Putin has provoked Washington again and again: by invading Georgia, annexing Crimea, attacking
Ukraine, assassinating opponents at home and abroad, and interfering in elections throughout the West. In each
case the underwhelming US response helped convince Putin that he could get away with more such behaviour.
To 'get Putin to start respecting the United States again' such measures as toughening sanctions, strengthening
military alliances, and conducting more assertive diplomacy were recommended (Geltser
2019
).
Simpson and Fritsch (
2019
),
former
Wall Street Journal
writers who founded Fusion GPS, the agency that in 2016
hired Christopher Steele to prepare the infamous dossier on Trump's links with Russia, insisted that Britain needed
its own Mueller report to investigate Russia's role in the Brexit vote. They argued that such an enquiry was
'essential to halt Russia's attack on Britain's democracy' (Simpson and Fritsch
2019
).
The Kremlin Watch Program (
2019
)
of the Prague-based European Values Center for Security Policy suggested 20 measures to counter 'hostile Russian
interference'.
A Pentagon assessment in June 2019 argued that the USA was ill-equipped to counter 'the increasingly brazen political
warfare Russia is waging to undermine democracies' (Bender
2019
).
A 150-page study prepared for the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff argued that the USA was still underestimating the
scope of Russia's aggression, including the use of propaganda and disinformation to sway public opinion in Europe and
across the globe. The study also warned against the growing alignment of Russia and China, which were opposed to
America's system of international alliances and shared a proclivity for 'authoritarian stability'. The authors argued
that domestic disarray impeded the USA's ability to respond (Department of Defense
2019
).
Natalia Arno, the head of the Free Russia Foundation, agreed with the report's finding and argued that 'Russia is
attacking Western institutions in ways more shrewd and strategically discreet than many realize' (Bender
2019
).
The Pentagon report recommended that the State Department should take the lead in devising more aggressive 'influence
operations', including sowing division between Russia and China. The study analysed what it called 'gray zone'
activities, the attempt by Putin's regime to undermine democratic nations, in particular those on Russia's periphery,
through 'hybrid' measures, falling short of direct military action. However, although warning of Moscow's alignment
with Beijing, the report recommended cooperation with Russia in key areas such as strategic nuclear weapons. One of
the authors, John Arquilla of the Naval Postgraduate School, argued that Ronald Reagan's offer in the 1980s to share
research on ballistic missile defence (BMD) should be revisited. The report suggested that while elites and the
people broadly supported Putin's foreign policy and the striving for great power status, this was liable to weaken
when faced by socio-economic problems.
Inevitably, forces seeking to break the liberal hegemony at home will make common cause with an external power that
is also interested in breaking that expansive hegemony. Russia looks for friends wherever it can find them, and seeks
a way out of the impasse of the post-Cold War security order. However, it is important to stress the limits to that
alignment. If Russia were a genuinely revisionist power, then it would make sense to ally with any force destructive
of the old order; but as argued above, Russia is a neo-revisionist power -- concerned with changing the monist practices
of post-Cold War liberalism, but not with changing the international system in its entirety. This means that Russia
is quite happy to work within existing structures as long as monism can be kept in check. The struggle against 'fake
news' and 'Russian disinformation' threatens the pluralism at the heart of traditional liberalism. That is why the
investigation into the alleged collusion between the Trump camp and Russia in the 2016 presidential election was more
damaging than the putative original offence. When policy differences and divergences in value preferences are
delegitimated and couched in binary Cold War terms, then the Atlantic power system is in danger of becoming
dangerously hermetic. Immunity to new ideas, even if they come from a traditional adversary, weakens resistance to
domestic degradation.
Russia: challenger or insurrectionary?
We are now in a position to assess whether Putin really is out to subvert the West, as suggested by the US
intelligence community, much recent commentary and numerous strategic and doctrinal statements. The 'black legend'
charge underlies the Russiagate allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 US and other elections. Such
accusations are based on the view that a fundamental gulf has opened between the worldviews of the Russian leadership
and the Western community. There are some grounds to argue that this is the case, although this needs to be placed
into the broader framework of the evolution of Russian foreign policy since the end of the communist era and into the
theoretical context of how Russia sees the international system, as described earlier. Above all, as the historic
West moved into an era of expansive 'hegemonism', Russia (and China) were inevitably categorised as hostile nations.
They had the motive and heft to fight back. Lavrov (
2019
)
condemned the way that the 'rules-based order' substituted for international law, while the expanded institutions of
dominion encircled both countries. Challengers to the radicalised liberal world order become subversive by
definition.
Russia is a challenger power but it is not insurrectionary. In other words, it is far from the Soviet position of
seeking to advance the ideology of revolutionary socialism, of which 'active measures' were one of the most specific
manifestations. Further, Russia is not a revisionist power out to destroy the foundations of the international system
as it has taken shape since 1945, but it is neo-revisionist, challenging the practices of the US-led Atlantic order
within that system. As a conservative status quo Russia finds itself challenged by the radicalisation of the historic
West that it had hoped to transform at the end of the Cold War. Concurrently, Russia's identity as a great power
means that it resists the dominion element. It could live with the more modest liberal hegemony of the Cold War years
(and in fact, one of the layers of Russia's foreign policy identity still wants to join it), but the combination of
radicalised hegemonic universalism and the expansive logic of the power system rendered dominion unacceptable. Russia
condemns the Atlantic system for its revolutionary radicalism, manifested in what is perceives to be Western
revisionism. Russia thus finds itself divided from the historic West on a range of policy issues, but not ultimately
by commitment to the post-1945 international system. This is why Moscow welcomed Trump's post-Atlanticist
declarations, since he offered an alternative to the neo-conservative militarism and democratic interventionism of
the post-Cold War era. Shackled by Russiagate, Trump was not able to deliver much and in fact the sanctions regime
and other forms of neo-containment were intensified. In this context, six observations can help us examine the
problem of greater Russia and subversion.
First, it is misleading to see direct continuity between the USSR and Russia. Russia no longer embodies an
alternative ideology and is in fact a status quo power in both ideational and territorial terms. Russia is also
comparatively far less powerful. If at its peak in the early 1970s Soviet GDP reached 58 per cent that of the USA,
today Russia's at most is ten per cent of America's. Russia's defence spending in 2019 was the fourth largest in the
world, but at $65 billion this is less than a tenth of the USA at $732 billion (38 per cent of total global military
spending) and less than a quarter of China's $261 billion (SIPRI
2020
).
Cold War patterns have been restored, but the dynamics of this confrontation are very different even though some of
the procedural rituals of mutual excoriation have returned (Monaghan
2015
).
However, Russia does claim to represent an alternative to the historical West in three ways: as the defender of
conservative sovereign internationalism, where states interact on the basis of interests, although norms are far from
repudiated; as a socially conservative civilisation state with societal dynamics of its own (Coker
2019
;
Tsygankov
2016
);
and as a European power with a stake in creating some pan-continental framework, while at the same time advocating
the establishment of some sort of greater Eurasian unity.
All three open up lines of fracture that Russia seeks to exploit as a challenger but not as an insurrectionary power.
In particular, at the civilisational level the identification of the West with the Atlantic system is challenged.
This is a process that is advancing in any case within the Atlantic system, with the EU Global Strategy (
2016
)
talking of 'strategic autonomy'. The election of Trump later that year prompted Merkel (
2018
),
to argue that Europe could no longer rely on the USA to protect it. The French president Emmanuel Macron (
2019
)
argued that the corollary of the growing Atlantic divide was rapprochement with Russia. Critics argue that Russia
exploits this division and seeks to widen it, and in structural terms they are right. Any breach in the monist wall
will be welcomed by any leader in Moscow. It is along this line that charges of Russian subversion lie.
Second, unlike the former Soviet Union where policy was coordinated by the Central Committee and Politburo, today
Russia is far from monolithic. The layered phases mean that elements of at least four types of Russian engagement
with the West coexist and operate at the same time, although with different intensity. As noted, these range from
Atlanticist engagement, competitive coexistence, new realism to neo-revisionism. Commentary on contemporary Russia
assumes that it behaves like a unitary actor, with Putin serving as the unique demi-urge with nothing better to do
than ceaselessly monitor and manipulate global malign activities. This is indeed a manifestation of Western
'narcissism', and as Paul Robinson (
2020
)
asks 'where does all this nonsense about Putin wanting to destroy democracy come from? It certainly doesn't come from
anything he's ever said'. Russia is a vast and complex country with a vigorous public sphere with plenty of
relatively autonomous interests and actors. Institutionalised political pluralism is constrained, but not all roads
lead to the Kremlin (Sakwa
2020
).
For example, the national populist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the head of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, has
hosted six conferences of far-right politicians since 1992, many attracted by the anti-Western language deployed by
much of the Russian elite. They provide an alternative narrative that often coincides with the Kremlin's positions,
but this does mean that there is an unbreakable alliance between the two (Moldovanov
2019
).
As the Reframing Russia team argue, not every outlandish comment in Russia's public sphere can be attributed to the
Kremlin's propaganda and disinformation department. Equally, we may add, not every oligarch is 'Putin's crony', bent
on advancing the Kremlin's malign agenda. This attribution and alignment fallacy is why, among other reasons,
sanctions against alleged regime-associated individuals will not achieve the desired effect of changing Russian
policy, since they are based on a flawed understanding of how Russia works, as well as the category error noted above
about the structural sources of Russian foreign policy.
Third, Russian behaviour is located in the matrix of the changing dynamics of the Atlantic power system, the liberal
international order and global power shifts (Karaganov (ed.)
2020
).
Russia is certainly alienated from a particular system that claims to be universal, as well as concerned about the
advance of a power system to its borders. The liberal international order may well have been 'doomed to fail' because
the key policies on which it is based are deeply flawed (Mearsheimer
2019
).
Spreading liberal democracy around the globe was benign in intent but disastrous in consequence (Walt
2019
).
The illusions generated by exaggerated claims of exceptionalism meant that the US 'squandered' Cold War victory
(Bacevich
2020
).
Russia's reaction is just one to an order whose response to the end of the Cold War was to exaggerate the dominion
factor and thus undermined its normative hegemony.
Fourth, Russia has returned as a power critical not only of the Atlantic hegemony but also of the values on which it
is based. At the St Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) in June 2019 Putin talked of the failure of the
'Euro-Atlantic' economic model and argued that 'the existing model of economic relations is still in crisis and this
crisis is of a comprehensive nature' (Putin
2019b
).
Here and on other occasions he condemned the Atlantic powers' use of sanctions as a form of economic warfare. On the
eve of SPIEF on 6 June, Putin and China's leader, Xi Jinping, announced the upgrade of their relationship to a
'Comprehensive Partnership of Coordination for a New Era', accompanied by a joint statement on global strategic
stability (Xinhua
2019
).
There is a tension between the expansive liberal hegemony and countries and social movements who question the
identification of liberalism with order itself. Liberalism ultimately generates antinomies, which are not mere
correctible aberrations but systemic flaws of the liberal paradigm itself. These above all concern the question of
taming the power of capital and dealing with inequality and citizen marginalisation. Moscow does not identify itself
with these radical critiques, and its criticisms ultimately have a superficial and reversible character. Russia does
not stand outside the contradictions of contemporary liberalism, having entered its own liberal era at the end of the
Cold War in 1989. That layer in its identity is far from nugatory. Russia's experience of liberalism is distinctive,
characterising the 1990s as a time of liberal excess, yet the Putin system is permeated with neoliberal ideas and
even liberal aspirations. His critics in Russia from the left and right condemn the antinomies of the system, whereas
Putin simply points out the power and cultural contradictions of post-Cold War liberalism.
Fifth, the struggle for geopolitical pluralism after the neo-revisionist turn in 2012 is accompanied by a programme
of cultural conservatism, opening the door to alignment with Europe's national populists. In condemning what he took
to be the rampant social liberalism, accompanied by Merkel's 'welcome culture' in 2015 vis-à-vis the influx of
refugees, Putin (
2019a
)
sought to bolster support among social conservatives in Europe. As political and social liberals united against
Putinite Russia, it appeared that the impasse could only be broken by bolstering conservative (if not outright
reactionary) movements in Europe. A European change of heart would allow a rapprochement without Russia having to
change its domestic or foreign policies: 'It would be 1989 in reverse. This time it would not be Russia but Europe to
go through a traumatic conversion to foreign ideas' (Maçăes
2019
).
Russia would be rescued from isolation and policy-makers could once again turn to the creation of a 'greater Europe',
reducing Russia's dependence on China and strengthening its position vis-à-vis the USA. This is the foundational
argument about Russia being out to subvert the West, and there is some truth in it -- but not in the linear way it is
usually interpreted. The alignment is situational and the geopolitics takes precedence over ideological alignment.
Sixth, as the Russiagate affair demonstrates, Russia acts as the scapegoat for problems generated by domestic
contradictions. In that case, Russian 'meddling' helped explain how the most improbable of candidates was able to win
against an experienced politician, Hillary Clinton, with a long record of public service, to pull off 'the greatest
political upset in American history' (Green
2017
,
p. 236). This impeded the Democratic Party from coming to terms with its own shortcomings, and the country from
addressing its ills. This perhaps is the greatest subversive effect achieved by Russia. As far as we know, this was
not achieved deliberately, although there is the view that Russia fed information 'to have the West believe what the
Kremlin wants the West to believe' (McCarthy
2019
,
p. 166). Even more cunningly, perhaps they were feeding misinformation to Steele to provoke a counter-intelligence
investigation that would incapacitate the Trump presidency and set the Democrats off on a wild goose chase that
prevented them from reforming and reconnecting with the real concerns of the American people. If the latter is the
case, then the operation was a brilliant success. The struggle against presumed Russian 'active measures' does more
damage to Western political institutions and the legitimacy of Western normative hegemony than the putative
subversive activity itself. The security services and spy agencies of course continue to battle it out behind the
scenes, but McCarthyism is as destructive today as it was in the 1950s.
Conclusion
Russia has returned as an international conservative power, but it is not a revisionist one, and even less is it out
to subvert the West. Russia certainly looks for allies where it can find them, especially if they advocate the
lifting of sanctions. When Macron (
2019
)
argued that it was time to bring Russia out of the cold, arguing that 'We cannot rebuild Europe without rebuilding a
connection with Russia', his comments were welcomed in Moscow, although tempered by a justifiable scepticism.
The
Putin elite had earlier welcomed Trump's election, but in practice relations deteriorated further. The foreign policy
establishment is deeply sceptical that the EU will be able to act with 'strategic autonomy'. Above all, Russo-Western
relations have entered into a statecraft 'security dilemma':
Currently, we are again faced with a situation in which mutual intentions are assessed by Washington and Moscow
as subversive, while each side considers the statecraft employed by the other side as effective enough to
achieve its malign goals. At the same time, each side is more sceptical about its own statecraft and appears
(or pretends) to be scrambling to catch up (Troitskiy
2019
).
In the nineteenth century, Russia became the 'gendarme' of Europe, and while Putin repudiates the country assuming
such a role again, Russia has undoubtedly returned as an international conservative power. Maintenance of a
specifically historically determined definition of the status quo is the essence of its neo-revisionism: a defence of
traditional ideas of state sovereignty and of an internationalism structured by commitment to the structures of the
international system as it took shape after 1945. Russia resents its perceived exclusion from the institutions of
Atlantic dominion (above all NATO); but is not out to destroy the international system in which this competition is
waged. Thus, Anton Shekhovtsov (
2017
)
is mistaken to argue that Russia's links to right-wing national populist movements are rooted in philosophical
anti-Westernism and an instinct to subvert the liberal democratic consensus in the West. In fact, the alignment is
situational and contingent on the impasse in Russo-Western relations and thus is susceptible to modification if the
situation changes. Moscow's readiness to embrace Trump in 2016 when he repeatedly argued that it made sense to 'get
on' with Russia indicates that Western overtures for improved relations would find the Kremlin ready to reciprocate.
In 2017 the Kremlin sent Washington various ideas on how to move out of the impasse in US-Russian relations, but
given the 'Russiagate' allegations, the White House was in no position to respond. The same applies when in 2019
Russia was invited to resume full voting rights in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), which
the Kremlin embraced even though powerful domestic neo-traditionalist and Eurasianist voices counselled against.
Russia is not out to subvert the West but seeks to change it. For the defenders of monist enlargement, this is just
as bad. Resistance at home and abroad to the post-Cold War Western order has exposed unexpected fragilities and
insecurities, hence the turn to the language of 'resilience' (for example, EU Global Strategy
2016
).
Given its strategy of resistance, Russia in turn becomes the object against which resilience is tested, becoming one
of Federica Mogherini's 'five principles' (
2016
),
creating yet another barrier to normal diplomatic relations. In fact, the structural model outlined in this paper
suggests that Russia does not seek to create a greater Russia through subversion let alone physical enlargement,
although all leaders since the end of the Cold have tried to make the country a great power. This raises the
fundamental and still unresolved question: is Russia still interested in joining a transformed West? Or has it
realised that the only way to retain great power status and sovereign decision-making is to remain outside the West?
Joining the transformed West meant the attempt to create a 'greater Europe', what Gorbachev had earlier termed the
common European home. For defenders of the existing West, this is perceived as threatening its existing values, norms
and freedoms, and perhaps more importantly, also the existing hierarchy of international power; but for Russia, it is
a way out of the perceived geopolitical impasse and offers a common developmental strategy.
The West is faced by a choice 'between containment and engagement on mutually agreed terms' (Trenin
2016
,
p. 110). Incompatible understanding of the political character of the historical epoch provokes an intense barrage of
propaganda from all sides, with mutual allegations of political subversion and interference. The interaction of
hegemony and dominion on the one side and multiple layers of identity on the other provides fertile ground for
incomprehension and the attribution of sinister motives, provoking the statecraft 'security dilemma' identified
above. Russia maintains a neo-revisionist critique, but this does not mean repudiating improved relations with a
post-dominion West. The country increasingly pivoted to the East and strengthened its alignment with China, but this
does not mean that Russia seeks an irrevocable break with the West (Monaghan
2019
).
This is why it seeks improved relations with the EU and the USA if a satisfactory formula for restored contact can be
found. Moscow's support for insurgent populist movements in Europe and disruptive forces in America will always be
tempered by larger strategic concerns and are certainly not unequivocal. The greater Russia envisaged by the Kremlin
elite is one whose sovereignty is defended and whose great power status is recognised, but it is not one that seeks
more territory or to subvert the West and sow discord. The West can be trusted to do that without Russia's help. The
West's response to Russia's neo-revisionism has been neo-containment and counter-subversion strategies, but if the
analysis proposed in this article has any validity, then new forms of engagement may be a more productive course.
References
Abrams, S. 2016. Beyond Propaganda: Soviet Active Measures in Putin's Russia.
Connections:
The Quarterly Journal
15(1): 5–31.
Clunan, A.L. 2009.
The Social Construction of Russia's Resurgence: Aspirations,
Identity, and Security Interests
. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Horvath, R. 2011. Putin's "Preventive Counter-Revolution": Post-Soviet Authoritarianism and the Spectre of
Velvet Revolution.
Europe-Asia Studies
63(1): 1–25.
Intelligence Community Assessment. 2017. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI),
Assessing
Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections: Intelligence Community Assessment, ICA 2017
-
01D
,
6 January,
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
.
Krickovic, A., and Y. Weber. 2018. What Can Russia Teach Us about Change? Status-Seeking as a Catalyst for
Transformation in International Politics.
International Studies Review
20(2):
292–300.
Larson, D.W., and A. Shevchenko. 2003. Shortcut to Greatness: The New Thinking and the Revolution in Soviet
Foreign Policy.
International Organization
57(1): 77–109.
Makarychev, A., and G.S. Terry. 2020. An Estranged "Marriage of Convenience": Salvini, Putin, and the
Intricacies of Italian-Russian Relations.
Contemporary Italian Politics
.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23248823.2019.1706926
.
Mueller III, R.S. 2019.
Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in
the 2016 Presidential Election
, 2 vols. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.
Sakwa, R. 2018a. The International System and the Clash of New World Orders. In
Multipolarity:
The Promise of Disharmony
, ed. Peter W. Schulze, 27–51. Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag.
Wohlforth, W.C., and V. Zubok. 2017. An Abiding Antagonism: Realism, Idealism, and the Mirage of
Western-Russian Partnership after the Cold War.
International Politics
54(4):
405–419.
School of Politics and International Relations, Rutherford College, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NX,
UK
Richard Sakwa
Corresponding author
Correspondence to
Richard
Sakwa
.
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share
information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners in accordance with our
Privacy
Statement
. You can manage your preferences in Manage Cookies.
OK
Manage Cookies
NoisyBaboon dontdenythe 7 minutes ago Both China and Russia can even bulldoze the US
embassies in their countries. But they will not do this because doing so is actually
NONSENSICAL. Let the foools enjoy themselves.
Craig
Murray lambasts a Russophobic media that celebrates a supposed cyber attack on UK vaccine research, ignores collapse
of key evidence of a "hack" and dabbles in dubious memorabilia.
The Guardian's
headquarters
in London.
(Bryantbob,
CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons)
Andrew Marr, center, in 2014.
(
Financial
Times
, Flickr)
A whole slew of these were rehearsed by Andrew Marr on his flagship BBC1 morning show. The latest is the accusation
that Russia is responsible for a cyber attack on Covid-19 vaccination research. This is another totally evidence-free
accusation. But it misses the point anyway.
The alleged cyber attack, if it happened, was a hack not an attack -- the allegation is that there was an effort to
obtain the results of research, not to disrupt research. It is appalling that the U.K. is trying to keep its research
results secret rather than share them freely with the world scientific community.
As I have
reported
before
, the U.K. and the USA have been preventing the WHO from implementing a common research and common vaccine
solution for Covid-19, insisting instead on a profit driven approach to benefit the big pharmaceutical companies (and
disadvantage the global poor).
What makes the accusation that Russia tried to hack the research even more dubious is the fact that Russia had
just
bought
the very research specified. You don't steal things you already own.
Evidence of CIA Hacks
If anybody had indeed hacked the research, we all know it is impossible to trace with certainty the whereabouts of
hackers. My VPNs [virtual private networks] are habitually set to India, Australia or South Africa depending on where
I am trying to watch the cricket, dodging broadcasting restrictions.
More pertinently,
WikiLeaks'
Vault
7 release of CIA material showed the
specific
programs
for the CIA in how to leave clues to make a leak look like it came from Russia. This irrefutable
evidence that the CIA do computer hacks with apparent Russian "fingerprints" deliberately left, like little bits of
Cyrillic script, is an absolutely classic example of a fact that everybody working in the mainstream media knows to
be true, but which they all contrive never to mention.
Thus when last week's "Russian hacking" story was briefed by the security services -- that former Labour Party Leader
Jeremy Corbyn deployed secret documents on U.K./U.S. trade talks which had been posted on Reddit, after being stolen
by an evil Russian who left his name of Grigor in his Reddit handle -- there was no questioning in the media of this
narrative. Instead, we had another round of McCarthyite witch-hunt aimed at the rather tired looking Corbyn.
Personally, if the Russians had been responsible for revealing that the Tories are prepared to open up the NHS
"market" to big American companies, including ending or raising caps on pharmaceutical prices, I should be very
grateful to the Russians for telling us. Just as the world would owe the Russians a favor if it were indeed them who
leaked evidence of just how systematically the DNC rigged the 2016 primaries against Bernie Sanders.
But as it happens, it was not the Russians. The latter case was a leak by a disgusted insider, and I very much
suspect the NHS U.S. trade deal link was also from a disgusted insider.
When governments do appalling things, very often somebody manages to blow the whistle.
Crowdstrike's Quiet Admission
Crowdstrike's Shawn Henry presenting at the International Security Forum in Vancouver, 2009.
(Hubert K, Flickr)
If you can delay even the most startling truth for several years, it loses much of its political bite. If you can
announce it during a health crisis, it loses still more. The world therefore did not shudder to a halt when the CEO
of Crowdstrike admitted there had never been any evidence of a Russian hack of the DNC servers.
You will recall the near incredible fact that, even through the Mueller investigation, the FBI never inspected the
DNC servers themselves but simply relied on a technical report from Crowdstrike, the Hillary Clinton-related IT
security consultant for the DNC.
It is now known for sure that Crowdstrike had been peddling fake news for Hillary. In fact, Crowdstrike had no record
of any internet hack at all. There was no evidence of the email material being exported over the internet. What they
claimed did exist was evidence that the files had been organized preparatory to export.
Remember the entire "Russian hacking" story was based ONLY on Crowdstrike's say so. There is literally no other
evidence of Russian involvement in the DNC emails, which is unsurprising as I have been telling you for four years
from my own direct sources that Russia was not involved. Yet finally declassified congressional testimony revealed
that Shawn Henry stated on oath that "we did not have concrete evidence" and "There's circumstantial evidence , but
no evidence they were actually exfiltrated."
This testimony fits with what I was told by Bill Binney, a former technical director of the National Security Agency
(NSA), who told me that it was impossible that any large amount of data should be moved across the internet from the
USA, without the NSA both seeing it happen in real time and recording it. If there really had been a Russian hack,
the NSA would have been able to give the time of it to a millisecond.
That the NSA did not have that information was proof the transfer had never happened, according to Binney. What had
happened, Binney deduced, was that the files had been downloaded locally, probably to a thumb drive.
Bill Binney.
(Miquel
Taverna / CCCB via Flickr)
So arguably the biggest news story of the past four years -- the claim that Putin effectively interfered to have
Donald Trump elected U.S. president -- turns out indeed to be utterly baseless. Has the mainstream media, acting on
security service behest, done anything to row back from the false impression it created? No it has doubled down.
Anti-Russia Theme
The "Russian hacking" theme keeps being brought back related to whatever is the big story of the day.
Then we have those continual security service briefings. Two weeks ago we had unnamed security service sources
telling
The New York Times
that
Russia had offered the Taliban
a
bounty
for killing American soldiers. This information had allegedly come from interrogation of captured Taliban
in Afghanistan, which would almost certainly mean it was obtained under torture.
It is a wildly improbable tale. The Afghans have never needed that kind of incentivization to kill foreign invaders
on their soil. It is also a fascinating throwback of an accusation – the British did indeed offer Afghans money for,
quite literally, the heads of Afghan resistance leaders during the first Afghan War in 1841, as I detail in my
book "Sikunder Burnes."
Taliban in Herat, Afghanistan, 2001.
(Wikipedia)
You do not have to look back that far to realize the gross hypocrisy of the accusation. In the 1980s the West was
quite openly paying, arming and training the Taliban -- including Osama bin Laden – to kill Russian and other Soviet
conscripts in their thousands. That is just one example of the hypocrisy.
The U.S. and U.K. security services both cultivate and bribe senior political and other figures abroad in order to
influence policy all of the time. We work to manipulate the result of elections -- I have done it personally in my
former role as a U.K. diplomat. A great deal of the behavior over which Western governments and media are creating
this new McCarthyite anti-Russian witch hunt, is standard diplomatic practice.
My own view is that there are malign Russian forces attempting to act on government in the U.K. and the USA, but they
are not nearly as powerful as the malign British and American forces acting on their own governments.
The truth is that the world is under the increasing control of a global elite of billionaires, to whom nationality is
irrelevant and national governments are tools to be manipulated. Russia is not attempting to buy corrupt political
influence on behalf of the Russian people, who are decent folk every bit as exploited by the ultra-wealthy as you or
I. Russian billionaires are, just like billionaires everywhere, attempting to game global political, commercial and
social structures in their personal interest.
The other extreme point of hypocrisy lies in human rights. So many Western media commentators are suddenly interested
in China and the Uighurs or in restrictions on the LBGT community in Russia, yet turn a completely blind eye to the
abuse committed by Western "allies" such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.
As somebody who was campaigning about the human rights of both the Uighurs and of gay people in Russia a good decade
before it became fashionable, I am disgusted by how the term "human rights" has become weaponized for deployment only
against those countries designated as enemy by the Western elite.
Finally, do not forget that there is a massive armaments industry and a massive security industry all dependent on
having an "enemy." Powerful people make money from this Russophobia. Expect much more of it. There is money in a Cold
War.
Craig
Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002
to October 2004 and rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010.
On the core subject
here: By necessity, a pandemic requires a cooperative international response. Only one country has
refused to do so: The US. In their supreme arrogance, our ruling class lost track the fact that the US
needs the rest of the world, not the other way way around.
Zalamander
,
July 22, 2020 at 19:12
One by one the
so-called Russiagate "evidence" have collapsed. The fake Steele Dossier, "Russian spy" Joseph Mifsud who
is actually a self-admitted member of the Clinton Foundation, Roger Stone's non-existant Wikileaks
contacts, Russian Afgan bounties, etc. But the neoliberal mainstream media still presents these as
"facts" with no retractions. This is not journalism, its disinformation designed to distract the American
public from the failures of capitalism.
Peter Janney
July 22, 2020 at 06:55
Craig Murray succinctly (and very beautifully) gives us a REAL glimpse of what great journalism really
looks like.
-- --
Perhaps it is great writing, but is it journalism?
Some people in
National Union of Journalists (a trade union in UK) ponder that question for many months, unable to
decide if Craig should be allowed to join or not. If he is neither a flack nor a hack, who kind of
journalist is he? (More details at Craig Murray's web site).
Journalism is
printing what someone else does not want printed.
Everything else is public relations.
-- George Orwell
rosemerry
,
July 22, 2020 at 16:42
All of the Russophobia
and lies serve the rulers of the USA?UK and their poodles well. The whole year of Skripal mania started
by Theresa May and joined in by Trump, with the media such as the Guardian's scurrilous Luke Harding
providing fantasy "evidence" and the whole story conveniently disappearing, like the Skripals, when other
"news" arrived, has no benefit to seekers of even the minimum of truth.
DH Fabian
,
July 22, 2020 at 19:46
Certainly, and this
is key to understanding the current situation. What we're seeing now is the final stages of the
long-sinking West -- those once-mighty partners of empire, the UK/US. This descent appears to have
begun with the Reagan/Thatcher years, and is now in the final stages. We've seen a rather dramatic
growth of psychosis in the political-media-public discussion over the past 3-4 years, driven by an
irrational obsession with China/Russia. (Russia and China both quietly observe, prepared to respond if
attacked.) There really isn't anything we can do about it, beyond acknowledging it as what it is.
Very good, but needs
to be supplemented by reference to the interview with NIH Director Franaic Collins on last Sunday's Meet
the Press. When host Chuck Todd asked Collins about Russian hacking of US vaccine research Collins smiled
and answered by pointing out that the research wasn't intended to be secret and that it was all to be
published for "transparency." Todd looked disappointed, mumbled, "OK," and changed the subject. No media
have reported this exchange, which is retrievable on the internet.
JOHN CHUCKMAN
,
July 22, 2020 at 10:58
Brilliant, but that's
what one expects of Craig Murray.
Craig Murray
succinctly (and very beautifully) gives us a REAL glimpse of what great journalism really looks like. I
commend his courage for never bending in the face of all the bullshit we have had to tolerate from the
mainstream media. Thank you, thank you dear Craig . . .
geeyp
,
July 22, 2020 at 00:10
Regarding Craig's last
summing up paragraph, all one need do to confirm that is read the previous article of Michael T. Klare.
Roger Thornhill 2 hours ago If I recall correctly, Obama gave the Russians all of 48 hours
to leave their consulate in San Francisco, which had been occupied since the 19th Century. This
was around Christmas time in 2016. So I don't find this particularly surprising. Two days to
have the diplomats, staff, and families completely out of the country.
By a vote of 324-93 ,
the House of Representatives soundly defeated an
amendment to reduce Pentagon authorized spending levels by 10%. The amendment does not
specify what to cut, only that Congress make across-the-board reductions. The amendment to
the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was offered by Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI). No
Republicans voted for the amendment. Libertarian Justin Amash supported the amendment.
Earlier, the House defeated an amendment to stop the Pentagon's submission of an unfunded
priorities list. Each year, after the Pentagon's budget request is submitted to Congress, the
military services send a separate "wish list," termed "unfunded priorities." This list
includes requests for programs that the military would like Congress to fund, in case they
decide to add more money to the Pentagon's proposed budget.
This article was written while observing the voting on CSPAN. The House Clerk has not
yet posted the roll-call vote. Additional information will be added to the article when
available.
O MG you guys Putin hacked our coronavirus vaccine secrets!
Today mainstream media is reporting what is arguably the single dumbest Russiavape story of
all time, against some very stiff competition.
"Russian hackers are targeting health care organizations in the West in an attempt to steal
coronavirus vaccine research, the U.S. and Britain said," reportsThe New York
Times .
"Hackers backed by the Russian state are trying to steal COVID-19 vaccine and treatment
research from academic and pharmaceutical institutions around the world, Britain's National
Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) said on Thursday,"
Reuters reports .
"Russian news agency RIA cited spokesman Dmitry Peskov as saying the Kremlin rejected
London's allegations, which he said were not backed by proper evidence," adds Reuters.
First of all, how many more completely unsubstantiated government agency allegations about
Russian nefariousness are we the public going to accept from the corporate mass media? Since
2016 it's been wall-to-wall narrative about evil things Russia is doing to the empire-like
cluster of allies loosely centralized around the United States, and they all just happen to be
things for which nobody can actually provide hard verifiable evidence.
Ever since the shady
cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike
admitted that it never actually saw hard proof of Russia hacking the DNC servers, the
already shaky and always unsubstantiated narrative that Russian hackers interfered in the
U.S. presidential election in 2016 has been on thinner ice than ever. Yet because the mass
media converged on this narrative and
repeated it as fact over and over they've been able to get the mainstream headline-skimming
public to accept it as an established truth, priming them for an increasingly idiotic litany of
completely unsubstantiated Russia scandals, culminating most recently in the entirely
debunked claim that Russia paid Taliban-linked fighters to kill coalition forces in
Afghanistan.
Secondly, the news story doesn't even claim that these supposed Russian hackers even
succeeded in doing whatever they were supposed to have been doing in this supposed
cyberattack.
"Officials have not commented on whether the attacks were successful but also have not ruled
out that this is the case," Wired reports
.
Thirdly, this is a "vaccine" which does not even exist at this point in time, and the
research which was supposedly hacked may never lead to one. Meanwhile, Sechenov First Moscow
State Medical University
reports that it has "successfully completed tests on volunteers of the world's first
vaccine against coronavirus," in Russia.
Fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, how obnoxious and idiotic is it that coronavirus
vaccine "secrets" are even a thing?? This is a global pandemic which is hurting all of us;
scientists should be free to collaborate with other scientists anywhere in the world to find a
solution to this problem. Nobody has any business keeping "secrets" from the world about this
virus or any possible vaccine or treatment. If they do, anyone in the world is well within
their rights to pry those secrets away from them.
This intensely stupid story comes out at the same time British media are blaring stories about Russian
interference in the 2019 election, which if you actually listen carefully to the claims
being advanced amounts to literally nothing more than the assertion that Russians talked about
already leaked documents pertaining to the U.K.'s healthcare system on the internet.
"Russian actors 'sought to interfere' in last winter's general election by amplifying an
illicitly acquired NHS dossier that was seized upon by Labour during the campaign, the foreign
secretary has said,"
reports The Guardian .
"Amplifying." That's literally all there is to this story. As we learned with the ridiculous U.S. Russiagate narrative , with such
allegations, Russia "amplifying" something can mean anything from RT reporting on a
major news story to a Twitter account from St. Petersburg sharing an article from The
Washington Post . Even the
foreign secretary's claim itself explicitly admits that "there is no evidence of a broad
spectrum Russian campaign against the General Election."
"The statement is so foggy and contradictory that it is almost impossible to understand it,"
responded Russia's foreign
ministry to the allegations. "If it's inappropriate to say something then don't say it. If you
say it, produce the facts."
Instead of producing facts you've got the Murdoch press pestering Jeremy Corbyn, the
Labour Party candidate, on his doorstep over this ridiculous non-story, and popular
right-wing outlets like Guido Fawkes running the blatantly false
headline "Government Confirms Corbyn Used Russian-Hacked Documents in 2019 Election." The
completely bogus allegation that the NHS documents came to Jeremy Corbyn by way of Russian
hackers is not made anywhere in the article itself, but for the headline-skimming majority this
makes no difference. And headline skimmers get as many votes as people who read and think
critically.
All this new Cold War Russia hysteria is turning people's brains into guacamole. We've got
to find a way to snap out of the propaganda trance so we can start creating a world that is
based on truth and a desire for peace.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
Putin Apologist , July 19, 2020 at 17:50
"How many more completely unsubstantiated government agency allegations about Russian
nefariousness are we the public going to accept from the corporate mass media?"
The Answer is none. Nobody (well, nobody with a brain) believes anything the "corporate
mass media" says about Russia, or China, Iran or Venezuela or anything else for that
matter.
James Keye , July 19, 2020 at 10:26
Guy , July 18, 2020 at 15:32
But,but, but we never heard the words "highly likely" ,they must be slipping.LOL
DH Fabian , July 18, 2020 at 13:41
The Democrat right wing are robotically persistent, and count on the ignorance of their
base. By late last year, we saw them begin setting the stage to blame-away an expected 2020
defeat on Russia. Once again, proving that today's Democrats are just too dangerous to vote
for. Donald Trump owes a great deal to his "friends across the aisle."
There's no way the trillion in T-bills will be seized/defaulted/whatever. The damage to US
credibility will be unrecoverable.
It is certainly crazy time. AG Barr threatened major US corporations Disney & Apple
with having to register as "foreign agents" due to their Chinese investments. Earlier in the
year, the FBI and Congress decided to destroy the career of one of America's top scientists
over failure to submit relatively inconsequential paperwork. These are the types of things
which should result in a determined pushback against an intrusive national security state,
but the balance of power in USA may have flipped.
Neocon presstitutes like Appelbaum (actually a well paid MIC lobbyist in disguise) and MI6
connected criminals like like Browder are the feature of the US political landscape, not a bug. I
actually did laugh at Browder's piece on the BBC though, were a money launderer and tax evader
who left his book keeper to die in a Russian prison telling us we shouldn't trust the
Russians.
US economic problems are greatly enhanced by the tremendous amount of defense expenditures
(outspending the combined next seven leading countries in arms expenditures) and tax payer's
money being wasted on paranoid obsessions likes what's mentioned here: http://markcrispinmiller.com/2020/07/a-visit-from-the-fbi/
The article mentions Steele as a discredited participant but what about Applebaum, or are we
to forget how her Polish husband was demoted by his own government for concocting a story about
Putin offering to split Ukraine with Poland, at an alleged meeting that he was shown to have
never attended. Poland no doubt sanctioned him for fabricating such an easily disproved event,
certainly not out of any such notion as a search for truth.
That said, not having invited even a token moderate voice to this august 'panel of experts'
speaks volumes about either the ignorance, the incompetence, the perfidy or just plain 'We
don't really care what you think. We've done our duty' arrogance of the report's authors.
About the Steele Dossier. From the beginning I was nagged by the question of whether anyone
had seriously dug into its provenance? I mean, the chain of custody is critical in evaluating
evidence, isn't it? But that didn't seem to matter to most conversations about it for the
longest time. The impression was left hanging that Christopher Steele, crackerjack agent, had
got the inside stuff straight from people in or near the Kremlin.
Now we learn that the FBI did interview Steele's main conduit for all those claims --
"Primary Sub-source" -- intensively, for three days, early in the Trump administration. They
just never bothered to release any of their findings to the public, even as the dossier's main
claim -- Trump is a Kremlin agent of long standing, beholden to Putin due to some pee tape
kompromat -- took hold in the American political mind and became an article of faith for some.
Still is.
The FBI notes of that interview were released just a few days ago. And they reveal the
"dossier" had zero original reporting. It was concocted entirely from rumors picked up
second-or-third hand, inventive guesses, drunken conversations with persons of no particular
expertise, pillow talk between the main sub-source and his dependent Russian lady friend, and
fragments of a garbled phone call with a "source" whose identity could not be even
approximately established.
In other words, it's way worse than even I thought. And regular readers of this page know
pretty well what I thought about the likely veracity of the Steele Dossier. That such a
pathetic tissue of speculation, delirium and outright falsehood could capture the American
political imagination and drive debate -- for years! -- is simply astounding.
"Much of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Donald Trump was built on the premise
that Christopher Steele and his dossier were to be believed. This even though, early on,
Steele's claims failed to bear scrutiny. Just how far off the claims were became clear when the
FBI interviewed Steele's "Primary Subsource" over three days beginning on Feb. 9, 2017. Notes
taken by FBI agents of those interviews were released by the Senate Judiciary Committee Friday
afternoon."
There is something rotten in the state .. of England.
This Skripal thing smelled to high heaven from day 1. My opinion is that Sergei Skripal was
involved (to what degree is open to speculation) with the Steele dossier. He was getting
homesick (perhaps his mother getting older is part of this) for Russia and he thought that to
get back to Russia he needed something big to get back in Putin's good graces. He would have
needed something really big because Putin really has no use for traitors. Skripal put out some
feelers (perhaps through his daughter though that may be dicey). The two couriers were sent to
seal or move the deal forward. The Brits (and perhaps the CIA) found out about this and decided
to make an example of Sergei. Perhaps because they found out about this late, the deep
state/intelligence people had to move very quickly. The deep state story was was extremely
shaky (to put it mildly) as a result. Or they were just incompetent and full of hubris.
Then they were stuck with the story and bullshit coverup was layered on bullshit coverup. 7
Reply FlorianGeyer Reply to
Marcus April 20, 2019
@ Marcus.
To hope to get away with lies, one must have perfect memory and a superior intellect that
can create a lie with some semblance of reality in real life, as opposed to the digital
'reality' in a Video game. And a rather corny video game at that.
MI5/6 failed on all parts of Lie creation 2 Reply Mistaron April 21, 2019
If Trump was so furious about being conned by Haspel, how come he then went on to promote
her to becoming the head of the CIA? It's quite perplexing.
Zucker probably was not independent player. Bewkes approval was needed. In any case both are
kind of Hollywood types and animosity to Trump is given. On behalf of NYC Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg , Bewkes was one of
the chairs of Media.NYC.2020, which reviewed the future of the global media industry, the
implications for NYC, and suggested actionable next steps for the NYC government. [12]
A CNN whistleblower leaked video showcasing CNN President Jeff Zucker's vendetta against
President Trump and obsession with pushing stories of impeachment.
"Jeff Zucker, basically the president of CNN has a personal vendetta against Trump," said
Nick Neville, a media coordinator at CNN. "It's not gonna be positive for Trump. He hates him.
He's going to be negative."
The whistleblower identified himself as Cary Poarch, a satellite uplink technician at CNN's
Washington, D.C. bureau.
"When I came to work at CNN, I mean it was my dream job," Poarch said. "And that dream,
actually turned into a nightmare."
Poarch recorded the 9:00 a.m. morning calls held by Zucker, in which he urged CNN employees
to focus on the impeachment narrative.
"Let's just stay very focused on impeachment," Zucker said. "We're moving towards
impeachment. I mean, don't like, you know we shouldn't pretend this is going one way. And so,
all these moves are moves towards impeachment."
Zucker also encouraged CNN employees to report on Fox News as if it were a conspiracy
outlet.
"I think what's going on in America now is really fundamentally the result of years of fake
news, conspiracy nonsense from Fox News," Zucker said. "The fake conspiracy nonsense that Fox
has spread for years is now deeply embedded in American society, and frankly that is beyond
destructive for America. And I do not think we should be scared to say so."
After the release of this video,
Poarch announced he saw no other option but to wear a hidden camera and expose the bias of
CNN. Chrissy Clark is a former staff writer at The Federalist. She has work featured in The
Daily Signal and received a degree in political science from Michigan State University. Follow
her on social media @chrissyclark_. Photo Project Veritas/Twitter
This is not simply projection on the part of UK MI5/MI6 duet, this is a real war on reality.
UK false flag operation with Skripla poisoning (which probably was designed to hide possible role
of Skripal in creating Steele dossier) now will forever be textbook example of evilness MI5/MI6
honchos.
If we think that GRU is the past was able to fight Abwehr to standstill, they really would now be worried
about the blowback from Skripal mess.
A highly-anticipated report by the U.K. Parliament into Russia n interference in the country was
released on Tuesday, claiming that Russian influence in the U.K. is the "new normal."
The Russia Report, published after months of delay, is the culmination of two years of fact
finding by the U.K. Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ICS), providing insights
on the
Salisbury Novichok poisonings , Russian financial influence and social media
disinformation. The report said the U.K. was a "top target" for Russian interference.
The publication of the report comes a week after security services in the U.S., U.K. and
Canada said that Russian hackers had been attempting to
hack into global coronavirus vaccine research . The Kremlin has denied the accusations.
However, the report will likely disappoint observers who expected the ICS to detail
how far Russia interfered in the bitterly contested Brexit Referendum of 2016 . Prime
Minister Boris Johnson's was accused of withholding the publication of the report until after
the election of December 2019, a claim they denied.
"Getting" Flynn was the key to neutering the danger Trump posed to the deep state, since
General Flynn was the one military advisor to Trump who was knowledgeable and who had
recognized the salient fact that, under Obama, the US was employing the "raghead" element to do
their bidding in Syria and elsewhere.
Without Flynn, Trump, who like many has a tendency to accept the views of credentialled
experts, could be convinced to continue the deep state policy of permanent warfare aided by
jihadist barbarians. Trump's tragedy was that he accepted what appeared to be the inevitable
and allowed Flynn to be taken down.
"... There was a deeply held assumption that, when the countries of Central and Eastern Europe joined NATO and the European Union in 2004, these countries would continue their positive democratic and economic transformation. Yet more than a decade later, the region has experienced a steady decline in democratic standards and governance practices at the same time that Russia's economic engagement with the region expanded significantly. ..."
"... Are these developments coincidental, or has the Kremlin sought deliberately to erode the region's democratic institutions through its influence to 'break the internal coherence of the enemy system'? ..."
"... a false flag operation" involving "an alliance of the far right organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as Fatherland". There is little in Sharp's book to suggest that non-violent resistance would have had much effect on a really brutal and determined government. He also has the naïve habit of using "democrat" and "dictator" as if these words were as precisely defined as coconuts and codfish. But any "dictatorship" – for example Stalin's is a very complex affair with many shades of opinion in it. So, in terms of what he was apparently trying to do, one can see it only succeeding against rather mild "dictators" presiding over extremely unpopular polities. With a great deal of outside effort and resources. ..."
"... His "playbook" is useful to outside powers that want to overthrow governments they don't like. Especially those run by "dictators" not brutal enough to shoot the protesters down. ..."
Once I'd seen this mention of The Russian Playbook (aka KGB, Kremlin or Putin's Playbook), I
saw the expression all over the place. Here's an early – perhaps the earliest – use
of the term. In October 2016, the Center for Strategic and International studies (" Ranked #1 ") informed us of the "
Kremlin Playbook "
with this ominous beginning
There was a deeply held assumption that, when the countries of Central and Eastern
Europe joined NATO and the European Union in 2004, these countries would continue their
positive democratic and economic transformation. Yet more than a decade later, the region has
experienced a steady decline in democratic standards and governance practices at the same
time that Russia's economic engagement with the region expanded significantly.
And asks
Are these developments coincidental, or has the Kremlin sought deliberately to erode
the region's democratic institutions through its influence to 'break the internal coherence
of the enemy system'?
Well, to these people, to ask the question is to answer it: can't possibly be disappointment
at the gap between 2004's expectations and 2020's reality, can't be that they don't like the
total Western values package that they have to accept, it must be those crafty Russians
deceiving them. This was the earliest reference to The Playbook that I found, but it certainly
wasn't the last.
Of course, all these people are convinced Moscow interfered in the 2016 presidential
election. Somehow. To some effect. Never really specified but the latest outburst of insanity
is this video from the
Lincoln Project . As Anatoly Karlin observes: "I think it's really
cool how we Russians took over America just by shitposting online. How does it feel to be
subhuman?" He has a point: the Lincoln Project, and the others shrieking about Russian
interference, take it for granted that American democracy is so flimsy and Americans so
gullible that a few Facebook ads can bring the whole facade down. A curious mental state
indeed.
What can we know about The Playbook? For a start it must be written in Russian, a language
that those crafty Russians insist on speaking among themselves. Secondly such an important
document would be protected the way that highly classified material is protected. There would
be a very restricted need to know; underlings participating in one of the many plays would not
know how their part fitted into The Playbook; few would ever see The Playbook itself. The
Playbook would be brought to the desk of the few authorised to see it by a courier, signed for,
the courier would watch the reader and take away the copy afterwards. The very few copies in
existence would be securely locked away; each numbered and differing subtly from the others so
that, should a leak occur, the authorities would know which copy read by whom had been leaked.
Printed on paper that could not be photographed or duplicated. As much protection as human
cunning could devise; right up there with
the nuclear codes .
And so on. It's all quite ridiculous: we're supposed to believe that Moscow easily controls
far-away countries but can't keep its neighbours under control.
There is no Russian Playbook, that's just projection. But there is a "playbook" and it's
written in English, it's freely available and it's inexpensive enough that every pundit can
have a personal copy: it's named "
From Dictatorship To Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation " and it's written by
Gene Sharp (1928-2018) .
Whatever Sharp may have thought he was doing, whatever good cause he thought he was assisting,
his book has been used as a guide to create regime changes around the world. Billed as
"democracy" and "freedom", their results are not so benign. Witness Ukraine today. Or Libya. Or
Kosovo whose long-time leader has just been indicted for numerous crimes .
Curiously enough, these efforts always take place in countries that resist Washington's line
but never in countries that don't. Here we do see training, financing, propaganda, discord
being sown, divisions exploited to effect regime change – all the things in the imaginary
"Russian Playbook". So, whatever he may have thought he was helping, Sharp's advice has been
used to produce what only the propagandists could call "
model interventions "; to the "liberated" themselves, the reality is poverty , destruction ,
war and
refugees .
Reading Sharp's book, however, makes one wonder if he was just fooling himself. Has there
ever been a "dictatorship" overthrown by "non-violent" resistance along the lines of what he is
suggesting? He mentions Norwegians who resisted Hitler; but Norway was liberated, along with
the rest of Occupied Europe, by extremely violent warfare. While some Jews escaped, most didn't
and it was the conquest of Berlin that saved the rest: the nazi state was killed . The
USSR went away, together with its satellite governments in Europe but that was a top-down
event. He likes Gandhi but Gandhi wouldn't have lasted a minute under Stalin. Otpor was greatly aided by NATO's war
on Serbia. And, they're only "non-violent" because the Western media doesn't talk much about
the violence ;
"non-violent" is not the first word that comes to mind in this video of Kiev 2014 . "Colour revolutions" are
manufactured from existing grievances, to be sure, but with a great deal of outside assistance,
direction and funding; upon inspection, there's much design behind their "spontaneity". And,
not infrequently, with mysterious sniping at a expedient moment – see Katchanovski's
research on the "Heavenly Hundred" of the Maidan showing pretty convincingly that the
shootings were " a false flag operation" involving "an alliance of the far right
organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as
Fatherland". There is little in Sharp's book to suggest that non-violent resistance would have
had much effect on a really brutal and determined government. He also has the naïve habit
of using "democrat" and "dictator" as if these words were as precisely defined as coconuts and
codfish. But any "dictatorship" – for example Stalin's is a very complex affair with many
shades of opinion in it. So, in terms of what he was apparently trying to do, one can see it
only succeeding against rather mild "dictators" presiding over extremely unpopular polities.
With a great deal of outside effort and resources.
The text of the OPCW document is "enhanced" in FT reports. "Sexed up" was the term used
about the UN Weapons Inspectors' report on Iraq's WMD programme way back when.
A Dr. David Kelly was involved. I wonder what became of him?
That term "sexed up" really made me cringe when it suddenly came in vogue amongst UK
commenters and "journalists" .
I was already in exile when the the shit hit the fan in the UK as regards criminal Blair's
warmongering and was at a loss to understand what "sexed up" meant in the British newspaper
articles that I read at the time -- no Internet then, so once a week I used to buy a copy of
the "Sunday Times" (Woden forgive me!) in the foyer of of the five-star Hotel National,
Moscow. Used to cost me an arm and a leg an' all! Robbing bastards!
Tutisicecream
Jul 17, 2020 8:44 AM Yikes! The Ruskies are hacking again! Let's not forget that the British Superb plan for
Brexit was born out of Vova's cunning mind.
From the people who brought you polonium in a teacup, Basha's bouncing Barrel Bombs,
Salisbury Plain Pizza and the Covid- Horrid. Now want you to know Vova is back!
Last weekend they launched their counter move with Luke Harding interviewing himself
about his new book
The decline of the Guardian is legend and one of their supposed ace gumshoes, Luke
Harding, who has been the chief protagonist of the "Stupid Russia/ Cunning Russia" Guardian
editorial line gets this time to interview himself. Displacement in psychology, as I'm sure
Luke must have learnt from his handlers, is where we see in others that which we can't or
fail to recognise in ourselves.
Those CIFers long in the tooth will recall how he moderated his own BTL comments on
Russia until it all got too much for him. At which point they were cancelled. Now it seems
it's all gone to a new level as Harding apparently interviews himself about his new book! In
the Guardian's new post apocalyptic normal, where self censorship plus self promotion is the
norm for their self congratulatory hacks and hackets Harding never fails to amaze at this
genre.
As expected the reader is taken into the usual spy vs spy world of allusion and
narrative plus fake intrigue and facts, so much the hallmark of Harding's work. None of which
stands up to serious analysis as we recall:
where we have Arron Maté, a real journalist doing a superb job of exposing Harding
as the crude propagandist he truly is.
This interview is about Harding's last book "Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and
How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win the 2016 US election".
Now we have a new cash cow where clearly with Harding's latest shtick the Guardian can't
be arsed having him interviewed for another piece of self promotion by one of their hacks. So
they go for the off the shelf fake interview where they allow Harding to talk to himself.
Clearly as they point out Harding is working for home, with more than one foot in the
grave it must be time to furlough him.
The above link exhaustively details how the fraud was perpetrated and how the White
Helmets were funded. The most disturbing facts were the murder of captive Syrian civilians
including children for use as props for Western media. There is little doubt in my mind that
these murders were viewed as standard business practice with the only concern being related
to complication from being caught. Of course, being "caught" was a minor inconvenience that
the MSM could easily manage into oblivion.
Mr. Le Mesurier may have been killed as the White Helmets no longer had value and dead men
rarely talk:
His wife was not very helpful in the investigation having changed her story several
times.
Winberg said she looked for her husband inside the house and saw his lifeless body when
she looked out of the window. Police are investigating now how she was able to wake up about
half an hour after she took a sleeping pill and why she stacked a large amount of money
inside the house into bags immediately after Le Mesurier's body was found.
Among questions that are needed to be addressed in the case is why Le Mesurier, who intended
to sleep, did not change his clothes, did not even loosen his belt or remove his watch. It is
also not known why he did not choose a definitive suicidal action to kill himself, instead of
jumping from a relatively low height and why he chose to walk along the roof, passing around
the air conditioning devices on the roof, instead of jumping to the street directly from the
section of the roof closer to his window.
Not much different from the British public (media). UKgov was in trouble last week for
failing to have their own man as head of the toothless rubberstamping parliamentary
intelligence and security committee, shortly afterwards UKGov amped up 'Russia wot stole our
vaccine' and the whole UK media ran with it, save a couple of articles qustioning the
'timing'.
The thinking the US & UK have in common is that there is no cost to their
lying. They're only thinking of the short term obviously, but they depend on the other to
turn the cheek ignore it as 'domstic politiking.' Last saturday I saw the al-Beeb s'allah
preview of RusAmb interview to be broadcast on Sunday. The anchor had an 'expert' to help
her. Cue cherry brief picked quotes from the interview to make the Ambassador look weak and
the 'expert' saying 'that's what you would expect them to say.'
Today I see that Scotland is now the target, i.e. that Russia 'interfered' with the
independence referendum. It's not even anything goes August yet. This whole year has
been August reporting.
I just cannot see why the US public -- better said, some of the US public. -- fall for
that torrent of verbal diarrhoea that Maddow regularly gushes forth on TV about all things
Russian.
The shite that she so regularly spews out is patently untrue and clearly propagandistic.
Time and time again, the content of "The Rachel Maddow Show" (Why "show" FFS? Is it because
that is what it is -- a distraction, an entertainment vehicle for the uncritical masses?) has
repeatedly been shown to be untrue, but never an apology from Maddow.
Oh, what a surprise! Her paternal grandfather's family name was Medvedev, a Four-by-Two
who fled the Evil (Romanov) Empire and set up shop in the "Land of the Free".
Something that has often puzzled me is this: If the Russian Empire was such a "Prison of
Nations", all crushed by the autocratic state, how come Western Europe and the USA is
swarming with the descendants of the Tsar's former Jewish subjects?
To be fair to Maddow -- though I see no reason why I should be, for she is a lying cnut --
her family background is not really kosher: her mother hails from Newfoundland and is of
English/Irish descent, and one of her grandmother's forebears were from the Netherlands.
Furthermore, Maddow says that she had a conservative Catholic upbringing. I suppose that's
why she's now a liberal lesbian. And guess what: she's a Rhodes Scholar with an Oxford
PhD.
Did Skripal played any role in this mess. In this case his poisoning looks more logical as an attempt to hide him from
Russians, who might well suspect him in playing a role in creating Steele dossier by some myths that were present in it.
Notable quotes:
"... Even Beria would laugh at this kind of "evidence". ..."
Much of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Donald Trump was built on the premise
that Christopher Steele and his dossier were to be believed. This even though, early on,
Steele's claims failed to bear scrutiny. Just how far off the claims were became clear when the
FBI interviewed Steele's "Primary Subsource" over three days beginning on Feb. 9, 2017.
Notes taken by FBI agents of those interviews were released by the Senate Judiciary
Committee Friday afternoon.
The Primary Subsource was in reality Steele's sole source, a long-time Russian-speaking
contractor for the former British spy's company, Orbis Business Intelligence. In turn, the
Primary Subsource had a group of friends in Russia. All of their names remain redacted. From
the FBI interviews it becomes clear that the Primary Subsource and his friends peddled
warmed-over rumors and laughable gossip that Steele dressed up as formal intelligence
memos.
Paul Manafort: The Steele dossier's "Primary Subsource" admitted to the FBI "that he was
'clueless' about who Manafort was, and that this was a 'strange task' to have been given." AP
Photo/Seth Wenig, File
Steele's operation didn't rely on great expertise, to judge from the Primary Subsource's
account. He described to the FBI the instructions Steele had given him sometime in the spring
of 2016 regarding Paul Manafort: "Do you know [about] Manafort? Find out about Manafort's
dealings with Ukraine, his dealings with other countries, and any corrupt schemes." The Primary
Subsource admitted to the FBI "that he was 'clueless' about who Manafort was, and that this was
a 'strange task' to have been given."
The Primary Subsource said at first that maybe he had asked some of his friends in Russia
– he didn't have a network of sources, according to his lawyer, but instead just a
"social circle." And a boozy one at that: When the Primary Subsource would get together with
his old friend Source 4, the two would drink heavily. But his social circle was no help with
the Manafort question and so the Primary Subsource scrounged up a few old news clippings about
Manafort and fed them back to Steele.
Also in his "social circle" was Primary Subsource's friend "Source 2," a character who was
always on the make. "He often tries to monetize his relationship with [the Primary Subsource],
suggesting that the two of them should try and do projects together for money," the Primary
Subsource told the FBI (a caution that the Primary Subsource would repeat again and again.) It
was Source 2 who "told [the Primary Subsource] that there was compromising material on
Trump."
And then there was Source 3, a very special friend. Over a redacted number of years, the
Primary Subsource has "helped out [Source 3] financially." She stayed with him when visiting
the United States. The Primary Subsource told the FBI that in the midst of their conversations
about Trump, they would also talk about "a private subject." (The FBI agents, for all their
hardnosed reputation, were too delicate to intrude by asking what that "private subject"
was).
Michael Cohen: The bogus story of the Trump fixer's trip to Prague seems to have originated
with "Source 3," a woman friend of the Primary Subsource, who was "not sure if Source 3 was
brainstorming here." AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File
One day Steele told his lead contractor to get dirt on five individuals. By the time he got
around to it, the Primary Subsource had forgotten two of the names, but seemed to recall Carter
Page, Paul Manafort and Trump lawyer Michael Cohen. The Primary Subsource said he asked his
special friend Source 3 if she knew any of them. At first she didn't. But within minutes she
seemed to recall having heard of Cohen, according to the FBI notes. Indeed, before long it came
back to her that she had heard Cohen and three henchmen had gone to Prague to meet with
Russians.
Source 3 kept spinning yarns about Michael Cohen in Prague. For example, she claimed Cohen
was delivering "deniable cash payments" to hackers. But come to think of it, the Primary
Subsource was "not sure if Source 3 was brainstorming here," the FBI notes say.
The Steele Dossier would end up having authoritative-sounding reports of hackers who had
been "recruited under duress by the FSB" -- the Russian security service -- and how they "had
been using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct
'altering operations' against the the Democratic Party." What exactly, the FBI asked the
subject, were "altering operations?" The Primary Subsource wouldn't be much help there, as he
told the FBI "that his understanding of this topic (i.e. cyber) was 'zero.'" But what about his
girlfriend whom he had known since they were in eighth grade together? The Primary Subsource
admitted to the FBI that Source 3 "is not an IT specialist herself."
And then there was Source 6. Or at least the Primary Subsource thinks it was Source 6.
Ritz-Carlton Moscow: The Primary Subsource admitted to the FBI "he had not been able to
confirm the story" about Trump and prostitutes at the hotel. But he did check with someone who
supposedly asked a hotel manager, who said that with celebrities, "one never knows what they're
doing." Moscowjob.net/Wikimedia
While he was doing his research on Manafort, the Primary Subsource met a U.S. journalist "at
a Thai restaurant." The Primary Subsource didn't want to ask "revealing questions" but managed
to go so far as to ask, "Do you [redacted] know anyone who can talk about all of this
Trump/Manafort stuff, or Trump and Russia?" According to the FBI notes, the journalist told
Primary Subsource "that he was skeptical and nothing substantive had turned up." But the
journalist put the Primary Subsource in touch with a "colleague" who in turn gave him an email
of "this guy" journalist 2 had interviewed and "that he should talk to."
With the email address of "this guy" in hand, the Primary Subsource sent him a message "in
either June or July 2016." Some weeks later the Primary Subsource "received a telephone call
from an unidentified Russia guy." He "thought" but had no evidence that the mystery "Russian
guy" was " that guy." The mystery caller "never identified himself." The Primary Subsource
labeled the anonymous caller "Source 6." The Primary Subsource and Source 6 talked for a total
of "about 10 minutes." During that brief conversation they spoke about the Primary Subsource
traveling to meet the anonymous caller, but the hook-up never happened.
Nonetheless, the Primary Subsource labeled the unknown Russian voice "Source 6" and gave
Christopher Steele the rundown on their brief conversation – how they had "a general
discussion about Trump and the Kremlin" and "that it was an ongoing relationship." For use in
the dossier, Steele named the voice Source E.
When Steele was done putting this utterly unsourced claim into the style of the dossier,
here's how the mystery call from the unknown guy was presented: "Speaking in confidence to a
compatriot in late July 2016, Source E, an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US
presidential candidate Donald TRUMP, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of
co-operation between them and the Russian leadership." Steele writes "Inter alia," – yes,
he really does deploy the Latin formulation for "among other things" – "Source E
acknowledged that the Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing e-mail
messages, emanating from the Democratic National Committee [DNC], to the WikiLeaks
platform."
All that and more is presented as the testimony of a "close associate" of Trump, when it was
just the disembodied voice of an unknown guy.
Perhaps even more perplexing is that the FBI interviewers, knowing that Source E was just an
anonymous caller, didn't compare that admission to the fantastical Steele bluster and declare
the dossier a fabrication on the spot.
But perhaps it might be argued that Christopher Steele was bringing crack investigative
skills of his own to bear. For something as rich in detail and powerful in effect as the
dossier, Steele must have been researching these questions himself as well, using his
hard-earned spy savvy to pry closely held secrets away from the Russians. Or at the very least
he must have relied on a team of intelligence operatives who could have gone far beyond the
obvious limitations the Primary Subsource and his group of drinking buddies.
But no. As we learned in December from Inspector General Michael Horowitz, Steele "was not
the originating source of any of the factual information in his reporting." Steele, the IG
reported "relied on a primary sub-source (Primary Sub-source) for information, and this Primary
Sub-source used a network of [further] sub-sources to gather the information that was relayed
to Steele." The inspector general's report noted that "neither Steele nor the Primary
Sub-source had direct access to the information being reported."
One might, by now, harbor some skepticism about the dossier. One might even be inclined to
doubt the story that Trump was "into water sports" as the Primary Subsource so delicately
described the tale of Trump and Moscow prostitutes. But, in this account, there was an effort,
however feeble, to nail down the "rumor and speculation" that Trump engaged in "unorthodox
sexual activity at the Ritz."
While the Primary Subsource admitted to the FBI "he had not been able to confirm the story,"
Source 2 (who will be remembered as the hustler always looking for a lucrative score)
supposedly asked a hotel manager about Trump and the manager said that with celebrities, "one
never knows what they're doing." One never knows – not exactly a robust proof of
something that smacks of urban myth. But the Primary Subsource makes the best of it, declaring
that at least "it wasn't a denial."
If there was any denial going on it was the FBI's, an agency in denial that its
extraordinary investigation was crumbling.
bh2, 23 minutes ago
Even Beria would laugh at this kind of "evidence".
So Russia started to suspect him and British staged this fun show with Novichok ?
Heavily drinking individuals are probably common in London Russian emigrant circles.
‘Duckgate’, as it is now being dubbed, was used to trick US President Trump into expelling 60 Russian Diplomats over false
photographic evidence presented to him by Haspel, as it was provided to her by UK authorities. The manipulation of Trump, courtesy
of CIA Director Haspel, the UK government (and accidentally documented on by the NYT), had blown first serious holes into the
entire narrative that Sergei and Yulia Skripal were poisoned by Russian agents with the deadly Novichok nerve agent.
"Ms. Haspel showed pictures the British government had supplied her of young children hospitalized after being sickened by the
Novichok nerve agent that poisoned the Skripals. She then showed a photograph of ducks that British officials said were
inadvertently killed by the sloppy work of the Russian operatives "
Notable quotes:
"... The Primary Subsource was in reality Steele’s sole source, a long-time Russian-speaking contractor for the former British spy’s company, Orbis Business Intelligence. In turn, the Primary Subsource had a group of friends in Russia. All of their names remain redacted. From the FBI interviews it becomes clear that the Primary Subsource and his friends peddled warmed-over rumors and laughable gossip that Steele dressed up as formal intelligence memos. ..."
The Primary Subsource was in reality Steele’s sole source, a long-time Russian-speaking contractor for the former British
spy’s company, Orbis Business Intelligence. In turn, the Primary Subsource had a group of friends in Russia. All of their names
remain redacted. From the FBI interviews it becomes clear that the Primary Subsource and his friends peddled warmed-over rumors
and laughable gossip that Steele dressed up as formal intelligence memos.
...Steele’s operation didn’t rely on great expertise, to judge from the Primary Subsource’s account. He described to
the FBI the instructions Steele had given him sometime in the spring of 2016 regarding Paul Manafort: “Do you know [about]
Manafort? Find out about Manafort’s dealings with Ukraine, his dealings with other countries, and any corrupt schemes.” The
Primary Subsource admitted to the FBI “that he was ‘clueless’ about who Manafort was, and that this was a ‘strange task’ to have
been given.”
The Primary Subsource said at first that maybe he had asked some of his friends in Russia – he didn’t have a network of sources,
according to his lawyer, but instead just a “social circle.” And a boozy one at that: When the Primary Subsource would get
together with his old friend Source 4, the two would drink heavily. But his social circle was no help with the Manafort question
and so the Primary Subsource scrounged up a few old news clippings about Manafort and fed them back to Steele.
bh2 , 23 minutes ago
Even Beria would laugh at this kind of "evidence".
Versengetorix, 1 hour ago remove
The Durham investigation has been covered over with asphalt.
ze_vodka , 1 hour ago
After all that has happened, if anyone actually still thinks the Trump = Putin story has
any shred of truth... well... there are no words left to write about that.
It was a lie.
Everyone involved is pretty much a seditious traitor.
Everyone who has at least 1 lonely marble floating in the Grey Matter Soup knows it's a
lie.
The establishment's massive propaganda campaigns and psyops CANCEL the truth or make it
unrecognizable via coloring and half-truths. Russiagate, White Helmets, Skripals, MH-17,
Integrity Initiative, Assange, Russian Bounties & remaining in Afghanistan, "China
virus", hydroxyChloroquine, etc.
The Trump Administration has CANCELED entire countries via terminating peace treaties,
imposing sanctions, covert war, and conducting a propaganda war.
Where is the outrage from writers, artists, and academics about THAT?
"... While cozying up to Putin on a personal level, Trump has actually taken a harder line against Russia than his predecessors, to the detriment of people in both countries. The President canceled two arms treaties, imposed sanctions on Moscow, and sent Javelin missiles to Ukraine. ..."
"... Defense industries make billions from government contracts. Former military officers and State Department officials rake in six-figure incomes sitting on corporate boards. Aspiring secretaries of state and defense strut their stuff at think tank conferences and, until the pandemic, at alcohol-fueled, black tie events in Washington. ..."
"... "There's an entire infrastructure influencing policy," says Hoh, who had an inside seat during his years with the government. ..."
"... And that's what the current Russia-Taliban scandal is all about: An unreliable Afghan report is blown into a national controversy in hopes of forcing the White House to cancel the Afghan troop withdrawal. Demonizing Russia (along with China and Iran) also justifies revamping the US nuclear arsenal and building advanced fighter jets that can't fly . ..."
On June 26, in a major front page story, The New York Times
wrote that Russia paid a bounty to the Taliban to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan last
year. The story quickly unraveled.
While the military is investigating the allegations, Mark Miley, chair of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff says
there's no proof that Russian payments led to any US deaths. The National Security Agency
says it found
no communications intelligence supporting the bounty claim.
Marine Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., head of the US Central Command, says he's not
convinced that American troops died as a result of Russian bounties.
"I just didn't find that there was a causative link there," he
tellsThe Washington Post .
Sina Toossi, senior research analyst at the National Iranian American Council, tells me
the controversy reveals an internecine battle within the foreign policy establishment. "Many
in the national security establishment in Washington are searching for reasons to keep US
troops in Afghanistan," Toossi says. "This story plays into those broader debates."
Troop withdrawal?
Faced with no end to its unpopular war in Afghanistan, the Trump Administration negotiated an agreement with
the Taliban in February. Washington agreed to gradually pull out troops, and the Taliban
promised not to attack US personnel.
The Taliban and Afghan government are supposed to hold peace talks and release prisoners
of war. The US troop withdrawal won't be completed until May 2021, giving the administration
in power the ability to renege on the deal.
Nevertheless, powerful members of the Afghan intelligence elite and some in the US
national security establishment strongly object to the agreement and want to keep US troops
in the country permanently.
Matthew Hoh, who worked for the State Department in Afghanistan and is now a senior fellow
with the Center for
International Policy , tells me that the reports of Russian bounties likely originated
with the Afghanistan intelligence agency.
"The mention of Russia was a key word," says Hoh. CIA officials fast-tracked the Afghan
reports. They argued that Russia's interference, and Trump's failure to respond, only
emboldens the Russians.
Originally, the Times
claimed $500,000 in Russian bounty money was seized at the home of a Taliban operative
named Rahmatullah Azizi. He turned out to be an Afghan drug smuggler who had previously
worked as a contractor
for Washington.
The Times later admitted that
investigators "could not say for sure that it was bounty money."
Hoh says the alleged bounties make no sense politically or militarily. Last year, he says,
"The Taliban didn't need any incentives to kill Americans." And this year, it has stopped all
attacks on US forces as part of the February agreement.
But leading Democrats ignore the unraveling of the story in a rush to attack the White
House from the right. Joe Biden reached deep into his Cold War tool box to blast Trump.
"Not only has he failed to sanction or impose any kind of consequences on Russia for this
egregious violation of international law, Donald Trump has continued his embarrassing
campaign of deference and debasing himself before Vladimir Putin," Biden
told a town hall meeting.
Demonizing Russia
While cozying up to Putin on a personal level, Trump has actually taken a harder line
against Russia than his predecessors, to the detriment of people in both countries. The
President canceled
two arms treaties,
imposed sanctions on Moscow, and
sent Javelin missiles to Ukraine.
Both high-ranking Republicans and Democrats benefit politically by creating an evil
Russian enemy, according to Vladimir Pozner, Putin critic and host of a popular Russian TV
interview program.
The bounty accusation "keeps the myth alive of Putin and Russia being a vicious,
cold-blooded enemy of the US," Pozner tells me.
Some call it the foreign policy establishment; others say the national security state or
simply the Deep State. A group of officials in the Pentagon, State Department, intelligence
agencies and war industries have played an outsized role in foreign policy for decades. And
it's not out of the goodness of their hearts.
Defense industries make billions from government contracts. Former military officers and
State Department officials rake in six-figure incomes sitting on corporate boards. Aspiring
secretaries of state and defense strut their stuff at think tank conferences and, until the
pandemic, at alcohol-fueled, black tie events in Washington.
"There's an entire infrastructure influencing policy," says Hoh, who had an inside seat
during his years with the government.
The Deep State is not monolithic, he cautions. "You won't find a backroom with guys
smoking cigars. But there is a notion of US primacy and a bent towards military
intervention."
And that's what the current Russia-Taliban scandal is all about: An unreliable Afghan
report is blown into a national controversy in hopes of forcing the White House to cancel the
Afghan troop withdrawal. Demonizing Russia (along with China and Iran) also justifies
revamping the US nuclear arsenal and building advanced fighter jets that
can't fly .
"It's Russia hysteria," says Hoh.
Afghans suffer
While the Washington elite wage internal trench warfare, the people of Afghanistan suffer.
More than 100,000 Afghans have died because of the war, with 10,000
casualties each year, according to the United Nations . The Pentagon
reports 2,219 US soldiers
died and 20,093 were wounded in the Afghan war.
A lesser imperialist power, Russia has its own interests in Afghanistan. It has taken
advantage of the US decline in the region to expand influence in Syria and Libya.
According to Pozner, Russia doesn't favor a Taliban government in Afghanistan. The Kremlin
considers the Taliban a dangerous terrorist organization. But if the Taliban comes to power,
Pozner says, "Russia would like to have stable relations with them. You have to take things
as they are and build as good a relationship as possible."
Neither Russia nor any other outside power has the means or desire to control Afghanistan.
At best, they hope for a stable neighbor, not one trying to spread extremism in the
region.
That's been the stated US goal for years. Ironically, it can't be achieved until US troops
withdraw.
Reese Erlich's nationally distributed column, Foreign Correspondent, appears every two
weeks. Follow him onTwitter, @ReeseErlich; friend him onFacebook; and visit hiswebpage.
Kinda like a digital form of chlamydia combined with binary syphilis , it never seems to wanna go away no matter how many times
you treat it.
alex kalish , 1 hour ago
Oh Yahoo News - why does ZH reprint blatant crap ? Is their source Christopher Steele ? LMAO. A 17 year old pimple face kid
could hack the CIA and they are going on the offensive ? They may blow up Hoover damn or shut down the electric grid by mistake....
Encroaching Darkness , 1 hour ago
********, top to bottom.
(A) Yahoo news - seriously, Yahoo news?
(B) Brennan wanted to overthrow Flynn / Trump - his proteges are still roaming through the agency. Why would Trump trust Brennan's
underlings to hold a cookout at Langley, let alone unsupervised operations?
(C) Why MUST the CIA be responsible for Iran's explosions? Aren't the Israelis (with much higher motivation, closer location
and more contacts) capable of doing this all by themselves?
Article full of unsupported and unsupportable assumptions, from a pseudo-news organization, trying to blame Trump for Iranian
incompetence. Major fail!
DaBard51 , 1 hour ago
The source is... Yahoo News? Yahoo News is the new "Paper of Record"?
The same Yahoo News that "corroborated" the Steele dossier?
A top government watchdog group obtained 136 pages of never before publicized emails between
former FBI lovers
Peter Strzok and
Lisa Page and one in particular appears to refer to a confidential informant inside the
White House in 2017, according to a press release from
Judicial Watch .
Those emails, some of which are heavily redacted, reveal that "Strzok, Page and top bureau
officials in the days prior to and following
President Donald Trump's inauguration discussing a White House counterintelligence briefing
that could "play into" the
FBI's "investigative strategy."
Majority Say They Want to See Trump's Taxes, Many Think Returns Would Hurt Reelection
Chances
White House Reportedly Moves to Make Coronavirus Cases Private by Cutting Out
CDC
Trump White House Reportedly Conducting 'Loyalty' Interviews of Officials,
Appointees
Majority Don't Trust Trump's Public Messages on COVID-19, Disapproval on Pandemic Response
Hits 60%
Trump's Niece Says She's Heard Him Use the N-Word, Anti-Semitic Slurs
Trump Administration is Reportedly Out to Smear Dr. Anthony Fauci for Early Comments on
Coronavirus
Trump Refuses To Unveil Obama's Portrait At The White House
White House Testing Staff For COVID-19, But Are Results Accurate?
Moreover, another email sent by Strzok to Bill
Priestap, the Former Assistant Director for the Counterintelligence Division, refers to
what appears to be a confidential informant in the White House. The email was sent the day
after Trump's inauguration.
"I heard from [redacted] about the WH CI briefing routed from [redacted]," wrote Strzok. "
I am angry that Jen did not at least cc: me, as my branch has pending investigative matters
there, this brief may play into our investigative strategy, and I would like the ability to
have visibility and provide thoughts/counsel to you in advance of the briefing. This is one
of the reasons why I raised the issue of lanes/responsibilities that I did when you asked her
to handle WH detailee interaction."
In April, 2019 this reporter first published information that there was an alleged
confidential informant for the FBI in the White House. In fact, then senior Republican Chairmen
of the Senate Appropriations Committee
Charles Grassley and Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson submitted a
letter to Department of Justice Attorney General William Barr revealing the new texts from
Strzok to Page showing the pair had discussed attempts to recruit sources within the White
House to allegedly spy on the Trump administration.
The Chairmen revealed the information in a three page letter. The texts had been already
been obtained by SaraACarter.com and information regarding the possible attempt to recruit
White House sources had been divulged by several sources to this news site last week.
At the time, texts obtained by this news site and sources stated that Strzok had one
significant contact within the White House – at the time that would have been Vice
President Mike Pence's Chief of Staff Joshua Pitcock,
as reported.
Over the past year, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, along with years
of numerous Congressional investigations, has uncovered a plethora of documentation revealing
the most intimate details of the FBI's now debunked investigation into Trump's campaign and its
alleged conspiracy with Russia.
For example, in a series of emails exchanged by top bureau officials – in the FBI
General Counsel's office, Counterintelligence Division and Washington Field office on Jan. 19,
2017 – reveal that senior leadership, including former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe were
coordinating with each other in their ongoing attempt to target the incoming administration.
Priestap was also included in the email exchanges. The recent discovery in April, of Priestap's
handwritten notes taken in January, 2017 before the Strzok and his FBI partner interviewed
Flynn were a bombshell. In Priestap's notes he states, "What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to
get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"
In one recent email chain obtained by Judicial Watch, FBI assistant general counsel in the
FBI's National Security Law Branch stated in an email to Strzok [which was almost entirely
redacted]
"I'll give Trisha/Baker a heads up too," it stated. Strzok's reply to the assistant
general counsel, however, was redacted by DOJ. The response back to Strzok has also been
redacted.
Then later in the evening at 7:04 p.m., Strzok sends another emails stating, "I briefed
Bill (Priestap) this afternoon and he was trying without success to reach the DD [McCabe]. I
will forward below to him as his [sic] changes the timeline. What's your recommendation?"
The reply, like many of the documents obtained by Judicial Watch from the DOJ, is almost
entirely redacted. The email response to Strzok was from the Counterintelligence
Division.
Here's what was not redacted
"Approved by tomorrow afternoon is the request. [Redacted] – please advise if I am
missing something." An unidentified official replies, "[Redacted], Bill is aware and willing
to jump in when we need him."
Judicial Watch Timeline of Events On Emails Obtained Through FOIA
At 8 p.m., Strzok responds back (copying officials in the Counterintelligence Division,
Washington Field Office and General Counsel's office):
"Just talked with Bill. [Redacted]. Please relay above to WFO and [redacted] tonight, and
keep me updated with plan for meet and results of same. Good luck."
Strzok then forwards the whole email exchange to Lisa Page, saying, "Bill spoke with Andy.
[Redacted.] Here we go again "
The Day After Trump's Inauguration
The day after Trump's inauguration, on Jan. 21, 2017, Strzok forwarded Page and [a redacted
person] an
email he'd sent that day to Priestap. Strzok asked them to "not forward/share."
In the email to Priestap, Strzok said, "I heard from [redacted] about the WH CI briefing
routed from [redacted]. I am angry that Jen did not at least cc: me, as my branch has pending
investigative matters there, this brief may play into our investigative strategy , and I would
like the ability to have visibility and provide thoughts/counsel to you in advance of the
briefing. This is one of the reasons why I raised the issue of lanes/responsibilities that I
did when you asked her to handle WH detailee interaction."
" Also, on January 21, 2017, Strzok wrote largely the same message
he'd sent to Priestap directly to his counterintelligence colleague Jennifer Boone ," states
Judicial Watch.
The records were produced to Judicial Watch in a January 2018 Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA)
lawsuit filed after the DOJ failed to respond to a December 2017 request for all
communications between Strzok and Page ( Judicial
Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00154)).
The FBI has only processed emails at a rate of 500 pages per month and has yet to process
text messages. At this rate, the production of these communications, which still number around
8,000 pages, would not be completed until at least late 2021.
In other emails, Strzok comments on reporting on the anti-Trump dossier authored by Hillary
Clinton's paid operative Christopher Steele.
In a January 2017 email ,
Strzok takes issue with a UK Independent report which claimed Steele had suspected there was a
"cabal" within the FBI which put the Clinton email investigation above the Trump-Russia probe.
Strzok, a veteran counterintelligence agent, was at the heart of both the Clinton email and
Trump-Russia investigations.
In April and June of 2017, the FBI would use the dossier as key evidence in obtaining FISA
warrants to spy on Trump campaign associate Carter Page. In a declassified
summary of a Department of Justice assessment of the warrants that was released by the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in January of this year, it was determined that
those two applications to secretly monitor Page lacked probable cause.
The newly released records include a January 11, 2017, email
from Strzok to Lisa Page, Priestap, and Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Jon
Moffa, a New York Times report
which refers to the dossier as containing "unsubstantiated accounts" and "unproven claims." In
the email, Strzok comments on the article, calling it "Pretty good reporting."
On January 14, 2017, FBI Assistant Director for Public Affairs Michael Kortan forwards
to Strzok, Page and Priestap a link to a UK
Independent article entitled "Former MI6 Agent Christopher Steele's Frustration as FBI Sat
On Donald Trump Russia File for Months".
The article, citing security sources, notes that "Steele became increasingly frustrated that
the FBI was failing to take action on the intelligence from others as well as him. He came to
believe there was a cover-up: that a cabal within the Bureau blocked a thorough inquiry into Mr
Trump, focusing instead on the investigation into Clinton's emails."
Strzok responds: "Thanks Mike. Of course not accurate [the cover-up/cabal nonsense]. Is that
question gaining traction anywhere else?"
The records also include a February 10, 2017, email
from Strzok to Page mentioning then-national security adviser Michael Flynn (five days before
Flynn resigned) and includes a photo of Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Strzok
also makes a joke about how McCabe had fat shamed Kislyak.
On February 8, 2017, Strzok, under the subject "RE: EO on Economic Espionage," emailed
Lisa Page, saying, "Please let [redacted] know I talked to [redacted]. Tonight, he approached
Flynn's office and got no information." Strzok was responding to a copy of an email Page had
sent him. The email, from a redacted FBI official to Deputy Director McCabe read: "OPS has not
received a draft EO on economic espionage. Instead, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce advised OPS
that they received a draft, but they did not send us the draft. I'll follow up with our
detailees about this EO." Flynn resigned
on February 13, 2017.
On January 26, 2017, Nancy McNamara of the FBI's Inspection Division emailed
Strzok and Priestap with the subject line "Leak," saying, "Tried calling you but the phones are
forwarded to SIOC. I got the tel call report, however [redacted]. Feel free to give me a call
if I have it wrong." Strzok forwarded the McNamara email to Lisa Page and an unidentified
person in the General Counsel's office, saying, "Need to talk to you about how to respond to
this."
On January 11, 2017, Yahoo News reporter Michael Isikoff emailed
Kortan, saying he'd learned that Steele had worked for the Bureau's Eurasian organized crime
section and had turned over the dossier on Trump-Russian "collusion" to the bureau in Rome.
Kortan forwards Isikoff's email to aide Richard Quinn, who forwards to Strzok "just for
visibility". Strzok forwards to his boss, Priestap and Moffa, saying, "FYI, [redacted], you or
I should probably inform [redacted]. How's your relationship with him? Bill unless you object,
I'll let Parmaan [presumably senior FBI official Bryan Paarmann] know." Strzok forwards the
whole exchange onto Lisa Page.
On January 18, 2017, reporter Peter Elkind of ProPublica reached
out to Kortan, asking to interview Strzok, Michael Steinbach, Jim Baker, Priestap, former
FBI Director James Comey and DEA administrator Chuck Rosenberg for a story Elkind was working
on. Kortan replied, "Okay, I will start organizing things." Further along in the thread, an FBI
Press Office official reached out to an FBI colleague for assistance with the interviews,
saying Steinbach had agreed to a "background discussion" with Elkind, who was "writing the
'definitive' account of what happened during the Clinton investigation, specifically, Comey's
handling of the investigation, seeking to reconstruct and explain in much greater detail what
he did and why he did it." In May 2017, Elkind wrote an
article titled "The Problems With the FBI's Email Investigation Went Well Beyond Comey,"
which in light of these documents, strongly suggests many FBI officials leaked to the
publication.
Strzok ended up being scheduled
to meet with Elkind at 9:30 a.m. on January 31, 2017, before an Elkind interview of Comey's
chief of staff Jim Rybicki. Elkind's reporting on the Clinton email investigation was discussed
at length in previous
emails obtained by Judicial Watch.
"These documents suggest that President Trump was targeted by the Comey FBI as soon as he
stepped foot in the Oval Office," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "And now we see how
the Comey FBI was desperate to spin, through high-level leaks, its mishandling of the Clinton
email investigation. And, in a continuing outrage, it should be noted that Wray's FBI and
Barr's DOJ continue slow-walk the release of thousands of Page-Strzok emails – which
means the remaining 8,000 pages of records won't be reviewed and released until 2021-2022!"
In February 2020, Judicial Watch
uncovered an August 2016 email in which Strzok says that Clinton, in her interview with the
FBI about her email controversy, apologized for "the work and effort" it caused the bureau and
she said she chose to use it "out of convenience" and that "it proved to be anything but."
Strzok said Clinton's apology and the "convenience" discussion were "not in" the FBI 302 report
that summarized the interview.
Also in February, Judicial Watch made public Strzok-Page emails showing their direct
involvement in the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, the bureau's investigation of alleged
collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. The records also show additional "confirmed
classified emails" were found on Clinton's unsecure non-state.gov email server "beyond the number presented" in
then-FBI Director James Comey's statements; Strzok and Page questioning the access the DOJ was
granting Clinton's lawyers; and Page revealing that the DOJ was making edits to FBI 302 reports
related to the Clinton Midyear Exam investigation. The emails detail a discussion about
"squashing" an issue related to the Seth Rich controversy.
In January 2020, Judicial Watch
uncovered Strzok-Page emails that detail special accommodations given to the lawyers of
Clinton and her aides during the FBI investigation of the Clinton email controversy.
In November 2019, Judicial Watch
revealed Strzok-Page emails that show the attorney representing three of Clinton's aides
were given meetings with senior FBI officials.
Also in November, Judicial Watch
uncovered emails revealing that after Clinton's statement denying the transmission of
classified information over her unsecure email system, Strzok sent an email to FBI officials
citing "three [Clinton email] chains" containing (C) [classified] portion marks in front of
paragraphs."
In a related case, in May 2020, Judicial Watch received the " electronic
communication " (EC) that officially launched the counterintelligence investigation, termed
"Crossfire Hurricane," of President Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. The document was
written by former FBI official Peter Strzok.
Does Cancel Culture intersect with Woke? The former's not mentioned in
this fascinating essay , but the latter is and appears to deserve some unpacking beyond
what Crooke provides.
As for the letter, it's way overdue by 40+ years. I recall reading Bloom's The Closing
of the American Mind and Christopher Lasch's Culture of Narcissism where they say
much the same.
What's most irksome are the lies that now substitute for discourse--Trump or someone from
his admin lies, then the WaPost, NY Times, MSNBC, Fox, and others fire back with their lies.
And to top everything off--There's ZERO accountability: people who merit "canceling" continue
to lie and commit massive fraud.
The Chinese and Russian Foreign Ministers just jointly agreed in a rare published account
of their phone conversation that the Outlaw US Empire " has lost its sense of reason,
morality and credibility .
Yes, they were specifically referring to the government, but I'd include the Empire's
institutions as well. In the face of that reality, the letter is worse than a joke.
"... Not to be outdone, the censors are also taking aim at To Kill a Mockingbird , Harper Lee's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel about Atticus Finch, a white lawyer in the Jim Crow South who defends a black man falsely accused of rape. Sixty years after its debut, the book remains a powerful testament to moral courage in the face of racial bigotry and systemic injustice , told from the point of view of a child growing up in the South, but that's not enough for the censors. They want to axe the book -- along with The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn -- from school reading curriculums because of the presence of racial slurs that could make students feel "humiliated or marginalized." ..."
"... What started with Joseph McCarthy's headline-grabbing scare tactics in the 1950s about Communist infiltrators of American society snowballed into a devastating witch hunt once corporations and the American people caught the fever. ..."
"... McCarthyism was a contagion, like the plague, spreading like wildfire among people too fearful or weak or gullible or paranoid or greedy or ambitious to denounce it for what it was: an opportunistic scare tactic engineered to make the government more powerful. ..."
"... Battlefield America: The War on the American People ..."
For those old enough to have lived through the McCarthy era, there is a whiff of something
in the air that reeks of the heightened paranoia, finger-pointing, fear-mongering, totalitarian
tactics that were hallmarks of the 1950s.
Back then, it was the government -- spearheaded by Senator Joseph McCarthy and the House
Un-American Activities Committee -- working in tandem with private corporations and individuals
to blacklist Americans suspected of being communist sympathizers.
By the time the witch hunts carried out by federal and state investigative agencies drew to
a close, thousands of individuals (
the vast majority of them innocent any crime whatsoever ) had been accused of communist
ties, investigated, subpoenaed and blacklisted. Regarded as bad risks, the accused were
blacklisted, and struggled to secure employment. The witch hunt ruined careers, resulting in
suicides, and tightened immigration to exclude alleged subversives.
Seventy years later, the vitriol, fear-mongering and knee-jerk intolerance associated with
McCarthy's tactics are once again being deployed in a free-for-all attack by those on both the
political Left and Right against anyone who, in daring to think for themselves, subscribes to
ideas or beliefs that run counter to the government's or mainstream thought
It doesn't even seem to matter what the issue is anymore (racism, Confederate monuments,
Donald Trump, COVID-19, etc.): modern-day activists are busily tearing down monuments,
demonizing historic figures, boycotting corporations for perceived political transgressions,
and using their bully pulpit to terrorize the rest of the country into kowtowing to their
demands
All the while, the American police state continues to march inexorably forward.
This is how fascism, which silences all dissenting views, prevails.
The silence is becoming deafening.
After years of fighting in and out of the courts to keep their 87-year-old name, the NFL's
Washington Redskins have bowed to public pressure and will
change their name and team logo to avoid causing offense . The new name, not yet announced,
aims to honor both the military and Native Americans.
Who needs a government censor when the American people are already doing such a great job at
censoring themselves and each other, right?
Now there's a push underway to
boycott Goya Foods after its CEO, Robert Unanue, praised President Trump during a press
conference to announce Goya's donation of a million cans of Goya chickpeas and a million other
food products to American food banks as part of the president's Hispanic Prosperity
Initiative.
Mind you, Unanue -- whose grandfather emigrated to the U.S. from Spain -- also praised the
Obamas when they were in office, but that kind of equanimity doesn't carry much weight in this
climate of intolerance.
This is also the overlooked part of how oppression becomes systemic: it comes about as a
result of a combined effort between the populace, the corporations and the government.
McCarthyism worked the same way.
What started with Joseph McCarthy's headline-grabbing scare tactics in the 1950s about
Communist infiltrators of American society snowballed into a devastating witch hunt once
corporations and the American people caught the fever.
McCarthyism was a contagion, like the plague, spreading like wildfire among people too
fearful or weak or gullible or paranoid or greedy or ambitious to denounce it for what it was:
an opportunistic scare tactic engineered to make the government more powerful.
The parallels to the present movement cannot be understated.
The contagion of fear that McCarthy helped spread with the help of government agencies,
corporations and the power elite is still poisoning the well, whitewashing our history, turning
citizen against citizen, and stripping us of our rights.
What we desperately need is the kind of resolve embodied by Edward R. Murrow, the
most-respected newsman of his day.
On March 9, 1954, Murrow dared to speak truth to power about the damage McCarthy was
inflicting on the American people. His message remains a timely warning for our age.
We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of
unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine; and remember that we are not
descended from fearful men. Not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to
defend causes that were for the moment unpopular.
America is approaching another reckoning right now, one that will pit our commitment to
freedom principles against a level of fear-mongering that is being used to wreak havoc on
everything in its path.
The outcome rests, as always, with "we the people." As Murrow said to his staff before the
historic March 9 broadcast: "No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his
accomplices."
Feature photo | Nehemiah Nuk Nuk Johnson, left, with JUICE (Justice Unites Individuals and
Communities Everywhere), confronts a counter protester who did not give his name in Martinez,
Calif., July 12, 2020, during a protest calling for an end to racial injustice and
accountability for police. Jeff Chiu | AP
"... Any NYT reporting on Epstein is meant as a distraction -- to cover up the facts. The NYT is the elites' protector, it punches down instead of up. The NYT 'revelations' about guards are a) punching down to protect elites and b) a distraction to protect elites. The NYT is one of the Augean Stables. ..."
Now, people who are doubting the USG are automatically labelled "conspiracy theorists".
Except that, in this case, it is perfectly sensible to doubt about his death. He could've put
down really powerful people. He wasn't your daily mafia-boy struggling against his mafia boss
over US$ 1 billion in cocaine; no: he could put down half the American royalty.
Ah yes, that self-admitted CIA linked, totally-not deep state propaganda puppet outlet
lecturing the rest of us about the virtues of fact-checking and journalistic integrity...
Any NYT reporting on Epstein is meant as a distraction -- to cover up the facts.
The NYT is the elites' protector, it punches down instead of up.
The NYT 'revelations' about guards are a) punching down to protect elites and b) a
distraction to protect elites.
The NYT is one of the Augean Stables.
"... Interestingly, June 2017 is when the FBI and DOJ signed off on the last extension of the FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign via adviser Carter Page. The warrant was signed by acting FBI director and Comey's former deputy Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein – who wrote both the memo used to fire Comey and the scope memo for the Mueller investigation. ..."
"... Evidence has shown that the initial FISA warrant against Page – in October 2016, shortly before the election – and the three renewals all relied heavily on the Steele Dossier, without making it clear to the court that it was unverified opposition research compiled at the behest of a rival political party. ..."
"... "miscarriage of justice" ..."
"... "collusion" ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
"... the infamous dossier used as a pretext to spy on President Donald Trump's campaign was unreliable ..."
New documents show the FBI was aware that the infamous dossier
used as a pretext to spy on President Donald Trump's campaign was unreliable, and that the New York Times published false information
about the 'Russiagate' probe.
The two documents were published on Friday by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina),
as part of an ongoing probe of the FBI's investigation of Trump. One is a 59-page, heavily redacted
interview
of the "primary sub-source" for Christopher Steele, the British spy commissioned through a series of cut-outs by the
Hillary Clinton campaign to dig up dirt on Trump during the 2016 election campaign.
While the identity of the source is hidden, the document makes it clear it was not a current or former Russian official, but a
non-Russian employee of Steele's British company, Orbis. The source's testimony seriously questioned the claims made in the dossier
– which is best known for the salacious accusation that Trump was being blackmailed by Russia with tapes of an alleged sex romp in
a Moscow hotel.
The second, and more intriguing, document is a five-page
printout
of a February 14, 2017 article from the New York Times, along with 13 notes by Peter Strzok, one of the senior FBI agents handling
the Russiagate probe. The article was published five days after the FBI interview with the sub-source, and Strzok actually shows
awareness of it (in note 11, specifically).
In the very first note, Strzok labeled as "misleading and inaccurate" the claim by the New York Times that the Trump
campaign had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials before the 2016 election, noting there was "no evidence"
of this.
Likewise, Strzok denied the FBI was investigating Roger Stone (note 10) – a political operative eventually indicted by Special
Counsel Robert Mueller over allegedly lying about (nonexistent) ties to WikiLeaks, whose sentence Trump recently commuted to outrage
from 'Russiagate' proponents. Nor was Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort on any calls involving Russian government officials,
contrary to claims by the Times (note 3).
Not only did the FBI know the story was false, in part based on the knowledge they had from Steele's source, but the recently
ousted FBI director Jim Comey had openly disputed it in June 2017. The paper stood by its reporting.
Interestingly, June 2017 is when the FBI and DOJ signed off on the last extension of the FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign
via adviser Carter Page. The warrant was signed by acting FBI director and Comey's former deputy Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein – who wrote both the memo used to fire Comey and the scope memo for the Mueller investigation.
Evidence has shown that the initial FISA warrant against Page – in October 2016, shortly before the election – and the three renewals
all relied heavily on the Steele Dossier, without making it clear to the court that it was unverified opposition research compiled
at the behest of a rival political party.
The last two renewals, in April and June 2017, were requested after the sub-source interview. Commenting on the document release,
Sen. Graham called these two renewals a "miscarriage of justice" and argued that the FBI and the Department of Justice should
have stopped and re-evaluated their case.
Mueller eventually found no "collusion" between Trump and Russia as alleged by the Democrats, but not before a dozen
people – from Stone and Manafort to Trump's first national security adviser Michael Flynn and innocent Russian student Maria Butina
– became casualties of the investigation.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! 236 13
Austin Rock 22 hours ago Staggering is the monumental deceitful effort to hitch Trump to Russia. And yet for MSM and their poodles
in the press no barb thrown is too outragious, no smear is too false enough. With Google, Twitter and Facebook on board we Europeans
are being played. But we Europeans are not as stupid as your average US punter. These pathetic fairy tales are an embarressement
to journalism.
Senate panel releases key FBI memo on Christopher Steele; reaction from John Solomon,
co-author of 'Fallout,' and Rep. Devin Nunes, ranking member of the House Intelligence
Committee.
The
Trump-Russia collusion story continues to be eaten away, and these new notes from disgraced ex-FBI Agent Peter Strzok center on
The
New York Times
and their reporting that got the ball rolling on this media manufactured myth. Yes, it's about time we say
that because these documents, which analyzed the piece about Trump aides having contacts with Russian intelligence officials
before the 2016 election, has more utility being used to catch crap from birdcages now that's been exposed as a fraud. In 2017,
this
"bombshell" dropped
. Even at the outset, there was still no evidence of collusion. Just rumor and unsubstantiated gossip.
"The
officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation," that's what the
Times
had
in their piece. It's one of the many bombshells that turned out to be nothing burgers, part of the liberal media's Russia fetish
that turned into one of the biggest, if not
the biggest
, journalism fails ever. It's sad,
really. All one had to do was merely accept that Lady McBeth, aka Hillary Rodham Clinton, lost the 2016 election. Any person with
cognitive function knew that this story was just simply too good to be true. Second, when weeks and months go by and no evidence
arises, it's a dud. When multiple "breaks" in the case, arise and turn out to be garbage -- there's nothing to the story. It's not
real. It's a myth, but the anti-Trump opposition press kept pressing and pressing until we got a clown show the likes of which we
have never seen. Now, part of it is a bit annoying because we all knew the truth before these clowns did, but seeing these guys
fail and have their work just be totally trashed, burned to a crisp, and then pissed on is just pure gold. Two words that can be
applied to the entire Democrat-media complex: Suck. It.
So,
let's get to the notes that deliver a tomahawk to the face of the liberal media. Based on the FBI's notes, pretty much everything
in it was a lie. "Misleading, inaccurate, and no evidence" are the key phrases Strzok used concerning this fake news story. The
story said that Paul Manafort was plugged into the calls. The FBI said, "We are unaware of any calls with any Russian govt
official in which Manafort was a party."
The
publication said Roger Stone was part of the FBI's Russian inquiry. The FBI denied this. Then-FBI Director James Comey, who would
later be fired for cause in May of 2017, also disputed the story but the NYT decided to stand by it because 'orange man bad.'
Well, they do deserve Pulitzers I guess for being the biggest dupes in the business for taking fake information at face value.
Has the media learned that yet too? Probably not because they're all abjectly stupid people, but not all classified information
is true. It can be false. Remember that next time you report on leaks about North Korean Kim Jong-un being brain dead.
The
ripple effect from stories like this was severe. It led scores of reporters down a media-manufactured alternate reality that some
have not climbed out of yet. They took the blue pill and remained in wonderland.
"Ignorance is bliss," or maybe in this case just pure unadulterated idiocy.
You
guys were wrong. How many times do we have to hit you on the head with a baseball bat until you get it? You were wrong. Your
stories were trash, based in lies and false information and weaponized by Democrats to try and usurp a duly elected president
because you don't like him. You're all entitled brats who deserve an ass-kicking. And Barack Obama appears to be calling the
shots on some of the major battles in this fake news fiasco, specifically when it comes to Michael Flynn, who has been vindicated
regarding his role in this whole mess. He was innocent and targeted by former members of the Obama administration, including
former Vice President Joe Biden.
Looks like Guardian is another intelligence agencies controlled entity.
Notable quotes:
"... Nothing shows just how much the Guardian has become the voice of the Deep State more than its coverage of anything Russia-related. And nothing serves as a better exemplar of how modern propaganda works. ..."
"... As it was anti-Russian I expected it to be accompanied with a Luke Harding byline but this is from the Defence and Security Editor, Dan Sabbagh, Harding, as well as being a plagiarist, has written four anti-Russian books including "Collusion" about how Russia helped Donald Trump get into power (using the discredited Steele dossier as his main source). Here Aaron Mate interviews him leaving him totally uncomfortable by the end. ..."
The Guardian, and all the other predictable voices, are currently reporting that Russian
"state sponsored hackers" have been attempting to steal "medical secrets" from British
pharmaceutical researchers.
At this stage they offer no substantiation, but it does serve as good teaching exercise in
the techniques of modern propagandists.
First the lack of evidence. Observe the Guardian article, note the complete absence of
sources or references. There's not a link in sight. There's no content there beyond the
parroted words of UK government officials, whose honesty and/or competence is never
interrogated.
Second, the lies by omission. They don't mention, for example, the
Vault 7 revelations from Wikileaks that the CIA/Pentagon
have developed technology to make one of their own cyber-attacks appear to come from anywhere
in the world , Russia obviously included. This is clearly vital information.
Third, the multitasking. When you splash a huge red lie on your front pages, it's always
best to make it serve several agendas at once. In fact, an unsupported statement which serves
multiple state-backed narratives at the same time is one of the telltale signs of
propaganda.
With this one completely unverified claim, the Guardian – or rather the people who
tell the Guardian what to say – back up three narratives:
The further demonisation of
an "enemy". Russia is portrayed as pursuing "selfish interests with reckless
behaviour" , whilst we (and our allies) are "getting on with the hard work of finding
a vaccine and protecting global health." Promoting the vaccine. The vaccine is coming. It
will likely be mandatory, it will certainly have been insufficiently tested, if tested at all.
They need some pro-vaccine advertising, and nothing sells better than "our vaccine is so good,
people are trying to steal it". Most importantly – Enhancing the idea that Sars-Cov-2 is
a unique global threat which puts us all in danger. The unspoken assumption is that Russia
needs to steal our research because the virus is so dangerous we all need to be afraid of it
despite it being
harmless to the vast majority of people .
Nothing shows just how much the Guardian has become the voice of the Deep State more than
its coverage of anything Russia-related. And nothing serves as a better exemplar of how modern
propaganda works.
As it was anti-Russian I expected it to be accompanied with a Luke Harding byline but this
is from the Defence and Security Editor, Dan Sabbagh, Harding, as well as being a plagiarist,
has written four anti-Russian books including "Collusion" about how Russia helped Donald Trump
get into power (using the discredited Steele dossier as his main source). Here Aaron Mate
interviews him leaving him totally uncomfortable by the end.
It's all so dumb and fraudulent . Not worthy of anyone's attention who may possess a few
brain cells. Those who serve up this shit in the name of journalism should be sent back to
primary school for some basic education . Really, we have had enough of this crap from
American morons ever since the Cold War era and here we have the same corrupt media parroting
exactly the same dross about those evil Russians . This scum need a history lesson for had it
not been for Russia's sacrifice and bravery in WW2 these cretins would not be sitting on
their arses writing this dross. This ongoing malevolent campaign against Russia is extremely
disturbing and has all the hallmarks of a psychopathic mindset and all coming from a nation
whose main "industry" is the production of weaponry and who is responsible for the deaths of
between 20 to 30 million people, directly and indirectly since the end of WW2.
Eyes Open , Jul 16, 2020 10:35 PM
It's so obvious the media are pulling a 'dog in a manger' psyop on us. Ie. 'oh no! I never
wanted the vaccine in the first place, but the Russians want to steal ours, so all of a
sudden I want my vaccine' etc.
Most likely Gate's vaccines will cause harm to some, so take them all I say. (My
condolences to the Russians.)
This video – from the horse's mouth. Notice the duping delight:
"Russian vaccine hack"
So the CORPORATE FASCISTS are saying that the Russian Federation got its vaccine against the
CORPORATE FASCIST MASS HYSTERIA FEAR PANIC FRENZY PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN by hacking? This is not
going to end well for the OLIGARCH MOBSTER PSYCHOPATHS.
John Ervin , Jul 16, 2020 11:35 PM Reply to
S Cooper
"For The Record" (spitfirelist.com) began reporting 4 or 5 years ago that all the
Russiagate baloney, hacks of Hillary et al., was a CIA inside job ~ and related matters like
it, long before that ~ referring listeners to much evidence that CIA cyber-technology had
long been working on black op devices that could hack while leaving "Russian" or "CCP"
digital fingerprints, etc., all the one-trick pony of ceaseless false-flaggery that our Intel
has been using for years, for nearly everything. And that stuff isn't really new.
Oliver Stone interviewed Putin for 4 hrs a couple years ago, carried by cable here, and
asked him point blank, "Did your agencies hack the DP?" Or words to that effect.
And he answered merely, "That was an internal affair of yours."
Of course, VP is a high spymaster himself, it would seem one of the best, ever, and no
stranger to purposeful misdirection certainly, but by the same token of his eminence in that
global realm, he is well supported by the evidence.
Especially, "If past is prologue " and all of its preponderance? Endless .
S Cooper , Jul 17, 2020 12:40 AM Reply to
John Ervin
The aspect which most concerns me is the no holds barred publicly funded sales and
marketing campaign that Psychopath Billy and BIG PHARMA are mounting to find dupes and Guinea
Pigs for their toxic patent medicine snake oil brew. It is going to hurt a lot of people.
"The hack" bull shit fairy tale store is just one of the means employed by those criminal
psychopaths.
John Ervin , Jul 17, 2020 2:16 AM Reply to
S Cooper
Yes indeed, there are many such signs, all of them bad. I don't know why I feel pleased
when I get confirmations of all the worst suspicions, if it only confirms my antennae are
still functioning, whilst being shamed by the brainwashed and the same old headlines . It
should take a lot more or better to please the sensibilities.
I guess it's the sense of vindication, that one can't help but thrill when that terrible
thirst for some reality is slaked.
Or that you have cause to be thankful. Faith tells you this won't last forever, and it's a
real gift that you weren't fooled.
But it can still feel like "cold comfort" when "almost" everyone you see or know, is.
Too many take the bit too nicely. What good does that do?
It shows up a pale country, too dead, as living only in the flesh, really, too numb in the
spirit, not vigilant.
About to be rolled!
voxpox , Jul 16, 2020 9:25 PM
I like this article, it says it all. I have also long harbored a theory that the US
intelligence are behind most of the worlds financial cyber-crime, systematically fleecing the
world to fund their many many operations around the world. They have the tech with Windows
back-doors, the motivation to hide 'off the book' operations and a proven lack of morals as
demonstrated during the Iran–Contra affair, many years ago. but what do I know. As Bill
Maher says, 'I can't prove it but I know it's true'.
John Ervin , Jul 16, 2020 11:59 PM Reply to
voxpox
The USA foreign policy shows a penchant for amoral deceptiveness of ALL other countries,
even best allies, chronically.
So that gives heft to Bill Maher's maxim.
Perennial treaty busters and oath breakers, why would anyone trust?
Fool me once etc.
That's at the core of my take on all USA has said about C-19(84). Been there, done that,
with 100 other false flags, always the same tune.
The boy who cried wolf: Uncle Scam.
Always proven false after all the marbles are stolen. Or at some point down the road. If
not, it shall be, like the JFK fiasco. Like the lone holdout among nations on the Napalm Ban,
or sole rogue to drop an A bomb (75th Anniversary of that cowardly Holocaust coming up in a
few weeks.)
Lone, lone, lone.
A sad little homeboy in the Land of the Lone Gunman. So many, though. Too many, for the
world's good .
~~~~~~~~~£4£&$4$
Don't take it from me, though, I'm a total patriot, really, compared to Mr. Gonzo, Hunter
S. Thompson:
"America just a nation of 200 million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy
guns and no qualms at all about using them on anybody else in the world who tries to make us
uncomfortable."
Hunter always said it like it is, at least at yhr time he saw it, he rode with the Hell's
Angels and wrote the 1st book about them, and wasn't much shy about calling a spade a
spade.
And. Like my own old man: another highly assisted apparent suicide.
I like this article, it says it all. I have also long harbored a theory that the US
intelligence are behind most of the worlds financial cyber-crime, systematically fleecing the
world to fund their many many operations around the world. They have the tech with Windows
back-doors, the motivation to hide 'off the book' operations and a proven lack of morals as
demonstrated during the Iran–Contra affair, many years ago. but what do I know. As Bill
Maher says, 'I can't prove it but I know it's true'.
John Ervin , Jul 16, 2020 11:59 PM Reply to
voxpox
The USA foreign policy shows a penchant for amoral deceptiveness of ALL other countries,
even best allies, chronically.
So that gives heft to Bill Maher's maxim. Perennial treaty busters and oath breakers, why would anyone trust? Fool me once etc.
That's at the core of my take on all USA has said about C-19(84). Been there, done that,
with 100 other false flags, always the same tune.
The boy who cried wolf: Uncle Scam. Always proven false after all the marbles are stolen. Or at some point down the road. If
not, it shall be, like the JFK fiasco. Like the lone holdout among nations on the Napalm Ban,
or sole rogue to drop an A bomb (75th Anniversary of that cowardly Holocaust coming up in a
few weeks.)
Lone, lone, lone. A sad little homeboy in the Land of the Lone Gunman. So many, though. Too many, for the
world's good .
~~~~~~~~~
Don't take it from me, though, I'm a total patriot, really, compared to Mr. Gonzo, Hunter
S. Thompson:
"America just a nation of 200 million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy
guns and no qualms at all about using them on anybody else in the world who tries to make us
uncomfortable."
Hunter always said it like it is, at least at yhr time he saw it, he rode with the Hell's
Angels and wrote the 1st book about them, and wasn't much shy about calling a spade a
spade.
And. Like my own old man: another highly assisted apparent suicide.
A guard pushed me into a corridor with a small metal staircase and we started
descending. From there, I could hear the dreadful sounds of people pounding on metal,
shouting in anguish – all sorts of inhuman moaning and howling.
"Shut up, all of you!" barked the officer into the semi-darkness of that metal
hell.
We walked down the corridor surrounded by cells beyond count, men and women were
clinging to the metal netting of the doors. They were begging for water, toilet paper –
or at least for someone to tell them what time it was. Male prisoners were raising hell after
they noticed me, which put an amused grin on the face of my guard.
He threw me into a cell next to one with a man. The wall between us had no windows so I
couldn't see my 'neighbor', but he certainly liked to tune in to any sound I made. He got so
stimulated hearing me moving around next door and choking on my tears that he pleasured
himself loudly all night long – and I had to listen.
Eric Weinstein, managing director of Thiel Capital and hsot of The Portal podcast, has
gone scorched earth on the New York Times following the Tuesday resignation of journalist
Bari Weiss.
Weinstein describes how The Times has morphed into an activist rag - refusing to cover
"news" unpaletable to their narrative, while ignoring key questions such as whether Jeffrey
Epstein's sex-trafficking ring was "intelligence related."
Jump into Weinstein's Twitter thread by clicking on the below tweet, or scroll down for your
convenience.
At that moment Bari Weiss became all that was left of the "Paper of Record." Why? Because the
existence of Black Racists with the power to hunt professors with Baseball Bats and even
redefine the word 'racism' to make their story impossible to cover ran totally
counter-narrative.
At some point after 2011, the NYT gradually stopped covering the News and became the News
instead. And Bari has been fighting internally from the opinion section to re-establish
Journalism inside tbe the NYT. A total reversal of the Chinese Wall that separates news from
opinion.
This is the paper in 2016 that couldnt be interested in the story that millions of Americans
were likely lying to pollsters about Donald Trump.
The paper refusing to ask the CIA/FBI if Epstein was Intelligence related.
The paper that can't report that it seeks race rioting:
I have had the honor of trying to support both @bariweiss at the New York Times and
@BretWeinstein in their battles simply to stand alone against the internal mob mentality. It is
THE story all over the country. Our courageous individuals are being hunted at work for
dissenting.
Before Bari resigned, I did a podcast with her. It was chilling. I'd make an innocuous
statement of simple fact and ask her about it. She'd reply " That is obviously true but I'm
sorry we can't say that here. It will get me strung up ." That's when I stopped telling her to
hang on.
So what just happened? Let me put it bluntly: What was left of the New York Times just
resigned from the New York Times. The Times canceled itself. As a separate Hong Kong exists in
name only, the New New York Times and affiliated "news" is now the chief threat to our
democracy.
This is the moment when the passengers who have been becoming increasingly alarmed, start to
entertain a new idea: what if the people now in the cockpit are not airline pilots? Well the
Twitter Activists at the @nytimes and elsewhere are not journalists.
What if those calling for empathy have a specific deadness of empathy?
Those calling for justice *are* the unjust?
Those calling "Privilege" are the privileged?
Those calling for equality seek to oppress us?
Those anti-racists are open racists?
The progressives seek regress?
The journalists are covering up the news?
Try the following exercise: put a minus sign in front of nearly every banner claim made by
"the progressives".
Q: Doesn't that make more sense?
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Those aren't the pilots you imagine. And we are far closer to revolution than you think.
Bari and I agree on a lot but also disagree fiercely. And so I have learned that she is
tougher than tough. But these university and journalistic workplaces are now unworkable. They
are the antithesis off what they were built to stand for. It is astounding how long she held
out.
Read her letter. I have asked her to do a make-up podcast & she has agreed. Stay tuned
If you don't want to be surprised again by what's coming understand this: just as there has
been no functioning president, there's now no journalism. We're moving towards a 🌎 of
pure activism.
Prepare to lose your ability to call the police & for more autonomous zones where kids
die so that Govenors & Mayors can LARP as Kayfabe revolutionaries . Disagree with Ms Weiss
all you want as she isn't perfect. But Bari is a true patriot who tried to stand alone. Glad
she's out.
We are not finished by a long shot. What the Intellectual Dark Web tried to do MUST now be
given an institutional home.
Podcast with Bari on The Portal to come as soon as she is ready.
Stay tuned. And thanks for reading this. It is of the utmost importance.
Thank you all. 🙏
P.S. Please retweet the lead tweet from this thread if you understand where we are.
Appreciated.
The willingness of the press to circulate any account that puts Russia in a bad light has not diminished with the collapse of
the Russia-Trump collusion narrative.
hroughout the Trump years, various reporters have presented
to great fanfare one dubious, thinly sourced story after another about Moscow's supposedly nefarious plots against the United
States. The unsupported allegations about an illegal collusion between Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and the Russian government
spawned a host of subsidiary charges that
proved
to be bogus
. Yet, prominent news outlets, including the
New York Times
, the
Washington Pos
t, CNN, and
MSNBC ran stories featuring such shaky accusations as if they were gospel.
The willingness of the press to circulate any account that
puts
Russia
in
a bad light has not diminished with the collapse of the Russia-Trump collusion narrative. The latest incident began when the
New
York Times
published a front-page article on June 28, based on an anonymous source within the intelligence community,
that Moscow had
put
a bounty
on the lives of American soldiers stationed in Afghanistan. The predictable, furious reaction throughout the
media and the general public followed. When the White House insisted that the intelligence agencies had never informed either
the president or vice president of such reports, most press reactions were scornful.
As with so many other inflammatory news accounts dealing
with
Russia
,
serious doubts about the accuracy of this one developed almost immediately. Just days later, an unnamed intelligence official
told CBS reporter Catherine Herridge that the information about the alleged bounties
was
uncorroborated
. The source also revealed to Herridge that the National Security Agency (NSA) concluded that the
intelligence collection report "does not match well-established and verifiable Taliban and Haqqani practices" and lacked
"sufficient reporting to corroborate any links." The report had reached "low levels" at the National Security Council, but it
did not travel farther up the chain of command. The Pentagon, which apparently had
originated
the bounty allegations
and tried to sell the intelligence agencies on the theory, soon retreated and issued
its
own statement
about the "unconfirmed" nature of the information.
There was a growing sense of déjà vu, as though the episode
was the second coming of the infamous, uncorroborated Steele dossier that caused the Obama administration to launch its 2016
collusion investigation. A number of conservative and antiwar outlets highlighted the multiplying doubts. They had somewhat
contrasting motives for doing so. Most conservative critics believed that it was yet another attempt by a hostile media to
discredit President Trump for partisan reasons. Antiwar types suspected that it was an attempt by both the Pentagon and the
top echelons of some intelligence agencies to use the media to generate more animosity toward
Russia
and
thwart the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, a process that was still in its early stages following Washington's
February 29, 2020, peace accord with the Taliban.
The bounty stories certainly had that effect.
Congressional hawks in both parties immediately
called
for a delay
in further withdrawals while the allegations were investigated. They also made yet more "Trump is Putin's
puppet" assertions. Nancy Pelosi
could
not resist
hurling another smear with that theme. "With him, all roads lead to Putin," Pelosi said. "I don't know what the
Russians have on the president, politically, personally, or financially."
Despite the growing cloud of uncertainty about the source
or accuracy of the bounty allegation, several high-profile journalists treated it as though it was incontrovertible. A
typically blatant, hostile spin was evident in a
New York Times
article
by
Michael Crowley and Eric Schmitt. The principal "evidence" that they cited for the intelligence report was the earlier story
in their own newspaper. An admission that there were divisions within the intelligence agencies about the report, the authors
buried far down in their article.
High-level intelligence personnel giving the president
verbal briefings did not deem the bounty report sufficiently credible, much less alarming, to bring it to his attention.
Former intelligence official Ray McGovern reached a
blunt
conclusion
: "As a preparer and briefer of The President's Daily Brief to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush,
I can attest to the fact that -- based on what has been revealed so far -- the Russian bounty story falls far short of the PDB
threshold."
Barbara Boland, a national security correspondent for the
American
Conservative
and a veteran journalist on intelligence issues, cited some "glaring problems" with the bounty charges. One
was that the Times' anonymous source stated that the assessment was based "on interrogations of captured Afghan militants and
criminals." Boland noted that John Kiriakou, a former analyst and case officer for the CIA who led the team that
captured senior al-Qaeda figure Abu Zubaydah in 2002, termed reliance on coercive interrogations "a red flag." Kiriakou
added, "When you capture a prisoner, and you're interrogating him, the prisoner is going to tell you what he thinks you want
to hear." Boland reminded readers that under interrogation Khalid Sheik Mohammed made at least 31 confessions, "many of which
were completely false."
A second problem Boland saw with the bounty story was
identifying a rational purpose for such
a
Russian initiative
since it was apparent to everyone that Trump was intent on pulling U.S. troops out. Moreover, she
emphasized, only eight U.S. military personnel were killed during the first six months of 2020, and the
New York Times
story
could not verify that even one fatality resulted from a bounty. If the program existed at all, then it was extraordinarily
ineffective.
Nevertheless, most media accounts breathlessly repeated the
charges as if they were proven. In the
New York Times
, David Sanger and Eric Schmitt
asserted
that,
given the latest incident, "it doesn't require a top-secret clearance and access to the government's most classified
information to see that the list of Russian aggressions in recent weeks rivals some of the worst days of the Cold War." Ray
McGovern responded to the Sanger-Schmitt article by impolitely reminding his readers about
Sanger's
dreadful record
during the lead-up to the Iraq War of uncritically repeating unverified leaks from intelligence sources
and hyping the danger of Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction.
Another prominent journalist who doubled down on the bounty
allegations was the
Washington Post's
Aaron
Blake
. The headline of his July 1 article read "The only people dismissing the Russia bounties intel: the Taliban, Russia
and Trump." Apparently, the NSA's willingness to go public with its doubts, as well as negative assessments of the allegations
by several veteran former intelligence officials, did not seem to matter to Blake. As evidence of how "serious" the situation
was (despite a perfunctory nod that the intelligence had not yet been confirmed), Blake quoted several of the usual hawks from
the president's own party.
As time passed, outnumbered media skeptics of the bounties
story nevertheless lobbed increasingly vigorous criticisms of the allegations. Their case for skepticism was warranted. It
became clear that even the CIA and other agencies that embraced the charges of bounties ascribed only "medium confidence" to
their conclusions. According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)
, there are three levels of
confidence, "high," "moderate," and "low." A "moderate" confidence level means "that the information is credibly sourced and
plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence." The NSA (and
apparently the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and possibly other portions of the intelligence community) gave the reports
the "low" confidence designation,
meaning
that
"the information's credibility and/or plausibility is questionable, or that the information is too fragmented or poorly
corroborated to make solid analytic inferences, or that [there are] significant concerns or problems with the sources."
Antiwar journalist Caitlin Johnstone offered an especially
brutal
indictment
of the media's performance regarding the latest installment of the "Russia is America's mortal enemy" saga.
"All parties involved in spreading this malignant psyop are absolutely vile," she wrote, "but a special disdain should be
reserved for the media class who have been entrusted by the public with the essential task of creating an informed populace
and holding power to account. How much of an unprincipled whore do you have to be to call yourself a journalist and
uncritically parrot the completely unsubstantiated assertions of spooks while protecting their anonymity?"
The media should not have ignored or blithely dismissed the
bounty allegation, but far too many members ran enthusiastically with a story based on extremely thin evidence, questionable
sourcing, and equally questionable logic. Once again, they seemed to believe the worst about Russia's behavior and Trump's
reaction to it because they had long ago mentally programmed themselves to believe such horror stories without doubt or
reservation. The
assessment
by
Alan MacLeod of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) is devastatingly accurate. With regard to the bounty story, he
concluded, "evidence-free claims from nameless spies became fact" in most media accounts. Instead of sober, restrained
inquiries from a skeptical, probing press, readers and viewers were treated to yet another installment of over-the-top
anti-Russia diatribes. That treatment had the effect, whether intended or unintended, of promoting even more hawkish policies
toward Moscow and undermining the already much-delayed withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. It was a biased,
unprofessional performance that should do nothing to restore the public's confidence in the media's already tattered
credibility.
Criticisms of "cancel culture" often is hypocrtical, as was the case with Weiss, and are connected with prioritizing speech that
shores up the status quo -- necon dominance in the US MSM.
An open letter published by Harper's magazine,
and signed by 150 prominent writers and public figures, has focused attention on the apparent dangers of what has been termed a new
"cancel culture".
The letter brings together an unlikely alliance of genuine leftists, such as Noam Chomsky and Matt Karp, centrists such as J K
Rowling and Ian Buruma, and neoconservatives such as David Frum and Bari Weiss, all speaking out in defence of free speech.
Although the letter doesn't explicitly use the term "cancel culture", it is clearly what is meant in the complaint about a "stifling"
cultural climate that is imposing "ideological conformity" and weakening "norms of open debate and toleration of differences".
It is easy to agree with the letter's generalized argument for tolerance and free and fair debate. But the reality is that many
of those who signed are utter hypocrites, who have shown precisely zero commitment to free speech, either in their words or in their
deeds.
Further, the intent of many them in signing the letter is the very reverse of their professed goal: they want to stifle free speech,
not protect it.
To understand what is really going on with this letter, we first need to scrutinize the motives , rather than the substance,
of the letter.
A new 'illiberalism'
"Cancel culture" started as the shaming, often on social media, of people who were seen to have said offensive things. But of
late, cancel culture has on occasion become more tangible, as the letter notes, with individuals fired or denied the chance to speak
at a public venue or to publish their work.
The letter denounces this supposedly new type of "illiberalism":
"We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls
for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought.
"Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred
from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; The result has been to steadily
narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion
among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient
zeal in agreement."
Tricky identity politics
The array of signatories is actually more troubling than reassuring. If we lived in a more just world, some of those signing –
like Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W Bush, and Anne-Marie Slaughter, a former US State Department official – would
be facing a reckoning before a Hague war crimes tribunal for their roles in promoting "interventions" in Iraq and Libya respectively,
not being held up as champions of free speech.
That is one clue that these various individuals have signed the letter for very different reasons.
Chomsky signed because he has been a lifelong and consistent defender of the right to free speech, even for those with appalling
opinions such as Holocaust denial.
Frum, who coined the term "axis of evil" that rationalised the invasion of Iraq, and Weiss, a New York Times columnist, signed
because they have found their lives getting tougher. True, it is easy for them to dominate platforms in the corporate media while
advocating for criminal wars abroad, and they have paid no career price when their analyses and predictions have turned out to be
so much dangerous hokum. But they are now feeling the backlash on university campuses and social media.
Meanwhile, centrists like Buruma and Rowling have discovered that it is getting ever harder to navigate the tricky terrain of
identity politics without tripping up. The reputational damage can have serious consequences.
Buruma famously lost his job as editor of the New York Review of Books two years ago after after he published and defended an
article that
violated
the new spirit of the #MeToo movement. And Rowling made the
mistake of thinking her followers would be as
fascinated by her traditional views on transgender issues as they are by her Harry Potter books.
'Fake news, Russian trolls'
But the fact that all of these writers and intellectuals agree that there is a price to be paid in the new, more culturally sensitive
climate does not mean that they are all equally interested in protecting the right to be controversial or outspoken.
Chomsky, importantly, is defending free speech for all , because he correctly understands that the powerful are only too
keen to find justifications to silence those who challenge their power. Elites protect free speech only in so far as it serves their
interests in dominating the public space.
If those on the progressive left do not defend the speech rights of everyone, even their political opponents, then any restrictions
will soon be turned against them. The establishment will always tolerate the hate speech of a Trump or a Bolsonaro over the justice
speech of a Sanders or a Corbyn.
By contrast, most of the rest of those who signed – the rightwingers and the centrists – are interested in free speech for
themselves and those like them . They care about protecting free speech only in so far as it allows them to continue dominating
the public space with their views – something they were only too used to until a few years ago, before social media started to level
the playing field a little.
The center and the right have been fighting back ever since with claims that anyone who seriously challenges the neoliberal status
quo at home and the neoconservative one abroad is promoting "fake news" or is a "Russian troll". This updating of the charge of being
"un-American" embodies cancel culture at its very worst.
Social media accountability
In other words, apart from in the case of a few progressives, the letter is simply special pleading – for a return to the status
quo. And for that reason, as we shall see, Chomsky might have been better advised not to have added his name, however much he agrees
with the letter's vague, ostensibly pro-free speech sentiments.
What is striking about a significant proportion of those who signed is their self-identification as ardent supporters of Israel.
And as Israel's critics know only too well, advocates for Israel have been at the forefront of the cancel culture – from long before
the term was even coined.
For decades, pro-Israel activists have sought to silence anyone seen to be seriously critiquing this small, highly militarized
state, sponsored by the colonial powers, that was implanted in a region rich with a natural resource, oil, needed to lubricate the
global economy, and at a terrible cost to its native, Palestinian population.
Nothing should encourage us to believe that zealous defenders of Israel among those signing the letter have now seen the error
of their ways. Their newfound concern for free speech is simply evidence that they have begun to suffer from the very same cancel
culture they have always promoted in relation to Israel.
They have lost control of the "cancel culture" because of two recent developments: a rapid growth in identity politics among liberals
and leftists, and a new popular demand for "accountability" spawned by the rise of social media.
Cancelling Israel's critics
In fact, despite their professions of concern, the evidence suggests that some of those signing the letter have been intensifying
their own contribution to cancel culture in relation to Israel, rather than contesting it.
That is hardly surprising. The need to counter criticism of Israel has grown more pressing as Israel has more obviously become
a pariah state. Israel has refused to countenance peace talks with the Palestinians and it has intensified its efforts to realize
long-harbored plans to annex swaths of the West Bank in violation of international law.
Rather than allow "robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters" on Israel, Israel's supporters have preferred the
tactics of those identified in the letter as enemies of free speech: "swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions
of speech and thought".
Just ask Jeremy Corbyn, the former leader of the Labour party who was reviled, along with his supporters, as an antisemite – one
of the worst smears imaginable – by several people on the Harper's list, including
Rowling and
Weiss . Such claims
were promoted even though his critics could produce no actual evidence of an antisemitism problem in the Labour party.
Similarly, think of the treatment of Palestinian solidarity activists who support a boycott of Israel (BDS), modeled on the one
that helped push South Africa's leaders into renouncing apartheid. BDS activists too have been smeared as antisemites – and Weiss
again has been a prime
offender .
The incidents highlighted in the Harper's letter in which individuals have supposedly been cancelled is trivial compared to the
cancelling of a major political party and of a movement that stands in solidarity with a people who have been oppressed for decades.
And yet how many of these free speech warriors have come forward to denounce the fact that leftists – including many Jewish anti-Zionists
– have been pilloried as antisemites to prevent them from engaging in debates about Israel's behavior and its abuses of Palestinian
rights?
How many of them have decried the imposition of a new definition of antisemitism, by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance,
that has been rapidly gaining ground in western countries?
That definition is designed to silence a large section of the left by prioritizing the safety of Israel from being criticized
before the safety of Jews from being vilified and attacked – something that even the lawyer who authored the definition has come
to
regret .
Why has none of this "cancel culture" provoked an open letter to Harper's from these champions of free speech?
Double-edge sword
The truth is that many of those who signed the letter are defending not free speech but their right to continue dominating the
public square – and their right to do so without being held accountable.
Bari Weiss, before she landed a job at the Wall Street Journal and then the New York Times, spent her student years trying to
get Muslim professors
fired from her university – cancelling them – because of their criticism of Israel. And she explicitly did so under the banner
of "academic freedom", claiming pro-Israel students felt intimidated in the classroom.
The New York Civil Liberties Union concluded that it was Weiss, not the professors, who was the real threat to academic freedom.
This was not some youthful indiscretion. In a book last year Weiss cited her efforts to rid Columbia university of these professors
as a formative experience on which she still draws.
Weiss and many of the others listed under the letter are angry that the rhetorical tools they used for so long to stifle the free
speech of others have now been turned against them. Those who lived for so long by the sword of identity politics – on Israel, for
example – are worried that their reputations may die by that very same sword – on issues of race, sex and gender.
Narcissistic concern
To understand how the cancel culture is central to the worldview of many of these writers and intellectuals, and how blind they
are to their own complicity in that culture, consider the case of Jonathan Freedland, a columnist with the supposedly liberal-left
British newspaper the Guardian. Although Freedland is not among those signing the letter, he is very much aligned with the centrists
among them and, of course, supported the letter in an article
published in the Guardian.
Freedland, we should note, led the "cancel culture" campaign against the Labour party referenced above. He was one of the key
figures in Britain's Jewish community who breathed life into the
antisemitism smears
against Corbyn and his supporters.
But note the brief clip below. In it, Freedland's voice can be heard cracking as he explains how he has been a victim of the cancel
culture himself: he confesses that he has suffered verbal and emotional abuse at the hands of Israel's most extreme apologists –
those who are even more unapologetically pro-Israel than he is.
He reports that he has been called a "kapo", the term for Jewish collaborators in the Nazi concentration camps, and a "sonderkommando",
the Jews who disposed of the bodies of fellow Jews killed in the gas chambers. He admits such abuse "burrows under your skin" and
"hurts tremendously".
And yet, despite the personal pain he has experienced of being unfairly accused, of being cancelled by a section of his own community,
Freedland has been at the forefront of the campaign to tar critics of Israel, including anti-Zionist Jews, as antisemites on the
flimsiest of evidence.
He is entirely oblivious to the ugly nature of the cancel culture – unless it applies to himself . His concern is purely
narcissistic. And so it is with the majority of those who signed the letter.
Conducting a monologue
The letter's main conceit is the pretence that "illiberalism" is a new phenomenon, that free speech is under threat, and that
the cancel culture only arrived at the moment it was given a name.
That is simply nonsense. Anyone over the age of 35 can easily remember a time when newspapers and websites did not have a talkback
section, when blogs were few in number and rarely read, and when there was no social media on which to challenge or hold to account
"the great and the good".
Writers and columnists like those who signed the letter were then able to conduct a monologue in which they revealed their opinions
to the rest of us as if they were Moses bringing down the tablets from the mountaintop.
In those days, no one noticed the cancel culture – or was allowed to remark on it. And that was because only those who held approved
opinions were ever given a media platform from which to present those opinions.
Before the digital revolution, if you dissented from the narrow consensus imposed by the billionaire owners of the corporate media,
all you could do was print your own primitive newsletter and send it by post to the handful of people who had heard of you.
That was the real cancel culture. And the proof is in the fact that many of those formerly obscure writers quickly found they
could amass tens of thousands of followers – with no help from the traditional corporate media – when they had access to blogs and
social media.
Silencing the left
Which brings us to the most troubling aspect of the open letter in Harper's. Under cover of calls for tolerance, given credibility
by Chomsky's name, a proportion of those signing actually want to restrict the free speech of one section of the population – the
part influenced by Chomsky.
They are not against the big cancel culture from which they have benefited for so long. They are against the small cancel culture
– the new more chaotic, and more democratic, media environment we currently enjoy – in which they are for the first time being held
to account for their views, on a range of issues including Israel.
Just as Weiss tried to get professors fired under the claim of academic freedom, many of these writers and public figures are
using the banner of free speech to discredit speech they don't like, speech that exposes the hollowness of their own positions.
Their criticisms of "cancel culture" are really about prioritizing "responsible" speech, defined as speech shared by centrists
and the right that shores up the status quo. They want a return to a time when the progressive left – those who seek to disrupt a
manufactured consensus, who challenge the presumed verities of neoliberal and neoconservative orthodoxy – had no real voice.
The new attacks on "cancel culture" echo the attacks on Bernie Sanders' supporters, who were framed as "Bernie Bros" – the evidence-free
allegation that he attracted a rabble of aggressive, women-hating men who tried to bully others into silence on social media.
Just as this claim was used to discredit Sanders' policies, so the center and the right now want to discredit the left more generally
by implying that, without curbs, they too will bully everyone else into silence and submission through their "cancel culture".
If this conclusion sounds unconvincing, consider that President Donald Trump could easily have added his name to the letter alongside
Chomsky's. Trump used his recent Independence Day
speech at Mount Rushmore to make similar points to the Harper's letter. He at least was explicit in equating "cancel culture"
with what he called "far-left fascism":
"One of [the left's] political weapons is 'Cancel Culture' – driving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters, and demanding
total submission from anyone who disagrees. This is the very definition of totalitarianism This attack on our liberty, our magnificent
liberty, must be stopped, and it will be stopped very quickly."
Trump, in all his vulgarity, makes plain what the Harper's letter, in all its cultural finery, obscures. That attacks on the new
"cancel culture" are simply another front – alongside supposed concerns about "fake news" and "Russian trolls" – in the establishment's
efforts to limit speech by the left.
Attention redirected
This is not to deny that there is fake news on social media or that there are trolls, some of them even Russian. Rather, it is
to point out that our attention is being redirected, and our concerns manipulated by a political agenda.
Despite the way it has been presented in the corporate media, fake news on social media has been mostly a problem of the right.
And the worst examples of fake news – and the most influential – are found not on social media at all, but on the front pages of
the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.
What genuinely fake news on Facebook has ever rivaled the lies justifying the invasion of Iraq in 2003 that were knowingly peddled
by a political elite and their stenographers in the corporate media. Those lies led directly to more than a million Iraqi deaths,
turned millions more into refugees, destroyed an entire country, and fuelled a new type of nihilistic Islamic extremism whose effects
we are still feeling.
Most of the worst lies from the current period – those that have obscured or justified US interference in Syria and Venezuela,
or rationalized war crimes against Iran, or approved the continuing imprisonment of Julian Assange for exposing war crimes – can
only be understood by turning our backs on the corporate media and looking to experts who can rarely find a platform outside of social
media.
I say this as someone who has concerns about the fashionable focus on identity politics rather than class politics. I say it also
as someone who rejects all forms of cancel culture – whether it is the old-style, "liberal" cancel culture that imposes on us a narrow
"consensus" politics (the Overton window), or the new "leftwing" cancel culture that too often prefers to focus on easy cultural
targets like Rowling than the structural corruption of western political systems.
But those who are impressed by the letter simply because Chomsky's name is attached should beware. Just as "fake news" has provided
the pretext for Google and social media platforms to change their algorithms to vanish left-wingers from searches and threads, just
as "antisemitism" has been redefined to demonize the left, so too the supposed threat of "cancel culture" will be exploited to silence
the left.
Protecting Bari Weiss and J K Rowling from a baying left-wing "mob" – a mob that that claims a right to challenge their views
on Israel or trans issues – will become the new rallying cry from the establishment for action against "irresponsible" or
"intimidating" speech.
Progressive leftists who join these calls out of irritation with the current focus on identity politics, or because they fear
being labelled an antisemite, or because they mistakenly assume that the issue really is about free speech, will quickly find that
they are the main targets.
In defending free speech, they will end up being the very ones who are silenced.
UPDATE:
You don't criticise Chomsky however tangentially and respectfully – at least not from a left perspective – without expecting a
whirlwind of opposition. But one issue that keeps being raised on my social media feeds in his defence is just plain wrong-headed,
so I want to quickly address it. Here's one my followers expressing the point succinctly:
"The sentiments in the letter stand or fall on their own merits, not on the characters or histories of some of the signatories,
nor their future plans."
The problem, as I'm sure Chomsky would explain in any other context, is that this letter fails not just because of the other people
who signed it but on its merit too . And that's because, as I explain above, it ignores the most oppressive and most established
forms of cancel culture, as Chomsky should have been the first to notice.
Highlighting the small cancel culture, while ignoring the much larger, establishment-backed cancel culture, distorts our understanding
of what is at stake and who wields power.
Chomsky unwittingly just helped a group of mostly establishment stooges skew our perceptions of free speech problems so that we
side with them against ourselves. There is no way that can be a good thing.
UPDATE 2:
There are still people holding out against the idea that it harmed the left to have Chomsky sign this letter. And rather than
address their points individually, let me try another way of explaining my argument:
Why has Chomsky not signed a letter backing the furore over "fake news", even though there is some fake news on social media?
Why has he not endorsed the "Bernie Bros" narrative, even though doubtless there are some bullying Sanders supporters on social media?
Why has he not supported the campaign claiming the Labour party has an antisemitism problem, even though there are some antisemites
in the Labour party (as there are everywhere)?
He hasn't joined any of those campaigns for a very obvious reason – because he understands how power works, and that on the left
you hit up, not down. You certainly don't cheerlead those who are up as they hit down.
Chomsky understands this principle only too well because here he is
setting it out in relation to Iran:
"Suppose I criticise Iran. What impact does that have? The only impact it has is in fortifying those who want to carry out policies
I don't agree with, like bombing."
For exactly the same reason he has not joined those pillorying Iran – because his support would be used for nefarious ends – he
shouldn't have joined this campaign. He made a mistake. He's fallible.
Also, this isn't about the left eating itself. Really, Chomsky shouldn't be the issue. The issue should be that a bunch
of centrists and right-wingers used this letter to try to reinforce a narrative designed to harm the left, and lay the groundwork
for further curbs on its access to social media. But because Chomsky signed the letter, many more leftists are now buying into that
narrative – a narrative intended to harm them. That's why Chomsky's role cannot be ignored, nor his mistake glossed over.
UPDATE 3:
I had not anticipated how many ways people on the left might find to justify this letter.
Here's the latest reasoning. Apparently, the letter sets an important benchmark that can in future be used to protect free speech
by the left when we are threatened with being "cancelled" – as, for example, with the antisemitism smears that were used against
anti-Zionist Jews and other critics of Israel in the British Labour party.
I should hardly need to point out how naive this argument is. It completely ignores how power works in our societies: who gets
to decide what words mean and how principles are applied. This letter won't help the left because "cancel culture" is being framed
– by this letter, by Trump, by the media – as a "loony left" problem. It is a new iteration of the "politically correct gone mad"
discourse, and it will be used in exactly the same way.
It won't help Steven Salaita, sacked from a university job because he criticised Israel's killing of civilians in Gaza, or Chris
Williamson, the Labour MP expelled because he defended the party's record on being anti-racist.
The "cancel culture" furore isn't interested in the fact that they were "cancelled". Worse still, this moral panic turns the whole
idea of cancelling on its head: it is Salaita and Williamson who are accused – and found guilty – of doing the cancelling, of cancelling
Israel and Jews.
Israel's supporters will continue to win this battle by claiming that criticism of Israel "cancels" that country ("wipes it off
the map"), "cancels" Israel's Jewish population ("drives them into the sea"), and "cancels" Jews more generally ("denies a central
component of modern Jewish identity").
Greater awareness of "cancel culture" would not have saved Corbyn from the antisemitism smears because the kind of cancel culture
that smeared Corbyn is never going to be defined as "cancelling".
For anyone who wishes to see how this works in practice, watch Guardian columnist Owen Jones cave in – as he has done so often
– to the power dynamics of the "cancel culture" discourse in this interview with Sky News. I actually agree with almost everything
Jones says in this clip, apart from his joining yet again in the witch-hunt against Labour's anti-Zionists. He doesn't see that witch-hunt
as "cancel culture", and neither will anyone else with a large platform like his to protect:
That scientific debate soon turned into a geopolitical one, however. EU farmers are
overwhelmingly dependent on North and West Africa for phosphate where, because of the natural
conditions, there is usually a cadmium level far higher than 20mg/kg. At the same time,
phosphate coming from Russia has far lower natural levels of the metal.
Southern European countries feared that switching phosphate supplies away from Africa
to Russia could severely undermine volatile North African economies and trigger social
problems
One of the countries that has strongly opposed the new labeling rules is Poland -- a
country that historically wants to avoid commercial dependence on Russia but also has its own
national fertilizer business and has invested in a Senegalese phosphate mine
####
Plenty more at the link.
We support the environment as long as it benefits our trade partners and is poitically
balanced in our favor.
This looks like the european industry is waving the 'Russia Bad' flag because it cannot
counter the technical aspects and more environmental policies coming out of the EU.
They are also arguing in favor of less transparency and less information for farmers which
is suspect because their fear is that low cadmium fertilizer (from Russia/wherever) may get
tax-breaks to promote its use.
Rather than figure out a way to adapt and help their partners, their first reaction is to
throw poo at the walls.
Good article, yes I remember 2016 and the power grid that was taken out by the Ukies. A
lot of generators were sold that summer /year. lol I see Putin and Russia – just
sitting /waiting it out – patiently as usual. Time is on their side and bad things are
happening fast in the domestic west.
Of course Russia is part of the NWO because they have to be. They sell oil, gaz and
natural resources internationally and have Corporations that have a big sayso in the
Government. I think Putin, a long time ago , decided to spare his people from the same fate
of the Western populace or at least , make it as comfortable, as can be expected – in
these times. It helps by not having the Ghettos, Gangs, Dysfunctional Melting Pot, POlice
state, and a slew of Wars to deal with -- for starters. Like the Saker said – Russian
problems are – all the BS directed at them from ther West .
Plenty of decent people have headed to five eyes thinking they would find a better life,
but we also take in the scum of the world that can be used against their own countries. These
generally rise to high places.
Imperial France seems of the same mindset and Chechen freedom fighters are now fighting for
their freedom in France. Yankistans freedom fighter Osama Bin Larden was just fighting for
freedom apparently. Like the AQ media wing 'White Helmets' that UK and Canada took in, not to
mention the nazi's that participated in the genocides in their own countries in WWII.
When peasants living conditions are constantly improving, there will be no revolt and no
civil war. Yankistan propaganda can't even come up with an opposition in China.
Angloshere propaganda mostly projects onto target countries what they themselves are
doing.
"It is unusual for countries to publicly talk about cyberwarfare tactics" Is not the USA
position itself to consider such an attack to be a declaration fo war?
President Trump confirmed in an interview with the Washington Post that the US launched a
cyberattack against infamous Russian troll farm the Internet Research Agency (IRA) during the
2018 midterms.
The Post reported the attack in February 2019, but this is the first time Trump has
confirmed it took place. It is unusual for countries to publicly talk about cyberwarfare
tactics.
The IRA was indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller in 2018 for conspiracy to interfere
with the 2016 presidential election. Russian influence campaigns were also
detected during the 2018 midterms .
President Trump has confirmed that the US launched a cyberattack on the Internet Research
Agency (IRA), an infamous Russian troll farm, during the 2018 midterm elections.
The Washington Post first reported on the attack, which blocked the IRA's internet access,
in February 2019. The administration did not comment on the report at the time, but Trump
confirmed the attack in an
interview with Post columnist Marc Thiessen published Friday.
Thiessen asked whether Trump had launched the attack, to which the president replied
"correct." This is the first time Trump or the White House has confirmed the attack, and it is
unusual for countries to publicly talk about cyberwarfare tactics.
According to The Post's 2019 report, US Cyber Command's attack started on the first day of
voting for the November 2018 midterm elections, and continued for a few days while votes were
tallied. "They basically took the IRA offline," one source familiar with the matter told The
Post.
"Look, we stopped it," Trump told Thiessen. The Internet Research Agency was indicted by
special counsel Robert Mueller in 2018 for conspiracy to interfere with the 2016 presidential
election. Russian influence campaigns were also
detected during the 2018 midterms .
Trump also claimed that Obama had remained silent on the issue of Russian disinformation
campaigns ahead of the 2016 election.
"[Obama] knew before the election that Russia was playing around. Or, he was told. Whether
or not it was so or not, who knows? And he said nothing. And the reason he said nothing was
that he didn't want to touch it because he thought [Hillary Clinton] was winning because he
read phony polls. So, he thought she was going to win. And we had the silent majority that
said, 'No, we like Trump,'" Trump said.
"... If Skripal is involved with all the Clinton stuff, then he would want an insurance policy for example on an USB drive that he could leave for someone to pick up, and leak if something foreshortened his life ..."
"The judge also concluded that Steele's notes of his first interaction with the FBI
about the dossier on July 5, 2016 made clear that his ultimate client for his research
project was Hillary Clinton's campaign as directed by her campaign law firm Perkins Coie. The
FBI did not disclose that information to the court."
Finally we are getting down to where the cheese binds. Hillary Clinton's campaign, with
Mrs. Clinton's knowledge, commissioned the Steele dossier to try to torpedo Trump's election
prospects. She never thought he could win, but the Dems wanted to make sure.
I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut Skripal was the source of the Russian 'intelligence', and
that he was bumped off afterward to make sure he stayed quiet.
The whole Russiagate scandal was just Democrat bullshit, and they kept up with it long
after they all knew they were lying. And Biden thinks he's going to get elected, after that
revelation? The Democrats deserve to be expelled from politics en masse. Leading with that
wretched prick Schiff.
It would seem likely that had the Klintonator won the 2016 Presidential election, Sergei
Skripal might have been left alone mouldering with his guinea pigs and cats in his Salsibury
home. Perhaps he had to take the fall for HRC's loss in the election, for whatever reason
(not shovelling enough shit into the dossier to bring down Trump perhaps); someone had to
take the blame and of course HRC will never admit responsibility for her own failure.
Well, you never know – Russians are kind of an endangered species in the UK. They
turn up dead whenever a public accusation of another Putin 'state hit' would be a useful
feature in the papers.
What I want to know is if the paths of the Skripals passed with those of the supposed
Russian assassins (which I assume to be possible decoys) or anyone else in space, but not
necessarily time. If Skripal is involved with all the Clinton stuff, then he would want
an insurance policy for example on an USB drive that he could leave for someone to pick up,
and leak if something foreshortened his life
It could well have been a simple dead-drop and when alerted by their phones being turned
off and batteries removed, the priority was to immobilize/incapacitate them. A bit tricky in
public, but not at all impossible by a near/passer by to their bench with an aerosol, say a
cyclist walking with his bike After all, they did also have the Chief nurse of the BA on hand
just in case it went wrong as things sometimes do. Which leads to the question, was it just
the Brits alone, together with the Americans, or watching the Americans and then cleaning up
their mess? 2 or more likely 3 seem most likely if we look at sheer brazeness.
That concludes my speculation for the day! Maybe I should be a journalist. I could be paid
for this!
Yes, you never know, but it's certainly hard to believe Occam was English. It seems pretty
clear the simplest explanation is "MI6 bumped him off and blamed it on Russia". When you are
trying to arrange a death which is bound to be suspicious, you want to do it in a way that
when it becomes public knowledge, the first people the public thinks of is not you. means,
motive and opportunity all strongly favour the English side. It seems to be be fairly common
knowledge that Skripal wanted to return to Russia; we have no way of knowing if he planned to
live there or just visit, more likely the latter. But Putin decides to send an assassination
team to England to rub him out. Instead of welcoming him home to Russia, where he could
prevent the British from investigating, and then killing him. Presumably in a much more
prosaic fashion – say, running him down with a car – rather than employing some
exotic poison or isotope which will scream 'Russia!!' How long would the British have been
investigating the Skripals' deaths (if they had died) had they been run down with a 7.5 ton
lorry which was subsequently found burned to a shell several counties away? Would the British
papers have been shrieking "Putin's Truck!!!" next morning? But no – Russian assassins
always have to 'send a message', which must inspire Britain to 'send a message' of its own by
punishing the entire country. Maybe it's just me, but flash-cooking Skripal in the High
Street with a flamethrower in broad daylight would send a message. And then say to the
police, "Keep your hands where I can see 'em, unless you want a couple of shashliks,
comrade", before speeding away in an Aurus Senat limousine. That would send a message,
too.
This is all about maintaining the US-centered global neoliberal empire. After empires is created the the USA became the
salve of imperial interests and in a way stopped existing as an independent country. Everything is thrown on the altar of "full
spectrum Dominance". The result is as close to a real political and economic disaster as we can get. Like USSR leadership the US
elite realized now that neoliberalism is not sustainable, but can't do anything as all bets were made for the final victory of
neoliberalism all over the world, much like Soviets hoped for the victory of communism. That did not happened and although the USA
now is in much better position then the USSR in 60th (but with the similar level of deterioration of cognitive abilities of the
politicians as the USSR). In this sense COVID-19 was a powerful catalyst of the crush of the US-centered neoliberal empire
Notable quotes:
"... On the other side are the targets of "inveterate antipathies." This also characterizes US Middle East policy. So hated are Iran and Syria that Washington, DC is making every effort to destroy their economies, ruin their people's livelihoods, wreck their hospitals, and starve their population. The respective governments are bad, to be sure, but do not threaten the US Yet, as the nation's first president explained to Americans, "Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy." ..."
"... Consider how close the US has come to foolish, unnecessary wars against both nations. There were manifold demands that the US enter the Syrian civil war, in which Americans have no stake. Short of combat the Obama administration indirectly aided the local affiliate of al-Qaeda, the terrorist group which staged 9/11 and supposedly was America's enemy. Moreover, there was constant pressure on America to attack Iran, targeted by the US since 1953, when the CIA helped replace Tehran's democracy with a brutal tyrant, whose rule was highlighted by corruption, torture, and a nuclear program – which then was taken over by Iran's Islamic revolutionaries, to America's horror. ..."
"... The US now is pushing toward a Cold War redux with Russia, after successive administrations treated Moscow as if it was of no account, lying about plans to expand NATO and acting in other ways that the US would never tolerate. Imagine the Soviet Union helping to overthrow an elected, pro-American government in Mexico City, seeking to redirect all commerce to Soviet allies in South America, and proposing that Mexico join the Warsaw Pact. US policymakers would be threatening war. ..."
"... In different ways many US policies illustrate the problem caused by "passionate attachments" – the almost routine and sometimes substantial sacrifice of US economic and security interests to benefit other governments. For instance, hysteria swept Washington at the president's recent proposal to simply reduce troop levels in Germany, which along with so many other European nations sees little reason to do much to defend itself. There are even those who demand American subservience to the Philippines, a semi-failed state of no significant security importance to the US Saudi Arabia is a rare case where the attachment is mostly cash and lobbyists. In most instances cultural, ethnic, religious, and historical ties provide a firmer foundation for foreign political influence and manipulation. ..."
Ben Rhodes, Barack Obama's deputy national security adviser, unkindly characterized the
foreign policy establishment in Washington, D.C., as "the Blob." Although policymakers
sometimes disagree on peripheral subjects, membership requires an absolute commitment to U.S.
"leadership," which means a determination to micro-manage the world.
Reliance on persuasion is not enough. Vital is the willingness to bomb, invade, and, if
necessary, occupy other nations to impose the Blob's dictates on other peoples. If foreigners
die, as they often do, remember the saying about eggs and omelets oft repeated by communism's
apologists. "Stuff happens" with the best-intentioned policies.
One might be inclined to forgive Blob members if their misguided activism actually benefited
the American people. However, all too often the Blob's policies instead aid other governments
and interests. Washington is overrun by the representatives of and lobbyists for other nations,
which constantly seek to take control of US policy for their own advantage. The result are
foreign interventions in which Americans do the paying and, all too often, the dying for
others.
The problem is primarily one of power. Other governments don't spend a lot of time
attempting to take over Montenegro's foreign policy because, well, who cares? Exactly what
would you do after taking over Fiji's foreign ministry other than enjoy a permanent vacation?
Seize control of international relations in Barbados and you might gain a great tax
shelter.
Subvert American democracy and manipulate US foreign policy, and you can loot America's
treasury, turn the US military into your personal bodyguard, and gain Washington's support for
reckless war-mongering. And given the natural inclination of key American policymakers to
intervene promiscuously abroad for the most frivolous reasons, it's surprisingly easy for
foreign interests to convince Uncle Sam that their causes are somehow "vital" and therefore
require America's attention. Indeed, it is usually easier to persuade Americans than foreign
peoples in their home countries to back one or another international misadventure.
The culprits are not just autocratic regimes. Friendly democratic governments are equally
ready to conspiratorially whisper in Uncle Sam's ear. Even nominally classical liberal
officials, who believe in limiting their own governments, argue that Americans are obligated to
sacrifice wealth and life for everyone else. The mantra seems to be liberty, prosperity, and
peace for all – except those living in the superpower tasked by heaven with protecting
everyone else's liberty, prosperity, and peace.
Although the problem has burgeoned in modern times, it is not new. Two centuries ago fans of
Greek independence wanted Americans to challenge the Ottoman Empire, a fantastic bit of
foolishness. Exactly how to effect an international Balkans rescue was not clear, since the
president then commanded no aircraft carriers, air wings, or nuclear-tipped missiles. Still,
the issue divided Americans and influenced John Quincy Adams' famous 1821 Independence Day
address.
Warned Adams:
"Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there
will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of
monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the
champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance
of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting
under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would
involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of
individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of
freedom."
"The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force . She
might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit .
[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a
spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has
been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of
mankind would permit, her practice."
Powerful words, yet Adams was merely following in the footsteps of another great American,
George Washington. Obviously, the latter was flawed as a person, general, and president.
Nevertheless, his willingness to set a critical precedent by walking away from power left an
extraordinary legacy. As did his insistence that the Constitution tasked Congress with deciding
when America would go to war. And his warning against turning US policy over to foreign
influences.
Concern over obsequious subservience to other governments and interests pervaded his famous
1796 Farewell Address. Applied today, his message indicts most of the policy currently made in
the city ironically named after him. He would be appalled by what presidents and Congresses
today do, supposedly for America.
Obviously, the US was very different 224 years ago. The new country was fragile, sharing the
Western hemisphere with its old colonial master, which still ruled Canada and much of the
Caribbean, as well as Spain and France. When later dragged into the maritime fringes of the
Napoleonic wars the US could huff and puff but do no more than inconvenience France and
Britain. The vastness of the American continent, not overweening national power, again
frustrated London when it sought to subjugate its former colonists.
Indeed, when George Washington spoke the disparate states were not yet firmly knit into a
nation. Only after the Civil War, when the national government waged four years of brutal
combat, which ravaged much of the country and killed upwards of 750,000 people in the name of
"union," did people uniformly say the United States "is" rather than "are." However, the
transformation was much more than rhetorical. The federal system that originally emerged in the
name of individual liberty spawned a high tax centralized government that employed one of the
world's largest militaries to kill on a mass scale to enforce the regime's dictates. The modern
American "republic" was born. It acted overseas only inconsistently until World War II, after
which imperial America was a constant, adding resonance to George Washington's message.
Today Washington, D.C.'s elites have almost uniformly decided that Russia is an enemy,
irrespective of American behavior that contributed to Moscow's hostility. And that Ukraine, a
country never important for American security, is a de facto military ally, appropriately armed
by the US for combat against a nuclear-armed rival. A reelection-minded president seems
determined to turn China into a new Cold War adversary, an enemy for all things perhaps for all
time. America remains ever entangled in the Middle East, with successive administrations in
permanent thrall of Israel and Saudi Arabia, allowing foreign leaders to set US Mideast policy.
Indeed, both states have avidly pressed the administration to make their enemy, Iran, America'
enemy. The resulting fixation caused the Trump administration to launch economic war against
the rest of the world to essentially prevent everyone on earth from having any commercial
dealing of any kind with anyone in Tehran.
Under Democrats and Republicans alike the federal government views nations that resist its
dictates as adversaries at best, appropriate targets of criticism, always, sanctions, often,
and even bombs and invasions, occasionally. No wonder foreign governments lobby hard to be
designated as allies, partners, and special relationships. Many of these ties have become
essentially permanent, unshakeable even when supposed friends act like enemies and supposed
enemies are incapable of hurting America. US foreign policy increasingly has been captured and
manipulated for the benefit of other governments and interests.
George Washington recognized the problem even in his day, after revolutionary France sought
to win America's support against Great Britain. He warned: "nothing is more essential than that
permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for
others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all
should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual
fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either
of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest."
Is there a better description of US foreign policy today? Even when a favored nation is
clearly, ostentatiously, murderously on the wrong side – consider Saudi Arabia's
unprovoked aggression against Yemen – many American policymakers refuse to allow a single
word of criticism to escape their lips. The US has indeed become "a slave," as George
Washington warned.
The consequences for the US and the world are highly negative. He observed that "likewise, a
passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the
favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no
real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the
former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement
or justification."
This is an almost perfect description of the current US approach. American colonists
revolted against what they believed had become ever more "foreign" control, yet the US backs
Israel's occupation and mistreatment of millions of Palestinians. American policymakers parade
the globe spouting the rhetoric of freedom yet subsidize Egypt as it imprisons tens of
thousands and oppresses millions of people. Washington decries Chinese aggressiveness, yet
provides planes, munitions, and intelligence to aid Riyadh in the slaughter of Yemeni civilians
and destruction of Yemeni homes, businesses, and hospitals. In such cases, policymakers have
betrayed America "into a participation in the quarrels and wars without adequate inducement or
justification."
On the other side are the targets of "inveterate antipathies." This also characterizes US
Middle East policy. So hated are Iran and Syria that Washington, DC is making every effort to
destroy their economies, ruin their people's livelihoods, wreck their hospitals, and starve
their population. The respective governments are bad, to be sure, but do not threaten the US
Yet, as the nation's first president explained to Americans, "Antipathy in one nation against
another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of
umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute
occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation,
prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the
best calculations of policy."
Consider how close the US has come to foolish, unnecessary wars against both nations. There
were manifold demands that the US enter the Syrian civil war, in which Americans have no stake.
Short of combat the Obama administration indirectly aided the local affiliate of al-Qaeda, the
terrorist group which staged 9/11 and supposedly was America's enemy. Moreover, there was
constant pressure on America to attack Iran, targeted by the US since 1953, when the CIA helped
replace Tehran's democracy with a brutal tyrant, whose rule was highlighted by corruption,
torture, and a nuclear program – which then was taken over by Iran's Islamic
revolutionaries, to America's horror.
Read George Washington and you would think he had gained a supernatural glimpse into today's
policy debates. He worried about the result when the national government "adopts through
passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation
subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and
pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the
victim."
What better describes US policy toward China and Russia? To be sure, these are nasty
regimes. Yet that has rarely bothered Uncle Sam's relations with other states. Saudi Arabia, a
corrupt and totalitarian theocracy, has been sheltered, protected, and reassured by the US even
after invading its poor neighbor. Among Washington's other best friends: Bahrain, Turkey,
Egypt, and United Arab Emirates, tyrannies all.
The US now is pushing toward a Cold War redux with Russia, after successive administrations
treated Moscow as if it was of no account, lying about plans to expand NATO and acting in other
ways that the US would never tolerate. Imagine the Soviet Union helping to overthrow an
elected, pro-American government in Mexico City, seeking to redirect all commerce to Soviet
allies in South America, and proposing that Mexico join the Warsaw Pact. US policymakers would
be threatening war.
Washington, DC also is treating China as a near-enemy, claiming the right to control China
along its own borders – essentially attempting to apply America's Monroe Doctrine to
Asia. This is something Americans would never allow another nation, especially China, to do to
the US Imagine the response if Beijing sent its navy up the East Coast, told the US how to
treat Cuba, and constantly talked of the possibility of war. America's consistently hostile,
aggressive policy is the result of "projects of pride, ambition, and other sinister and
pernicious motives."
This kind of foreign policy also corrupts the American political system. It encourages
officials and people to put foreign interests before that of America. As George Washington
observed, this mindset: "gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote
themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own
country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; guiding, with the appearances of a
virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal
for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation."
For instance, Woodrow Wilson and America's Anglophile establishment backed Great Britain
over the interests of the American people, dragging the US into World War I, a mindless
imperial slugfest that this nation should have avoided. After the Cold War's end Americans with
ties to Central and Eastern Europe pushed to expand NATO to their ancestral homes, which
created new defense obligations for America while inflaming Russian hostility. Ethnic Greeks
and Turks constantly battle over policy toward their ethnic homelands. Taiwan has developed
enduring ties with congressional Republicans, especially, ensuring US government support
against Beijing. Many evangelical Christians, especially those who hold a particularly bizarre
eschatology (basically, Jews must gather together in their national homeland to be slaughtered
before Jesus can return), back Israel in whatever it does to assist the apparently helpless God
of creation finish his job. The policies that result from such campaigns inevitably are shaped
to benefit foreign interests, not Americans.
Regarding the impact of such a system on the political system George Washington also was
prescient: "As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are
particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities
do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead
public opinion, to influence or awe the public council. Such an attachment of a small or weak
towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter."
In different ways many US policies illustrate the problem caused by "passionate attachments"
– the almost routine and sometimes substantial sacrifice of US economic and security
interests to benefit other governments. For instance, hysteria swept Washington at the
president's recent proposal to simply reduce troop levels in Germany, which along with so many
other European nations sees little reason to do much to defend itself. There are even those who
demand American subservience to the Philippines, a semi-failed state of no significant security
importance to the US Saudi Arabia is a rare case where the attachment is mostly cash and
lobbyists. In most instances cultural, ethnic, religious, and historical ties provide a firmer
foundation for foreign political influence and manipulation.
What to do about such a long-standing problem? George Washington was neither naïf nor
isolationist. He believed in what passed for globalism in those days: a commercial republic
should trade widely. He didn't oppose alliances, for limited purposes and durations. After all,
support from France was necessary for the colonies to win independence.
He proposed a practical policy tied to ongoing realities. The authorities should "steer
clear of permanent alliances," have with other states "as little political connection as
possible," and not "entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils" of other nations'
"ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice." Most important, the object of US foreign
policy was to serve the interests of the American people. In practice it was a matter of
prudence, to be adapted to circumstance and interest. He would not necessarily foreclose
defense of Israel, Saudi Arabia, or Germany, but would insist that such proposals reflect a
serious analysis of current realities and be decided based on what is best for Americans. He
would recognize that what might have been true a few decades ago likely isn't true today. In
reality, little of current US foreign policy would have survived his critical review.
George Washington was an eminently practical man who managed to speak through the ages.
America's recently disastrous experience of playing officious, obnoxious hegemon highlights his
good judgment. The US, he argued, should "observe good faith and justice towards all nations;
cultivate peace and harmony with all."
America may still formally be a republic, but its foreign policy long ago became imperial.
As John Quincy Adams warned, the US is "no longer the ruler of her own spirit." Americans have
learned at great cost that international affairs are too important to be left to the Blob and
foreign policy professionals, handed off to international relations scholars, or, worst of all,
subcontracted to other nations and their lobbyists. The American people should insist on their
nation's return to a true republican foreign policy.
Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute . A former Special Assistant to President Ronald
Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire .
Remember, Sir John Sawers is the former chief of MI6 and is in no way linked to the
UK government. He is a private individual. This is not Hybrid Warfare.
Which is good, because it allows Ed to earnestly parrot his talking points and add plenty
of filler in that well known balanced, independent and journalistically shining star of an
outlet, the Daily Fail.
The lesson I think we can take from this is that UK gov has finally been caught in its own
bitch 'n' slap China trap and also a victim of t-Rump's bash China campaign. Time has run out
on this strategy. It was more than happy to sign on to loud anti-China slogans, as long as it
didn't cost UK plc serious cash or future investme nt. The problem is that China has had
enough of mostly ignoring those slings and arrows for years.
The new so-called 'Wolf-warrior' China response that the west is publicly bemoaning as
'threatening' comes after so much sinophobia. Thus, UK gov has got the message much more
forcefully in the last few days and the opposition like 'ex' directors of British
intelligence and others are all hands to the wheel because they do not hold official power
and have no other way of influencing the government. 2020 really is a momentous year.
I didn't really have time to read it because I have to leave for work, but the headline
alone is enough to showcase classic Lucas behavior – enthusiastically cheer the
government 'taking a stand', and leaving the accountants to sort out the damage and try to
salvage something from the rubble. You know, it is a miracle Britain has survived as long as
it has with the eejits who are let to run it.
The headline
blares that it's a big "administration" conspiracy to play up doubts and play down proofs
of the bounties plot, but the text itself reveals that it's the National Intelligence Council
that did the new review and that even the CIA , the agency out in front on this story,
has only "medium" or "moderate" confidence on the reality of the plot. Meanwhile DoD and NSA
both still say they give it low confidence and cannot verify.
You gotta appreciate the desperate spin of the Times reporters and their editors
here:
"A memo produced in recent days by the office of the nation's top intelligence official
acknowledged that the C.I.A. and top counterterrorism officials have assessed that Russia
appears to have offered bounties to kill American and coalition troops in Afghanistan, but
emphasized uncertainties and gaps in evidence, according to three officials."
Oh how cynical of the National Intelligence Council to "emphasize" doubts instead of
running with wild unverified claims! Their anonymous sources assure us that the memo "was
intended to bolster the Trump administration's attempts to justify its inaction" over the
alleged Russian interference. But intelligence officials tell the New York Times
lots of things .
I buried the lead nearly as badly as they did, but here it is before they go meandering
off saying nothing and refusing to acknowledge the importance of the following admission:
"The memo said that the C.I.A. and the National Counterterrorism Center had assessed
with medium confidence -- meaning credibly sourced and plausible, but falling short of near
certainty -- that a unit of the Russian military intelligence service, known as the G.R.U.,
offered the bounties, according to two of the officials briefed on its contents.
"But other parts of the intelligence community -- including the National Security
Agency, which favors electronic surveillance intelligence -- said they did not have
information to support that conclusion at the same level, therefore expressing lower
confidence in the conclusion, according to the two officials. A third official familiar with
the memo did not describe the precise confidence levels, but also said the C.I.A.'s was
higher than other agencies."
So Charlie Savage
admits that his whole stupid
story is based on a medium -confidence conclusion of the CIA against the
views of the NSA
and DoD . I wonder if he noticed the same people gave the story to the Wall Street
Journal and Washington Post at the same time as an
obvious attempt to use their stenography in a plot to prevent Trump from considering an
"early" withdrawal from Afghanistan.
"'Afghan officials said prizes of as much as $100,000 per killed soldier were offered
for American and coalition targets,' the Times reported. And yet, when Rukmini Callimachi, a
member of the reporting team breaking the story, appeared on MSNBC to elaborate further, she
noted that 'the funds were being sent from Russia regardless of whether the Taliban followed
through with killing soldiers or not. There was no report back to the GRU about casualties.
The money continued to flow.'
"There is just one problem -- that's not how bounties work."
And they will keep on jerking that rusty old chain.
Again, probably not an urgent problem unless some existing Chinese aircraft in service are
on their last legs and urgently must be replaced. In which case they could go with Airbus if
the situation could not wait. China has options. Boeing does not.
The west loves to portray the Chinese as totally without ethics, and if you have a product
they can't make for themselves, they will buy it from you only until they have figured out
how to make it themselves, and then fuck you, Jack. I don't see any reason to believe the
Chinese value alliances less than the west does, or are any more incapable of grasping the
value of a give-and-take trade policy. The west – especially the United States –
favours establishing a monopoly on markets and then using your inability to get the product
anywhere else as leverage to force concessions you don't want to make; is that ethical? China
must surely see the advantages of a mutually-respectful relationship with Russia, considering
that country not only safeguards a significant length of its border from western probing, but
supplies most of its energy. There remain many unexplored avenues for technical, engineering
and technological cooperation. At the same time, Russia is not in a subordinate position
where it has to endure being taken advantage of.
Trade is hard work, and any partner will maneuver for advantage, because everyone in
commerce likes market share and money. But Washington has essentially forgotten how to
negotiate on mutually-respectful terms, and favours maneuvering its 'partners' into
relationships in which the USA has an overwhelmingly dominant position, and then announcing
it is 'leveling the playing field'. Which means putting its thumb on the scale.
After neocons in Washinton adopted Magnitsky act all bets for US-Russia cooperation are off.
And that in a long run will hurt the USA too.
Notable quotes:
"... Every time you "impose costs" on another country, you make more enemies and inspire more end-around plays which take you as an economic player out of that loop. And by and by what you do is of no great consequence, and your ability – your LEGAL ability, I should interject – to 'impose costs' is gone. ..."
Every time you "impose costs" on another country, you make more enemies and inspire
more end-around plays which take you as an economic player out of that loop. And by and by
what you do is of no great consequence, and your ability – your LEGAL ability, I should
interject – to 'impose costs' is gone. Sooner or later America's allies are going
to refuse to recognize its extraterritorial sanctions, which it has no legal right to impose;
it gets away with it by threatening costs in trade with the USA, which is a huge economy and
is something under its control. But that practice causes other countries to gradually
insulate themselves against exposure, and one day the cost of obeying will be greater than
the cost of saying "Go fuck yourself".
The New York Times goes a little further, stressing that the agreement would entail an
economic and military partnership: "It calls for joint training and exercises, joint research
and weapons development and intelligence sharing -- all to fight "the lopsided battle with
terrorism, drug and human trafficking and cross-border crimes." This would give Iran access
to some fairly high-tech systems, perhaps fighter aircraft and training and tech support, but
of that part of the package, I would rate intelligence sharing the highest. It would
potentially give Iran a heads-up on what the USA is planning in the region before it even is
briefed to Congress – Washington leaks like a sieve, and while it is often intentional,
it happens when it is not desired as well.
Washington's policy now consists of little more than frantically papering over cracks as
they appear; its ability to direct the world is gone and its ability to influence it is
deteriorating by the day as it becomes more and more intensely disliked, and everyone's
enemy. Perversely, this brings war closer as a possibility, as threats of it are no longer an
effective deterrent to partnerships and exchanges the USA does not like. More and more of
those threatened are taking the attitude of "Put up or shut up". Trade deals outside
Washington's influence increase those countries' insulation against US sanctions, and perhaps
it is beginning to dawn on the western banking cartel that it is in imminent danger of being
isolated itself, like a fleck of grit that irritates an oyster and finds itself encased in
nacre.
Beijing follows through on its promised retaliation for Washington's move to hold
individuals to account
Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio among those facing sanctions in latest tit-for-tat
move
####
More at the link.
What springs to mind is that Groucho Marx quote: "I refuse to join any club that would
have me as a member."
That the US sanctions China with an act named after a dodgy Russian book-keeper working
for a thief is all kinds of wrong, but as we all know, the ends justify the means. Hamsters
are happy.
Newt Gingrich has an informative article on FOX this weekend about the threat Trump has
posed to traditional Republican court hangers-on. He illustrates how this presidency has
destroyed the careers that many of these very wealthy and powerful members of the Deep State
saw as their dynastic inheritance. I point it out because Gingrich would know intimately how
those people feel.
Couple that with the clumsy approach Trump made to the china shop throughout his campaign,
is it any wonder that the FBI, a fundamentally stupid operation now and at all times in the
past, has been busting a gut? I came of age in the sixties and went to university at a center
of opposition to the Deep State that was then concerned with killing poor yellow peasants in
the rice fields of Southeast Asia. We all assumed they had us in dossiers they built and
studied carefully as they closed in on our coffee house discussions. Never happened.
Please keep in mind that these bureaucrats would never do anything that might krinkle the
crease in their trousers. Also bear in mind that the reports we read are written by English
Majors, probably affirmative action hires, in the lower bowels of unhealthy Washington office
buildings. The only people who read them are people who manage to pry them out of the sweaty
little fingers of desperately single women.
All of the Washington bureaucratic swamp is a manifestation of White Welfare, people hired
because they are related to somebody who wants to keep them from turning to prostitution.
I have to confess, I'm having a hard time getting past the headline. There's so much about it that screams of a policy flak who knows how to
present things as facts when they are anything but, and lead you into the piece already
believing that (a) Britain has been the victim of more than one attack by Russia, (b) that a
country supposedly friendless, without allies and with its economy reeling and staggering from
punishing sanctions still somehow has sufficient power to not only grip Europe, but to squeeze
it until it squeaks, and (c) Britain can do something about it.
REPORT THIS AD
Well, let's look; if Mr. Straw is totally unconcerned about potential embarrassment. there's
nothing holding us back, is there? As we have often done before, let's look at each of the
'attacks' Russia is supposed to have visited upon Britain. Ready? Litvinenko.
Litvinenko is
supposed to have ingested Polonium 210 – a uniquely Russian isotope, although the
United States buys enough Polonium from Russia nearly every month to have killed Litvinenko
about 8,000 times – which was slipped to him by two Russian agents in the Pine Bar in
London. Polonium traces were subsequently found all over London, including on documents
Litvinenko had touched, a Fax machine at fellow collaborator Boris Berzovsky's house, and in a
cab in which Litvinenko had ridden, which was so toxic thereafter that it had to be withdrawn
from service. The problem with that is that neither of Litvinenko's accused murderers was with
him in the cab, or touched the documents he handled but Litvinenko never touched Polonium with
his hands. He swallowed it, in tea, and once inside him it could not contaminate anything else
unless Litvinenko licked it, because Polonium – despite its toxicity – is a
low-alpha isotope which cannot penetrate skin. Litvinenko was, remarkably, covered from head to
toe in skin.
Litvinenko produced a passionately and eloquently-written deathbed accusation which tabbed
Vladimir Putin as his murderer, because he – Litvinenko – 'knew too much',
including Putin's secret pedophilia, evidence of which was the subject of KGB videotapes made
while Putin was a student, although the first personal video recorder (the Sony Betamax) was
not introduced until the year Putin graduated. Litvinenko himself could barely order a cup of
coffee in English, but that puzzle was solved when Alexander Goldfarb – a former nuclear
scientist in Russia and a close confidante of Boris Berezovsky – stepped up to say that
Litvinenko had 'dictated it to him'. Just as an interesting aside, Litvinenko had bragged to
his brother how he had lied to British authorities before in the case of a supposed murder
attempt against Boris Berezovsky by the Russian state, using a poisoned pen. This fake murder
plot was successfully used by Berzovsky to argue against deportation from Great Britain.
Anyway, we don't want to go on and on about Litvinenko – how believable is the British
tale of his assassination by the Russian state? Polonium traces all over London in places the
alleged assassins had never visited could not have been left by Litvinenko, because he never
touched Polonium with his hands, and it cannot penetrate skin. Polonium was not discovered in
his urine until after he was dead. We will never know if radiation poisoning made his hair fall
out, because his head was shaved by one of Berezovsky's dissident Chechen sidekicks. Berezovsky
himself also turned up dead in England, after losing a major legal case, having supposedly hung
himself with his tie inside a locked bathroom at his home. Coincidentally, Polonium as a murder
weapon led straight back to Russia (if we assume we did not know about the American purchases
of Polonium, which had the added cachet of bearing the telltale signature of having been made
in a Russian nuclear reactor), and would have been a breathtakingly stupid choice for a Russian
assassin. Still, they almost got away with it – British doctors were totally on the wrong
track, and the alleged assassins had already left the country, when an 'anonymous tipster'
(*cough* Goldfarb *cough*) suggested they check for Polonium 210.
The Skripals – yes, 'pon my word, old chap; what a nefarious example of Russian
ruthlessness. Probably ordered straight from the top, by Vladimir Putin himself – "Will
no one rid me of this troublesome has-been KGB agent who has been out of Russia since 2010:
would that I had snuffed him then, instead of trading him to the UK in a spy swap!" Yes, I
know, already stupid, but it gets so much more unbelievable . Once
again, a distinctively Russian murder weapon; Novichok, a nerve agent manufactured from
commercially-available fertilizers and organophosphates. The helpful BBC miniseries Mr. Straw
speaks of was an exercise in retconning – retroactive connectivity, an after-the-fact fix
which explains what was unexplainable in previous versions. For instance, the co-poisoning of
Detective Nick Bailey, so ill he was nigh unto death.
Originally the story was that he was contaminated because he was one of the first
responders, when the Skripals were jerking and drooling on a public bench near the restaurant
where they had just eaten, in Salisbury. But the first passer-by, who helpfully attended them, just happened
to be none other than the senior medical officer in the British Army, and she was in no way
affected although she wore no protection than perhaps rubber gloves. Nick Bailey also wore
gloves, because it was cold. The next version had him entering the Skripal home – where
he was contaminated – via the back door. But the assassins had unhelpfully smeared the
poison on the front doorknob. Shit! So, unable to bring the assassins and the Skripals and Nick
Bailey all together at the same doorknob within the same period of lethality, the story was
changed again. Bailey had actually nipped next door, borrowed the spare key – the
existence of which was completely unknown to anyone prior to the television broadcast –
from a neighbour, and entered by the front door, where he became contaminated. It was touch and
go there for awhile, but he went home 18 days later, none the worse for his brush with one of
the deadliest nerve agents known to man. A nerve agent which, incidentally, was not known to
the elimination of other possibilities to have killed anyone. Dawn Sturgess died later, in
Amesbury, after spraying pure Novichok on her wrists from a fake perfume bottle, we are told.
But Dawn Sturgess was a known drug addict, Novichok as an aerosol spray would have taken effect
within seconds but she was not stricken for hours, and the medium of infection was not
discovered until three days after her death, sitting conspicuously on Charles Rowley's kitchen
counter, although the house had already been searched. Perfectly intact and waiting to be
discovered, although Charles Rowley's brother reported that the bottle had broken in his
brother's hands as Sturgess handed it back to him, which was how he became contaminated.
Another insultingly full-of-bullshit story that would not survive press scrutiny for an hour if
it had been Russia reporting a poisoning by British agents in Russia.
Well, I spent a lot longer on that than I meant to; let's move on. Suffice it to say that
while there indeed is 'overwhelming evidence' in both cases as Mr. Straw avers, it argues
strongly that Britain made up both scenarios, and not very competently, while there is actually
zero evidence that Russia had anything to do with either except for the screaming 'made in
Russia' agents used, which Russian assassins would be beyond foolish to have chosen for that
very reason. Would it make sense for a British assassin in Moscow to bump off a former double
agent by caving in his skull with a King Dick claw
hammer , and then leave it at the scene? Do international test scores suggest an
otherworldly degree of reasoning ability on the part of Britons, while Russians are abysmally
stupid by comparison? Not that I have ever seen.
Straw claims an 'ever-present threat of Russia's efforts to destabilise the UK and European
Union.' Is there anything more destabilizing between the two than
Brexit ? Whose idea was that – Putin's?
Mr. Straw claims Russia's alleged belligerence results from insecurity, a feeling of
weakness and is a function of how many more times Russia's defense budget other countries and
alliances spend. How do you figure? The best fighter aircraft the USA can come up with, for
more than $80 Million
a copy , is the F-35. The F-35 was unable to
defeat previous-generation aircraft from its own armed forces. The Sukhoi S-35 costs less
than half as much, and while western sites which match the two grant all sorts of 'excitement points' to the
F-35 for its technology and Beyond-Visual-Range (BVR) performance, the SU-35 is more
maneuverable, has a higher rate of climb, more thrust, has double the speed, and while the
F-35's BVR performance is rated much better, its engagement range with its embarked missile is
only a bit better than half the SU-35's.
"However, despite high spending on its military, it is no match for the US, which spends
12 times as much, nor China, which spends four times its budget. Russia's population is
declining, and its GDP per head is just 50th in the world. It feels isolated, surrounded by
potentially hostile forces, and weak."
I was led to believe by some other online sites (the names of which I've now forgotten)
that Sergei Skripal's neighbour, from whom Detective Nick Bailey must have borrowed the
spare key 'coz who else could have held it, was none other than Pablo Miller. I'd have
thought the D-notice imposed on British media compelling them never to refer to him back in
March 2018 was still current. How would the BBC or those Guardian journos who wrote the
script for the recent TV series have avoided referring to him when the detective was trying
to locate a spare key? I admit I haven't seen the TV series yet and from what I've seen and
heard about it so far, it's not worth a look.
Thanks for the new post, Mark, and for making it as detailed and riveting as ever.
The D-Notice system (DSMA?) technically only requires voluntary compliance but
curiously all the British media consistently go along with it Ho! Ho! Ho!
..Any D-Notices or DA-notices are only advisory requests and are not legally
enforceable; hence, news editors can choose not to abide by them. However, they are
generally complied with by the media
Thanks, Jennifer; I didn't really have to do much – Moscow Exile was kind and
psychic enough to print out Straw's whole editorial, else I might have had to subscribe to
The Independent to even see it. *Shudder*. And Straw just opened his head and let the
bullshit flow – I only had to redirect the stream a little here and there.
I don't think Miller was the neighbour, I seem to remember a different name nope, that
was Ross Cassidy, who was cited by John Helmer as perhaps the only person Skripal trusted
enough to have left a key with him, but he didn't live next door. Pablo Miller does indeed
also live in Salisbury, but I have seen no mention of where,
Pablo Miller, Mark Urban and Hamish de Bretton-Gordon all served in the same tank
regiment in the British Army. I have seen one other source – can't remember where now
– that claimed Christopher Steele also served in the same regiment, but that's not
true – he was recruited straight out of Cambridge at graduation, by MI6, and worked
for them for 22 years. That's not to say there were not connections, though – Steele
was also Case Officer for Litvinenko, and was allegedly the first to assess that
Litvinenko's death was 'a Russian state hit'.
"Over a career that spanned more than 20 years, Steele performed a series of roles,
but always appeared to be drawn back to Russia; he was, sources say, head of MI6's Russia
desk. When the agency was plunged into panic over the poisoning of its agent Alexander
Litvinenko in 2006, the then chief, Sir John Scarlett, needed a trusted senior officer to
plot a way through the minefield ahead – so he turned to Steele. It was Steele,
sources say, who correctly and quickly realised that Litvinenko's death was a Russian state
"hit"."
You'll enjoy that piece by The Grauniad – it goes on and on about how first-rate
credible Steele was, and how the quality of his work is above reproach. His legendary
'dossier', obviously, has since fallen apart and been dismissed as fanciful
disinformation.
The spare key was found in the usual place: inside the cane rod of the little angling
garden gnome modelled on His Imperial Majesty Tsar Nicholas II, stood by that awkward
entrance to the back porch. No need for nosy neighbours. (I added this detail for inclusion
in Version 4 of The Skripals, due out in January 2021.)
May good ideas about the level of suppression of "free thought" in US universities.
But this Red Guard persecution are really bizarre and contradict all moral norms.
Notable quotes:
"... One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened "public" political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas. ..."
"... Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that's aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions. ..."
"... My understanding of how the mass media operates is based on extensive personal experiences, and those from countless left intellectuals I know. Many of us have struggled (and mostly failed) to break into "mainstream" discourse because of the limited space in corporate news devoted to marginalized perspectives. With this marginalization comes the near erasure of critical views, including those seeking to spotlight record (and rising) economic inequality, repressive institutions that reinforce racial, gender and transphobic systems of repression, the corporate ecocidal assault on the environment, the rise of unbridled corporate power and plutocracy, the rising authoritarianism in American politics, and the increasingly reactionary and fascistic rhetoric that has taken over the American right. ..."
"... Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a "professionalization" culture that depicts political engagement as "biased," "unprofessional," and "unacceptable." Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic "professional" norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there's been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged. ..."
"... The reactionary "professionalization" that's celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don't get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they've secured an academic job. ..."
"... I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses – the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world – in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research. ..."
"... There's little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it's difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn't dream of receiving in the first place. ..."
"... I won't shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. ..."
"... U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better. ..."
Harper's Magazine's July 7 th " Letter on Justice and Open
Debate " is making its rounds in popular political discourse, and takes aim at the "PC"
"cancel culture" we are told is being fueled by the most recent round of Black Lives Matter
protests. This cancel culture, we are warned, is quickly and perniciously taking over American
discourse, and will severely limit the free exploration of competing viewpoints.
The Harper's letter signatories run across the ideological spectrum, including prominent
conservatives such as David Brooks and J.K. Rowling, liberals such as Mark Lilla and Sean
Willentz, and progressives such as Noam Chomsky and Todd Gitlin. I have no doubt that the
supporters of the letter are well meaning in their support for free speech. And I have no
interest in singling out any one person or group of signatories for condemnation. Rather, I
think it's warranted to focus on the ways in which "free speech" is being weaponized in this
case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the
façade of a free exploration of ideas.
The ideas established in the Harper's letter sound just fine in principle, and when examined
in a vacuum. The supporters embrace norms of "open debate" and "toleration of differences," and
opposition to "dogma[s]," "coercion," and "intolerant climate[s]" that stifle open exploration
of competing views. The letter's supporters celebrate "the free exchange of information and
ideas," which they deem "the lifeblood of a liberal society," contrary to a rising "vogue for
public shaming and ostracism and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding
moral certainty." The letter elaborates :
"But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response
to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional
leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate
punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial
pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing
on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a
researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of
organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments
around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of
what can be said without the threat of reprisal."
Appealing to Americans' commitment to civic responsibility for open dialogue, the Harper's
letter warns, "restriction of debate" "invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone
less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument,
and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away."
One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the
severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise
of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened "public" political
discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of
the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls
flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse
under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic
elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas.
Numerous passages in the Harper's letter create the impression that U.S. political discourse
is characterized by a vibrant and open exploration of diverse and competing views. The letter
includes
:
A lament that the emerging "cancel culture" threatens to "weaken our norms of open
debate and toleration."
The claim that the "free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal
society, is daily becoming more constricted."
The assertion that American discourse is characterized by institutions that "uphold the
value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters."
The call "to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire
professional consequences."
All of these claims are romanticizations of American life. They obscure the reality that
progressive left and radical dissident views are routinely blacklisted from "mainstream"
political, economic, and social discourse by the media and by mainstream academic
institutions.
The "let's engage in a diversity of competing views" position sounds great until one
realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live
in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in
which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth,
to the benefit of all. But we don't really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture,
which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society,
views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that
are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that's
aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views
that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other
minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or
even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their
views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in
higher educational institutions.
I don't draw these conclusions lightly. My understanding of how the mass media operates is
based on extensive personal experiences, and those from countless left intellectuals I know.
Many of us have struggled (and mostly failed) to break into "mainstream" discourse because of
the limited space in corporate news devoted to marginalized perspectives. With this
marginalization comes the near erasure of critical views, including those seeking to spotlight
record (and rising) economic inequality, repressive institutions that reinforce racial, gender
and transphobic systems of repression, the corporate ecocidal assault on the environment, the
rise of unbridled corporate power and plutocracy, the rising authoritarianism in American
politics, and the increasingly reactionary and fascistic rhetoric that has taken over the
American right.
Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence
reveals the opposite. As I've
documented through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling
questions on Americans' political and economic values, there's virtually no empirical evidence
to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of
holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is
obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly
reactionary American university: there's very little commitment to progressive or leftist
values in the modern corporate collegiate "experience"-oriented schooling system.
Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as
public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a "professionalization"
culture that depicts political engagement as "biased," "unprofessional," and "unacceptable."
Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago
with the rise of corporatized academic "professional" norms. Scholars are now primarily
concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no
one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a
discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there's been
a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an
ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged.
The reactionary "professionalization" that's celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly
promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in
the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the
process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don't get with the program are
filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging
professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain
tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide
their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their
scholarship once they've secured an academic job.
In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there's no such thing as a fair hearing
for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own
research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses – the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world – in making space for openly leftist frameworks
of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I
do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any
of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of
research.
Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake
news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of
requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues
of our time. But this isn't at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in
terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world.
There's little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in
the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it's
difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians
like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week
who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars
couldn't dream of receiving in the first place.
I won't shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources
for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology
actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The
reality of the matter is that there's no First Amendment "free speech" right to be invited to
numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security
resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large
student protests that are mobilized against these campus events.
We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC "cancel culture" from the
right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries
have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within
the media and higher ed.
They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical
inquiry in the rhetoric of "free speech." But U.S. media and educational institutions have
never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who
question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and
open exchange of ideas, the better.
Anthony DiMaggio is Associate Professor of Political Science at Lehigh University. He earned
his PhD from the University of Illinois, Chicago, and is the author of 9 books, including most
recently: Political Power in
America (SUNY Press, 2019) and
Rebellion in America (Routledge, 2020). He can be reached at:
[email protected]
Thanks, Jennifer; I didn't really have to do much – Moscow Exile was kind and
psychic enough to print out Straw's whole editorial, else I might have had to subscribe to
The Independent to even see it. *Shudder*. And Straw just opened his head and let the
bullshit flow – I only had to redirect the stream a little here and there.
I don't think Miller was the neighbour, I seem to remember a different name nope, that was
Ross Cassidy, who was cited by John Helmer as perhaps the only person Skripal trusted enough
to have left a key with him, but he didn't live next door. Pablo Miller does indeed also live
in Salisbury, but I have seen no mention of where,
Pablo Miller, Mark Urban and Hamish de Bretton-Gordon all served in the same tank regiment
in the British Army. I have seen one other source – can't remember where now –
that claimed Christopher Steele also served in the same regiment, but that's not true –
he was recruited straight out of Cambridge at graduation, by MI6, and worked for them for 22
years. That's not to say there were not connections, though – Steele was also Case
Officer for Litvinenko, and was allegedly the first to assess that Litvinenko's death was 'a
Russian state hit'.
"Over a career that spanned more than 20 years, Steele performed a series of roles, but
always appeared to be drawn back to Russia; he was, sources say, head of MI6's Russia desk.
When the agency was plunged into panic over the poisoning of its agent Alexander Litvinenko
in 2006, the then chief, Sir John Scarlett, needed a trusted senior officer to plot a way
through the minefield ahead – so he turned to Steele. It was Steele, sources say, who
correctly and quickly realised that Litvinenko's death was a Russian state "hit"."
You'll enjoy that piece by The Grauniad – it goes on and on about how first-rate
credible Steele was, and how the quality of his work is above reproach. His legendary
'dossier', obviously, has since fallen apart and been dismissed as fanciful
disinformation.
Has there been another mutiny in Trump's White House, as Obama's former ambassador to Russia
piles on the nonsense about Trump being in Putin's pocket?
Special to Consortium News
C orporate media are binging on leaked Kool Aid not unlike the WMD concoction they offered
18 years ago to "justify" the U.S.-UK war of aggression on Iraq.
Now Michael McFaul, ambassador to Russia under President Obama, has been enlisted by The
Washington Post 's editorial page honcho, Fred Hiatt, to draw on his expertise (read,
incurable Russophobia) to help stick President Donald Trump back into "Putin's pocket." (This
has become increasingly urgent as the canard of "Russiagate" -- including the linchpin claim
that Russia hacked the DNC -- lies gasping for air.)
In an
oped on Thursday McFaul presented a long list of Vladimir Putin's alleged crimes, offering
a more ostensibly sophisticated version of amateur Russian specialist, Rep. Jason Crow's (D-CO)
claim that: "Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to figure
out how to destroy American democracy."
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry with McFaul meeting Vladimir Putin and Russian Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov in Moscow, Russia, on May 7, 2013. (State Department)
McFaul had -- well, let's call it an undistinguished career in Moscow. He arrived with a
huge chip on his shoulder and proceeded to alienate just about all his hosts, save for the
rabidly anti-Putin folks he openly and proudly cultivated. In a sense, McFaul became the
epitome of what Henry Wooton described as the role of ambassador -- "an honest man sent to lie
abroad for the good of his country." What should not be so readily accepted is an ambassador
who comes back home and just can't stop misleading.
Not to doubt McFaul's ulterior motives; one must assume him to be an "honest man" -- however
misguided, in my opinion. He seems to be a disciple of the James Clapper-Curtis LeMay-Joe
McCarthy School of Russian Analysis.
Clapper, a graduate summa cum laude , certainly had the Russians pegged! Clapper was
allowed to stay as Barack Obama's director of national intelligence for three and a half years
after perjuring himself in formal Senate testimony (on NSA's illegal eavesdropping). On May 28,
2017 Clapper told NBC's Chuck
Todd about "the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically
driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique."
As a finale, in full knowledge of Clapper's proclivities regarding Russia, Obama appointed
him to prepare the evidence-impoverished, misnomered "Intelligence Community Assessment"
claiming that Putin did all he could, including hacking the DNC, to help Trump get elected --
the most embarrassing such "intelligence assessment" I have seen in half a century .
Obama and the National Security State
I have asked myself if Obama also had earned some kind of degree from the
Clapper/LeMay/McCarthy School, or whether he simply lacked the courage to challenge the
pitiably self-serving "analysis" of the National Security State. Then I re-read "Obama Misses the Afghan
Exit-Ramp" of June 24, 2010 and was reminded of how deferential Obama was to the generals and
the intelligence gurus, and how unconscionable the generals were -- like their predecessors in
Vietnam -- in lying about always seeing light at the end of the proverbial tunnel.
Thankfully, now ten years later, this is all
documented in Craig Whitlock's, "The Afghanistan Papers: At War With the Truth." Corporate
media, who played an essential role in that "war with the truth", have not given Whitlock's
damning story the attention it should command (surprise, surprise!). In any case, it strains
credulity to think that Obama was unaware he was being lied to on Afghanistan.
Some Questions
Clark Gable (l.) with Charles Laughton (r.) in Mutiny on the Bounty, 1935.
Does no one see the irony today in the Democrats' bashing Trump on Afghanistan, with the
full support of the Establishment media? The inevitable defeat there is one of the few
demonstrable disasters not attributable directly to Trump, but you would not know that from the
media. Are the uncorroborated reports of Russian bounties to kill U.S. troops aimed at making
it appear that Trump, unable to stand up to Putin, let the Russians drive the rest of U.S.
troops out of Afghanistan?
Does the current flap bespeak some kind of "Mutiny on the Bounties," so to speak, by a
leaker aping Eric Chiaramella? Recall that the Democrats lionized the CIA official seconded to
Trump's national security council as a "whistleblower" and proceeded to impeach Trump after
Chiaramella leaked information on Trump's telephone call with the president of Ukraine. Far
from being held to account, Chiaramella is probably expecting an influential job if his patron,
Joe Biden, is elected president. Has there been another mutiny in Trump's White House?
And what does one make of the
spectacle of Crow teaming up with Rep. Liz Cheney (R, WY) to restrict Trump's planned
pull-out of troops from Afghanistan, which The Los Angeles Timesreports
has now been blocked until after the election?
Hiatt & McFaul: Caveat Editor
And who published McFaul's oped? Fred Hiatt, Washington Post editorial page editor
for the past 20 years, who has a long record of listening to the whispers of anonymous
intelligence sources and submerging/drowning the subjunctive mood with flat fact. This was the
case with the (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the U.S.-UK attack.
Readers of the Post were sure there were tons of WMD in Iraq. That Hiatt has invited
McFaul on stage should come as no surprise.
To be fair, Hiatt belatedly acknowledged that the Post should have been more
circumspect in its confident claims about the WMD. "If you look at the editorials we write
running up [to the war], we state as flat fact that he [Saddam Hussein] has weapons of mass
destruction," Hiatt said in an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review . "If
that's not true, it would have been better not to say it." [CJR, March/April 2004]
At this word of wisdom, Consortium News founder, the late Robert Parry,
offered this comment: "Yes, that is a common principle of journalism, that if something isn't
real, we're not supposed to confidently declare that it is." That Hiatt is still in that job
speaks volumes.
'Uncorroborated, Contradicted, or Even Non-Existent'
It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the "intelligence" on WMD in Iraq was
not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never
held to account.
Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate
Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller ( D-WV)
said the attack on Iraq was launched "under false pretenses." He described the intelligence
conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even
non-existent."
Homework
Yogi Berra in 1956. (Wikipedia)
Here's an assignment due on Monday. Read McFaul's
oped carefully. It appears under the title: "Trump would do anything for Putin. No wonder
he's ignoring the Russian bounties: Russia's pattern of hostility matches Trump's pattern of
accommodation."
And to give you a further taste, here is the first paragraph:
"Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to have paid Taliban rebels in Afghanistan to
kill U.S. soldiers. Having resulted in at least one American death, and maybe more, these
Russian bounties reportedly produced the desired outcome. While deeply disturbing, this
effort by Putin is not surprising: It follows a clear pattern of ignoring international
norms, rules and laws -- and daring the United States to do anything about it."
Full assignment for Monday: Read carefully through each paragraph of McFaul's text and
select which of his claims you would put into one or more of the three categories adduced by
Sen. Rockefeller 12 years ago about WMD on Iraq. With particular attention to the evidence
behind McFaul's claims, determine which of the claims is (a) "uncorroborated"; which (b)
"contradicted"; and which (c) "non-existent;" or (d) all of the above. For extra credit, find
one that is supported by plausible evidence.
Yogi Berra might be surprised to hear us keep quoting him with "Deja vu, all over again."
Sorry, Yogi, that's what it is; you coined it.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27-year career as a CIA analyst, he prepared and
briefed The President's Daily Brief for Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. He is
co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
PleaseContributeto Consortium News on its25th Anniversary
Gad, one wonders if it can ever get much lower in the press and the answer is yes, it can
and will go lower, i.e. the mcfaul/hiatt tag team. They are still plumbing for the lows.
The question becomes just how stupid these two are or how stupid do they believe the
readership is to read and believe this garbage.
Voice from Europe , July 6, 2020 at 11:58
By now the Russia did it ! is in effect a joke in Russia. Economically, politically, geo
strategically China and Asia and Africa have become more important and reliable partners of
Russia than the USA. And Europe is also dropping fast on the trustworthy partners
list…..
John , July 5, 2020 at 12:55
Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt are both long-time members of the Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR), flagship of the globalist “liberal world order”. The CFR and its
many interlocking affiliates, along with their media assets and frontmen in government, have
dominated US policy since WW2. Most of the Fed chairmen and secretaries of State, Treasury,
Defense and CIA have been CFR members, including Jerome Powell and Mark Esper.
The major finance, energy, defense and media corporations are CFR sponsors, and several of
their execs are members. David Rubenstein, billionaire founder of the notorious Carlyle
Group, is the current CFR chairman. Laurence Fink, billionaire chairman of BlackRock, is a
CFR director. See lists at the CFR website.
Anna , July 6, 2020 at 09:38
Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt are both very active promoters of hate crimes. Neither has
any decency hence decency is allergic to war profiteers and opportunistic liars.
The poor USA; to descend to such a deep moral hole that both Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt
are still alive and prospering. Shamelessness and presstituting are paid well in the US.
Dems and Reps are already mad.You cannot destroy what does not exist;like Democracy in
these United States.Nor God or Putin could.This has always being a fallacy.This is not a
democracy;same thing with”comunist China or the USSR.Those two were never
socialist.There has never being a real Socialist or Communist country.
Guy , July 4, 2020 at 12:26
“It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the
“intelligence” on WMD in Iraq was not “mistaken;” it was fraudulent
from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never held to account.”
That statement goes to the crux of the matter .Why should journalists care about what is true
or a lie in their reports ,they know they will never be held to account .They should be held
to account through the court system . A lie by any journalist should be actionable by any
court of law . The fear of jail time would sort out the scam journalists we presently have to
endure . As it is they have perverted the profession of journalism and it is the law of the
jungle .No true democracy should put up with this. We are surrounded with lies that are
generated by the very establishment that should protect it’s citizens from same .
Skip Scott , July 4, 2020 at 15:36
They are spoon fed those lies by our “intelligence” agencies. As CNN’s
Jeff Zucker said, “We’re not investigators, we’re journalists”.
Replace “journalists” with “toadies” or “shills” for our
“intelligence” community and you’ve gotten to the truth of the matter.
Anna , July 6, 2020 at 09:50
The ‘journalists’ observe how things have been going on for Cheney the Traitor
and Bush the lesser — nothing happened to the mega criminals. The hate-bursting and
war-profiteering Cheney’s daughter has even squeezed into US Congress.
In a healthy society where human dignity is cherished, the Cheney family will be ostracized
and the family name became a synonym for the word ‘traitor.’ In the unhealthy
scoiety of Clintons, Obamas, Epstein, Mueller, Adelsons, Clapper, and Krystols, human dignity
is a sin.
Ricard Coleman , July 6, 2020 at 11:42
Our institutions including journalism are not merely corrupt, they are degenerate. That
is, the corruption is not occasional or the exception is is by design, desired and entirely
normal.
Stan W. , July 4, 2020 at 12:10
I’m still confident that Durham’s investigation will expose and successfully
prosecute the maggots that infest our government.
Skip Scott , July 4, 2020 at 15:29
What is the basis for this confidence?
John Puma , July 4, 2020 at 12:03
Re: whether Obumma “had earned some kind of degree from the Clapper/LeMay/McCarthy
School” of Russia Analytics.
It would be a worthy addition to his degree collection featuring that earned from the
Neville Chamberlain Night School of Critical Political Negotiation.
Jeff Harrison , July 4, 2020 at 11:16
Hmmm. Lessee. The US attacks Afghanistan with about the same legitimacy that we had when
we attacked Iraq and the Taliban are in charge. We oust the Taliban from power and put our
own puppets in place. What idiot thinks that the Taliban are going to need a bounty to kill
Americans?
Jeff Harrison, I like your logic. Plus, I understand that far fewer Americans are being
killed in Afghanistan than were under Obama’s administration.
AnneR , July 4, 2020 at 10:27
Frankly, I am sick to death of the unwarranted, indeed bestial Russophobia that is
megaphoned minute by minute on NPR and the BBC World Service (only radio here since my
husband died). If it isn’t this latest trumped up (ho ho) charge, there are repeated
mentions, in passing, of course, of the Russiagate, hacking, Kremlin control of the Strumpet
to back up the latest bunch of lies. Doesn’t matter at *all* that Russiagate was
debunked, that even Mueller couldn’t actually demonstrably pull the DNC/ruling elites
rabbit out of the hat, that the impeachment of the Strumpet went nowhere. And it clearly
– by its total absence on the above radio broadcasts – doesn’t matter one
iota that the Pentagonal hasn’t gone along, that gaping holes in the confabulation are
(and were) obvious to those who cared to think with half a mind awake and reflecting on past
US ruling elite lies, untruths, obfuscations. Nope. Just repeat, repeat, repeat. Orwell would
clap his hands (not because he agreed with the atrocious politics but the lesson is
learnt).
Added to the whipped up anti-Russia, decidedly anti-Putin crapola – is of course the
Russian peoples’ vote, decision making on their own country’s changes to the
Basic Law (a form of Constitution). When the radio broadcasts the usual sickening
anti-Russian/Putin propaganda regarding this vote immediately prior they would state that the
changes would install Putin for many more years: no mention that he would have to be elected,
i.e. voted by the populace into the presidency. (This was repeated ad infinitum without any
elaboration.) No other proposed changes were mentioned – certainly not that the Duma
would gain greater control over the governance of the country and over the president’s
cabinet. I.e. that the popularly elected (ain’t that what we call democracy??)
representatives in the Duma (parliament) would essentially have more power than the
president.
But most significantly, to my mind, no one has (well of course not – this is Russia)
raised the issue of the fact that it was the Russian people, the vox populi/hoi polloi, who
have had some say in how they are to be governed, how their government will work for them.
HOW much say have we had/do we have in how our government functions, works – let alone
for us, the hoi polloi? When did we the citizenry last have a voting say on ANY sentence in
the Constitution that governs us??? Ummm I do believe it was the creation of the wealthy
British descended slave holding, real estate ethnic-cleansing lot who wrote and ratified the
original document and the hardly dissimilar Congressional and state types who have over the
years written and voted on various amendments. And it is the members of the upper classes in
the Supreme Court who adjudicate on its application to various problems.
BUT We the hoi polloi have never, ever had a direct opportunity to individually vote for
or against any single part of the Constitution which is supposed to be the
“democratic” superstructure which governs us. Unlike the Russians a couple of
days ago.
Richard Coleman , July 6, 2020 at 15:48
“HOW much say have we had/do we have in how our government functions,
works…” See, that’s your mistake right there. WE don’t have a
government. We need one, but we ain’t got one. THEY have a government which they let us
go through the motions of electing. ‘Member back when Bernie was talking about a
Political Revolution?
Here’s a little fact for you. The five most populous states have a total of
123,000,000 people. That’s 10 Senators. The five least populated states have a total of
3.5 million. That’s also 10 Senators. Democracy anyone?
vinnieoh , July 4, 2020 at 09:37
There have been three coup d’état within the US within the lifetimes of most
that read these pages. The first was explained to us by Eisenhower only as he was exiting his
time from the national stage; the MIC had co-opted our government. The second happened in
2000, with the putsch in Florida and then the adoption by the neocon cabal of Bush /Chaney of
the PNAC blueprint “Strategies for Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (Defenses
– hahahaha – shit!). The third happened late last year and early this year when
the bottom-up grass-roots movement of progressivism was crushed by the DNC and the
cold-warrior hack Biden was inserted as the champion of “the opposition
party.”
And, make no mistake that Kamala Harris WILL be his running mate. It was always going to
be Harris. It was to be Harris at the TOP of the ticket as the primaries began, but she
wasn’t even placing in the top tier in any of the contests. However, the poohbahs and
strategists of the DNC are nothing if not determined and consistent. If Biden should win, we
should all start practicing now saying “President Harris” because that is what
the future holds. For the DNC, she looks the part, she sounds the part, but more importantly
she is the very definition of the status quo, corporate ass-kisser, MIC tool.
The professional political class have fully colluded to fatally cripple this democratic
republic. “Democracy” is just a word they say like, “Where’s my
kickback?” (excuse me – my “motivation”.) This bounty scam and the
rehabilitation of GW Bush are nothing but a full blitzkrieg flanking of Trump on the right.
And Trump of course is so far out of his depth that he actually believes that Israel is his
friend. (A hint Donny: Israel is NO-ONE’S friend.)
What is most infuriating? hope-crushing? plain f$%&*#g scary? is that the majority of
Americans from all quarters do not want any of what the professional political class keeps
dumping on us. The very attempt at performing this upcoming election will finally and forever
lay completely bare the collapse of a functioning government. It’s going to be very
ugly, and it may very well be the end. Dog help us all.
Richard Coleman , July 6, 2020 at 15:51
Don’t you think that the assassination of JFK counts as a coup d’etat?
Zhu , July 7, 2020 at 02:10
Apres moi, le Deluge.
John Drake , July 7, 2020 at 11:25
Oh gosh how can you forget the Kennedy Assassination. Most people don’t realize he
was had ordered the removal of a thousand advisors from Vietnam starting the process of
completely cutting bait there, as he had in Laos and Cambodia. All of which made the generals
apoplectic. The great secret about Vietnam-which Ellsberg discovered much latter, and
mentioned in his book Secrets, another good read- was that every president had been warned it
was likely futile. Kennedy was the only one who took that intelligence seriously-like it was
actually intelligent intelligence.
Enter stage right Allen Dulles(fired CIA chief), the anti Castro Cubans, the Mafia and
most important the MIC; exit Jack Kennedy.
Douglas, JFK why he died and why it matters is the best work on the subject. And no Oswald
did not do it; it was a sniper team from different angles, but read the book it gets
complicated.
Roger , July 4, 2020 at 09:11
from Counterpunch.org : “Around 15,000 Soviet troops perished in the Afghan War
between 1979 and 1989. The US funneled more than $20 billion to the Mujahideen and other
anti-Soviet fighters over that same period. This works out to a “bounty” of $1.33
million for each Soviet soldier killed.”
Skip Scott , July 4, 2020 at 08:35
I am wondering how Cheney and Crow can block Trump from withdrawing the troops from
Afghanistan. Is Trump Commander in Chief, or not? How can two senators stop the Commander in
Chief from commanding troop movements? I realize they control the budget, but aren’t
they crossing into illegality by restricting Trump’s ability to
“command”?
Toad Sprocket , July 4, 2020 at 16:49
Yeah, I imagine it’s illegal. Didn’t Lindsay Graham threaten the same thing
when Trump was thinking of pulling troops/”advisers” from Syria? And other
congress warmongers joined in though I don’t think any legislation was passed. They
can’t be bothered to authorize the starts of wars but want to step in when someone
tries to end them.
Oh, and Schumer on South Korea troops, I think that one did pass. Almost certainly illegal
if it came down to it, but our government is of course lawless. And our courts full of judges
who are bought off or moronic or both.
dean 1000 , July 4, 2020 at 06:52
The soft coup attempt continues Ray. More lies and bullshit. It may continue until
election day. Will the media fess-up to its lies after the fact again?
Francis Lee , July 4, 2020 at 04:49
“Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to figure
out how to destroy American democracy.”
Yes, of course it is a well-known ‘fact’ that Putin has nothing better to do
than destory American democracy, and I bet he has dreams about it too! But I am minded to
think that if anybody has a penchant for destroying American democracy it is the powers that
be in the US deep state, intelligence agencies, and zionist cliques controlling the President
and Congress.
”Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.”
The American establishment seems to be suffering from a bad case of
‘projection’ as psychiatrists call it. That is to say accusing others of what
they are themselves actually doing.
The whole idiotic circus would be hilarious if it were not so serious.
Antonia Young , July 4, 2020 at 12:20
Putin’s (and by extension the Russian Federation’s) primary objective is
international stability. “Destroying America, dividing Americans is the last thing he
wants.) Putin learned many lessons during the break-up of the U.S.S.R. observing the carpet
baggers/oligarchs/vultures who descended on the weak nation, absconding with it’s
wealth and resources at mere fractions of their real value. The deep state’s worst fear
is the co-operation btwn Putin and President Trump to make the world more peaceful, stable,
co-operative and prosperous.
rosemerry , July 4, 2020 at 16:10
The whole conceited and arrogant “belief” that
1. the USA has any resemblance to a democracy and
2 Pres. Putin has nothing else to do but think how he could do a better job of showing the
destructive and irresponsible behavior of the USA than its own leaders” and media can
do with no help
has no basis in reality.
If anything, Putin is such a stickler for international law, negotiations, avoidance of
conflict that he is regarded by many as too Christian for this modern, individualistic,
LBGTQ,”nobody matters but me” worldview of the USA!
Steve Naidamast , July 5, 2020 at 19:54
“If the enemy is self destructing, let them continue to do so…”
Napoleon
Zhu , July 7, 2020 at 02:17
“zionist cliques”: Christian Zionist fighting Fundies, eager for the End of
the World, the Second Coming of Jesus.
delia ruhe , July 4, 2020 at 01:09
Yup, we got a Bountygate. Since my early morning visit to the Foreign Policy site, the
place has exploded with breathless articles on the dastardly Putin and the cowardly Trump,
who has so far failed to hold Putin to account. Reminded me of a similar explosion there when
Russiagate finally got the attention the Dems thought it deserved.
(Anyone think that the intel community pays a fee to each of the FP columnists whenever
one of their a propaganda narratives needs a push to get it off the ground?)
He wrote a sensational book about the practices he experienced of the CIA paying German
journalists to publish certain stories.
The book was a big best seller in Germany.
Its English translation was suppressed for years, but I believe is now available.
Susan Siens , July 5, 2020 at 16:30
Reply to John Chuckman: I’d love to read this book but it wasn’t available a
few years ago when I looked. I’ll look again!
Voice from Europe , July 6, 2020 at 11:52
Gekaufte journalisten.
Ulfkotte admitted he signed off on numerous articles that were prepared for him during his
career. The last year’s of his life he changed his mores and advocated “better
die in truth than live with lies”.
Richard A. , July 4, 2020 at 00:59
I remember the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour from decades ago. Real experts on Russia like
Dimitri Simes and Stephen Cohen were the ones to appear on that NewsHour. The NewsHour of
today rarely has experts on Russia, just experts on Russia bashing–like Michael McFaul.
Oh how the mighty have fallen.
Antonia Young , July 3, 2020 at 23:35
Thank you, Ray for your clarion voice in the midst of WMD-seventeen-point-oh. Will the
American people have the wisdom to notice how many times we’re being fooled? And
finally wake up and stop supporting these questionable news outlets? With appreciation for
your excellent analysis, as usual. ~Tonia Young (Formerly with the Topanga Peace
Alliance)
The majority of Americans have a lot more to worry about than the latest nonsense about
Russia. I think most people just tune it out.
The ones being fooled are the fools who have been lapping this crap up from the get go. The
supposed educated class who think themselves superior and well informed because they read and
listen to the propaganda of PBS, NPR, NYT etc.
They don’t seem to realize the ship is sinking while they’re playing these
ridiculous games.
Susan Siens , July 5, 2020 at 16:34
The supposedly educated class, yes! It can be stunning how people believe anything they
hear on PBS or NPR, and then they make fun of people who believe anything they hear on Fox
News. What’s the difference? Both are propaganda tools.
And, yes, watch us go down in flames while so-called progressives boo-hoo about Trump
thinking he’s above the law (like every other president before him). Our local
“peace and justice” group sent me an email asking me to sign a petition
supporting Robert Mueller. I was gobsmacked, and then I realized our local “peace and
justice” group had been taken over by Democratic Party “resisters.”
Jeezums, why is every word hijacked?
"... Auten, identified by congressional sources who spoke on condition of anonymity, never confirmed the most explosive allegations in the dossier compiled by ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, cutting a number of corners in the verification process, Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz pointed out in his December report on FBI abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. ..."
The unnamed FBI "Supervisory Intelligence Analyst" cited by the Justice Department's watchdog for failing to properly vet the
so-called Steele dossier before it was used to justify spying on the Trump campaign teaches a class on the ethics of spying at a
small Washington-area college, records show.
The senior FBI analyst, Brian J. Auten, has taught the course
at Patrick Henry College since 2010, including the 11-month period in 2016 and 2017 when he and a counterintelligence team at FBI
headquarters electronically monitored an adviser to the Trump campaign based on false rumors from the dossier and forged evidence.
Auten, identified by congressional sources who spoke on condition of anonymity, never confirmed the most explosive allegations
in the dossier compiled by ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, cutting a number of corners in the verification process,
Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz pointed out in his December report on FBI abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act.
By January 2017, the lead analyst had ample evidence the dossier was bogus. Auten could not get sources who provided information
to Steele to support the dossier's allegations during interviews. And collections from the wiretaps of Trump aide Carter Page failed
to reveal any confirmation of the claims. Auten even came across exculpatory evidence indicating Page was not the Russian asset the
dossier alleged, but was in fact a CIA asset helping the U.S. spy on Moscow.
Nonetheless, he and the FBI continued to use the Steele material as a basis for renewing their FISA monitoring of Page, who was
never charged with a crime.
Auten did not respond to requests for comment, and the FBI declined to comment.
In his report, Horowitz wrote that the analyst told his team of inspectors that he did not have any "pains or heartburn" over
the accuracy of the Steele reports. As for Steele's reliability as an FBI informant, Horowitz said, the analyst merely "speculated"
that his prior reporting was sound and did not see a need to "dig into" his handler's case file, which showed that past tips from
Steele had gone uncorroborated and were never used in court.
According to the IG report, Auten also wasn't concerned about Steele's anti-Trump bias or that his work was commissioned by Trump's
political opponent, calling the fact he worked for Hillary Clinton's campaign "immaterial." Perhaps most disturbing, the analyst
withheld the fact that Steele's main source disavowed key dossier allegations from a memo Auten prepared summarizing a meeting he
had with that source.
Auten appears to have violated his own stated "golden rule" for spying. A 15-year supervisor at the bureau, Auten has written
that he teaches students in his national security class at the Purcellville, Va., college that the FBI applies "the least intrusive
standard" when it considers surveilling U.S. citizens under investigation to avoid harm to "a subject's reputation, dignity and privacy."
At least three Senate oversight committees are seeking to question Auten about fact-checking lapses, as well as
"grossly inaccurate statements" he allegedly made to Horowitz, as part of the committee's investigation of the FBI's handling
of wiretap warrants the bureau first obtained during the heat of the 2016 presidential race.
FBI veterans worry Auten's numerous missteps signal a deeper rot within the bureau beyond top brass who appeared to have an animus
toward Donald Trump, such as former FBI Director James Comey and his deputy Andrew McCabe, as well as subordinates Lisa Page and
Peter Strzok. They fear these main players in the scandal enlisted group-thinking career officials like Auten to ensure an investigative
result.
"Anyone in his position has tremendous access to information and is well-positioned to manipulate information if he wanted to
do so," said Chris Swecker, a 24-year veteran of the FBI who served as assistant director of its criminal investigative division,
where he oversaw public corruption cases.
"Question is, was it deliberate manipulation or just rank incompetence?" he added. "How much was he influenced by McCabe, Page,
Strzok and other people we know had a deep inherent bias?"
Auten is a central, if overlooked, figure in the Horowitz report and the overall FISA abuse scandal, though his identity is hidden
in the 478-page IG report, which refers to him throughout only as "Supervisory Intelligence Analyst" or "Supervisory Intel Analyst."
In fact, the 51-year-old analyst shows up at every major juncture in the FISA application process.
Auten was assigned to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation from its opening in July 2016 and supervised its analytical efforts
throughout 2017. He played a key supportive role for the agents preparing the FISA applications, including reviewing the probable-cause
section of the applications and providing the agents with information about Steele's sub-sources noted in the applications. He also
helped prepare and review the renewal drafts.
Auten assisted the case agents in providing information on the reliability of Steele and his sources and reviewing for accuracy
their information cited in the body of the applications, as well as all the footnotes. His job was also to fill gaps in the FISA
application or bolster weak areas.
In addition, Auten personally met with Steele and his "primary sub-source," reportedly a Russian émigré living in the West, as
well as former MI6 colleagues of Steele. He also met with Justice Department official Bruce Ohr and processed the dirt Ohr fed the
FBI from Glenn Simpson, the political opposition research contractor who hired Steele to compile the anti-Trump dossier on behalf
of the Clinton campaign.
Auten was involved in the January 2017 investigation of then-Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, according to internal
emails sent by then-FBI counterintelligence official Strzok.
What's more, the analyst helped draft a summary of the dossier attached to the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment
on Russian interference, which described Steele as "reliable." Other intelligence analysts argued against incorporating the dossier
allegations -- including rumors about potentially compromising sexual material -- in the body of the report because they viewed them
as "internet rumor."
According to the IG report, "The Supervisory Intel Analyst was one of the FBI's leading experts on Russia." Auten wrote a
book on the Russian
nuclear threat during the Cold War, and has taught graduate courses about U.S. and Russian nuclear strategy.
Still, he could not corroborate any of the allegations of Russian "collusion" in the dossier, which he nonetheless referred to
as "Crown material," as if it were intelligence from America's closest ally, Britain.
To the contrary, "According to the Supervisory Intel Analyst, the FBI ultimately determined that some of the allegations contained
in Steele's election reporting were inaccurate," the IG report revealed. Yet the analyst and the case agents he supported continued
to rely on his dossier to obtain the warrants to spy on Page -- and by extension, potentially the Trump campaign and presidency --
through incidental collections of emails, text messages and intercepted phone calls.
Steele Got the Benefit of the Doubt
According to the IG report , the supervisory
intelligence analyst not only failed to corroborate the Steele dossier, but gave Steele the benefit of the doubt every time sources
or developments called into question the reliability of his information or his own credibility. In many cases, he acted more as an
advocate than a fact-checker, while turning a blind eye to the dossier's red flags. Examples:
When a top Justice national security lawyer initially blocked the Crossfire team's attempts to obtain a FISA warrant, Auten
proactively turned to the dossier to try to push the case over the line. In an email to FBI lawyers, he forwarded an unsubstantiated
claim from Steele's Report 94 that Page secretly met with a Kremlin-tied official in July 2016, and asked, "Does this put us at
least *that* much closer to a full FISA on [Carter Page]?" (Emphasis in original).
Even though internal FBI emails reveal Auten knew Steele was working for the Clinton campaign by early January 2017, he did
not share this information with the Justice lawyer or the FISA court before helping agents reapply for warrants. He told the IG
he viewed the potential for political influences on the Steele reporting as "immaterial."
While most of Steele's past reporting as an informant for the FBI had not been corroborated and had never been used in a criminal
proceeding, including his work for an international soccer corruption investigation, Auten wrote that it had in fact been "corroborated
and used in criminal proceedings." His language made it into the FISA renewal applications to help convince the court Steele was
still reliable, despite his leaking the FBI's investigation to media outlet Mother Jones in late October 2016. Auten had merely
"speculated" that Steele's prior reporting was sound without reviewing an internal file documenting his track record.
Auten's notes from a meeting with Steele in early October 2016 reveal that Steele described one of his main dossier sources
-- identified in the IG report only as "Person 1," but believed to be Belarusian-American realtor Sergei Millian -- as a "boaster"
who "may engage in some embellishment." Yet the IG report noted the analyst "did not provide this description of Person 1 for
inclusion in the Carter Page FISA applications despite relying on Person 1's information to establish probable cause in the applications."
Auten failed to disclose to the FISA court negative feedback from British intelligence service colleagues of Steele. They
told Auten during a visit he made to London in December 2016 that Steele exercised "poor judgment" and pursued as sources "people
with political risk but no intel value," the IG report said.
In January 2017, Steele's primary sub-source told Auten that Steele "misstated or exaggerated" information he conveyed to
him in multiple sections of the dossier, according to a lengthy summary of the interview by the analyst. For instance, Steele
claimed that Kremlin-tied figures offered Page a bribe worth as much as $10 billion in return for lifting U.S. economic sanctions
on Russia. "We reviewed the texts [between Steele and the source] and did not find any discussion of a bribe," the IG report found.
Still, Auten let the rumor bleed into the FISA applications.
The primary sub-source also told the analyst he did not recall any discussion or mention of WikiLeaks conspiring with Moscow
to publish hacked Democratic National Committee emails, or that the Russian leadership and the Trump campaign had a "well-developed
conspiracy of cooperation," as described by Steele in his Report 95. The primary sub-source "did not describe a 'conspiracy' between
Russia and individuals associated with the Trump campaign or state that Carter Page served as an 'intermediary' between [the campaign]
and the Russian government," the IG found. Yet "all four Carter Page FISA applications relied on Report 95 to support probable
cause."
In addition, Auten's summary of the primary sub-source cast doubt on the dossier's allegation that the disclosure of DNC emails
to WikiLeaks was made in exchange for a GOP convention platform change regarding Ukraine. Yet this unsubstantiated rumor also
found its way into the applications. Confronted by Horowitz's investigators about all the discrepancies, the analyst offered excuses
for Steele. He said that while it was possible that Steele exaggerated or misrepresented information he received from the source,
it was also possible the source was lying to the FBI.
Even though the primary sub-source's account contradicted the allegations in Steele's reporting, the supervisory intel analyst
said he did not have any "pains or heartburn" about the accuracy of the Steele reporting.
Auten didn't try to get to the bottom of discrepancies between Steele and his sources until two months after the third and
final renewal application was filed. The analyst's September 2017 interview with Steele revealed clear bias against Trump. According
to the FBI's FD-302 summary of the interview, Steele and his London business partner, Christopher Burrows, who was also present,
described Trump as their "main opponent" and said that they were "fearful" about the negative impact of the Trump presidency on
the relationship between the United States and Britain.
The analyst also appeared to mislead, or at least misinform, the FBI's counterintelligence chief, Bill Priestap, by omitting
the primary sub-source's claim that Steele "exaggerated" much of the information in the dossier. In late February 2017, Auten
sent a two-page memo to Priestap briefing him about his meeting with the source, "but the memorandum did not describe the inconsistencies,"
the IG report noted.
Finally, recently declassified footnotes in the IG report directly contradict statements provided by Auten in the IG report
concerning the potential for Russian disinformation infiltrating Steele's reporting. The analyst told Horowitz's team that "he
had no information as of June 2017 that Steele's election reporting source network had been penetrated or compromised [by Russian
intelligence]." Yet, in January 2017, the FBI received a report that some of Steele's reporting "was part of a Russian disinformation
campaign" and in February 2017, the FBI received a second report that another part of Steele's reporting was "the product of [Russian
Intelligence Services] infiltrat[ing] a source into the network."
Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley
recently questioned the analyst's candor and integrity in a
letter to the FBI. "We are deeply troubled by the grossly inaccurate statements by the supervisory intelligence analyst," they
wrote.
The powerful senators have asked the FBI to provide additional records shedding light on what the analyst and other officials
knew about Russian disinformation as they were drafting the FISA applications.
Meanwhile, Auten's name appears on a
list of witnesses Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham recently gained authorization to subpoena to testify before
his own panel investigating the FISA abuse scandal. Graham intends to focus on the investigators, including the lead analyst, who
interviewed Steele's primary sub-source in January 2017 and discovered the Steele allegations were nothing more than "bar talk,"
as Graham put it in a recent interview, and should never have been used to get a warrant in the first place, to say nothing of renewing
the warrant.
In a Dec. 6 letter to Horowitz, FBI Director
Christopher Wray informed the inspector general he had put every employee involved in the 2016-2017 FISA application process through
"additional training in ethics." The mandatory training included "an emphasis on privacy and civil liberties."
Wray also assured Horowitz that he was conducting a review of all FBI personnel who had responsibility for the preparation of
the FISA warrant applications and would take any appropriate action to deal with them.
It's not immediately known if Auten has undergone such a review or has completed the required ethics training. The FBI declined
comment.
"That analyst needs to be investigated internally," Swecker said.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Auten appears to have violated the ethics training he provides his students at Patrick Henry College.
"When I teach the topic of national security investigations to undergraduates, we cover micro-proportionality, discrimination,
and the 'least intrusive standard' via a tweaked version of the Golden Rule -- namely, if you were being investigated for a national
security issue but you knew yourself to be completely innocent, how would you want someone to investigate you?" Auten wrote in a
September 2016
article
in Providence magazine, headlined "Just Intelligence, Just Surveillance & the Least Intrusive Standard."
He wrote the six-page paper to answer the question: "Is an intelligence operation, national security investigation or act of surveillance
being initiated under the proper authorities for the right purposes? Will an intelligence operation, national security investigation
or act of surveillance achieve the good it is meant to? And, in the end, will the expected good be overwhelmed by the resulting harm
or damage arising out of the planned operation, investigation or surveillance act?"
"National security investigations are not ethics-free," he asserted, advising that a federal investigator should never forget
that "the intrusiveness or invasiveness of his tactics places a subject's reputation, dignity and privacy at risk and has the ability
to cause harm."
At the same time, Auten said more intrusive methods such as electronic eavesdropping may be justified -- "If it is judged that
the threat is severe or the targeted foreign intelligence is of key importance to U.S. interest or survival." National security "may
necessitate collection based on little more than suspicion." In these cases, he reasoned, the harm to the individual is outweighed
by the benefit to society.
"Surveillance is not life-threatening to the surveilled," he said.
However, Page, a U.S. citizen, told RealClearInvestigations that he received "numerous death threats" from people who believed
he was a "traitor," based on leaks to the media that the FBI suspected he was a Russian agent who conspired with the Kremlin to interfere
in the 2016 election.
Auten also rationalized the risk of "incidental" surveillance of non-targeted individuals, writing: "If the particular act of
surveillance is legitimately authorized, and the non-liable subject has not been intentionally targeted, any incidental surveillance
of the non-liable subject would be morally licit."
A member of the International Intelligence Ethics Association, Auten has lectured since 2010 on "intelligence and statecraft"
at Patrick Henry College, where he is an adjunct professor . He
also sits on the college's Strategic Intelligence Advisory Board.
FBI veterans say the analyst's lack of rigor raises alarms.
"I worked with intel analysts all the time working counterintelligence investigations," said former FBI Special Agent Michael
Biasello, a 25-year veteran of the FBI who spent 10 years in counterintelligence. "This analyst's work product was shoddy, and inasmuch
as these FISA affidavits concerned a presidential campaign, the information he provided [to agents] should have been pristine."
He suspects Auten was "hand-picked" by Comey or McCabe to work on the sensitive Trump case, which was tightly controlled within
FBI headquarters.
"The Supervisory Intel Analyst must be held accountable now, particularly where his actions were intentional, along with anyone
who touched those fraudulent [FISA] affidavits," Biasello said.
When Colin Powell of all people has to appear on MSNBC to slam
fake reporting you know mainstream media has lost the plot.
In a rare moment, the former Secretary of State under Bush slammed the wall-to-wall coverage
of the Russian bounties in Afghanistan story as "almost hysterical" . It's all the more awkard
for MSNBC, which had him on the network Thursday to talk about it, given he's one of those
'never Trump' Bush-era officials, who despite a legacy of having fed the world lie after lie to
invade Iraq, has since been given "resistance hero" status among liberals.
Describing that military commanders on the ground didn't give credence to The New York Times
claim that Russia's GRU was paying Taliban and other militants to kill American soldiers,
Powell said the media "got kind of out of control" in the first days after the initial report
weeks ago.
"I know that our military commanders on the ground did not think that it was as serious a
problem as the newspapers were reporting and television was reporting," Powell told MSNBC's
Andrea Mitchell. "It got kind of out of control before we really had an understanding of what
had happened. I'm not sure we fully understand now."
"It's our commanders who are going to go deal with this kind of a threat, using intelligence
given to them by the intelligence community," Powell continued. "But that has to be analyzed.
It has to be attested. And then you have to go find out who the enemy is. And I think we were
on top of that one, but it just got almost hysterical in the first few days."
He also deflated the ongoing manufactured atmosphere which seeks to maintain a perpetual
Washington hawkish position vis-a-vis Moscow, based on perceived "Russian aggression".
"I don't think we're in a position to go to war with the Russians," Powell said. "I know Mr.
Putin rather well. He's just figuring out a way to stay in power until 2036. The last thing
he's looking for is a war, and the last thing he's looking for is a war with the United States
of America."
"... Browder testimony to Senate Judiciary Committee ..."
"... claimed that Magnitsky was beaten to death by 8 riot guards ..."
"... Browder's Hermitage Fund in 2009 put out press release noting Starova's complaint to police. See last graph. Browder deleted it when his narrative changed, but the Wayback Machine preserved it. ..."
"... She says there has been a violation of Article 165 of the criminal code. ..."
"... Browder translates that into Starova accusing his companies of the theft of state funds. She talks about involvement of Viktor Markelov, who organized the fraud. In his testimony , Markelov said he got documents from a "Sergei Leonidovich." Magnitsky's full name was Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky. ..."
"... Magnitsky's body on a cot in the hospital ward. ..."
"... Script: The position of the corpse of Mr. S. L. Magnitsky. ..."
"... Script: The situation in the [hospital] ward, viewed towards the door. ..."
"... Magnitsky face shoulders on hospital-bed ..."
"... Script: Chest image of Mr. S. L. Magnitsky. ..."
"... Browder doctored report claims a section illegible, third line. ..."
"... Russian document shows nothing is illegible. ..."
"... Dr. Robert Bux ..."
"... They do exist, but Browder did not give them to PHR. ..."
"... Forensic photos of bruises on Magnitsky's hands and knee ..."
"... Forensic schematic drawings showing marks of injuries show no injuries. ..."
"... closed craniocerebral injury ..."
"... No signs of a violent death detected." ..."
"... Magnitsky death certificate – no signs of a violent death detected ..."
Browder
testimony
to
Senate Judiciary Committee
claimed that Magnitsky was beaten to death by 8 riot guards
.
The U.S. and UK are intensifying their collaborative Cold War against Russia. In Washington, calls for sanctions are based on
the fake "bountygate," and the UK has sanctioned selected Russians based on William Browder's Magnitsky hoax.
The "bountygate" charge that Russia paid militants to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan is unproved by U.S. intelligence
agencies and even discounted by the international wire-tapping National Security Agency (NSA). The UK
sanctions
against
25 Russians, judges and court officials, tax investigators, and prison doctors, are based on disproved claims by billionaire
investor William Browder that they were responsible for the death of his accountant Sergei Magnitsky.
Browder's Magnitsky story is a pillar of America's Russiagate, which has five. Before bountygate, there was the 2019 Mueller
Report which found no evidence that President Trump had colluded with the Russians, the Jan 2017 intelligence agencies'
charge
of
Russian interference in the U.S. 2016 election which concludes with the admission that they had no proof; and the 2016
accusation that Russians had stolen Democratic National Committee emails, made by the private security group CrowdStrike,
later walked back by CrowdStrike's president
Shawn
Henry
at a secret House hearing in Dec 2017, but not revealed till this May.
With the UK, we return to the first pillar of the U.S. Russiagate story, the 2012 Magnitsky Act, which targeted many on the
U.S. list. The Magnitsky Act is recognized as the beginning of the deterioration of U.S.-Russian relations. It is based on a
hoax invented by Browder and easily disproved by documentary evidence, if governments cared about that.
The European Court of Human Rights on Magnitsky's arrest
First, a few of the obvious fake charges. Three judges are accused of detaining Magnitsky, which the UK says "facilitated" his
mistreatment and denial of medical care. However, the European Court of Human Rights
ruled
in
August 2019, "The Russians had good reason to arrest Sergei Magnitsky for Hermitage tax evasion." The Court said: "The
accusations were based on documentary evidence relating to the payment of taxes by those companies and statements by several
disabled persons who had confessed to sham work for the two companies."
The decision to arrest him was made after "investigating authorities noted that during a tax inquiry which had preceded the
criminal investigation, Mr Magnitskiy had influenced witnesses, and that he had been preparing to flee abroad. In particular,
he had applied for an entry visa to the United Kingdom and had booked a flight to Kyiv." He was a flight risk.
Several of the UK targets were said to have "facilitated" mistreatment of Magnitsky because they had been involved in a fraud
he exposed. The reference is to a $230-million tax refund scam against the Russian Treasury.
Back to the ECHR: "The Court observe[d] that the inquiry into alleged tax evasion, resulting in the criminal proceedings
against Mr Magnitskiy, started in 2004, long before he complained that prosecuting officials had been involved in fraudulent
acts." The taxes were the real story; the fraud narrative was a cover-up.
The fake fraud story
Magnitsky did not uncover a massive fraud. That was the tax refund fraud in which companies engaged in collusive lawsuits,
"lost" the suits, and "agreed" to pay damages equal to their entire year's profits. They then requested a full refund of taxes
paid on the now zero gains. The fake lawsuits and payouts were first revealed to police by Russian shell company director
Rimma Starova
April
9
and
July
10,
2008. (Russian originals
April
and
July
.)
With investigators on the trail, Browder's Hermitage Fund director Paul Wrench filed a complaint about the fraud, and Browder
gave the story to The
NYTimes
and
the Russian paper
Vedomosti
,
which published it July 24, 2008, long before Magnitsky mentioned it in October 2008. His
testimony
did
not accuse any officials.
Browder's
Hermitage Fund in 2009 put out press release noting Starova's complaint to police. See last graph. Browder deleted it when his
narrative changed, but the Wayback Machine preserved it.
She says there has been a
violation of
Article
165
of the criminal code.
Browder translates that into Starova accusing his
companies of the theft of state funds. She talks about involvement of Viktor Markelov, who organized the fraud. In his
testimony
,
Markelov said he got documents from a "Sergei Leonidovich." Magnitsky's full name was Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky.
The main story at the center of the Magnitsky Acts in the U.S. and UK are not that he was mistreated or failed to get good
medical care, which is what is mostly alleged here. That would put dozens of U.S. prison officials in the crosshairs,
including recently those running state prison systems in
Alabama
and
Mississippi
.
It is that he was murdered. In the only reference to beating, the head of the Matrosskaya detention center is accused of
"ordering the handcuffing and beating" of Magnitsky before he died.
The U.S. Act, on which the British version is modeled, says that in detention Magnitsky "was beaten by 8 guards with rubber
batons on the last day of his life." But the alleged assailants' names are not on the list. A key argument made by sponsors
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md) and Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass) was that the people targeted – tax investigators, court officials,
hospital workers -- played a role in this claimed murder of Magnitsky. (Cardin and McGovern haven't responded to my requests
to comment on contradictory evidence.)
UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab takes the same line, declaring, "You cannot set foot in this country, and we will seize your
blood-drenched ill-gotten gains if you try," as he announced the new sanctions. Blood-drenched? No evidence supplied for the
sanctioned Russians.
For Browder, the purpose of the Magnitsky Acts he promotes in the West is as a political tool to build a wall against Russia's
attempt to have him answer for documented financial frauds totaling at least $100 million, and with new evidence as much as
$400 million.
The death hoax: Forensic photos tell the truth
Here is the story of Magnitsky death hoax, with links to evidence, including how Browder forged and falsified documents.
Browder had the Russian forensic reports and photos that were made after Magnitsky's death but suppressed what did not support
his arguments. The photos in this forensic
report
show
that Magnitsky, allegedly beaten to death, didn't have a life-threatening mark on his body.
Magnitsky's
body on a cot in the hospital ward.
Script: The position of the corpse of Mr. S. L.
Magnitsky.
Script:
The situation in the [hospital] ward, viewed towards the door.
Magnitsky
face shoulders on hospital-bed
.
Script: Chest image of Mr. S. L. Magnitsky.
Browder doctored part of another forensic
report
provided
in translation to the Physicians for Human Rights, Cambridge, Mass., for its
analysis
of
Magnitsky's death. It notes as "illegible" words that show there were no beating marks on Magnitsky's body and that there was
no scalp damage. The deleted parts of the true translation are underlined.
"The cadaverous spots are abundant, bluish-violet, diffuse, located on the back surface of the neck, trunk, upper and lower
extremities,
with pressure on them
with a finger disappear and restore their original color after 8 minutes. Damage
not found on the scalp."
The doctored line reads, "The cadaverous spots are abundant, bluish-violet, diffuse, located on the back surface of the neck,
trunk, upper and lower extremities, (illegible) not found on the scalp."
Here in the report that Browder gave PHR:
Browder
doctored report claims a section illegible, third line.
The paragraph in the Russian
document
shows
nothing is illegible.
Russian
document shows nothing is illegible.
The Russian words omitted in the doctored English document are "при надавливании на них пальцем исчезают и восстанавливают
свою первоначальную окраску через 8 минут. Повреждений на волосистой части головы не обнаружено."
The full Russian text can be translated online: Трупные пятна обильные, синюшно-фиолетовые, разлитые, располагающиеся на
задней поверхности шеи, туловища, верхних и нижних конечностей, при надавливании на них пальцем исчезают и восстанавливают
свою первоначальную окраску через 8 минут. Повреждений на волосистой части головы не обнаружено. Кости лицевого скелета, хрящи
носа на ощупь целы. Глаза закрыты.
What the American pathologist who analyzed Browder's documents said
Dr.
Robert Bux
Dr. Robert C. Bux, then coroner/chief medical examiner for the El Paso County Coroner's Office in Colorado Springs, was the
forensic expert on the team that wrote the PHR
report
.
Bux told me, "I do not think that these spots are contusions. Contusions will not go away and can be demonstrated by incising
or cutting into the tissues under the skin. These are reportedly all on the posterior aspect of the neck, body and limbs and
may represent postmortem
lividity
when
the body was viewed by the prosecutor of the autopsy."
Dr. Bux said, "If this is lividity (red purple coloration of the skin) it is not yet fixed and will blanch to a pale skin
color and red purple coloration will disappear. If the body is then placed face up i.e. supine then after a few minutes then
it will appear again. This is simply due to blood settling in the small blood vessels and a function of gravity."
It's not what a layman reading Browder's forged "illegible" might think.
Dr. Bux added, "Having said all of this, I have never seen any
autopsy photographs demonstrating this, and while photographs should have been taken to document all skin abnormalities as
well as all surfaces of the body to document the presence or absence of trauma, I do not know if photographs were taken and
withheld or never taken
."
PHR said, "A full and independent review of the cause of death of S.L. Magnitsky is not possible given the documentation
presented and available to PHR." The document list is at its report pages
2-3
.
The PHR autopsy protocol claims that there are "photo tables on 2 sheets" and "schematic representation of injuries on 1
sheet. However, if they exist, they were not available for the present review."
They do exist, but Browder did not
give them to PHR.
Browder posted and widely distributed this composite of
photos
of
bruises on Magnitsky's hand and knee taken November 17
th
,
2009, the day after the accountant's death.
Forensic
photos of bruises on Magnitsky's hands and knee
He got them from Russian forensic
Report
2052.
Katie
Fisher
,
doing public relations for Hermitage,
posted
them,
but not the text, to Google Cloud.
The report cited "circular abrasions in the wrist area," a "bluish-violet bruise" and "multiple strip-like horizontally
located abrasions."
It said, "A bruise located on the inner surface of the right lower limb in the projection of the ankle joint appeared 3-6 days
before the time death."
It concluded, "[T]hese injuries in living persons do not entail a temporary disability or a significant permanent loss of
general disability and are not regarded as harm to health, they are not in a cause and effect relationship with death."
The forensic reports attribute bruises to Magnitsky wearing handcuffs and kicking and hitting against cell doors. Magnitsky's
lawyer Dmitri Kharitonov
told
filmmaker
Andrei Nekrasov, "I think he was simply banging on the door with all his force trying to make them let him out and none paid
attention."
No other injuries found
The same
report
includes
schematic drawings of Magnitsky's body on which to note other relevant marks or injuries.
The report said,
"There were no marks or injuries noted on his head
or torso No other injuries were found on the corpse
" Browder didn't send PHR these drawings or make them public.
Forensic
schematic drawings showing marks of injuries show no injuries.
Asked if there was evidence that Magnitsky was "beaten to death by
riot guards," Dr. Bux told me, "I have no evidence to suggest that this occurred."
For the record,
PHR
said
Magnitsky's
death was from untreated serious illness. Even without the body photos, its experts didn't claim a beating. Forensic analysts
never have.
Manipulating the death certificate
To promote his fabrication, Browder posted a deceptive PowerPoint of the death certificate that indicated a
"
closed
craniocerebral injury
?"
circled in red, with the other text too small to
read.
Magnitsky
death certificate – no signs of a violent death detected
"Closed" meant "past." Several forensic documents include an interview with Magnitsky's mother Natalya Magnitskaya. She
told
investigators,
"In 1993 – I can't say a more accurate date, S.L Magnitsky had a craniocerebral injury. He slipped on the street and as a
result hit his head, after which he had headaches for some time."
Investigators obtained full medical records including this on page 29 of
Report
555-10
in English, which Browder gave PHR: "
On February 4, 1993, at about
08:40 a.m.., in his house entrance he slipped and fell down hitting his head, lost consciousness for a short time, vomited,
attended for emergency help by an ambulance which took him to the City Clinic Hospital (GKB).
Was examined by the
neurosurgeon in the reception ward, craniogram without pathema. Diagnosis: brain concussion, recommended treatment to be taken
on an out-patient clinic basis."
Browder's assertion that the "closed craniocerebral injury" came from a beating was a lie.
Browder's changing stories on the death of Magnitsky
Browder did not initially claim Magnitsky had been murdered. He said Magnitsky, left alone uncared for in a room, had simply
died. After a few years, pushing the Magnitsky Act, he declared Magnitsky had been tied up and beaten by rubber baton-wielding
thugs until dead.
Graphic by Michael Thau.
Browder December 2009 tells
Chatham
House
, London, "I don't know what they were thinking. I don't know whether they killed him deliberately on the night of
the 16th, or if he died of neglect."
"They put him in a straight-jacket, put him in an isolation room and waited 1 hour and 18 minutes until he died." December
2010,
San
Diego Law School
.
Then, promoting the Magnitsky Act, "They put him in an isolation cell, tied him to a bed, then allowed eight guards guards
beat him with rubber batons for 118 min until he was dead." December 2011,
University
of Cambridge
Judge Business School.
" .they put him in an isolation cell, chained him to a bed, and eight riot guards came in and beat him with rubber batons.
That night he was found dead on the cell floor." July 2017, U.S.
Senate
Judiciary Committee
.
What the Moscow Public Oversight Commission says really happened
The
Public
Oversight Commission
, an independent Russian NGO, reports Magnitsky's final day differently. November 16, 2009:
7:00pm. The patient behaves inadequately. Talks to a "voice," looks disorientated, and shouts that someone wants to kill him.
His condition is diagnosed as psychosis. The emergency doctor was called. There are no body damages apart from traces of
handcuffs on the wrists.
7:30pm. He was left unattended without medical support.
8:48pm. Emergency team arrived. When emergency doctors entered the special cell, Sergei was sitting on the cot, with his eyes
unfocused.
9:15pm. The patient was surveyed again as his condition deteriorated. He lost consciousness. The reanimation procedure was
started (indirect heart massage and ventilation of lungs using the Ambu pillow). The patient was transferred to the special
room where he received an artificial ventilation of lungs and a hormones injection.
9:50pm. The patient died."
The commission reported no evidence of beating. The Russian forensic and medical experts' conclusion was that Magnitsky had
heart disease (arteriosclerosis), diabetes, hepatitis, and pancreatitis, some illnesses predating arrest. They wrote detailed
criticism of the doctors' treatment, saying that it wasn't timely or adequate and that "the shortcomings in the provision of
the medical assistance to S.L. Magnitsky" caused his death.
But it's not the riot squad beating Browder, with no evidence, sold to the U.S. Congress, the State Department, the UK
Parliament, the Foreign Office and the media. Or that U.S. or UK authorities or media ever attempted to prove. Because like
the Tonkin Gulf "incident" and Iraq's WMD, the weaponized Russiagate stories have a foreign/military policy goal. Truth is
quite irrelevant.
"... Top former [Obama] officials, including former CIA Director John Brennan, are said to be targets of the Durham investigation. ..."
"... "The deep state is so deep that ppl get away w political crimes," wrote Grassley on Twitter. "Durham should be producing some fruit of his labor." ..."
Investigative reporter John Solomon says there's a "lot of activity" in U.S. Attorney John
Durham's criminal investigation of the Obama administration's probe of now-debunked claims of
Trump-Russia collusion during the 2016 election.
"My sources tell me there's a lot of activity. I'm seeing, personally, activity behind the
scenes [showing] the Department of Justice is trying to bring those first indictments, "
Solomon said in an interview with the Fox Business Network's Lou Dobbs
reported by the Washington Examiner .
"And I would look for a time around Labor Day to see the first sort of action by the
Justice Department."
Solomon said he's seeing "action consistent with building prosecutions and preparing for
criminal plea bargains."
"Until they bring it before the grand jury you never know if it's going to happen. I'm
seeing activity consistent with that. "
Top former [Obama] officials, including former CIA Director John Brennan, are said to be targets of
the Durham investigation.
But Attorney General William Barr has said he doesn't expect Obama and former Vice President
Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, to be subjects of a criminal
investigation.
Solomon said he is hearing from defense lawyers and people "on the prosecution side" that
complications with the coronavirus pandemic are "slowing down" the grand jury process.
"There is overwhelming evidence in the public record now that crimes were committed,"
Solomon said.
He cited "falsification of documents, false testimony, false representations before the FISA
court."
WND reported this week Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Finance
Committee, said Durham should launch any prosecutions before the November election.
"The deep state is so deep that ppl get away w political crimes," wrote Grassley on
Twitter. "Durham should be producing some fruit of his labor."
A report from DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz found at least 17 "significant" errors
or omissions related to the Obama administration's efforts to use the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act provisions against Trump.
WND reported former U.S. attorney Joe DiGenova said the public shouldn't worry about whether
or not charges are filed against Obama and Biden.
"Shaming" them will undoubtedly happen, with or without charges, he argued in an interview
with Boston radio host Howie Carr.
"I happen to believe that the public shaming of former President Obama and Vice President
Biden is far more important than indicting them," he said.
So much happens so fast in a world with a 15-minute news cycle that it's difficult for a
journalist to stop and breathe, let alone ponder the meaning of the latest breathless
reporting.
As an example, it seems like it was months ago when the D.C. Court of Appeals ordered Judge
Emmet Sullivan to dismiss the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, but
it was actually less than two weeks ago. June 24 to be exact, but to Flynn it probably seems
like forever. No word from Sullivan about whether he intends to follow the order of the senior
court, or continue to stall in an effort to punish Lt. Gen. Flynn for his political crime of
supporting President Trump. But based on his record so far, Sullivan can probably be counted on
to drag his feet while thumbing his nose at justice.
Whether it is the Flynn case, or the persecution of one-time Trump adviser Roger Stone for a
procedural crime of lying before a malevolent Congress, the implicit reason behind all the
over-the-top harassment almost seems to be to goad Trump into pardoning his much-maligned
associates in order to create another fake news cycle as we head into the 2020 election. Nobody
asks, "Did you see what that corrupt judge did? Or what the Democrat-worshiping DOJ did?" It's
always " Did you hear what that crazy bastard Trump did?" )
It doesn't seem to matter to the mainstream media that evidence has mounted into the
stratosphere that Trump has been right all along about his campaign being illegally surveilled
by the Obama administration. It doesn't matter that Trump survived a two-plus year
investigation by a special counsel and was cleared of any kind of collusion with the Russians.
The Democrats and their agents in the Deep State know that whatever they do to harass Trump
will be treated as noble and patriotic by the corrupt media, and that whenever evidence
surfaces of their criminal behavior it will be promptly buried again.
Which brings us to the infamous handwritten notes by disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok about
a White House meeting that surfaced in a recent filing in the Flynn case. Strzok had already
earned a prominent place in the "Wish I Hadn't Done That" Hall of Fame for his serial
confession via text message of not just marital infidelity but also constitutional perfidy. But
the half-page of notes released by Flynn's defense team rises to the level of a
history-altering "Oops!" Indeed, it could well be the Rosetta stone that allows us to penetrate
the secrets of the anti-Trump conspiracy that stretched from the FBI to the CIA, the Justice
Department and the White House.
What we know about the provenance of the notes comes from Flynn's attorney Sidney Powell,
who said they were written by Strzok about a meeting that took place on Jan. 4, 2017. The only
problem is that the cast of characters in the memo duplicates those who were in attendance at
the White House on Jan. 5, 2017, to discuss how the Obama administration should proceed in its
dealings with Flynn, who was accused of playing footsie with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak
prior to assuming his official role as national security adviser. Attorney General William Barr
has gone on the record (on the "Verdict With Ted Cruz" podcast) that the notes actually
describe the Jan. 5 meeting.
If so, the notes strongly contradict Susan Rice's CYA "memo to self" where the Obama
national security adviser recounts the Jan. 5 meeting and stresses three times that President
Obama and his team were handling the Flynn investigation "by the book." Methinks the lady doth
protest too much, especially now that we have Strzok's contemporaneous notes to contradict her
memo, which suspiciously was written in the final minutes of the Obama administration as Donald
Trump was being sworn in at the Capitol.
From what we can tell, Strzok (unlike Rice) was not writing his memo to protect anyone. He
seems to have merely jotted down some notes about what various participants in the meeting
said, including President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Rice, Deputy Attorney General Sally
Yates and Strzok's boss -- FBI Director James Comey. Chances are, at this point Strzok had no
idea his dirty laundry was going to be aired or that his role as a master of the universe was
going to be toppled.
But to see the importance of these notes, we need to transcribe them from the cryptic
handwritten notes. Words and phrases that are outright guesses are reproduced in brackets.
Speakers are noted at the beginning of each line. "NSA" stands for Rice. "D" stands for Comey.
"DAG" stands for Yates. "VP" stands for Biden. "P" stands for Obama. "Cuts" is said to refer to
summaries of phone calls monitored under a FISA warrant to collect foreign intelligence.
NSA - D - DAG: Flynn cuts. Other [countries].
D - DAG: Lean forward on [illegible, but possibly "ambass" as in ambassador. Others have
speculated on "useless" or "unless," which don't fit the context, or "unclass" as in
"unclassified" or even a name beginning with m. We just don't know.]
VP: "Logan Act"
P: These are unusual times
VP: I've been on the Intel Committee for 10 years and I never
P: Make sure you look at thing[s] + have the right people on it
P: Is there anything I shouldn't be telling transition team?
D: Flynn -- > Kislyak calls but appear legit.
[Apple][??] - Happy New Year - Yeah right
The reasons why these nine lines are so important have been adequately explored by other
writers on most of the relevant topics. Most significantly from a political point of view is
confirmation that Biden lied when he said he had nothing to do with the criminal prosecution of
Flynn. The Logan Act is a more than 200-year-old statute that forbids ordinary Americans from
negotiating with foreign governments that have a dispute with the United States. No one has
ever been convicted under the law, and Flynn was not an ordinary American, but rather the
incoming national security adviser; nonetheless it was a central plank in the plan to give
Flynn enough rope to hang himself. The fact that quotes appear only around the words Logan Act
suggest that this was a direct quote from Biden.
In addition, the order by Obama presumably to Comey to "have the right people on it"
suggests that there was a political element to the investigation and that the president wanted
loyalists to handle it. What other explanation is there? Who exactly are the "wrong people" in
the FBI? (That's a rhetorical question. Obviously the wrong people were Strzok, Comey and their
buddies at the FBI and CIA who were wiretapping honest Americans and framing a president.)
Finally, and most importantly for Flynn and his attorneys, we have a contemporaneous account
of the FBI director assuring the president that Flynn's conversations with Kislyak were
"legit." In that case, why did Strzok reveal in an instant message on Jan. 4, 2017, the day
before this historic meeting, that the FBI agent in charge should NOT close the case against
Flynn even though it should have already been closed because no evidence had accrued against
him? If Comey thought the general's conversations with Kislyak were "legit," then why did
Strzok tell another FBI contact that the "7th floor [was] involved" in the decision to keep the
Flynn case alive. The seventh floor being where the offices of Comey and the rest of the top
FBI brass are located. Strzok was ecstatic to find out that the case had "serendipitously" not
been closed, and told his girlfriend Lisa Page, "Our utter incompetence actually helps us."
There seems to be no consensus among analysts about the context of Strzok's notes. According
to Rice's independent recollection of the Jan. 5 meeting, only the principals named above were
present. CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had
already been booted out of the meeting after giving a briefing on alleged Russian election
interference. It seems unlikely that Strzok would have been present in any capacity.
Andrew McCarthy at
National Review speculates that "Strzok's notes were taken when someone later briefed him
about the White House meeting that Strzok did not attend." The New
York Post concludes that the Strzok memo is "plainly Strzok's notes of FBI chief Jim
Comey's account." Certainly if Strzok were briefed by someone in attendance, it was most likely
Comey. But Ivan Pentchoukov of
The Epoch Times floats a much more interesting idea about how Strzok came to be in
possession of the facts he recorded in the memo.
"The on-the-fly nature of the notes suggest that he was either physically present or
listened in on a conference call," Pentchoukov speculates.
Well, the
Washington Post reports that "Strzok's lawyer told The Fact Checker that Strzok did not
attend the meeting," and then suggests that probably means "the notes may recount what someone
else - perhaps Comey - told him about the meeting." Yes, maybe so, but there is good reason not
to skate over the possibility that, as Pentchoukov puts it, Strzok "listened in" on the
conversation.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
This is indeed heady stuff, as it is beyond reason to think that Strzok was an invited
participant. The last thing anyone at that meeting would want is an independent account of what
was said as they planned how to entrap one of the incoming president's closest aides. Yet that
does not eliminate the chance that Strzok benefited from some kind of surveillance technique to
eavesdrop on the conversation, either with the knowledge of one person in the room or possibly
with none. Of course it is scary to think that the FBI was wiretapping the White House, but
they did it to Trump Tower, so who knows?
It is the nature of the notes themselves that lends credence to this speculation. If they
were written after the fact to memorialize a conversation Strzok had with Comey or someone
else, there is no way to account for the brevity and choppiness of the account. Rather than
just put "Logan Act" next to VP, an after-the-fact recitation would have been more likely to
specify, "The Vice President brought up the Logan Act as one statute that could be used to
prosecute Flynn's dangerous dealings with the Russian ambassador." And most suspiciously, there
is no explanation for why Strzok would have cut off the end of Biden's other contribution to
the conversation. "I've been on the Intel Committee for 10 years and I never," the transcript
goes. "Never what?" the reader wants to know.
Of course we can add the words ourselves: "Never heard of anyone being prosecuted for
talking to a foreign leader, especially not if they had a legitimate interest in establishing
relations with their counterpart prior to a new president taking office." If Strzok were making
leisurely notes while talking to his boss, or especially if he had gone back to his own office
and thought it worthwhile to record what he had been told, would it make any sense for him to
stop in mid-sentence?
No, it wouldn't. It only makes sense if, as Pentchoukov describes it, the notes were written
"on the fly." Certainly not with a tape recorder running, where one could establish an exact
transcript, but hurriedly, sloppily, furtively. That would also explain why the handwriting is
not exactly consistent with other known samples of Strzok's script. Presumably, the FBI has
validated the handwriting as Strzok's, but does the FBI have any reason to lie about that?
Hmm.
Ultimately, if Strzok is indeed the author, we need him to testify under oath exactly what
is in the notes, and how they came to be written. Hopefully the FBI, the attorney general or
someone else will declassify the extensive redactions above and below the nine lines that were
released. One has to imagine that in those passages, Strzok revealed his source for the
material quoted, as well as confirming the date of the meeting, and possibly the reason for the
meeting. He has quite a tale to tell -- one that could change history.
If there were even one Republican senator in charge of a committee who had the curiosity of
a 3-year-old, it is likely we could actually get to the bottom of the shenanigans that nearly
toppled a president and finally pin the "tale" on the donkey -- the Democratic donkey that
is.
But Republican senators in an election year have better things to do than protect and defend
the Constitution. There are fundraisers to attend, after all.
Did CIA launched this provocation on its own or this is another Ciaramella from NSC in play?
This psy-op was a stunning success. But reaction of the part of the US audience was very damaging
for the NYT credibility, if such was left.
NYT is not journalism. It's good only to wipe your ***.
Salsa Verde , 1 hour ago
Doesn't matter what gets proven or disproven; rumors and baseless allegations ARE the new
"facts" of the woke left.
naro , 2 hours ago
NYSlimes has lost all credibility. When I see "anonymouse" source I just see a lazy,
lying, affirmative action hired reporter. ay_arrow
WTFUD , 2 hours ago
The only way you can stop this diarrhea is to publicly hang the perpetrators.
fackbankz , 2 hours ago
I can't believe they're still trying to sell that "Russian interference" nonsense.
No, actually, I can because they're still trying to sell this COVID-1984 nonsense.
scaleindependent , 2 hours ago
Now they tells us, right after the fake story was used to cancel the end of the
Afghanistan war.
JedClampIt , 3 hours ago
I'm surprised Tyler hasn't yet ripped apart today's NYT editorial, which proves that when
you're wrong, just keep repeating it louder.
Stable-Genius , 3 hours ago
I would trust a Russian far more than I would trust any democrat
zerohedgeguy , 3 hours ago
Here's another theory : the democrats placed these bounties
Thordoom , 3 hours ago
It doesn't matter it was a BS story.
Everybody who at least have some sense and knowledge of the world knew it made no sense
whatsoever.
The damage has been done.
Most of the americans now hate russians even more than ever and even want them dead or
sanctioned to hell.
This psy-op was a stunning success.
consider me gone , 3 hours ago
Like the Taliban needs money to inspire them to kill Americans. They do that as community
service work on their days off. Now if you told me the Russians gave them some weapons to
help, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised. But the US would never do that to the Russians
and certainly not in Afghanistan.
Skeletor @53 Re: Using compromised "Operation Mockingbird" corporate mass media as
sources even though that mass media is known to deliberately disinform.
These articles and news segments can be analysed at a deeper level, though. To build up to
their Big Lie of the story's narrative , the corporate mass media must use small
pieces of fact and truth, which they assemble in deceptive ways, to make their false
narrative palatable. It is the job of the analyst to look beyond the intended
narrative of a corporate mass media product to find the fact and truth fragments that
they are using to sell the false narrative .
What I get the biggest kick out of is that the creators of these corporate mass media
false narratives are often themselves the loudest voices protesting our host using
their own products to counter their narratives . They really hate it when their own
words are used to discredit their own narratives , and so they whine that if you are
not going to swallow their vile narrative , then you should not refer to their words.
Poor babies!
While it is true that inattentive readers who are prone to uncritically installing false
narratives in their own heads should avoid consuming those mass media products,
analysts who are skilled at filtering out and separating the narrative from the
supporting text of articles can easily dig out facts from that media ore without risk of
contamination of their minds with crap. Our host is one of those kinds of analysts.
Unfortunately, since you, Skeletor, cannot tell the difference between narrative and
information, you run a great risk of being remote controlled by the false narrative if
you consume unprocessed corporate mass media products. I recommend that you avoid them.
@36 Jackrabbit Sure, Kayfabe explains why the NYTimes ran with this story NOW, as in, July
2020.
I'm pointing out how and why that story originated back in 2018 i.e. way back then.
The story was concocted then as a way for the CIA to divert everyone else's attention away
from the massive cash-flow that resulted from the Taliban/CIA cooperative business venture
otherwise known as "the heroin trade".
That was why the "Russian bounty" nonsense was created, to blind the US military to what
was happening.
Nothing more.
No less.
It is NOW being bandied around in the New York Times and the Washington Post for a
completely different reason i.e. to create a new scandal in an attempt - once more, yet again
- to "get" Trump for reasons of... reasons. Whatever. He's not liked in most corridors of
power in Washington.
I don't doubt that this story coming out NOW has horrified the CIA because - and let's be
honest here - the "Russian Bounty!!!" story is so preposterous that it really can't stand up
to much scrutiny at all, as we have all just seen.
As a fanciful story it worked with the US military in Afghanistan because it validated
their worse fears and prejudices.
It doesn't work as a front-page story in the New York Times because (did I mention this
already?) it is preposterous nonsense.
"The memo said that the C.I.A. and the National Counterterrorism Center had
assessed".....
I said a week ago that the CIA - not the US military in Afghanistan - was responsible for
concocting this original story about "Russian Bounties".
They did so because the US military in Afghanistan had noticed all the cash sloshing
around the Taliban and wanted the CIA to find out where it came from.
The CIA could hardly admit It Came From Us, Baby! but also couldn't just shrug the
shoulders and mutter "I dunno, go find out for yer'self" in case the military did exactly
that.
But this? Why, "Russian bounty" is sure to push all the right buttons with the military,
and is guaranteed to concentrate the minds of both the soldiers and the generals. It's a
perfect distraction.
But I think b might be onto something here. Even if the claim originated as a bit of
deliberate misdirection for the benefit of a puzzled Army of Occupation, once the story gets
into the ears of someone like Schiff then it's going to be like a red rag to a bull.
Everytime Trump says he is going to pull out of somewhere something comes up that allows
him to not do so.
The Dems just playing their role so he can explain to his base why he could not pull out
of Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.
The US will never, ever leave Iraq (oil), Syria (Israel), or Afghanistan (poppy), just
like we never left Germany, Japan or Korea (and many other places)
Trump never had any intention of pulling out. Which is one reason he stopped reporting on
deployments to Afghanistan. Iraq and Syria in 2017
He has bipartisan support for staying in, the MIC wants to stay in, more important is
Israel demands it.
Try and give up your false 2 party paradigm. Both parties are united on almost every major
issue except the fluff social issues . Its just Kayfabe.
You conclude: "But the short live (sic) of the false claims made certain that it failed to
achieve this." This is not true. A bipartisan bill has now been introduced that, if enacted,
will give Congress oversight of the drawdown of troops in Afghanistan. Trump wants the troops
out, the sooner the better. Congress clearly wants to prevent that. So the false story in the
NYT and the WaPo does appear to be achieving its purpose.
as usual, by the time the truth had its boots on the lie had already spread halfway
around the world . the liars have an intrinsic edge here as long as they still have some
credibility with the msm consuming public. as long as they own the msm.
"... I basically doubt that Trump will matter more then Obama did. Didn't Trump claim more or less directly Obama created ISIS by withdrawing the troops from Iraq? ..."
"... Only when foreign-policy elites cease to cite isolationism to explain why the "sole superpower" has stumbled of late will they be able to confront the issues that matter. Ranking high among those issues is an egregious misuse of American military power and an equally egregious abuse of American soldiers. Confronting the vast disparity between U.S. military ambitions since 9/11 and the results actually achieved is a necessary first step toward devising a serious response to Donald Trump's reckless assault on even the possibility of principled statecraft. ..."
We're under attack so we must stay to get killed??
...
@Caliman | Jul 7 2020 17:25 utc | 1
I basically doubt that Trump will matter more then Obama did. Didn't Trump claim more or less directly Obama created ISIS by
withdrawing the troops from Iraq?
The Old Normal. Why we can't beat our addiction to war, by Andrew J. Bacevich, Harper's March 2020 issue:
Only when foreign-policy elites cease to cite isolationism to explain why the "sole superpower" has stumbled of late will
they be able to confront the issues that matter. Ranking high among those issues is an egregious misuse of American military
power and an equally egregious abuse of American soldiers. Confronting the vast disparity between U.S. military ambitions
since 9/11 and the results actually achieved is a necessary first step toward devising a serious response to Donald Trump's reckless
assault on even the possibility of principled statecraft.
So they dusted of McFaul to provide the support for bounty provocation. I wonder whether
McFaul one one of Epstein guests, or what ?
So who was the clone of Ciaramella this time? People want to know the hero
Notable quotes:
"... Not to doubt McFaul's ulterior motives; one must assume him to be an "honest man" -- however misguided, in my opinion. He seems to be a disciple of the James Clapper-Curtis LeMay-Joe McCarthy School of Russian Analysis. ..."
"... Clapper, a graduate summa cum laude , certainly had the Russians pegged! Clapper was allowed to stay as Barack Obama's director of national intelligence for three and a half years after perjuring himself in formal Senate testimony (on NSA's illegal eavesdropping). On May 28, 2017 Clapper told NBC's Chuck Todd about "the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique." ..."
"... As a finale, in full knowledge of Clapper's proclivities regarding Russia, Obama appointed him to prepare the evidence-impoverished, misnomered "Intelligence Community Assessment" claiming that Putin did all he could, including hacking the DNC, to help Trump get elected -- the most embarrassing such "intelligence assessment" I have seen in half a century . ..."
"... Does no one see the irony today in the Democrats' bashing Trump on Afghanistan, with the full support of the Establishment media? The inevitable defeat there is one of the few demonstrable disasters not attributable directly to Trump, but you would not know that from the media. Are the uncorroborated reports of Russian bounties to kill U.S. troops aimed at making it appear that Trump, unable to stand up to Putin, let the Russians drive the rest of U.S. troops out of Afghanistan? ..."
"... Does the current flap bespeak some kind of "Mutiny on the Bounties," so to speak, by a leaker aping Eric Chiaramella? Recall that the Democrats lionized the CIA official seconded to Trump's national security council as a "whistleblower" and proceeded to impeach Trump after Chiaramella leaked information on Trump's telephone call with the president of Ukraine. Far from being held to account, Chiaramella is probably expecting an influential job if his patron, Joe Biden, is elected president. Has there been another mutiny in Trump's White House? ..."
"... It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the "intelligence" on WMD in Iraq was not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never held to account. ..."
"... Here's an assignment due on Monday. Read McFaul's oped carefully. It appears under the title: "Trump would do anything for Putin. No wonder he's ignoring the Russian bounties: Russia's pattern of hostility matches Trump's pattern of accommodation." ..."
"... Full assignment for Monday: Read carefully through each paragraph of McFaul's text and select which of his claims you would put into one or more of the three categories adduced by Sen. Rockefeller 12 years ago about WMD on Iraq. With particular attention to the evidence behind McFaul's claims, determine which of the claims is (a) "uncorroborated"; which (b) "contradicted"; and which (c) "non-existent;" or (d) all of the above. For extra credit, find one that is supported by plausible evidence. ..."
"... Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt are both long-time members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), flagship of the globalist “liberal world order”. The CFR and its many interlocking affiliates, along with their media assets and frontmen in government, have dominated US policy since WW2. Most of the Fed chairmen and secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense and CIA have been CFR members, including Jerome Powell and Mark Esper. ..."
"... The major finance, energy, defense and media corporations are CFR sponsors, and several of their execs are members. David Rubenstein, billionaire founder of the notorious Carlyle Group, is the current CFR chairman. Laurence Fink, billionaire chairman of BlackRock, is a CFR director. See lists at the CFR website. ..."
"... “It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the “intelligence” on WMD in Iraq was not “mistaken;” it was fraudulent from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never held to account.” ..."
"... They are spoon fed those lies by our “intelligence” agencies. As CNN’s Jeff Zucker said, “We’re not investigators, we’re journalists”. Replace “journalists” with “toadies” or “shills” for our “intelligence” community and you’ve gotten to the truth of the matter. ..."
"... In the unhealthy society of Clintons, Obamas, Epstein, Mueller, Adelsons, Clapper, and Krystols, human dignity is a sin. ..."
"... Our institutions including journalism are not merely corrupt, they are degenerate. That is, the corruption is not occasional or the exception is is by design, desired and entirely normal. ..."
"... from Counterpunch.org : “Around 15,000 Soviet troops perished in the Afghan War between 1979 and 1989. The US funneled more than $20 billion to the Mujahideen and other anti-Soviet fighters over that same period. This works out to a “bounty” of $1.33 million for each Soviet soldier killed.” ..."
"... Yes, of course it is a well-known ‘fact’ that Putin has nothing better to do than destory American democracy, and I bet he has dreams about it too! But I am minded to think that if anybody has a penchant for destroying American democracy it is the powers that be in the US deep state, intelligence agencies, and zionist cliques controlling the President and Congress. ..."
"... Udo Ulfkotte was a German journalist. He wrote a sensational book about the practices he experienced of the CIA paying German journalists to publish certain stories. The book was a big best seller in Germany. Its English translation was suppressed for years, but I believe is now available. ..."
"... Gekaufte journalisten. Ulfkotte admitted he signed off on numerous articles that were prepared for him during his career. The last year’s of his life he changed his mores and advocated “better die in truth than live with lies”. ..."
Has there been another mutiny in Trump's White House, as Obama's former ambassador to Russia
piles on the nonsense about Trump being in Putin's pocket?
C orporate media are binging on leaked Kool Aid not unlike the WMD concoction they offered
18 years ago to "justify" the U.S.-UK war of aggression on Iraq.
Now Michael McFaul, ambassador to Russia under President Obama, has been enlisted by The
Washington Post 's editorial page honcho, Fred Hiatt, to draw on his expertise (read,
incurable Russophobia) to help stick President Donald Trump back into "Putin's pocket." (This
has become increasingly urgent as the canard of "Russiagate" -- including the linchpin claim
that Russia hacked the DNC -- lies gasping for air.)
In an
oped on Thursday McFaul presented a long list of Vladimir Putin's alleged crimes, offering
a more ostensibly sophisticated version of amateur Russian specialist, Rep. Jason Crow's (D-CO)
claim that: "Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to figure
out how to destroy American democracy."
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry with McFaul meeting Vladimir Putin and Russian Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov in Moscow, Russia, on May 7, 2013. (State Department)
McFaul had -- well, let's call it an undistinguished career in Moscow. He arrived with a
huge chip on his shoulder and proceeded to alienate just about all his hosts, save for the
rabidly anti-Putin folks he openly and proudly cultivated. In a sense, McFaul became the
epitome of what Henry Wooton described as the role of ambassador -- "an honest man sent to lie
abroad for the good of his country." What should not be so readily accepted is an ambassador
who comes back home and just can't stop misleading.
Not to doubt McFaul's ulterior motives; one must assume him to be an "honest man" --
however misguided, in my opinion. He seems to be a disciple of the James Clapper-Curtis
LeMay-Joe McCarthy School of Russian Analysis.
Clapper, a graduate summa cum laude , certainly had the Russians pegged! Clapper
was allowed to stay as Barack Obama's director of national intelligence for three and a half
years after perjuring himself in formal Senate testimony (on NSA's illegal eavesdropping). On
May 28, 2017 Clapper told NBC's Chuck
Todd about "the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically
driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian
technique."
As a finale, in full knowledge of Clapper's proclivities regarding Russia, Obama
appointed him to prepare the evidence-impoverished, misnomered "Intelligence Community
Assessment" claiming that Putin did all he could, including hacking the DNC, to help Trump get
elected -- the most embarrassing such "intelligence assessment" I have seen in half a century
.
Obama and the National Security State
I have asked myself if Obama also had earned some kind of degree from the
Clapper/LeMay/McCarthy School, or whether he simply lacked the courage to challenge the
pitiably self-serving "analysis" of the National Security State. Then I re-read "Obama Misses the Afghan
Exit-Ramp" of June 24, 2010 and was reminded of how deferential Obama was to the generals and
the intelligence gurus, and how unconscionable the generals were -- like their predecessors in
Vietnam -- in lying about always seeing light at the end of the proverbial tunnel.
Thankfully, now ten years later, this is all
documented in Craig Whitlock's, "The Afghanistan Papers: At War With the Truth." Corporate
media, who played an essential role in that "war with the truth", have not given Whitlock's
damning story the attention it should command (surprise, surprise!). In any case, it strains
credulity to think that Obama was unaware he was being lied to on Afghanistan.
Some Questions
Clark Gable (l.) with Charles Laughton (r.) in Mutiny on the Bounty, 1935.
Does no one see the irony today in the Democrats' bashing Trump on Afghanistan, with the
full support of the Establishment media? The inevitable defeat there is one of the few
demonstrable disasters not attributable directly to Trump, but you would not know that from the
media. Are the uncorroborated reports of Russian bounties to kill U.S. troops aimed at making
it appear that Trump, unable to stand up to Putin, let the Russians drive the rest of U.S.
troops out of Afghanistan?
Does the current flap bespeak some kind of "Mutiny on the Bounties," so to speak, by a
leaker aping Eric Chiaramella? Recall that the Democrats lionized the CIA official seconded to
Trump's national security council as a "whistleblower" and proceeded to impeach Trump after
Chiaramella leaked information on Trump's telephone call with the president of Ukraine. Far
from being held to account, Chiaramella is probably expecting an influential job if his patron,
Joe Biden, is elected president. Has there been another mutiny in Trump's White House?
And what does one make of the
spectacle of Crow teaming up with Rep. Liz Cheney (R, WY) to restrict Trump's planned
pull-out of troops from Afghanistan, which The Los Angeles Timesreports
has now been blocked until after the election?
Hiatt & McFaul: Caveat Editor
And who published McFaul's oped? Fred Hiatt, Washington Post editorial page editor
for the past 20 years, who has a long record of listening to the whispers of anonymous
intelligence sources and submerging/drowning the subjunctive mood with flat fact. This was the
case with the (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the U.S.-UK attack.
Readers of the Post were sure there were tons of WMD in Iraq. That Hiatt has invited
McFaul on stage should come as no surprise.
To be fair, Hiatt belatedly acknowledged that the Post should have been more
circumspect in its confident claims about the WMD. "If you look at the editorials we write
running up [to the war], we state as flat fact that he [Saddam Hussein] has weapons of mass
destruction," Hiatt said in an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review . "If
that's not true, it would have been better not to say it." [CJR, March/April 2004]
At this word of wisdom, Consortium News founder, the late Robert Parry,
offered this comment: "Yes, that is a common principle of journalism, that if something isn't
real, we're not supposed to confidently declare that it is." That Hiatt is still in that job
speaks volumes.
'Uncorroborated, Contradicted, or Even Non-Existent'
It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the "intelligence" on WMD in Iraq was
not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never
held to account.
Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate
Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller ( D-WV)
said the attack on Iraq was launched "under false pretenses." He described the intelligence
conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even
non-existent."
Homework
Yogi Berra in 1956. (Wikipedia)
Here's an assignment due on Monday. Read McFaul's
oped carefully. It appears under the title: "Trump would do anything for Putin. No wonder
he's ignoring the Russian bounties: Russia's pattern of hostility matches Trump's pattern of
accommodation."
And to give you a further taste, here is the first paragraph:
"Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to have paid Taliban rebels in Afghanistan to
kill U.S. soldiers. Having resulted in at least one American death, and maybe more, these
Russian bounties reportedly produced the desired outcome. While deeply disturbing, this
effort by Putin is not surprising: It follows a clear pattern of ignoring international
norms, rules and laws -- and daring the United States to do anything about it."
Full assignment for Monday: Read carefully through each paragraph of McFaul's text and
select which of his claims you would put into one or more of the three categories adduced by
Sen. Rockefeller 12 years ago about WMD on Iraq. With particular attention to the evidence
behind McFaul's claims, determine which of the claims is (a) "uncorroborated"; which (b)
"contradicted"; and which (c) "non-existent;" or (d) all of the above. For extra credit, find
one that is supported by plausible evidence.
Yogi Berra might be surprised to hear us keep quoting him with "Deja vu, all over again."
Sorry, Yogi, that's what it is; you coined it.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27-year career as a CIA analyst, he prepared and
briefed The President's Daily Brief for Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. He is
co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
Tarus77 , July 6, 2020 at 14:25
Gad, one wonders if it can ever get much lower in the press and the answer is yes, it can
and will go lower, i.e. the mcfaul/hiatt tag team. They are still plumbing for the lows.
The question becomes just how stupid these two are or how stupid do they believe the
readership is to read and believe this garbage.
Voice from Europe , July 6, 2020 at 11:58
By now the Russia did it ! is in effect a joke in Russia. Economically, politically, geo
strategically China and Asia and Africa have become more important and reliable partners of
Russia than the USA. And Europe is also dropping fast on the trustworthy partners
list…..
John , July 5, 2020 at 12:55
Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt are both long-time members of the Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR), flagship of the globalist “liberal world order”. The CFR and its
many interlocking affiliates, along with their media assets and frontmen in government, have
dominated US policy since WW2. Most of the Fed chairmen and secretaries of State, Treasury,
Defense and CIA have been CFR members, including Jerome Powell and Mark Esper.
The major finance, energy, defense and media corporations are CFR sponsors, and several of
their execs are members. David Rubenstein, billionaire founder of the notorious Carlyle
Group, is the current CFR chairman. Laurence Fink, billionaire chairman of BlackRock, is a
CFR director. See lists at the CFR website.
Anna , July 6, 2020 at 09:38
Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt are both very active promoters of hate crimes. Neither has
any decency hence decency is allergic to war profiteers and opportunistic liars.
The poor USA; to descend to such a deep moral hole that both Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt
are still alive and prospering. Shamelessness and presstituting are paid well in the US.
Dems and Reps are already mad. You cannot destroy what does not exist; like Democracy in
these United States. Nor God or Putin could. This has always being a fallacy. This is not a
democracy; same thing with ”communist" China or the USSR .Those two were never
socialist. There has never being a real Socialist or Communist country.
Guy , July 4, 2020 at 12:26
“It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the
“intelligence” on WMD in Iraq was not “mistaken;” it was fraudulent
from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never held to account.”
That statement goes to the crux of the matter.Why should journalists care about what is true
or a lie in their reports ,they know they will never be held to account .They should be held
to account through the court system . A lie by any journalist should be actionable by any
court of law . The fear of jail time would sort out the scam journalists we presently have to
endure .
As it is they have perverted the profession of journalism and it is the law of the
jungle .No true democracy should put up with this. We are surrounded with lies that are
generated by the very establishment that should protect it’s citizens from same .
Skip Scott , July 4, 2020 at 15:36
They are spoon fed those lies by our “intelligence” agencies. As CNN’s
Jeff Zucker said, “We’re not investigators, we’re journalists”.
Replace “journalists” with “toadies” or “shills” for our
“intelligence” community and you’ve gotten to the truth of the matter.
Anna , July 6, 2020 at 09:50
The ‘journalists’ observe how things have been going on for Cheney the Traitor
and Bush the lesser — nothing happened to the mega criminals. The hate-bursting and
war-profiteering Cheney’s daughter has even squeezed into US Congress.
In a healthy society where human dignity is cherished, the Cheney family will be ostracized
and the family name became a synonym for the word ‘traitor.’ In the unhealthy society of Clintons, Obamas, Epstein, Mueller, Adelsons, Clapper, and Krystols, human dignity
is a sin.
Ricard Coleman , July 6, 2020 at 11:42
Our institutions including journalism are not merely corrupt, they are degenerate. That
is, the corruption is not occasional or the exception is is by design, desired and entirely
normal.
Stan W. , July 4, 2020 at 12:10
I’m still confident that Durham’s investigation will expose and successfully
prosecute the maggots that infest our government.
Skip Scott , July 4, 2020 at 15:29
What is the basis for this confidence?
John Puma , July 4, 2020 at 12:03
Re: whether Obumma “had earned some kind of degree from the Clapper/LeMay/McCarthy
School” of Russia Analytics.
It would be a worthy addition to his degree collection featuring that earned from the
Neville Chamberlain Night School of Critical Political Negotiation.
Jeff Harrison , July 4, 2020 at 11:16
Hmmm. Lessee. The US attacks Afghanistan with about the same legitimacy that we had when
we attacked Iraq and the Taliban are in charge. We oust the Taliban from power and put our
own puppets in place. What idiot thinks that the Taliban are going to need a bounty to kill
Americans?
Jeff Harrison, I like your logic. Plus, I understand that far fewer Americans are being
killed in Afghanistan than were under Obama’s administration.
AnneR , July 4, 2020 at 10:27
Frankly, I am sick to death of the unwarranted, indeed bestial Russophobia that is
megaphoned minute by minute on NPR and the BBC World Service (only radio here since my
husband died). If it isn’t this latest trumped up (ho ho) charge, there are repeated
mentions, in passing, of course, of the Russiagate, hacking, Kremlin control of the Strumpet
to back up the latest bunch of lies.
Doesn’t matter at *all* that Russiagate was
debunked, that even Mueller couldn’t actually demonstrably pull the DNC/ruling elites
rabbit out of the hat, that the impeachment of the Strumpet went nowhere. And it clearly
– by its total absence on the above radio broadcasts – doesn’t matter one
iota that the Pentagonal hasn’t gone along, that gaping holes in the confabulation are
(and were) obvious to those who cared to think with half a mind awake and reflecting on past
US ruling elite lies, untruths, obfuscations. Nope. Just repeat, repeat, repeat. Orwell would
clap his hands (not because he agreed with the atrocious politics but the lesson is
learnt).
Added to the whipped up anti-Russia, decidedly anti-Putin crapola – is of course the
Russian peoples’ vote, decision making on their own country’s changes to the
Basic Law (a form of Constitution). When the radio broadcasts the usual sickening
anti-Russian/Putin propaganda regarding this vote immediately prior they would state that the
changes would install Putin for many more years: no mention that he would have to be elected,
i.e. voted by the populace into the presidency. (This was repeated ad infinitum without any
elaboration.) No other proposed changes were mentioned – certainly not that the Duma
would gain greater control over the governance of the country and over the president’s
cabinet. I.e. that the popularly elected (ain’t that what we call democracy??)
representatives in the Duma (parliament) would essentially have more power than the
president.
But most significantly, to my mind, no one has (well of course not – this is Russia)
raised the issue of the fact that it was the Russian people, the vox populi/hoi polloi, who
have had some say in how they are to be governed, how their government will work for them.
HOW much say have we had/do we have in how our government functions, works – let alone
for us, the hoi polloi? When did we the citizenry last have a voting say on ANY sentence in
the Constitution that governs us??? Ummm I do believe it was the creation of the wealthy
British descended slave holding, real estate ethnic-cleansing lot who wrote and ratified the
original document and the hardly dissimilar Congressional and state types who have over the
years written and voted on various amendments. And it is the members of the upper classes in
the Supreme Court who adjudicate on its application to various problems.
BUT We the hoi polloi have never, ever had a direct opportunity to individually vote for
or against any single part of the Constitution which is supposed to be the
“democratic” superstructure which governs us. Unlike the Russians a couple of
days ago.
Richard Coleman , July 6, 2020 at 15:48
“HOW much say have we had/do we have in how our government functions,
works…” See, that’s your mistake right there. WE don’t have a
government. We need one, but we ain’t got one. THEY have a government which they let us
go through the motions of electing. ‘Member back when Bernie was talking about a
Political Revolution?
Here’s a little fact for you. The five most populous states have a total of
123,000,000 people. That’s 10 Senators. The five least populated states have a total of
3.5 million. That’s also 10 Senators. Democracy anyone?
vinnieoh , July 4, 2020 at 09:37
There have been three coup d’état within the US within the lifetimes of most
that read these pages. The first was explained to us by Eisenhower only as he was exiting his
time from the national stage; the MIC had co-opted our government. The second happened in
2000, with the putsch in Florida and then the adoption by the neocon cabal of Bush /Chaney of
the PNAC blueprint “Strategies for Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (Defenses
– hahahaha – shit!). The third happened late last year and early this year when
the bottom-up grass-roots movement of progressivism was crushed by the DNC and the
cold-warrior hack Biden was inserted as the champion of “the opposition
party.”
And, make no mistake that Kamala Harris WILL be his running mate. It was always going to
be Harris. It was to be Harris at the TOP of the ticket as the primaries began, but she
wasn’t even placing in the top tier in any of the contests. However, the poohbahs and
strategists of the DNC are nothing if not determined and consistent. If Biden should win, we
should all start practicing now saying “President Harris” because that is what
the future holds. For the DNC, she looks the part, she sounds the part, but more importantly
she is the very definition of the status quo, corporate ass-kisser, MIC tool.
The professional political class have fully colluded to fatally cripple this democratic
republic. “Democracy” is just a word they say like, “Where’s my
kickback?” (excuse me – my “motivation”.) This bounty scam and the
rehabilitation of GW Bush are nothing but a full blitzkrieg flanking of Trump on the right.
And Trump of course is so far out of his depth that he actually believes that Israel is his
friend. (A hint Donny: Israel is NO-ONE’S friend.)
What is most infuriating? hope-crushing? plain f$%&*#g scary? is that the majority of
Americans from all quarters do not want any of what the professional political class keeps
dumping on us. The very attempt at performing this upcoming election will finally and forever
lay completely bare the collapse of a functioning government. It’s going to be very
ugly, and it may very well be the end. Dog help us all.
Richard Coleman , July 6, 2020 at 15:51
Don’t you think that the assassination of JFK counts as a coup d’etat?
Zhu , July 7, 2020 at 02:10
Apres moi, le Deluge.
John Drake , July 7, 2020 at 11:25
Oh gosh how can you forget the Kennedy Assassination. Most people don’t realize he
was had ordered the removal of a thousand advisors from Vietnam starting the process of
completely cutting bait there, as he had in Laos and Cambodia. All of which made the generals
apoplectic. The great secret about Vietnam-which Ellsberg discovered much latter, and
mentioned in his book Secrets, another good read- was that every president had been warned it
was likely futile. Kennedy was the only one who took that intelligence seriously-like it was
actually intelligent intelligence.
Enter stage right Allen Dulles (fired CIA chief), the anti Castro Cubans, the Mafia and
most important the MIC; exit Jack Kennedy.
Douglas, JFK why he died and why it matters is the best work on the subject. And no Oswald
did not do it; it was a sniper team from different angles, but read the book it gets
complicated.
Roger , July 4, 2020 at 09:11
from Counterpunch.org : “Around 15,000 Soviet troops perished in the Afghan War
between 1979 and 1989. The US funneled more than $20 billion to the Mujahideen and other
anti-Soviet fighters over that same period. This works out to a “bounty” of $1.33
million for each Soviet soldier killed.”
Skip Scott , July 4, 2020 at 08:35
I am wondering how Cheney and Crow can block Trump from withdrawing the troops from
Afghanistan. Is Trump Commander in Chief, or not? How can two senators stop the Commander in
Chief from commanding troop movements? I realize they control the budget, but aren’t
they crossing into illegality by restricting Trump’s ability to
“command”?
Toad Sprocket , July 4, 2020 at 16:49
Yeah, I imagine it’s illegal. Didn’t Lindsay Graham threaten the same thing
when Trump was thinking of pulling troops/”advisers” from Syria? And other
congress warmongers joined in though I don’t think any legislation was passed. They
can’t be bothered to authorize the starts of wars but want to step in when someone
tries to end them.
Oh, and Schumer on South Korea troops, I think that one did pass. Almost certainly illegal
if it came down to it, but our government is of course lawless. And our courts full of judges
who are bought off or moronic or both.
dean 1000 , July 4, 2020 at 06:52
The soft coup attempt continues Ray. More lies and bullshit. It may continue until
election day. Will the media fess-up to its lies after the fact again?
Francis Lee , July 4, 2020 at 04:49
“Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to figure
out how to destroy American democracy.”
Yes, of course it is a well-known ‘fact’ that Putin has nothing better to do
than destory American democracy, and I bet he has dreams about it too! But I am minded to
think that if anybody has a penchant for destroying American democracy it is the powers that
be in the US deep state, intelligence agencies, and zionist cliques controlling the President
and Congress.
”Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.”
The American establishment seems to be suffering from a bad case of
‘projection’ as psychiatrists call it. That is to say accusing others of what
they are themselves actually doing.
The whole idiotic circus would be hilarious if it were not so serious.
Antonia Young , July 4, 2020 at 12:20
Putin’s (and by extension the Russian Federation’s) primary objective is
international stability. “Destroying America, dividing Americans is the last thing he
wants.) Putin learned many lessons during the break-up of the U.S.S.R. observing the carpet
baggers/oligarchs/vultures who descended on the weak nation, absconding with it’s
wealth and resources at mere fractions of their real value. The deep state’s worst fear
is the co-operation btwn Putin and President Trump to make the world more peaceful, stable,
co-operative and prosperous.
rosemerry , July 4, 2020 at 16:10
The whole conceited and arrogant “belief” that
The USA has any resemblance to a democracy and
Pres. Putin has nothing else to do but think how he could do a better job of showing the
destructive and irresponsible behavior of the USA than its own leaders” and media can
do with no help
has no basis in reality.
If anything, Putin is such a stickler for international law, negotiations, avoidance of
conflict that he is regarded by many as too Christian for this modern, individualistic,
LBGTQ, ”nobody matters but me” worldview of the USA!
Steve Naidamast , July 5, 2020 at 19:54
“If the enemy is self destructing, let them continue to do so…”
Napoleon
Zhu , July 7, 2020 at 02:17
“zionist cliques”: Christian Zionist fighting Fundies, eager for the End of
the World, the Second Coming of Jesus.
delia ruhe , July 4, 2020 at 01:09
Yup, we got a Bountygate. Since my early morning visit to the Foreign Policy site, the
place has exploded with breathless articles on the dastardly Putin and the cowardly Trump,
who has so far failed to hold Putin to account. Reminded me of a similar explosion there when
Russiagate finally got the attention the Dems thought it deserved.
(Anyone think that the intel community pays a fee to each of the FP columnists whenever
one of their a propaganda narratives needs a push to get it off the ground?)
Udo Ulfkotte was a German journalist. He wrote a sensational book about the practices he experienced of the CIA paying German
journalists to publish certain stories. The book was a big best seller in Germany. Its English translation was suppressed for years, but I believe is now available.
Susan Siens , July 5, 2020 at 16:30
Reply to John Chuckman: I’d love to read this book but it wasn’t available a
few years ago when I looked. I’ll look again!
Voice from Europe , July 6, 2020 at 11:52
Gekaufte journalisten.
Ulfkotte admitted he signed off on numerous articles that were prepared for him during his
career. The last year’s of his life he changed his mores and advocated “better
die in truth than live with lies”.
Richard A. , July 4, 2020 at 00:59
I remember the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour from decades ago. Real experts on Russia like
Dimitri Simes and Stephen Cohen were the ones to appear on that NewsHour. The NewsHour of
today rarely has experts on Russia, just experts on Russia bashing–like Michael McFaul.
Oh how the mighty have fallen.
Antonia Young , July 3, 2020 at 23:35
Thank you, Ray for your clarion voice in the midst of WMD-seventeen-point-oh. Will the
American people have the wisdom to notice how many times we’re being fooled? And
finally wake up and stop supporting these questionable news outlets? With appreciation for
your excellent analysis, as usual. ~Tonia Young (Formerly with the Topanga Peace
Alliance)
The majority of Americans have a lot more to worry about than the latest nonsense about
Russia. I think most people just tune it out.
The ones being fooled are the fools who have been lapping this crap up from the get go. The
supposed educated class who think themselves superior and well informed because they read and
listen to the propaganda of PBS, NPR, NYT etc.
They don’t seem to realize the ship is sinking while they’re playing these
ridiculous games.
Susan Siens , July 5, 2020 at 16:34
The supposedly educated class, yes! It can be stunning how people believe anything they
hear on PBS or NPR, and then they make fun of people who believe anything they hear on Fox
News. What’s the difference? Both are propaganda tools.
And, yes, watch us go down in flames while so-called progressives boo-hoo about Trump
thinking he’s above the law (like every other president before him). Our local
“peace and justice” group sent me an email asking me to sign a petition
supporting Robert Mueller. I was gobsmacked, and then I realized our local “peace and
justice” group had been taken over by Democratic Party “resisters.”
Jeezums, why is every word hijacked?
"... "The purpose of this shabby round of 'Russiagate' nonsense was to hinder Trump's plans to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan before the election ..." ..."
"... is the part I don't understand from the MSM: so, even if it was true that the Russkies and the Iranians (our go-to baddies in the area) WERE paying bounties to kill American soldiers, how the Hell is that an argument for staying longer? We're under attack so we must stay to get killed?? ..."
"... Once again the Democrats of being stupid will probably lose the election. I always thought Russia could be great friend to the west and the USA , in the mean time China is more dangerous than Russia ..."
"... If you're a military-industrial contractor, or for that matter, one that is helping smuggle opium out of Afghanistan, you want the US to stay. Saying that Russians are paying the Taliban bounties might cause the US to reinforce its force level in Afghanistan. ..."
"... Don't neglect American mass psychology. Americans never retreat. Advance to the rear, perhaps, but America's mighty military machine will never run away. If the narrative that American troops are being hunted for bounties takes root in the American public's warped imaginations, then the New York Langley Times and the Washington Bezos Post can attack Trump as a coward who runs away while the fight is still on. That's not an image Trump can tolerate so he would be forced to keep troops there and even do some air strikes. ..."
"... No doubt China is laughing its ass off at this latest attempt at RussiaGate 2.0. Both the Dems and Trump continue to do Beijing's bidding, whether it's witting or not. ..."
"... Taliban isn't truly the enemy when you remove the veil, or certainly not anymore than al Qaeda is/was and Daesh. They're all American inventions and as such, America will tell them when and where to kill American soldiers, not uppity Russia. ..."
"... SEARCHING FOR LEAKERS THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION has opened an internal investigation to try to uncover who leaked intelligence about Russians paying the Taliban bounties to kill American soldiers. The administration maintains the story is overcooked and the leaks cherry-picked despite a steady stream of follow-ups from media outlets across the globe. ..."
"... "How the Hell is than an argument for staying longer?" -- It is the result of 'staying in Afghanistan' that matters to these folks, not the quality or the rationale of the argument. With the MSM echo chamber and Trump's ability to put his tweet in his mouth I don't think anyone can predict in advance what might stick. Throw enough shit at a wall, something will stick. They can't control trump, they can't really bruise him more than they have, so they just continually shotgun hopeful crisis at him. Pass the popcorn, I have a feeling this is about to get really good. ..."
"... The reasons for staying in Afghanistan are the true problem. Opioids (the CIA might go bankrupt), Pipelines (US control of oil), and Military Power Projection (borders with Iran, China, and the Russian dominated Stans). It is hard to say how much or if any of this benefits the American people, but it certainly benefits those clinging to corporate profits and retaining their piece fo the global economic pie. ..."
"... It seems likely that the 'Russian bounties' story was arranged with the full knowledge of the Trump Administration. USA doesn't really want to pull out. ..."
"... Unfortunately, the trumped up story is NOT a dud; it did its job. Congress has made it impossible to bring home troops from Afghanistan, ensuring that the murder machine/grift combo can continue, with more money to be made by those on the inside getting paid to support the efforts. ..."
"... The CIA won't go broke when the flow of afghani opium dries up. That stuff is just a trickle anyway, compared to the tidal waves of cocaine coming out of South America. And I don't even believe that they really need any dope money to keep themselves afloat. It's simply important that noone else gets to benefit from that mountain of easy cash. ..."
"... This says Russia paying bounties to the Taliban was exposed as a hoax. Yes, it was a partisan hoax. No, it is not really "exposed." It is believed as an article of faith now by a vast number of people. It is now in the "birther" phase: nonsense people believe because they want to believe it. ..."
"... There is a good chance that the origins of this story lie with MI6, The Guardian's current proprietor. Like the Steele dossier, Skripal, the links between Manafort and Wikileaks, the "hacking" of the DNC and much else in the attempt to revive the Cold War (when MI6 had lots of fun and money was no object- the halcyon days of LeCarre and Ian Fleming) this bears the fingerprints of British spooks. ..."
"... Luke Harding's friends and colleagues at the Integrity Initiative and the Institute for Statecraft would like a honorable mention too, for all the hard work they put in, even if it is well rewarded at the British tax payers's expense. ..."
July 07, 2020
The Latest 'Russiagate' BOMBSHELL Took Just One Week To Be Exposed As Dud. Who Was Its
Source?
Within just one week the recent attempt to revive 'Russiagate' has failed. It was an
embarrassing failure for the media who pushed it. Their 'journalists' fell for obvious
nonsense. They let their sources abused them for political purposes.
On June 27 the New York Times and the Washington Postpublished
stories which claimed that Trump was informed about alleged Russian bounty payments to the
Taliban for killing U.S. soldiers and did nothing about it:
A Russian military spy unit offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants to attack coalition
forces in Afghanistan, including U.S. and British troops, in a striking escalation of the
Kremlin's hostility toward the United States, American intelligence has found.
The Russian operation, first reported by the New York Times, has generated an intense
debate within the Trump administration about how best to respond to a troubling new tactic by
a nation that most U.S. officials regard as a potential foe but that President Trump has
frequently embraced as a friend, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity
to discuss a sensitive intelligence matter.
The story ran on page A-1 of the paper version of the NYT .
We immediately
called it out as the obvious nonsense that it was:
Now the intelligence services make another claim that fits right into the above
['Russiagate'] scheme.
Reporters from the New York Times and the Washington Post were called up by
unnamed 'officials' and told to write that Russia pays some Afghans to kill U.S. soldiers in
Afghanistan. There is zero evidence that the claim is true. The Taliban spokesman denies it.
The numbers of U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan is minimal. The alleged sources of the
claims are criminals the U.S. has taken as prisoners in Afghanistan.
All that nonsense is again used to press against Trump's wish for better relations with
Russia. Imagine - Trump was told about these nonsensical claims and he did nothing about
it!
But that the story was obviously bullshit did not prevent Democrats in Congress, including
'Russiagate' swindler Adam Schiff, to bluster about it and to call for immediate briefings and
new sanctions
on Russia .
Just a day after it was published the main accusation, that Trump was briefed on the
'intelligence' died. The Director of National Intelligence, the National Security Advisor and
the CIA publicly rejected the claim. Then the rest of the story started to crumble. On June 2,
just one week after it was launched, the story was
declared dead :
A memo produced in recent days by the office of the nation's top intelligence official
acknowledged that the C.I.A. and top counterterrorism officials have assessed that Russia
appears to have offered bounties to kill American and coalition troops in Afghanistan, but
emphasized uncertainties and gaps in evidence , according to three officials.
...
The memo said that the C.I.A. and the National Counterterrorism Center had assessed with
medium confidence -- meaning credibly sourced and plausible, but falling short of near
certainty -- that a unit of the Russian military intelligence service, known as the G.R.U.,
offered the bounties, according to two of the officials briefed on its contents.
But other parts of the intelligence community -- including the National Security Agency,
which favors electronic surveillance intelligence -- said they did not have information to
support that conclusion at the same level, therefore expressing lower confidence in the
conclusion, according to the two officials.
The NYT buried the above quoted dead corpse of the original story page A-19.
Last week we also learned that Adam Schiff, who had blamed Trump for not reacting to the
fake 'intelligence' and who used the story to call for more Russia sanctions,
had been briefed on the very same 'intelligence' months ago:
Top committee staff for Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, were briefed in February on intelligence about Russia
offering the Taliban bounties in Afghanistan, but he took no action in response to the
briefing, multiple intelligence sources familiar with the briefing told The Federalist.
...
The revelation raises serious questions that Schiff is once again politicizing, and perhaps
even deliberately misrepresenting, key data for partisan gain.
Asked by a reporter Tuesday if he had any knowledge of the Russia story prior to the New
York Times report, Schiff said "I can't comment on specifics."
Schiff's recent complaints that Trump took no action against Russia in response to rumors
of Russian bounties are curious given that Schiff himself took no action after his top staff
were briefed by intelligence officials. As chairman of the intelligence committee, Schiff had
the authority to immediately brief the full committee and convene hearings on the matter.
Schiff, however, did nothing.
As Schiff and his committee staff knew about the claims they may well have been the ones who
pushed it to the reporters.
Consider that both papers, the NYT and the WaPo , attribute their knowledge to
'officials'. There is a code for anonymous sources in U.S. political reporting that is usual
adhered to. Sources are described as 'White House officials', 'administration officials',
'Pentagon officials' or 'intelligence officials' when they are working for the government.
Congressional sources are usually described as 'officials' without any additional
attribute.
The original sources also made the false claim that Trump had been briefed on the
'intelligence'. Source in the White House or the CIA would have likely known that this had not
been the case. Sources from Congress had no way of knowing that.
That makes it quite likely that Schiff and/or members of his staff were the original sources
of the fake story. Consider that it was Schiff who for two years had claimed
again and again that there was 'direct evidence" that the Trump campaign had colluded with
the Russian government. That has turned out to have been a lie. It is certainly not beyond
Schiff to sell a dubious 'intelligence' report, based on circumstantial evidence, as alarming
news that required immediate action.
The purpose of this shabby round of 'Russiagate' nonsense was to hinder
Trump's plans to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan before the election, to sabotage the
cooperation between Russia and the U.S. on the negotiations with the Taliban and to blame Trump
of another 'collusion' with the ever hated Russia.
But the short live of the false claims made certain that it failed to achieve this.
Posted by b on July 7, 2020 at 17:08 UTC |
Permalink
"The purpose of this shabby round of 'Russiagate' nonsense was to hinder Trump's plans to
withdraw all troops from Afghanistan before the election ..."
is the part I don't understand from the MSM: so, even if it was true that the Russkies and
the Iranians (our go-to baddies in the area) WERE paying bounties to kill American soldiers,
how the Hell is that an argument for staying longer? We're under attack so we must stay to
get killed??
It doesn't even make sense as an effort to tarnish the peace deal with the Taliban: how is
making peace with them after 20 years of war a worse idea knowing they may be getting paid to
kill our folks, as well as doing it for their own purposes? If anything, it makes it even
more imperative to make peace!
Once again the Democrats of being stupid will probably lose the election. I always thought
Russia could be great friend to the west and the USA , in the mean time China is more
dangerous than Russia, with the stupid MIC and the haters of Russia are pushing Russia
toward the east , it will be a war between the US , Europe against Russia , China and Iran
.
Guess who is going to win .
We're under attack so we must stay to get
killed??
Yes. If you're a military-industrial contractor, or for that matter, one that is helping
smuggle opium out of Afghanistan, you want the US to stay. Saying that Russians are paying
the Taliban bounties might cause the US to reinforce its force level in Afghanistan.
I mean, yeah, it makes no sense - but then staying in Afghanistan for almost twenty years
didn't make any sense anyway. So "any excuse will do" is the idea - and always has been.
There was never a rational reason to invade Afghanistan in the first place. It was all about
oil and heroin from the get-go.
"...even if it was true that the Russkies and the Iranians (our go-to baddies
in the area) WERE paying bounties to kill American soldiers, how the Hell is that an argument
for staying longer? We're under attack so we must stay to get killed??"
Don't neglect American mass psychology. Americans never retreat. Advance to the rear,
perhaps, but America's mighty military machine will never run away. If the narrative that
American troops are being hunted for bounties takes root in the American public's warped
imaginations, then the New York Langley Times and the
Washington Bezos Post can attack Trump as a coward who runs away while the
fight is still on. That's not an image Trump can tolerate so he would be forced to keep
troops there and even do some air strikes.
In other words, the fake news about bounties was just one part of the operation to keep US
troops in Afghanistan.
No doubt China is laughing its ass off at this latest attempt at RussiaGate 2.0. Both the
Dems and Trump continue to do Beijing's bidding, whether it's witting or not.
1.5 billion people in the span of several decades have transformed into ravenous,
rapacious, insatiable consumers on a finite planet's with already severely diminished
resources and a climate out of equilibrium.
All of that plus COVFEFE-19, plus a potential Swine Flu pandemic on top of it and the
Bubonic Plague, and the corporatist media is focusing on Russia paying the Taliban to kill
American soldiers when allegedly that's what the Taliban is doing any way?
America taking umbrage with the Russian bounties, even if true, tells me that perhaps the Taliban isn't truly the enemy
when you remove the veil, or certainly not anymore than al Qaeda is/was and Daesh. They're all American inventions and as such, America will tell them
when and where to kill American soldiers, not uppity Russia.
Politico reports Trump is opening an investigation into who sourced those articles.
-- SEARCHING FOR LEAKERS THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION has opened an internal investigation to
try to uncover who leaked intelligence about Russians paying the Taliban bounties to kill
American soldiers. The administration maintains the story is overcooked and the leaks
cherry-picked despite a steady stream of follow-ups from media outlets across the globe.
THE ADMINISTRATION has interviewed people with access to the intelligence, and believes
it has narrowed down the universe of suspects to fewer than 10 people.
THE ADMINISTRATION has said it would search for leakers in its ranks on many occasions.
Notably, they vowed to find out who wrote an anonymous op-ed in the NYT almost two years
ago. They said they'd find who leaked the president's calendars in February 2019. Most of
these probes fizzled out or faded away.
BUT, THE ADMINISTRATION seems a bit more worked up about these leaks, due to the highly
classified nature of the intelligence.
"How the Hell is than an argument for staying longer?" -- It is the result of 'staying in
Afghanistan' that matters to these folks, not the quality or the rationale of the argument.
With the MSM echo chamber and Trump's ability to put his tweet in his mouth I don't think
anyone can predict in advance what might stick. Throw enough shit at a wall, something will
stick. They can't control trump, they can't really bruise him more than they have, so they
just continually shotgun hopeful crisis at him. Pass the popcorn, I have a feeling this is
about to get really good.
The reasons for staying in Afghanistan are the true problem. Opioids (the CIA might go
bankrupt), Pipelines (US control of oil), and Military Power Projection (borders with Iran,
China, and the Russian dominated Stans). It is hard to say how much or if any of this
benefits the American people, but it certainly benefits those clinging to corporate profits
and retaining their piece fo the global economic pie.
America sure did retreat from Libya and the irony is, the instigator, Sarkozy, never got
what he strategized to get from it, which was reelection. America and NATO left it to the
other aspiring imperialist pretenders, Turkey and Russia, and look what a mess they're making
of it. It's as messy as if America was conducting the occupation and civil war itself. Maybe
the point of Libya is as a military playground for imperialist pretenders to strut their
stuff. A catwalk of sorts.
... the short live of the false claims made certain that it failed ...
I disagree. The committee voted to delay removing troops and the Russiagate nonsense was
refreshed in the public's mind. I'd bet that Schiff's previous knowledge of Russia offering
bounties doesn't get much USA media attention. The controversy didn't have to persist very
long for it to be successful. It was largely already over when the news about Schiff came
out.
To say it failed seems like projection and wishful thinking.
And consider this: Is it really possible that Trump didn't know - or couldn't have quickly
found out - that Schiff had been briefed? It seems likely that the 'Russian bounties' story
was arranged with the full knowledge of the Trump Administration. USA doesn't really want to
pull out.
The real story here is the dog that didn't bark at the dog that didn't
bark.
Speaking to the House Armed Services Committee, Gen. Frank McKenzie, commander of U.S.
Central Command, said the military is following through on its part of a landmark peace
agreement the Trump administration struck with the Taliban late last month to reduce the
number of American troops in the country, but he also told lawmakers he has "no confidence"
in the Taliban's willingness to pursue a peace process with the U.S.-backed Afghan
government in Kabul.
"We're going to go to 8,600 by the summer. Conditions on the ground will dictate if
we go below that,"
Meanwhile. not a word from the corporatist media about Maxwell and Epstein being blackmailers
for the intelligence services. Instead, they were just some rogue, random, wealthy,
highly-connected sex freaks. Maxwell and Epstein is the REAL election interference story.
RussiaGate is the distracting cover for it.
thanks b... interesting theory schiff is behind the ongoing russiagate news, or the latest
episode - bountygate... of course the dem party never miss a chance to shot themselves in the
foot... or is it that the major players want another 4 years of trumps excellent leadership
record? snark! tough call as to who is zooming who here, but if i want to be distracted, i
will know to read what wg refers to as the langley times, or the bezos post... bad enough i
read moa, lol...
Unfortunately, the trumped up story is NOT a dud; it did its job. Congress has made it
impossible to bring home troops from Afghanistan, ensuring that the murder machine/grift
combo can continue, with more money to be made by those on the inside getting paid to support
the efforts.
The CIA won't go broke when the flow of afghani opium dries up. That stuff is just a trickle
anyway, compared to the tidal waves of cocaine coming out of South America. And I don't even
believe that they really need any dope money to keep themselves afloat. It's simply important
that noone else gets to benefit from that mountain of easy cash.
However, if the USA leaves Afghanistan today, the first pipeline will be laid down
tomorrow, connecting Iranian oilfields to Chinese industry.
This says Russia paying bounties to the Taliban was exposed as a hoax. Yes, it was a partisan hoax. No, it is not really "exposed." It is believed as an article of faith now by a vast number
of people. It is now in the "birther" phase: nonsense people believe because they want to believe
it.
I doubt truth will ever catch up with this lie, because those who purport to be fact
checkers and truth tellers are the perpetrators and benefactors of this lie.
Any chance you could send a message to the "journalists" at the Guardian that the story is
nonsense.
They are going full "Russians bad, Trump stupid"
Don't worry about the facts.
There is a good chance that the origins of this story lie with MI6, The Guardian's current
proprietor. Like the Steele dossier, Skripal, the links between Manafort and Wikileaks, the
"hacking" of the DNC and much else in the attempt to revive the Cold War (when MI6 had lots
of fun and money was no object- the halcyon days of LeCarre and Ian Fleming) this bears the
fingerprints of British spooks.
The Guardian is on a voyage across the Atlantic, looking for economic security, and stories
like these, fabricated by Luke Harding on orders from above, are meant to endear the failing
rag to those for whom a trillion bucks a year for the Pentagon is easily delivered.
And what is even worse is if you told those believers that the US was doing that very
thing when it was the Russian military there they would be joyously applauding.
Luke Harding's friends and colleagues at the Integrity Initiative and the Institute for
Statecraft would like a honorable mention too, for all the hard work they put in, even if it
is well rewarded at the British tax payers's expense.
Other than that, given England's near century head start and resulting lead at imperial
decline vis-á-vis their former colony, I doubt that these operations are entirely
concocted by Her Majesty's diligent servants alone. I'd wager that the limeys are excellent
cutouts for domestic operations that hold potential to become a little too close to full-bore
treason for comfortable and plausible denial. Even when they are all in it together (apart
from you and me of course). It's all a matter of perception.
"They would"?? They DID! Have you forgotten all about Rambo in Afghanistan ? Even Starship Troopers, a totally over the top satire of that genre got those murkins
fist-pumpin 'n yeah-brawling at the theaters.
In an
oped on Thursday McFaul presented a long list of Vladimir Putin's alleged crimes, offering
a more ostensibly sophisticated version of amateur Russian specialist, Rep. Jason Crow's (D-CO)
claim that: "Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to figure
out how to destroy American democracy."
Francis Lee , July 4, 2020 at 04:49
“Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to
figure out how to destroy American democracy.”
Yes, of course it is a well-known ‘fact’ that Putin has nothing better to do
than destory American democracy, and I bet he has dreams about it too! But I am minded to
think that if anybody has a penchant for destroying American democracy it is the powers that
be in the US deep state, intelligence agencies, and zionist cliques controlling the President
and Congress.
”Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.”
The American establishment seems to be suffering from a bad case of
‘projection’ as psychiatrists call it. That is to say accusing others of what
they are themselves actually doing.
The whole idiotic circus would be hilarious if it were not so serious.
@Robert White how self-important, arrogant, and entitled these jerks are, they would
understand the volcanic rage directed at Trump. But there is more. Many of these people
really are utterly corrupt in the sense that they have made huge amounts of money through
illegal deals, influence-peddling, etc. They felt secure in the knowledge that Hillary
Clinton was surely not going to go after them, though she might have insisted on a piece of
the pie,, like the greasy, small-town lawyer she is. Now things are not nearly so sure and
they know it.
Trump is far from perfect, in any way you can imagine. Come November, after he has used Joe
Biden as a dishrag, Mr. White and friends will suffer a real case of the sadz.
Ray McGovern's latest piece in Consortium is a good summary of the Russia bounty story
with some details about Michael McFaul, former hack diplomat and Putin hater under Obama, now
working for Fred Hiatt at the WAPO. As usual, McGovern names names and tells a story that
makes sense while including his own perspective as a daily briefer to Reagan.
Bottom lines, Dems are getting weirder and scarier. https://consortiumnews.com/2020/07/03/ray-mcgovern-mutiny-on-the-bounties/
Russia since Putin does not offer much global profit; Xi Jinping on the other hand does,
for (manufacturing) stock market darlings like Apple, Amazon or Walmart etc. The five Eyes
need an enemy to keep budgets up, anyone will do, and Russia is Wall street's favorite bogey,
keeping China out of the limelight.
Western left keeps on supporting Xi, bedazzled by his orchestrated propaganda of being a
benign ruler. They barely care about Russia, the main activity is denigrating their own West:
"we" are bad = some European colonialists and fascists of two or more generations
ago .
Max Blumenthal breaks down the "Russian bounty" story's flaws and how it aims to prolong
the war in Afghanistan -- and uses Russiagate tactics to continue pushing the Democratic Party
to the right
Multiple US media outlets, citing anonymous intelligence officials, are claiming that Russia
offered bounties to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan, and that President Trump has taken no
action.
Others are contesting that claim. "Officials said there was disagreement among
intelligence officials about the strength of the evidence about the suspected Russian
plot," the New York Times reports. "Notably, the National Security Agency, which specializes in
hacking and electronic surveillance, has been more skeptical."
"The constant flow of Russiagate disinformation into the bloodstream of the Democratic Party
and its base is moving that party constantly to the right, while pushing the US deeper into
this Cold War," Blumenthal says.
Guest: Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone and author of several books, including his
latest "The Management of Savagery."
TRANSCRIPT
AARON MATÉ: Welcome to Pushback, I'm Aaron Maté. There is a new
supposed Trump-Russia bombshell. The New York Times and other outlets reporting that
Russia has been paying bounties to Afghan militants to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan. Trump
and the White House were allegedly briefed on this information but have taken no action.
Now, the story has obvious holes, like many other Russiagate bombshells. It is sourced to
anonymous intelligence officials. The New York Times says that the claim comes from
Afghan detainees. And it also has some logical holes. The Taliban have been fighting the US
and Afghanistan for nearly two decades and never needed Russian payments before to kill the
Americans that they were fighting; [this] amongst other questions are raised about this
story. But that has not stopped the usual chorus from whipping up a frenzy.
RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC: Vladimir Putin is offering bounties for the scalps of
American soldiers in Afghanistan. Not only offering, offering money [to] the people who kill
Americans, but some of the bounties that Putin has offered have been collected, meaning the
Russians at least believe that their offering cash to kill Americans has actually worked to
get some Americans killed.
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Donald Trump has continued his embarrassing
campaign of deference and debasing himself before Vladimir Putin. He had has [sic] this
information according to The Times, and yet he offered to host Putin in the United
States and sought to invite Russia to rejoin the G7. He's in his entire presidency has been a
gift to Putin, but this is beyond the pale.
CHUCK TODD, NBC: Let me ask you this. Do you think that part of the that the
president is afraid to make Putin mad because maybe Putin did help him win the election and
he doesn't want to make him mad for 2020?
SENATE MINORITY LEADER CHUCK SCHUMER: I was not briefed on the Russian military
intelligence, but it shows that we need in this coming defense bill, which we're debating
this week, tough sanctions against Russia, which thus far Mitch McConnell has resisted.
Joining me now is Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone, author of The Management of
Savagery . Max, welcome to Pushback. What is your reaction to this story?
MAX BLUMENTHAL: I mean, it just feels like so many other episodes that we've
witnessed over the past three or four years, where American intelligence officials basically
plant a story in one outlet, The New York Times , which functions as the media wing of
the Central Intelligence Agency. Then no reporting takes place whatsoever, but six reporters,
or three to six reporters are assigned to the piece to make it look like it was some
last-minute scramble to confirm this bombshell story. And then the story is confirmed again
by The Washington Post because their reporters, their three to six reporters in, you
know, capitals around the world with different beats spoke to the same intelligence
officials, or they were furnished different officials who fed them the same story. And, of
course, the story advances a narrative that the United States is under siege by Russia and
that we have to escalate against Russia just ahead of another peace summit or some kind of
international dialogue.
This has sort of been the general framework for these Russiagate bombshells, and of course
they can there's always an anti-Trump angle. And because, you know, liberal pundits and the,
you know, Democratic Party operatives see this as a means to undermine Trump as the election
heats up. They don't care if it's true or not. They don't care what the consequences are.
They're just gonna completely roll with it. And it's really changed, I think, not just US
foreign policy, but it's changed the Democratic Party in an almost irreversible way, to have
these constant "quote-unquote" bombshells that are really generated by the Central
Intelligence Agency and by other US intelligence operations in order to turn up the heat to
crank up the Cold War, to use these different media organs which no longer believe in
reporting, which see Operation Mockingbird as a kind of blueprint for how to do journalism,
to turn them into keys on the CIA's Mighty Wurlitzer. That's what happened here.
AARON MATÉ: What do you make of the logic of this story? This idea that the
Taliban would need Russian money to kill Americans when the Taliban's been fighting the US
for nearly two decades now. And the sourcing for the story, the same old playbook: anonymous
intelligence officials who are citing vague claims about apparently what was said by Afghan
detainees.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: This story has, as I said, it relies on zero reporting. The only
source is anonymous American intelligence officials. And I tweeted out a clip of a former CIA
operations officer who managed the CIA's operation in Angola, when the US was actually
fighting on the side of apartheid South Africa against a Marxist government that was backed
up by Cuban troops. His name was John Stockwell. And Stockwell talked about how one-third of
his covert operations staff were propagandists, and that they would feed imaginary stories
about Cuban barbarism that were completely false to reporters who were either CIA assets
directly or who were just unwitting dupes who would hang on a line waiting for American
intelligence officials to feed them stories. And one out of every five stories was completely
false, as Stockwell said. We could play some of that clip now; it's pretty remarkable to
watch it in light of this latest fake bombshell.
JOHN STOCKWELL: Another thing is to disseminate propaganda to influence people's
minds, and this is a major function of the CIA. And unfortunately, of course, it overlaps
into the gathering of information. You, you have contact with a journalist, you will give him
true stories, you'll get information from him, you'll also give him false stories.
OFF-CAMERA REPORTER: Can you do this with responsible reporters?
JOHN STOCKWELL: Yes, the Church Committee brought it out in 1975. And then Woodward
and Bernstein put an article in Rolling Stone a couple of years later. Four hundred
journalists cooperating with the CIA, including some of the biggest names in the
business.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: So, basically, I mean, you get the flavor of what someone who was
in the CIA at the height of the Cold War I mean, he did the same thing in Vietnam. And the
playbook is absolutely the same today. These this story was dumped on Friday in The New
York Times by "quote-unquote" American intelligence officials, as a breakthrough had been
made in Afghan peace talks and a conference was finally set for Doha, Qatar, that would
involve the Taliban, which had been seizing massive amounts of territory.
Now, it's my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the Taliban had been
fighting one of the most epic examples of an occupying army in modern history, just
absolutely chewing away at one of the most powerful militaries in human history in their
country for the last 19 years, without bounties from Vladimir Putin or
private-hotdog-salesman-and-Saint-Petersburg-troll-farm-owner Yevgeny Prigozhin , who always comes up
in these stories. It's always the hotdog guy who's doing everything bad from, like, you know,
fake Facebook ads to poisoning Sergei Skripal or whatever.
But I just don't see where the Taliban needs encouragement from Putin to do that. It's
their country. They want the US out and they have succeeded in seizing large amounts of
territory. Donald Trump has come into office with a pledge to remove US troops from
Afghanistan and ink this deal. And along comes this story as the peace process begins to
advance.
And what is the end-result? We haven't gotten into the domestic politics yet, but the
end-result is you have supposedly progressive senators like Chris Murphy of Connecticut
attacking Trump for not fighting Russia in Afghanistan. I mean, they want a straight-up proxy
war for not escalating. You have Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign
Relations, someone who's aligned with the Democratic Party, who supported the war in Iraq
and, you know, supports just endless war, demanding that the US turn up the heat not just in
Afghanistan but in Syria. So, you know, the escalatory rhetoric is at a fever pitch right
now, and it's obviously going to impact that peace conference.
Let's remember that three days before Trump's summit with Putin was when Mueller chose to
release the indictment of the GRU agents for supposedly hacking the DNC servers. Let's
remember that a day before the UN the United Nations Geneva peace talks opened on Syria in
2014 was when US intelligence chose to feed these shady Caesar photos, supposedly showing
industrial slaughter of Syrian prisoners, to The New York Times in an investigation
that had been funded by Qatar. Like, so many shady intelligence dumps have taken place ahead
of peace summits to disrupt them, because the US doesn't feel like it has enough skin in the
game or it just simply doesn't want peace in these areas.
So, that's what happened here. That's really, I think, the essential backdrop for the
timing of this story. It really reveals how completely decayed mainstream media is as an
institution, that none of these reporters protested the story, didn't see fit to do any
independent investigation into it. At best they would print a Russian denial which counts for
nothing in the US, or a Taliban denial which counts for nothing in the US. And then and this
gets into the domestic political angle because so much of Russiagate, while it's been crafted
by former or current intelligence officials, depends on the Democratic Party and it
punditocracy, MSNBC and mainstream media as a projection megaphone, as its Mighty Wurlitzer.
That took place in this case because, according to this story, Donald Trump had been briefed
on Putin paying bounties to the Taliban and he chose to do nothing. Which, of course Trump
denies, but that counts for nothing as well. But, again, there's been no independent
confirmation of any of this. And now we get into the domestic part, which is that this new
Republican anti-Trump operation, The Lincoln Project, had a flashy ad ready to go almost
minutes after the story dropped.
THE LINCOLN PROJECT AD: Now we know Vladimir Putin pays a bounty for the murder of
American soldiers. Donald Trump knows, too, and does nothing. Putin pays the Taliban cash to
slaughter our men and women in uniform and Trump is silent, weak, controlled. Instead of
condemnation he insists Russia be treated as our equal.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: I mean, maybe they're just really good editors and brilliant
politicians who work overtime. They're just, like, on meth at Steve Schmidt's political
Batcave, just churning this material out. But I feel like they had an inkling, like this
story was coming. It just the coordination and timing was impeccable.
And The Lincoln Project is something that James Carville, the veteran Democratic
consultant, has said is doing more than any Democrat or any Democratic consultant to elect
Joe Biden. They're always out there doing the hard work. Who are they? Well, Steve Schmidt is
a former campaign manager for John McCain 2008. And you look at the various personnel
affiliated with it, they're all McCain former McCain aides or people who worked on the Jeb
and George W. Bush campaigns, going back to Texas and Florida. This is sort of the corporate
wing of the Republican Party, the white-glove-country-club-patrician Republicans who are very
pro-war, who hate Donald Trump.
And by doing this, by them really taking the lead on this attack, as you pointed out,
Aaron, number one, they are sucking the oxygen out of the more progressive anti-Trump
initiatives that are taking place, including in the streets of American cities. They're
taking the wind out of anti-Trump more progressive anti-Trump critiques. For example, I think
it's actually more powerful to attack Trump over the fact that he used, basically, chemical
weapons on American peaceful protesters to do a fascistic photo-op. I don't know why there
wasn't some call for congressional investigations on that. And they are getting skin in the
game on the Biden campaign. It really feels to me like this Lincoln campaign operation, this
moderate Republican operation which is also sort of a venue for neocons, will have more
influence after events like this than the Bernie Sanders campaign, which has an enormous
amount of delegates.
So, that's what I think the domestic repercussion is. It's just this constant it's the
constant flow of Russiagate disinformation into the bloodstream of the Democratic Party and
its base that's moving that party constantly to the right, while pushing the US deeper into
this Cold War that only serves, you know, people who are associated with the national
security state who need to justify their paycheck and the budget of the institutions that
employ them.
AARON MATÉ: Let's assume for a second that the allegation is true, although,
you know, you've laid out some of the reasons why it's not. Can you talk about the history
here, starting with Afghanistan, something you cover a lot in your book, The Management of
Savagery, where the US aim was to kill Russians, going right on through to Syria, where
just recently the US envoy for the coalition against ISIS, James Jeffery, who handles Syria,
said that his job now is to basically put the Russians in a quagmire in Syria.
JAMES JEFFREY: This isn't Afghanistan. This isn't Vietnam. This isn't a quagmire.
My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah, I mean, it feels like a giant act of psychological and
political projection to accuse Russia of using an Islamist militia in Afghanistan as a proxy
against the US to bleed the US into leaving, because that's been the US playbook in Central
Asia and the Middle East since at least 1979. I just tweeted a photo of Dan Rather in
Afghanistan, just crossing the Pakistani border and going to meet with some of the Mujahideen
in 1980. Dan Rather was panned in The New York in The Washington Post by Tom
Toles [Tom Shales], who was the media critic at the time, as "Gunga Dan," because he was so
gung-ho for the Afghan mujahideen. In his reports he would complain about how weak their
weaponry was, you know, how they needed more how they needed more funding. I mean, you could
call it bounties, but it was really just CIA funding.
DAN RATHER: These are the best weapons you have, huh? They only have about twenty
rounds for this?
TRANSLATOR: That's all. They have twenty rounds. Yes, and they know that these are
all old weapons and they really aren't up to doing anything to the Russian weaponry that's
around. But that's all they have, and this is why they want help. And he is saying that
America seems to be asleep. It doesn't seem to realize that if Afghanistan goes and the
Russians go over to the Gulf, that in a very short time it's going to be the turn of the
United States as well.
DAN RATHER: But I'm sure he knows that in Vietnam we got our fingers burned.
Indeed, we got our whole hands burned when we tried to help in this kind of situation.
TRANSLATOR [translating to the Afghan man and then his reply]: Your hands were
burned in Vietnam, but if you don't agree to help us, if you don't ally yourself with us,
then all of you, your whole body will be burnt eventually, because there is no one in the
world who can really fight and resist as well as the as much and as well as the Afghans
are.
DAN RATHER: But no American mother wants to send her son to Afghanistan.
TRANSLATOR [translating to the Afghan man and then his reply]: We don't need
anybody's soldiers here to help us, but we are being constantly accused that the Americans
are helping us with weapons. What we need, actually, are the American weapons. We don't need
or want American soldiers. We can do the fighting ourselves.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: And a year or several months before, the Carter Administration, at
the urging of national security chief Zbigniew Brzezinski, had enacted what would become
Operation Cyclone under Reagan, an arm-and-equip program to arm the Afghan mujahideen. The
Saudis put up a matching fund which helped bring the so-called Services Bureau into the field
where Osama bin Laden became a recruiter for international jihadists to join the battlefield.
And, you know, the goal was, in the words of Brzezinski, as he later admitted to a French
publication, was to force the Red Army, the Soviet Red Army, to intervene to protect the
pro-Soviet government in Kabul, which they proceeded to do. And then with the introduction of
the Stinger missile, the Afghan mujahideen, hailed as freedom fighters in Washington, were
able to destroy Russian supply lines, exact a heavy toll, and forced the Red Army to leave in
retreat. They helped create what's considered the Soviet Union's Vietnam.
So that was really but the blueprint for what Russian for what Russia is being accused of
now, and that same model was transferred over to Syria. It was also actually proposed for
Iraq in the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998. Then Senate Foreign Relations chair Jesse Helms
actually said that the Afghan mujahideen should be our model for supporting the Iraqi
resistance. So, this kind of proxy war was always on the table. Then the US did it in Syria,
when one out of every $13 in the CIA budget went to arm the so-called "moderate rebels" in
Syria, who we later found out were 31 flavors of jihadi, who were aligned with al-Qaeda's
local affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra and helped give rise to ISIS. Michael Morell, I tweeted some
video of him on Charlie Rose back in, I think, 2016. He's the former acting director for the
CIA, longtime deputy director. He said, you know, the reason that we're in Syria, what we
should be doing is causing Iran and Russia, the two allies of Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian
president, to pay a heavy price.
MICHAEL MORELL: We need to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. We need to make
the Russians pay a price. The other thing
CHARLIE ROSE: We make them pay the price by killing killing Russians?
MICHAEL MORELL: Yes.
CHARLIE ROSE: And killing Iranians.
MICHAEL MORELL: Yes, covertly. You don't tell the world about it, right? You don't
stand up at the Pentagon and say we did this, right? But you make sure they know it in Moscow
and Tehran.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: What he means is by basically paying bounties, which the US was
literally doing along with its Gulf allies, to exact the toll on the allies of Assad, Russia.
So, let's just say it's true, according to your question, let's just say this is all true. It
would be a retaliation for what the United States has done to Russia in areas where it was
actually legally invited in by the governments in charge, either in Kabul or Damascus. And
that's, I think, the kind of ironic subtext that can hardly be understated when you see
someone like Dan Rather wag his finger at Putin for paying the Taliban as proxies. But, I
mean, it's such a ridiculous story that it's just hard to even fathom that it's real.
AARON MATÉ: Let me read Dan Rather's tweet, because it's so it speaks to
just how pervasive Russiagate culture is now. People have learned absolutely nothing from
it.
Rather says, "Reporters are trained to look for patterns that are suspicious, and time and
again one stands out with Donald Trump. Why is he so slavishly devoted to Putin? There is a
spectrum of possible answers ranging from craven to treasonous. One day I hope and suspect we
will find out."
It's like he forgot, perhaps, that Robert Mueller and his team spent three years
investigating this very issue and came up with absolutely nothing. But the narrative has
taken hold, and it's, as you talked about before, it's been the narrative we've been
presented as the vehicle for understanding and opposing Donald Trump, so it cannot be
questioned. And now it's like it's a matter of, what else is there to find out about Trump
and Russia after Robert Mueller and the US intelligence agencies looked for everything they
could and found nothing? They're still presented as if it's some kind of mystery that has to
be unraveled.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: And it was after, like, a week of just kind of neocon resistance
mind-explosion, where first John Bolton was hailed as this hero and truthteller about Trump.
Then Dick Cheney was welcomed into the resistance, you know, because he said, "Wear a mask."
I mean, you know, his mask was strangely not spattered with the blood of Iraqi children. But,
you know, it was just amazing like that. Of course, it was the Lincoln project who hijacked
the minds of the resistance, but basically people who used to work on Cheney's campaign said,
"Dick Cheney, welcome to the resistance." I mean, that was remarkable. And then you have this
and it, you know, today as you pointed out, Chuck Todd, "Chuck Toddler", welcomes on Meet
the Press John Bolton as this wise voice to comment on Donald Trump's slavish devotion to
Vladimir Putin and how we need to escalate.
CHUCK TODD, NBC: Let me ask you this. Do you think that part of the that the
president is afraid to make Putin mad because maybe Putin did help him win the election and
he doesn't want to make him mad for 2020?
MAX BLUMENTHAL: I mean, just a few years ago, maybe it was two years ago, before
Bolton was brought into the Trump NSC, he was considered just an absolute marginal crank who
was a contributor to Fox News. He'd been forgotten. He was widely hated by Democrats. Now
here he is as a sage voice to tell us how dangerous this moment is. And, you know, he's not
being even brought on just to promote his book; he's being brought on as just a sober-minded
foreign policy expert on Meet the Press . That's where we're at right now.
AARON MATÉ: Yeah, and when his critique of Trump is basically that Trump was
not hawkish enough. Bolton's most the biggest critique Bolton has of Trump is, as he writes
about in his book, is when Trump declined to bomb Iran after Iran shot down a drone over its
territory. And Bolton said that to him was the most irrational thing he's ever seen a
president do.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well, Bolton was mad that Trump confused body bags with missiles,
because he said Trump thought that there would be 150 dead Iranians, and I said, "No, Donald,
you're confused. It will be 150 missiles that we're firing into Iran." Like that's better!
Like, "Oh, okay, that makes everything all right," that we fire a hundred missiles for one
drone and maybe that wouldn't that kill possibly more than 150 people?
Well, in Bolton's world this was just another stupid move by Trump. If Bolton were, I
mean, just, just watch all the interviews with Bolton. Watch him on The View where the
only pushback he received was from Meghan McCain complaining that he ripped off a
Hamilton song for his book The Room Where It Happened , and she asked, "Don't
you have any apology to offer to Hamilton fans?" That was the pushback that Bolton
received. Just watch all of these interviews with Bolton and try to find the pushback. It's
not there. This is what Russiagate has done. It's taken one of the most Strangelovian,
psychotic, dangerous, bloodthirsty, sadistic monsters in US foreign policy circles and turned
him into a sober-minded, even heroic, truthteller.
AARON MATÉ: And inevitably the only long-term consequence that I can see
here is ultimately helping Trump, because, if history is a pattern, these Russiagate supposed
bombshells always either go nowhere or they get debunked. So, if this one gets forcefully
debunked, because I think it's quite possible, because Trump has said that he was never
briefed on this and they'll have to prove that he's lying, you know. It should be easy to do.
Someone could come out and say that. If they can't prove that he's lying, then this one, I
think, will blow up in their face. And all they will have done is, at a time when Trump is
vulnerable over the pandemic with over a hundred thousand people dead on his watch, all these
people did was ultimately try to bring the focus back to the same thing that failed for
basically the entirety of Trump's presidency, which is Russiagate and Trump's
supposed―and non-existent in reality―subservience to Vladimir Putin.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: But have you ever really confronted one of your liberal friends who
maybe doesn't follow these stories as closely as you do? You know, well-intentioned liberal
friend who just has this sense that Russia controls Trump, and asked them to really defend
that and provide the receipts and really explain where the Trump administration has just
handed the store to Russia? Because what we've seen is unprecedented since the height of the
Cold War, an unprecedented deterioration of US-Russia relations with new sanctions on Russia
every few months. You ask them to do that. They can't do it. It's just a sense they get, it's
a feeling they get. And that's because these bombshells drop, they get reported on the front
pages under banners of papers that declare that "democracy dies in darkness," whose brand is
something that everybody trusts, The New York Times , The Washington Post ,
Woodward and Bernstein, and everybody repeats the story again and again and again. And then,
if and when it gets debunked, discredited or just sort of disappears, a few days later
everybody forgets about it. And those people who are not just, like, 24/7 media consumers but
critical-minded media consumers, they're left with that sense that Russia actually controls
us and that we must do something to escalate with Russia. So, that's the point of these: by
the time the disinformation is discredited, the damage has already been done. And that same
tactic was employed against Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, to the point where so many people were
left with the sense that he must be an antisemite, although not one allegation was ever
proven.
AARON MATÉ: Yeah, and now to the point where, in the Labour Party―we
should touch on this for a second―where you had a Labour Party member retweet an
article recently that mentioned some criticism of Israel and for that she was expelled from
her position in the shadow cabinet.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah, well, you know, as a Jew I was really threatened by that
retweet [laughter]. I don't know about you.
I mean, this is Rebecca Long Bailey. She's one of the few Corbynites left in a high
position in Labour who hasn't been effectively burned at the stake for being a, you know, Jew
hater who wants to throw us all in gas chambers because she retweets an interview with some
celebrity I'd never heard of before, who didn't even say anything that extreme. But it really
shows how the Thought Police have taken control of the Labour Party through Sir Keir Starmer,
who is someone who has deep links to the national security state through the Crown
Prosecution Service, which he used to head, where he was involved in the prosecution of
Julian Assange. And he has worked with The Times of London, which is a, you know,
favorite paper of the national security state and the MI5 in the UK, for planting stories
against Jeremy Corbyn. He was intimately involved in that campaign, and now he's at the head
of the Labour Party for a very good reason. I really would recommend everyone watching this,
if you're interested more in who Keir Starmer really is, read "Five Questions for [New Labour
Leader] Sir Keir Starmer" by Matt Kennard at The Grayzone. It really lays it out and shows
you what's happening.
We're just in this kind of hyper-managed atmosphere, where everything feels so much more
controlled than it's ever been. And even though every sane rational person that I know seems
to understand what's happening, they feel like they're not allowed to say it, at least not in
any official capacity.
AARON MATÉ: From the US to Britain, everything is being co-opted. In the US
it's, you know, genuine resistance to Trump, in opposition to Trump, it gets co-opted by the
right. Same thing in Britain. People get manipulated into believing that Jeremy Corbyn, this
lifelong anti-racist is somehow an antisemite. It's all in the service of the same agenda,
and I have to say we're one of the few outlets that are pushing back on it. Everyone else is
getting swept up on it and it's a scary time.
We're gonna wrap. Max, your final comment.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well, yeah, we're pushing back. And I saw today Mint Press
[News], which is another outlet that has pushed back, their Twitter account was just
briefly removed for no reason, without explanation. Ollie Vargas, who's an independent
journalist who's doing some of the most important work in the English language from Bolivia,
reporting on the post-coup landscape and the repressive environment that's been created by
the junta installed with US help under Jeanine Áñez, his account has been taken
away on Twitter. The social media platforms are basically under the control of the national
security state. There's been a merger between the national security state and Silicon Valley,
and the space for these kinds of discussions is rapidly shrinking. So, I think, you know,
it's more important than ever to support alternative media and also to really have a clear
understanding of what's taking place. I'm really worried there just won't be any space for us
to have these conversations in the near future.
AARON MATÉ: Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone, author of The
Management of Savagery , thanks a lot.
Aaron Maté is a journalist and producer. He hosts Pushback with Aaron
Maté on The Grayzone. He is also is contributor to The Nation magazine and former
host/producer for The Real News and Democracy Now!. Aaron has also presented and produced for
Vice, AJ+, and Al Jazeera.
"... the essential backdrop for the timing of this story. It really reveals how completely decayed mainstream media is as an institution, that none of these reporters protested the story, didn't see fit to do any independent investigation into it. At best they would print a Russian denial which counts for nothing in the US, or a Taliban denial which counts for nothing in the US. And then and this gets into the domestic political angle because so much of Russiagate, while it's been crafted by former or current intelligence officials, depends on the Democratic Party and it punditocracy, MSNBC and mainstream media as a projection megaphone, as its Mighty Wurlitzer. ..."
"... That took place in this case because, according to this story, Donald Trump had been briefed on Putin paying bounties to the Taliban and he chose to do nothing. Which, of course Trump denies, but that counts for nothing as well. But, again, there's been no independent confirmation of any of this. And now we get into the domestic part, which is that this new Republican anti-Trump operation, The Lincoln Project, had a flashy ad ready to go almost minutes after the story dropped. ..."
"... They're just, like, on meth at Steve Schmidt's political Batcave, just churning this material out. But I feel like they had an inkling, like this story was coming. It just the coordination and timing was impeccable. ..."
"... And The Lincoln Project is something that James Carville, the veteran Democratic consultant, has said is doing more than any Democrat or any Democratic consultant to elect Joe Biden. ..."
"... the Carter Administration, at the urging of national security chief Zbigniew Brzezinski, had enacted what would become Operation Cyclone under Reagan, an arm-and-equip program to arm the Afghan mujahideen. The Saudis put up a matching fund which helped bring the so-called Services Bureau into the field where Osama bin Laden became a recruiter for international jihadists to join the battlefield. And, you know, the goal was, in the words of Brzezinski, as he later admitted to a French publication, was to force the Red Army, the Soviet Red Army, to intervene to protect the pro-Soviet government in Kabul, which they proceeded to do. ..."
"... What he means is by basically paying bounties, which the US was literally doing along with its Gulf allies, to exact the toll on the allies of Assad, Russia. So, let's just say it's true, according to your question, let's just say this is all true. It would be a retaliation for what the United States has done to Russia in areas where it was actually legally invited in by the governments in charge, either in Kabul or Damascus. And that's, I think, the kind of ironic subtext that can hardly be understated when you see someone like Dan Rather wag his finger at Putin for paying the Taliban as proxies. But, I mean, it's such a ridiculous story that it's just hard to even fathom that it's real. ..."
"... just kind of neocon resistance mind-explosion, where first John Bolton was hailed as this hero and truthteller about Trump. ..."
"... And then you have this and it, you know, today as you pointed out, Chuck Todd, "Chuck Toddler", welcomes on Meet the Press John Bolton as this wise voice to comment on Donald Trump's slavish devotion to Vladimir Putin and how we need to escalate. ..."
"... This is what Russiagate has done. It's taken one of the most Strangelovian, psychotic, dangerous, bloodthirsty, sadistic monsters in US foreign policy circles and turned him into a sober-minded, even heroic, truthteller. ..."
Max Blumenthal breaks down the "Russian bounty" story's flaws and how it aims to prolong the
war in Afghanistan -- and uses Russiagate tactics to continue pushing the Democratic Party to
the right
Multiple US media outlets, citing anonymous intelligence officials, are claiming that Russia
offered bounties to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan, and that President Trump has taken no
action.
Others are contesting that claim. "Officials said there was disagreement among
intelligence officials about the strength of the evidence about the suspected Russian
plot," the New York Times reports. "Notably, the National Security Agency, which specializes in
hacking and electronic surveillance, has been more skeptical."
"The constant flow of Russiagate disinformation into the bloodstream of the Democratic Party
and its base is moving that party constantly to the right, while pushing the US deeper into
this Cold War," Blumenthal says.
Guest: Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone and author of several books, including his
latest "The Management of Savagery."
TRANSCRIPT
AARON MATÉ: Welcome to Pushback, I'm Aaron Maté. There is a new supposed
Trump-Russia bombshell. The New York Times and other outlets reporting that Russia has
been paying bounties to Afghan militants to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan. Trump and the
White House were allegedly briefed on this information but have taken no action.
Now, the story has obvious holes, like many other Russiagate bombshells. It is sourced to
anonymous intelligence officials. The New York Times says that the claim comes from
Afghan detainees. And it also has some logical holes. The Taliban have been fighting the US and
Afghanistan for nearly two decades and never needed Russian payments before to kill the
Americans that they were fighting; [this] amongst other questions are raised about this story.
But that has not stopped the usual chorus from whipping up a frenzy.
RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC: Vladimir Putin is offering bounties for the scalps of American
soldiers in Afghanistan. Not only offering, offering money [to] the people who kill Americans,
but some of the bounties that Putin has offered have been collected, meaning the Russians at
least believe that their offering cash to kill Americans has actually worked to get some
Americans killed.
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Donald Trump has continued his embarrassing campaign
of deference and debasing himself before Vladimir Putin. He had has [sic] this information
according to The Times, and yet he offered to host Putin in the United States and sought
to invite Russia to rejoin the G7. He's in his entire presidency has been a gift to Putin, but
this is beyond the pale.
CHUCK TODD, NBC: Let me ask you this. Do you think that part of the that the
president is afraid to make Putin mad because maybe Putin did help him win the election and he
doesn't want to make him mad for 2020?
SENATE MINORITY LEADER CHUCK SCHUMER: I was not briefed on the Russian military
intelligence, but it shows that we need in this coming defense bill, which we're debating this
week, tough sanctions against Russia, which thus far Mitch McConnell has resisted.
Joining me now is Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone, author of The Management of
Savagery . Max, welcome to Pushback. What is your reaction to this story?
MAX BLUMENTHAL: I mean, it just feels like so many other episodes that we've
witnessed over the past three or four years, where American intelligence officials basically
plant a story in one outlet, The New York Times , which functions as the media wing of
the Central Intelligence Agency. Then no reporting takes place whatsoever, but six reporters,
or three to six reporters are assigned to the piece to make it look like it was some
last-minute scramble to confirm this bombshell story. And then the story is confirmed again by
The Washington Post because their reporters, their three to six reporters in, you know,
capitals around the world with different beats spoke to the same intelligence officials, or
they were furnished different officials who fed them the same story. And, of course, the story
advances a narrative that the United States is under siege by Russia and that we have to
escalate against Russia just ahead of another peace summit or some kind of international
dialogue.
This has sort of been the general framework for these Russiagate bombshells, and of course
they can there's always an anti-Trump angle. And because, you know, liberal pundits and the,
you know, Democratic Party operatives see this as a means to undermine Trump as the election
heats up. They don't care if it's true or not. They don't care what the consequences are.
They're just gonna completely roll with it. And it's really changed, I think, not just US
foreign policy, but it's changed the Democratic Party in an almost irreversible way, to have
these constant "quote-unquote" bombshells that are really generated by the Central Intelligence
Agency and by other US intelligence operations in order to turn up the heat to crank up the
Cold War, to use these different media organs which no longer believe in reporting, which see
Operation Mockingbird as a kind of blueprint for how to do journalism, to turn them into keys
on the CIA's Mighty Wurlitzer. That's what happened here.
AARON MATÉ: What do you make of the logic of this story? This idea that the
Taliban would need Russian money to kill Americans when the Taliban's been fighting the US for
nearly two decades now. And the sourcing for the story, the same old playbook: anonymous
intelligence officials who are citing vague claims about apparently what was said by Afghan
detainees.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: This story has, as I said, it relies on zero reporting. The only
source is anonymous American intelligence officials. And I tweeted out a clip of a former CIA
operations officer who managed the CIA's operation in Angola, when the US was actually fighting
on the side of apartheid South Africa against a Marxist government that was backed up by Cuban
troops. His name was John Stockwell. And Stockwell talked about how one-third of his covert
operations staff were propagandists, and that they would feed imaginary stories about Cuban
barbarism that were completely false to reporters who were either CIA assets directly or who
were just unwitting dupes who would hang on a line waiting for American intelligence officials
to feed them stories. And one out of every five stories was completely false, as Stockwell
said. We could play some of that clip now; it's pretty remarkable to watch it in light of this
latest fake bombshell.
JOHN STOCKWELL: Another thing is to disseminate propaganda to influence people's
minds, and this is a major function of the CIA. And unfortunately, of course, it overlaps into
the gathering of information. You, you have contact with a journalist, you will give him true
stories, you'll get information from him, you'll also give him false stories.
OFF-CAMERA REPORTER: Can you do this with responsible reporters?
JOHN STOCKWELL: Yes, the Church Committee brought it out in 1975. And then Woodward
and Bernstein put an article in Rolling Stone a couple of years later. Four hundred
journalists cooperating with the CIA, including some of the biggest names in the business.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: So, basically, I mean, you get the flavor of what someone who was in
the CIA at the height of the Cold War I mean, he did the same thing in Vietnam. And the
playbook is absolutely the same today. These this story was dumped on Friday in The New York
Times by "quote-unquote" American intelligence officials, as a breakthrough had been made
in Afghan peace talks and a conference was finally set for Doha, Qatar, that would involve the
Taliban, which had been seizing massive amounts of territory.
Now, it's my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the Taliban had been fighting
one of the most epic examples of an occupying army in modern history, just absolutely chewing
away at one of the most powerful militaries in human history in their country for the last 19
years, without bounties from Vladimir Putin or
private-hotdog-salesman-and-Saint-Petersburg-troll-farm-owner Yevgeny Prigozhin , who always comes up
in these stories. It's always the hotdog guy who's doing everything bad from, like, you know,
fake Facebook ads to poisoning Sergei Skripal or whatever.
But I just don't see where the Taliban needs encouragement from Putin to do that. It's their
country. They want the US out and they have succeeded in seizing large amounts of territory.
Donald Trump has come into office with a pledge to remove US troops from Afghanistan and ink
this deal. And along comes this story as the peace process begins to advance.
And what is the end-result? We haven't gotten into the domestic politics yet, but the
end-result is you have supposedly progressive senators like Chris Murphy of Connecticut
attacking Trump for not fighting Russia in Afghanistan. I mean, they want a straight-up proxy
war for not escalating. You have Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign
Relations, someone who's aligned with the Democratic Party, who supported the war in Iraq and,
you know, supports just endless war, demanding that the US turn up the heat not just in
Afghanistan but in Syria. So, you know, the escalatory rhetoric is at a fever pitch right now,
and it's obviously going to impact that peace conference.
Let's remember that three days before Trump's summit with Putin was when Mueller chose to
release the indictment of the GRU agents for supposedly hacking the DNC servers. Let's remember
that a day before the UN the United Nations Geneva peace talks opened on Syria in 2014 was when
US intelligence chose to feed these shady Caesar photos, supposedly showing industrial
slaughter of Syrian prisoners, to The New York Times in an investigation that had been
funded by Qatar. Like, so many shady intelligence dumps have taken place ahead of peace summits
to disrupt them, because the US doesn't feel like it has enough skin in the game or it just
simply doesn't want peace in these areas.
So, that's what happened here. That's really, I think, the essential backdrop for the timing
of this story. It really reveals how completely decayed mainstream media is as an institution,
that none of these reporters protested the story, didn't see fit to do any independent
investigation into it. At best they would print a Russian denial which counts for nothing in
the US, or a Taliban denial which counts for nothing in the US. And then and this gets into the
domestic political angle because so much of Russiagate, while it's been crafted by former or
current intelligence officials, depends on the Democratic Party and it punditocracy, MSNBC and
mainstream media as a projection megaphone, as its Mighty Wurlitzer.
That took place in this
case because, according to this story, Donald Trump had been briefed on Putin paying bounties
to the Taliban and he chose to do nothing. Which, of course Trump denies, but that counts for
nothing as well. But, again, there's been no independent confirmation of any of this. And now
we get into the domestic part, which is that this new Republican anti-Trump operation, The
Lincoln Project, had a flashy ad ready to go almost minutes after the story dropped.
THE LINCOLN PROJECT AD: Now we know Vladimir Putin pays a bounty for the murder of
American soldiers. Donald Trump knows, too, and does nothing. Putin pays the Taliban cash to
slaughter our men and women in uniform and Trump is silent, weak, controlled. Instead of
condemnation he insists Russia be treated as our equal.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: I mean, maybe they're just really good editors and brilliant
politicians who work overtime. They're just, like, on meth at Steve Schmidt's political Batcave, just churning this material out. But I feel like they had an inkling, like this story
was coming. It just the coordination and timing was impeccable.
And The Lincoln Project is something that James Carville, the veteran Democratic consultant,
has said is doing more than any Democrat or any Democratic consultant to elect Joe Biden.
They're always out there doing the hard work. Who are they? Well, Steve Schmidt is a former
campaign manager for John McCain 2008. And you look at the various personnel affiliated with
it, they're all McCain former McCain aides or people who worked on the Jeb and George W. Bush
campaigns, going back to Texas and Florida. This is sort of the corporate wing of the
Republican Party, the white-glove-country-club-patrician Republicans who are very pro-war, who
hate Donald Trump.
And by doing this, by them really taking the lead on this attack, as you pointed out, Aaron,
number one, they are sucking the oxygen out of the more progressive anti-Trump initiatives that
are taking place, including in the streets of American cities. They're taking the wind out of
anti-Trump more progressive anti-Trump critiques. For example, I think it's actually more
powerful to attack Trump over the fact that he used, basically, chemical weapons on American
peaceful protesters to do a fascistic photo-op. I don't know why there wasn't some call for
congressional investigations on that. And they are getting skin in the game on the Biden
campaign. It really feels to me like this Lincoln campaign operation, this moderate Republican
operation which is also sort of a venue for neocons, will have more influence after events like
this than the Bernie Sanders campaign, which has an enormous amount of delegates.
So, that's what I think the domestic repercussion is. It's just this constant it's the
constant flow of Russiagate disinformation into the bloodstream of the Democratic Party and its
base that's moving that party constantly to the right, while pushing the US deeper into this
Cold War that only serves, you know, people who are associated with the national security state
who need to justify their paycheck and the budget of the institutions that employ them.
AARON MATÉ: Let's assume for a second that the allegation is true, although, you
know, you've laid out some of the reasons why it's not. Can you talk about the history here,
starting with Afghanistan, something you cover a lot in your book, The Management of
Savagery, where the US aim was to kill Russians, going right on through to Syria, where
just recently the US envoy for the coalition against ISIS, James Jeffery, who handles Syria,
said that his job now is to basically put the Russians in a quagmire in Syria.
JAMES JEFFREY: This isn't Afghanistan. This isn't Vietnam. This isn't a quagmire. My
job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah, I mean, it feels like a giant act of psychological and
political projection to accuse Russia of using an Islamist militia in Afghanistan as a proxy
against the US to bleed the US into leaving, because that's been the US playbook in Central
Asia and the Middle East since at least 1979. I just tweeted a photo of Dan Rather in
Afghanistan, just crossing the Pakistani border and going to meet with some of the Mujahideen
in 1980. Dan Rather was panned in The New York in The Washington Post by Tom
Toles [Tom Shales], who was the media critic at the time, as "Gunga Dan," because he was so
gung-ho for the Afghan mujahideen. In his reports he would complain about how weak their
weaponry was, you know, how they needed more how they needed more funding. I mean, you could
call it bounties, but it was really just CIA funding.
DAN RATHER: These are the best weapons you have, huh? They only have about twenty
rounds for this?
TRANSLATOR: That's all. They have twenty rounds. Yes, and they know that these are
all old weapons and they really aren't up to doing anything to the Russian weaponry that's
around. But that's all they have, and this is why they want help. And he is saying that America
seems to be asleep. It doesn't seem to realize that if Afghanistan goes and the Russians go
over to the Gulf, that in a very short time it's going to be the turn of the United States as
well.
DAN RATHER: But I'm sure he knows that in Vietnam we got our fingers burned. Indeed,
we got our whole hands burned when we tried to help in this kind of situation.
TRANSLATOR [translating to the Afghan man and then his reply]: Your hands were burned
in Vietnam, but if you don't agree to help us, if you don't ally yourself with us, then all of
you, your whole body will be burnt eventually, because there is no one in the world who can
really fight and resist as well as the as much and as well as the Afghans are.
DAN RATHER: But no American mother wants to send her son to Afghanistan.
TRANSLATOR [translating to the Afghan man and then his reply]: We don't need
anybody's soldiers here to help us, but we are being constantly accused that the Americans are
helping us with weapons. What we need, actually, are the American weapons. We don't need or
want American soldiers. We can do the fighting ourselves.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: And a year or several months before, the Carter Administration, at
the urging of national security chief Zbigniew Brzezinski, had enacted what would become
Operation Cyclone under Reagan, an arm-and-equip program to arm the Afghan mujahideen. The
Saudis put up a matching fund which helped bring the so-called Services Bureau into the field
where Osama bin Laden became a recruiter for international jihadists to join the battlefield.
And, you know, the goal was, in the words of Brzezinski, as he later admitted to a French
publication, was to force the Red Army, the Soviet Red Army, to intervene to protect the
pro-Soviet government in Kabul, which they proceeded to do.
And then with the introduction of
the Stinger missile, the Afghan mujahideen, hailed as freedom fighters in Washington, were able
to destroy Russian supply lines, exact a heavy toll, and forced the Red Army to leave in
retreat. They helped create what's considered the Soviet Union's Vietnam.
So that was really but the blueprint for what Russian for what Russia is being accused of
now, and that same model was transferred over to Syria. It was also actually proposed for Iraq
in the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998. Then Senate Foreign Relations chair Jesse Helms actually
said that the Afghan mujahideen should be our model for supporting the Iraqi resistance. So,
this kind of proxy war was always on the table. Then the US did it in Syria, when one out of
every $13 in the CIA budget went to arm the so-called "moderate rebels" in Syria, who we later
found out were 31 flavors of jihadi, who were aligned with al-Qaeda's local affiliate Jabhat
al-Nusra and helped give rise to ISIS. Michael Morell, I tweeted some video of him on Charlie
Rose back in, I think, 2016. He's the former acting director for the CIA, longtime deputy
director. He said, you know, the reason that we're in Syria, what we should be doing is causing
Iran and Russia, the two allies of Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, to pay a heavy
price.
MICHAEL MORELL: We need to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. We need to make
the Russians pay a price. The other thing
CHARLIE ROSE: We make them pay the price by killing killing Russians?
MICHAEL MORELL: Yes.
CHARLIE ROSE: And killing Iranians.
MICHAEL MORELL: Yes, covertly. You don't tell the world about it, right? You don't
stand up at the Pentagon and say we did this, right? But you make sure they know it in Moscow
and Tehran.
MAX BLUMENTHAL:What he means is by basically paying bounties, which the US was
literally doing along with its Gulf allies, to exact the toll on the allies of Assad, Russia.
So, let's just say it's true, according to your question, let's just say this is all true. It
would be a retaliation for what the United States has done to Russia in areas where it was
actually legally invited in by the governments in charge, either in Kabul or Damascus. And
that's, I think, the kind of ironic subtext that can hardly be understated when you see someone
like Dan Rather wag his finger at Putin for paying the Taliban as proxies. But, I mean, it's
such a ridiculous story that it's just hard to even fathom that it's real.
AARON MATÉ: Let me read Dan Rather's tweet, because it's so it speaks to just
how pervasive Russiagate culture is now. People have learned absolutely nothing from it.
Rather says, "Reporters are trained to look for patterns that are suspicious, and time and
again one stands out with Donald Trump. Why is he so slavishly devoted to Putin? There is a
spectrum of possible answers ranging from craven to treasonous. One day I hope and suspect we
will find out."
It's like he forgot, perhaps, that Robert Mueller and his team spent three years
investigating this very issue and came up with absolutely nothing. But the narrative has taken
hold, and it's, as you talked about before, it's been the narrative we've been presented as the
vehicle for understanding and opposing Donald Trump, so it cannot be questioned. And now it's
like it's a matter of, what else is there to find out about Trump and Russia after Robert
Mueller and the US intelligence agencies looked for everything they could and found nothing?
They're still presented as if it's some kind of mystery that has to be unraveled.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: And it was after, like, a week of just kind of neocon resistance
mind-explosion, where first John Bolton was hailed as this hero and truthteller about Trump.
Then Dick Cheney was welcomed into the resistance, you know, because he said, "Wear a mask." I
mean, you know, his mask was strangely not spattered with the blood of Iraqi children. But, you
know, it was just amazing like that. Of course, it was the Lincoln project who hijacked the
minds of the resistance, but basically people who used to work on Cheney's campaign said, "Dick
Cheney, welcome to the resistance." I mean, that was remarkable. And then you have this and it,
you know, today as you pointed out, Chuck Todd, "Chuck Toddler", welcomes on Meet the
Press John Bolton as this wise voice to comment on Donald Trump's slavish devotion to
Vladimir Putin and how we need to escalate.
CHUCK TODD, NBC: Let me ask you this. Do you think that part of the that the
president is afraid to make Putin mad because maybe Putin did help him win the election and he
doesn't want to make him mad for 2020?
MAX BLUMENTHAL: I mean, just a few years ago, maybe it was two years ago, before
Bolton was brought into the Trump NSC, he was considered just an absolute marginal crank who
was a contributor to Fox News. He'd been forgotten. He was widely hated by Democrats. Now here
he is as a sage voice to tell us how dangerous this moment is. And, you know, he's not being
even brought on just to promote his book; he's being brought on as just a sober-minded foreign
policy expert on Meet the Press . That's where we're at right now.
AARON MATÉ: Yeah, and when his critique of Trump is basically that Trump was not
hawkish enough. Bolton's most the biggest critique Bolton has of Trump is, as he writes about
in his book, is when Trump declined to bomb Iran after Iran shot down a drone over its
territory. And Bolton said that to him was the most irrational thing he's ever seen a president
do.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well, Bolton was mad that Trump confused body bags with missiles,
because he said Trump thought that there would be 150 dead Iranians, and I said, "No, Donald,
you're confused. It will be 150 missiles that we're firing into Iran." Like that's better!
Like, "Oh, okay, that makes everything all right," that we fire a hundred missiles for one
drone and maybe that wouldn't that kill possibly more than 150 people?
Well, in Bolton's world this was just another stupid move by Trump. If Bolton were, I mean,
just, just watch all the interviews with Bolton. Watch him on The View where the only
pushback he received was from Meghan McCain complaining that he ripped off a Hamilton
song for his book The Room Where It Happened , and she asked, "Don't you have any
apology to offer to Hamilton fans?" That was the pushback that Bolton received. Just
watch all of these interviews with Bolton and try to find the pushback. It's not there. This is
what Russiagate has done. It's taken one of the most Strangelovian, psychotic, dangerous,
bloodthirsty, sadistic monsters in US foreign policy circles and turned him into a
sober-minded, even heroic, truthteller.
AARON MATÉ: And inevitably the only long-term consequence that I can see here is
ultimately helping Trump, because, if history is a pattern, these Russiagate supposed
bombshells always either go nowhere or they get debunked. So, if this one gets forcefully
debunked, because I think it's quite possible, because Trump has said that he was never briefed
on this and they'll have to prove that he's lying, you know. It should be easy to do. Someone
could come out and say that. If they can't prove that he's lying, then this one, I think, will
blow up in their face. And all they will have done is, at a time when Trump is vulnerable over
the pandemic with over a hundred thousand people dead on his watch, all these people did was
ultimately try to bring the focus back to the same thing that failed for basically the entirety
of Trump's presidency, which is Russiagate and Trump's supposed―and non-existent in
reality―subservience to Vladimir Putin.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: But have you ever really confronted one of your liberal friends who
maybe doesn't follow these stories as closely as you do? You know, well-intentioned liberal
friend who just has this sense that Russia controls Trump, and asked them to really defend that
and provide the receipts and really explain where the Trump administration has just handed the
store to Russia? Because what we've seen is unprecedented since the height of the Cold War, an
unprecedented deterioration of US-Russia relations with new sanctions on Russia every few
months. You ask them to do that. They can't do it. It's just a sense they get, it's a feeling
they get. And that's because these bombshells drop, they get reported on the front pages under
banners of papers that declare that "democracy dies in darkness," whose brand is something that
everybody trusts, The New York Times , The Washington Post , Woodward and
Bernstein, and everybody repeats the story again and again and again. And then, if and when it
gets debunked, discredited or just sort of disappears, a few days later everybody forgets about
it. And those people who are not just, like, 24/7 media consumers but critical-minded media
consumers, they're left with that sense that Russia actually controls us and that we must do
something to escalate with Russia. So, that's the point of these: by the time the
disinformation is discredited, the damage has already been done. And that same tactic was
employed against Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, to the point where so many people were left with the
sense that he must be an antisemite, although not one allegation was ever proven.
AARON MATÉ: Yeah, and now to the point where, in the Labour Party―we
should touch on this for a second―where you had a Labour Party member retweet an article
recently that mentioned some criticism of Israel and for that she was expelled from her
position in the shadow cabinet.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah, well, you know, as a Jew I was really threatened by that
retweet [laughter]. I don't know about you.
I mean, this is Rebecca Long Bailey. She's one of the few Corbynites left in a high position
in Labour who hasn't been effectively burned at the stake for being a, you know, Jew hater who
wants to throw us all in gas chambers because she retweets an interview with some celebrity I'd
never heard of before, who didn't even say anything that extreme. But it really shows how the
Thought Police have taken control of the Labour Party through Sir Keir Starmer, who is someone
who has deep links to the national security state through the Crown Prosecution Service, which
he used to head, where he was involved in the prosecution of Julian Assange. And he has worked
with The Times of London, which is a, you know, favorite paper of the national security
state and the MI5 in the UK, for planting stories against Jeremy Corbyn. He was intimately
involved in that campaign, and now he's at the head of the Labour Party for a very good reason.
I really would recommend everyone watching this, if you're interested more in who Keir Starmer
really is, read "Five Questions for [New Labour Leader] Sir Keir Starmer" by Matt Kennard at
The Grayzone. It really lays it out and shows you what's happening.
We're just in this kind of hyper-managed atmosphere, where everything feels so much more
controlled than it's ever been. And even though every sane rational person that I know seems to
understand what's happening, they feel like they're not allowed to say it, at least not in any
official capacity.
AARON MATÉ: From the US to Britain, everything is being co-opted. In the US
it's, you know, genuine resistance to Trump, in opposition to Trump, it gets co-opted by the
right. Same thing in Britain. People get manipulated into believing that Jeremy Corbyn, this
lifelong anti-racist is somehow an antisemite. It's all in the service of the same agenda, and
I have to say we're one of the few outlets that are pushing back on it. Everyone else is
getting swept up on it and it's a scary time.
We're gonna wrap. Max, your final comment.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well, yeah, we're pushing back. And I saw today Mint Press
[News], which is another outlet that has pushed back, their Twitter account was just
briefly removed for no reason, without explanation. Ollie Vargas, who's an independent
journalist who's doing some of the most important work in the English language from Bolivia,
reporting on the post-coup landscape and the repressive environment that's been created by the
junta installed with US help under Jeanine Áñez, his account has been taken away on
Twitter. The social media platforms are basically under the control of the national security
state. There's been a merger between the national security state and Silicon Valley, and the
space for these kinds of discussions is rapidly shrinking. So, I think, you know, it's more
important than ever to support alternative media and also to really have a clear understanding
of what's taking place. I'm really worried there just won't be any space for us to have these
conversations in the near future.
AARON MATÉ: Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone, author of The Management
of Savagery , thanks a lot.
Max Abrahms @MaxAbrahms - 16:07 UTC · Jul 3,
2020
RussiaGate stories follow a predictable pattern:
1. Explosive allegation
2. Media goes nuts
3. Evidence disproves or at best weakly supports allegation which is much less damning than
sold
4. Media moves on to next explosive allegation without apology
Wrongly accusing Russia started way before 'Russiagate':
> For five years, the sporting world has been gripped by Russian manipulation of the
anti-doping system. Now new evidence suggests the whistleblower who went into a witness
protection program during the scandal may not have been entirely truthful. <
The Russian president's special envoy for Afghanistan affairs, Zamir Kabulov, on Saturday
accused US intelligence in Afghanistan of "drug trafficking," reported Tass, a Russian news
agency.
Following a New York Times story alleging that a Russian unit was offering bounties to
Taliban-linked militants to kill US-led coalition troops in Afghanistan, Kabulov responded to
the allegations, saying that US intelligence officers, who "accuse us of different things," are
involved in "drug trafficking."
"Those wonderful US intelligence officers, who accuse us of different things, are involved
in drug trafficking. Their planes from Kandahar, from Bagram [airfield near Kabul] are flying
wherever they want to - to Germany, to Romania - without any inspections," he said. "Every
citizen of Kabul will tell you that, everyone is ready to talk about that," said Tass quoting
Kabulov speaking to a state-run tv channel.
The New York Times report said that there were different theories on why Russia would
support Taliban attacks, "including a desire to keep the United States bogged down in war."
The Taliban operation was "led by a unit known as the GRU," said the Times article, "which
has been blamed in numerous international incidents including a 2018
chemical weapons attack in Britain that nearly killed Russian-born double agent Sergei
Skripal."
The New York Times quoted a Kremlin spokesman saying that Russia was unaware of the
accusations.
The Taliban also rejected the allegations.
Russia has more recently been accused by the United States of quietly providing weapons to
the Taliban.
The US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Wednesday last week, in remarks to the press on the
reports of Russian bounties for Taliban fighters who kill Americans, said: "The fact that the
Russians are engaged in Afghanistan in a way that's adverse to the United States is nothing
new."
"Some members of Congress who are out there today suggesting that they are shocked and
appalled by this, they saw the same intelligence that we saw. So it would be interesting to ask
them what they did when they saw whatever intelligence it is that they are referring to,"
Pompeo said.
Following Pompeo's remarks about Russia, a source on Thursday confirmed to TOLOnews that the
man who controls the transaction is named Rahmat Sia and he is the owner of a construction
company.
Rahmatullah Azizi is his given name, but he is known as Rahmat Sia. He lives in Russia.
According to the source, Rahmatullah's brother, his driver, his cousin and a Forex dealer
have been arrested by the Afghan security forces in PD4 of Kabul city.
Schiff demands the Trump administration brief all of Congress about the unverified
allegations, yet he himself did not ask for a briefing following the February briefing of his
own staff.
As chairman of the intelligence committee, Schiff had the authority to immediately
brief the full committee and convene hearings on the matter. Schiff, however, did nothing. He
did not brief his committee on the matter, nor did he brief the gang of 8, which consists of
top congressional leadership in both chambers .
####
It yet again goes to show how the Dems dirty tricks can compete with that of the Repubs.
Will the US media ignore this or just move on to another story?
Ben Norton
@BenjaminNorton
The CIA's shady "Russian bounties" leaks are having their intended impact: sabotaging efforts
to end the war in Afghanistan.
The bipartisan House Armed Services Committee just voted to block Trump from withdrawing
from Afghanistan.
Bipartisan imperialism
//////Next there will be more sanctions on Russia for a fake story.
Trump is not supported by his own party – both sides are loyal only to eg military
industrial complex
Doesn't matter in the least. Things have gone so far past the possibility of the USA and
Russia ever having friendly relations again in our lifetimes that when the USA is chuckling
to itself over how it is fucking things up for Russia, it is only fucking things up for
itself. Russia is moving ahead on the assumption that the west is a write-off, or at least
the North American part of it, and while it may continue to warily court Europe, the best
chance the USA ever had of taking down Russia is already years in the past. It took a long
time to learn the American pattern of smile-and-backstab, but Russia has learned it now and
the decision has been made. If the USA wants to stay in Afghanistan until the judgment trump,
brooding obsessively over its empire of mud huts and walnut trees, fine. It's not hurting
Russia. I do think, though, that the next time the USA tries to stir up a pocket religious
war by claiming the 'rise of ISIS' in some choice target country by injecting its pet
militants, it is going to meet with resistance to the narrative, and would be about as able
to form a coalition of the willing as it would a march of the dead.
The safety of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan does not appear to be the motive in
intelligence agency leaks to the media about the alleged Russian "bounties," says Joe
Lauria.
Special to Consortium News
T he Los Angeles Timesreported
Thursday night that a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, which Donald Trump
had demanded, has been put off until after the U.S. presidential election in November.
Maintaining imperial interests in Afghanistan seems to be one of the main reasons for the
so-far uncorroborated, possibly cooked-up "scandal" known now as Bountygate.
Other motives appear to be the same twofer that was at the core of Russiagate: first,
unnamed intelligence officials meddling in domestic U.S. politics, this time to undermine
Trump's re-election campaign; and, second, to even further demonize and pressure Russia.
The public has been subjected to daily morsels of supposedly factual stories meant to
further deepen the plot. The first item dropped online on June 26 with The New York
Times' initial
reporting on the say-so of "American intelligence officials."
It seemed yet another attempt to launder disinformation through big media, giving it more
credibility than if it had come directly from the security services. A discerning reader,
however, would want more than the word of a bunch of spooks who make a living practicing
deception.
The "evidence" for the story that Russia paid the Taliban to kill U.S. soldiers came from
interrogation of Afghan detainees. If the interrogations were "enhanced" the evidence is even
more unreliable.
For the record, Consortium News supports no candidate and has been a strong
critic of Trump. But we see intelligence agencies' insertion into domestic politics to be a
greater threat than even eight years of Trump. As spooks like to say, "Administrations come and
go. And we're still here."
Meddling Again in Politics
Trumped briefed in the Oval Office, Sept 2017. (Official White House Photo by Shealah
Craighead)
A main purpose of this planted Times story was made clear in the following paragraph,
and it's been the constant theme since, seized on by Trump critics from the Lincoln
Project to Democratic candidate Joe Biden:
" The intelligence finding was briefed to President Trump, and the White House's National
Security Council discussed the problem at an interagency meeting in late March, the
officials said. Officials developed a menu of potential options -- starting with making a
diplomatic complaint to Moscow and a demand that it stop, along with an escalating series of
sanctions and other possible responses, but the White House has yet to authorize any
step , the officials said." [Emphasis added.]
The inference is that Trump knew about it for months and didn't do anything,
obviously because he's a Kremlin agent.
Trump said he was unaware of the "intelligence." John Ratcliffe, the director of national
intelligence, put out a statement on June 27 saying Trump had not been briefed on it.
But the Times that day quoted an "American intelligence official" (another one or the
same?) saying:
" it was included in the President's Daily Brief, a written document which draws from
spywork to make analytic predictions about longstanding adversaries, unfolding plots and
emerging crises around the world. The briefing document is given to the president to read and
they serve as the basis for oral briefings to him several times a week."
The Times did not say that Trump was orally told about it. I suspect the CIA gave it
to him only in print, and knowing Trump doesn't entirely read his daily written briefings, did
not orally tell him, making him out to be a liar by leaking this information.
But this raised the immediate question: If this were such an urgent matter that Trump had
ignored for more than three months, why hadn't CIA Director Gina Haspel demanded, in all that
time, an immediate Oval Office meeting with Trump to urge him to act? After all, isn't the
CIA's job supposed to be to protect Americans?
" If this was even close to being confirmed, Haspel would have briefed directly given the
sensitivity of the subject," Scott Ritter, a former U.S. counterterrorism officer, told me by
email. Haspel, distancing herself from the controversy, put out a statement condemning the
leaks to the Times , saying they "compromise and disrupt the critical interagency work
to collect, assess, and ascribe culpability."
Clearly the purpose of this leaked story was not to protect the lives of American
soldiers.
Denials All Around
Trump speaks to members of the National Security Council during a meeting at the Pentagon in
2017. (DoD photo by Army Sgt. Amber I. Smith)
The story is being ginned-up with small leaks everyday despite denials from the Taliban,
Moscow and statements from the National Security Council, the
National Security Agency, the Pentagon and the director of national intelligence that
undermine its credibility. National Security Council officials said the information had not
been sufficiently corroborated to be brought to Trump's attention.
"Because the allegations in recent press articles have not been verified or substantiated by
the Intelligence Community, President Trump had not been briefed on the items," said Robert
O'Brien, the national security advisor.
"We are still investigating the alleged interference referenced in media reporting and we
will brief the President and Congressional leaders at the appropriate time," said John
Ratcliffe, director of national intelligence.
Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said in a
statement: "The Department of Defense continues to evaluate intelligence that Russian GRU
operatives were engaged in malign activity against United States and coalition forces in
Afghanistan. To date, DOD has no corroborating evidence to validate the recent allegations
found in open-source reports."
Ray McGovern, the former CIA analyst, said: "I helped prepare The President's Daily
Brief for Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan, and personally conducted the one-on-one
morning briefings in the Oval Office from 1981 to 1985. In those days we did our best to
corroborate reporting -- especially on highly sensitive issues -- and did not try to cover our
derrieres by alerting the president and his top aides to highly dubious reporting, however
sexy."
The Wall Street Journal
reported that the NSA "strongly dissented" from the assessment on the bounties, citing
"people familiar with the matter."
Even the anti-Putin Moscow Times doesn't buy the story.
The initial story has been followed up by new leaks nearly every day. First we
heard from the Times of an electronic transfer from a bank account controlled by the
GRU, Russian military intelligence, to the Taliban. We are not told what this money was for.
Was there a line item for "killing American soldiers?" The Times reports:
" Though the United States has accused Russia
of providing general support to the Taliban before, analysts concluded from other
intelligence that the transfers were most likely part of a bounty program that
detainees described during interrogations." [Emphasis added.]
" Other intelligence" that is not cited "most likely" meant it was part of the bounty
"program" is hardly convincing reporting.
Anyone who knows anything about intelligence operations knows that such payments would be
made by cash on the ground in Afghanistan and not by leaving a discoverable paper trail. The
cash would come from Russian officials in Afghanistan, not wired to a Taliban account. This is
the same portrayal of a bumbling, unprofessional Russian intelligence service that supposedly
left Cyrillic letters and the name of the first Soviet secret police chief in the metadata of
its alleged hacks of the DNC. At the same time we are meant to be deathly afraid of these
amateurs.
The alleged money sent by bank transfer was supposedly handed out in cash on the battlefield
by a "lowly drug dealer" who puzzled his neighbors because he was suddenly driving a fancy car.
Rahmatullah Azizi, the Times says, got the cash in Russia:
" U.S. intelligence reports named Mr. Azizi as a key middleman between the G.R.U. and
militants linked to the Taliban who carried out the attacks. He was among those who
collected the cash in Russia, which intelligence files described as multiple payments
of 'hundreds of thousands of dollars.'" [Emphasis added.]
This contradicts the Times ' earlier story that the money was transferred
electronically. Now the cash was collected in Russia. Azizi associates were arrested and a
half-million dollars was found in his house. The Times, however, does not say what they
were charged with.
" Just how the money was dispersed to militants carrying out attacks for the Taliban, and at
what level the coordination occurred, remains unclear," the Times reports. Indeed. In an
earlier era of journalism that would incite an editor to bark, "Don't put it in the story until
you find out."
Mission Accomplished
The three goals of the leaks are being accomplished:
Trump is being dogged by the story
with no let up. Debunked Russiagate stories about him being a Kremlin tool have been revived.
Russia is further demonized, not just as the destroyer of American democracy, but as the
destroyer of American lives. The troops are staying put in Afghanistan over Trump's objections.
The LA Times story said the decision to keep a little more than 4,000 troops there
was made "late last month," around the time The New York Times story broke.
" The plan, worked out at a meeting between Pentagon and White House officials late last
month, would represent an about-face for President Trump. He has pushed for a complete
withdrawal of the 8,600 troops now in Afghanistan by the election, seeing a pullout as a
much-needed foreign policy achievement as his reelection prospects have deteriorated. Trump
had only recently told advisors that a full and rapid pullout could blunt the controversy
over intelligence reports that Russia has paid militants to kill American service members,
one official said."
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent
forThe Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe,Sunday Timesof London and numerous other newspapers. He began his
professional career as a stringer for The New York Times. He can be reached at [email protected] and followed on Twitter
@unjoe .
vinnieoh , July 4, 2020 at 16:50
And, come Sunday morning all the beltway boobs (Shit The Press, Washington Bleat, Fuck the
Nation) will breathlessly try to engage the sheep in their latest xxxx-gate spectacle.
Anything but talk about themselves and how they're sucking the blood out of all of us.
Two things not mentioned yet: was there no-one aboard Trump's Ship of Fools that saw them
sailing into mined waters? (essential clarification: it was a "cloaked" mine, latent,
waiting.)
Second: for how many decades now 5, 6? the Congress slumbers while their dogs of war roam,
but immediately snap to wakefulness if those dogs are summoned to their cages. The Congress
now, dejectedly admitting (/s) that they have been beaten, can no longer authorize wars, only
block their ending. I've often believed that the reason this is so, is because they have
become sooo convinced that payback is gonna be a real bitch. Who wouldn't? And I fear for my
grandson and his generations. Sorry kid, I just didn't count – I wuz invizibel!
Mark Thomason , July 4, 2020 at 16:42
Missile Gap. This is not the first time that hawkish hysteria was used for purely domestic
politics.
The payback hoped for goes beyond the election, to promote hawkish policies that otherwise
would have far fewer supporters.
dean 1000 , July 4, 2020 at 16:16
The soft coup efforts continue as the dirty turkeys( not a Rock group) strike again
claiming that Taliban POWs said Russian military intelligence paid bounties to Taliban to
shoot US soldiers.
The dirty turkeys have been lying about Trump for 4 years, turned the NSC into a nest of
spies and we are supposed to believe this transparent, boneheaded hatchet job.
Thanks for the link to the LA Times. I didn't know Trump wanted be bring all the Troops
home from Afghanistan this year. Too bad the Generals insist that 4,000 troops stay.
Douglas Baker , July 4, 2020 at 15:55
So the Loony Tunes franchise has gone viral distributed by monopoly media as Orwellian
"1984" newspeak repeated as though instruction for a flock, of what has been called "A Nation
of Sheep", with an "Animal Farm" hand repeating instruction in every way imaginable for the
elite guides of American destiny to carry on, with Bugs Bunny demanding, "What's Up Doc?"
Roe Castelli Orr , July 4, 2020 at 13:58
Those with free thinking minds can discern the MSM/MIC propaganda narrative and still
despise Trump at the same time.
Trump is America Unmasked.
A Diseased, renditioned Portrait of a 21st Century Dorian Gray hanging in the halls of the
Capitol.
The Empire's bidding if for Gold, Oil, Drugs, Puppet Vassals for exploitation of mineral
rights drowning in oceans of blood from colonialism.
All for the Whores of K Street.
Unfortunately Biden will be the same.
Wash, Rinse, Repeat.
Rome isn't Burning it's vaporizing.
Roe Castelli Orr , July 4, 2020 at 13:27
Totally independent functioning brains can discern the propaganda perpetrated by the
MSM/MIC about this recent Russia-gate nonsense and still realize Trump is still an imbecile,
Narcissistic, self aggrandizing human waste.
Trump is the caricature of Dorian Gray hanging in the halls of the capital.
Trump is the true face of a dying, diseased Empire of Gold, Oil, Drugs, Puppet Vassals,and
Mineral theft beholden to It's K Street whores.
Rob , July 4, 2020 at 13:03
I learned from reading Caitlin Johnstone that the debating technique known as the "Gish
Gallop" consists of inundating one's opponent with numerous ancillary "arguments" that the
opponent is forced to refute individually. The individual arguments may all be fallacious,
but put together, they create the impression that the main or underlying argument must be
true. This is exactly what the corporate media did with Russiagate and are doing once again
with Bountygate. It's the steady drip drip of stories, all uncorroborated and sometimes
conflicting with one another, which, taken together, seem to support the Bountygate narrative
without actually doing so.
"My feeling, and I mean this wholeheartedly, is that I really don't care. What bothers me
is we didn't win the game." Brett Favre's reaction to the Saint's bountygate in the playoff
game.
Our poor troops have been stuck in that hellhole for 20 fu***ng years, and like a sports
warrior like Favre, all that they ever wanted I'm sure for all of their sacrifice, was for it
to not be in vain, and somehow feel that they won the war. Let's try to look at this from the
perspective of a serviceman fighting in the Afghan war. That Taliban fighters have been
trying to kill them everyday since 2001 is supposed to be news to them? They live that
reality every single day. The politicians of both parties have made no attempt to protect
them for years and years and years. To pretend that they care about those they deem
expendable now in July of 2020, after all these years is about the saddest thing one could
imagine for them on this 4th of July. I hope that they all can come home now, all of the
troops, not just some of them, all of them. Because the reality of our wars and troops in the
Middle East come from a prioritization of both political parties to serve 1) Israel first 2)
Israel second 3) Israel third
teresa smith , July 4, 2020 at 11:09
Ak I missing something? Doesn't the US have a history of paying anyone they feel will
advance their agenda, in any direction, to any nefarious group or individual? Crying foul by
the US is still more hypocritical blather, designed to distract. CN never disappoints! Thank
you all!!!
Linda Furr , July 4, 2020 at 13:20
Absolutely!! And dopey stuff like Russia paying Taliban bounties on American lives in
Afghanistan is exactly why most people are totally turned off by Washington DC and the
corporate MSM that promotes the DC system (ie a bought-and-paid-for Congress, a CIA that
creates misery all over the world, a Pentagon that eagerly displays its gonads every time it
can). Russia isn't causing our institutions to be questioned; our institutions are.
AnneR , July 4, 2020 at 10:55
Thank you Joe for this piece collating all of the claptrap we are being fed daily
(including by NPR – well, bien sur). And as with the whole farrago, charade of lies,
innuendos that was/is Russiagate, my view is closely allied to yours as stated here: "This is
the same portrayal of a bumbling, unprofessional Russian intelligence service that supposedly
left Cyrillic letters and the name of the first Soviet secret police chief in the metadata of
its alleged hacks of the DNC. At the same time we are meant to be deathly afraid of these
amateurs."
Quite. Absolutely. IF the GRU and its kindred agencies in Russia are this bloody
incompetent, this incapable of not leaving a trail that Hansel and Gretel could easily
follow, then why would we be so worried, so frightened of them? Totally, completely idiotic
– but apparently the US MICIMATT and corporate-capitalist-imperialist ruling elites
(including the Congress and most of the WH) really do believe that we, the hoi polloi, are so
f***ing stupid as to believe that the Russians are totally incompetent (and thus "we" can
"see" them) but simultaneously we should, must be knocking our knees with complete and utter
fear of them and their dastardly plots against us
What it all makes apparent is that our ruling elites at all levels, in and out of
government and its services truly believe we are as thick as two short planks. All of us.
Roe Castelli Orr , July 4, 2020 at 14:14
Unfortunately about 10 to 15% are as awoke as you and I.
The government actuarial studies realize that if this figure was over 40% the Earth's Axis
would reverse throwing these devils into the abyss.
Guy , July 4, 2020 at 10:49
This story is proof that the US media is now CIA written large.
Bob In Portland , July 4, 2020 at 10:47
It sounds like the lowly drug dealer may have been making inroads into the business. This
has been a standard tacts for our drug wars. That is, the US intelligence agencies use the
drug wars to eliminate competition to its own very lucrative drug trade wars. Like the
Japanese did to China, supplying a conquered population with drugs as a means of control.
In this case the lowly drug dealer was used as another propaganda tool aimed at Trump.
AnneR , July 4, 2020 at 14:19
A widening of the view, Bob in Portland – Before the Japanese came the Brits with
Opium, grown (in their knowledge) in Bengal (if I recall right), in the early 1800s (at
least, though possibly earlier, cos we poor working class Brits used to feed our very noisy,
obstreperous hungry babies Laudanum to keep 'em quiet. Laudanum is a derivative of Opium and
opium poppies do not thrive in GB (yer more regular poppies do).
So – we were (?) the first to introduce large quantities of Opium into China which
(inevitably, it would seem) led to war and the Brits gaining Hong Kong (what? did the Brits
say: we'll stop trafficking opium into your country if you hand over Hong Kong? Wouldn't
surprise me in the least).
Now the major supplier/grower/producer is Afghanistan – and it is difficult to
believe that the CIA has no hand in it. A deep hand. How easy then to create a fantabulous
story about the "Russians," "bounties to kill US military," and drug dealers as the
"go-betweens" with the $$$ . Deflection while pointing at those "others."
One could point out, rightly in my opinion, that were no US military in Afghanistan, none
would be killed no matter who, what, why, how .. Lie our way in; Lie our way to stay.
Rob Roy , July 4, 2020 at 10:27
Loathsome though Trump may be, he once said the most intelligent thing I've heard a
president say about Russia in my lifetime, "Why can't we just be friends." The duopoly lost
its collective minds. The horror!
jdd , July 4, 2020 at 06:57
Mr. Lauria hits the nail on the head. To his report, I would add in the vile role of the
impeachment Dems: Nancy ("all roads lead to Putin) Pelosi, Chuck ("Trump is too soft on
Putin) Schumer; and their Bushy allies, who continue to keep this latest hoax alive.
Hm, an electronic money transfer between "bank owned by Russian military intelligence" to
"an account linked to Taliban" changed, in front of our eyes, into (a duffel bag of?) notes
carried with much toil from Russia to Afghanistan. I have seen something like that years
ago.
At the end of a magic show, the performer threw up a handkerchief that changed into an
umbrella that changed into a bunch of carnations while few white doves appeared too. That led
Senator Schumer to conclude that we need new, tough sanctions on Russia.
"The cash would come from Russian officials in Afghanistan, not wired to a Taliban
account. This is the same portrayal of a bumbling, unprofessional Russian intelligence
service that supposedly left Cyrillic letters and the name of the first Soviet secret police
chief in the metadata of its alleged hacks of the DNC."
Superb summary.
I think the principle at work is an old one from advertising and propaganda.
Throw enough crap at the wall, and some it will stick.
My, what glorious work done at the highest levels of American government.
I really do think when top politicians and officials show this level of corruption and
contempt for truth, it can't too long before things really start falling apart.
Already deadly serious economic problems. Already a world competitiveness problem. Already
terrible extremes of inequality. Already serious unhappiness on the streets with brutal cops
and sugar-frosted history.Now the loss of any moral authority. and on all sides of the
government, not just Trump.
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold"
Torontonian , July 4, 2020 at 12:10
Exactly!
And look around –things are already falling apart – here in Canada -locally ,
nationally and of course on the world stage. Wait until the real economic mess hits and
governments cant pay the hush money to people any more, ie to prop up the last semblances of
a "good (sic: structure".
Here in Toronto, no Canada Day celebrations ? but instead an " emergency" dictate for
construction projects to continue from 6am to 10 pm at night 7 days a week– so we all
celebrated to noise we didn't want and public work we don't care about– really new
sidewalks again? more Bell Canada fibre network (paid by taxpayers)
Totally topsy turvy world -priorty for business with total disdain for the public.
Collapse is here–not centre structure yet .
I also can't imagine the G.R.U. dropping all that money on some middleman (Azizi) and
expecting him to carry out a distribution. More likely he would just abscond with it
(remember Iraq and all those pallets of cash money [billions] just evaporating, heck-of-a
job, Paul Bremer). And really, a guy who shows up with bling, so to speak. Nothing like
attracting attention.
Seer , July 4, 2020 at 04:58
Look up John Stockwell. It's an essential component of the CIA to spread disinformation,
and doing so via the media (figure that many ex-spooks are on CNN's payroll). Trump is
totally correct when he calls out "fake news/media" (he's just inconsistent in applying
it).
People struggle to understand the difference between siding with a Trump position vs
siding up with Trump himself. TDS has helped cloud this.
Seer , July 4, 2020 at 04:51
Fair.org completely shreds the media's handling of this:
hXXps://fair.org/home/in-russian-bounty-story-evidence-free-claims-from-nameless-spies-became-fact-overnight/
Annie , July 4, 2020 at 03:51
I simply ignore such obvious propaganda, as I did Russia-gate. Through his entire
presidency trumped up allegations have become the norm. The press is in complicity with it
all, and after a while I feel more alienated from those who hate him, degrade him, make up
lies about him and those that go so far as to undermine the constitution in order to get rid
of him.
ML , July 4, 2020 at 16:14
It's one thing to ignore and abhor the propaganda; so many of us regular CN readers do,
but it's quite another to feel any sympathy or simpatico, with a person as vile and as unfit
as Donald John. No dichotomous thinking is required, yet that's the egregious error too many
Americans make.
Drew Hunkins , July 4, 2020 at 02:21
I don't know about you, but I'm getting real sick and tired of the term
"intelligence."
AnneR , July 4, 2020 at 10:59
Yes, DH. But I think their grotesque presumption is that WE the vox populi have no
intelligence, (and they would seem to believe that of the Russians and the Chinese and the
Iranians gor blimey); therefore they can feed us, repeatedly, any old tripe they cook up (and
serve with chips and vinegar – Brit chips).
"we see intelligence agencies' insertion into domestic politics to be a greater threat
than even eight years of Trump"
To have stylistic harmony with anti-Russian claims, I would say that the leakers from law
enforcement and intelligence have equal loathing to all politicians, and they want them to be
weak, fearful and know better than to say no to whatever they may request.
A "leak" with a series of "corrections" gives a transient trouble to Trump and sticky
trouble to those who made a big noise on false premises that "anyone with half a brain would
recognize, sadly my opponent lacks even that much." By the way, assassins in Afghanistan seem
to command fees that soccer stars could envy. "At least one American soldier" and "multiple
payments of hundreds thousand dollars". Collected by a drug dealer. Alleged. GRU contacts
were neither seen nor described (or perhaps some infamous person was described allowing to
link with "Boris and Natasha" unit of GRU to whom Western analysis ascribes a long list of
failed schemes like secession of Catalonia, coup in Montenegro, extermination of ducks,
children, pizza lovers and beer drinkers in Wiltshire.)
The more details we know, the less probable the story is. More precisely, the easier it is
to point alternative and more plausible scenarios. Like, a drug dealer being paid for drugs
-- that flowed in large quantities out of Afghanistan. It happens all the time that a drug
dealer gets money for drugs. Since dealing in drugs carries death penalty in many countries
there (I am not sure about Afghanistan), any story told to interrogators is better than the
true story.
Still, it is quite puzzling how a leak about money transported by couriers got garbled
into an electronic transfer, "contact" into a "bank", dealer in Afghanistan into "an account
linked to Taliban". Was the lucidity of the receivers of the leak clouded by something like
ethanol?
dfnslblty , July 3, 2020 at 17:42
Leaks:
Death by a thousand cuts – potus ain't in charge, even intel. ain't in charge.
Must be the fascist/armament component of bigGov.
Rumors became a material force when neoliberal Dems want to use them against Trump
Presstitutes who published it have track record of pushing Iraq WDM lies before.
Looks like heroin trade money are pushed by NYT presstitutes as Russian money. Nice...
Notable quotes:
"... The sole foundation of the reports in the Times , since reinforced by similar articles in the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press, and accounts on cable and network television, are the unsupported, uncorroborated statements of unnamed intelligence officials. These officials give no proof of their claims about the operation of the supposed network of GRU agents -- how the money came from Russia to Afghanistan, how the money was distributed to Taliban fighters, what actions the Taliban fighters carried out, what impact these actions had on any American military personnel. ..."
"... Yet six days into this press campaign, there has been no acknowledgement in the "mainstream" corporate media that there is anything dubious or unsubstantiated about this narrative. Instead, the main focus has been to demand that the Trump administration explain when the president learned of the alleged Russian attack and what he proposes to do about it. ..."
"... The Times reporters spearheading this campaign are not journalists in any real sense of the term. They are conduits, passing on material supplied to them by high-level operatives in the CIA and other intelligence agencies, repackaging it for public consumption and using their status as "reporters" to provide more credibility than would be given to a press release from Langley, Virginia. In other words, the CIA has provided the plot line, and the newspaper creates the narrative framework to sell it to the American people. ..."
"... The newspaper played a leading role in helping the Bush administration fabricate its case for war against Iraq in 2002-2003. It was not just the notorious Judith Miller, with her tall tales of aluminum tubes being used to build centrifuges as a step to an Iraqi atomic bomb. ..."
"... The New York Times acts as a political mouthpiece of the Democratic Party, which is determined to block any mass radicalization of workers and youth. In the event that Biden is elected in November and takes office in January 2021, an incoming Democratic administration will carry out policies no less reactionary than those of Trump ..."
"... The campaign against Trump's alleged "dereliction of duty" -- a phrase used by Biden three times during his Tuesday press conference -- is nothing more than a continuation of the campaign by the Democrats to attack Trump from the right, as too "soft" on Russia and too unwilling to intervene in the Middle East. ..."
Not since William Randolph Hearst cabled his correspondent in Havana in 1898 with the message, "You furnish the pictures and I'll
furnish the war," has a newspaper been so thoroughly identified with an effort to provoke an American war as the Not since William
Randolph Hearst cabled his correspondent in Havana in 1898 with the message, "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war,"
has a newspaper been so thoroughly identified with an effort to provoke an American war as the New York Times this week.
The difference -- and there is a colossal one -- is that Hearst was fanning the flames for the Spanish-American War, a
comparatively minor conflict, the first venture by American imperialism to seize territory overseas, in Cuba, Puerto Rico and the
Philippines. The Times today is seeking to whip up a war fever directed against Russia, one that threatens to ignite a third
world war fought with nuclear weapons.
There is not the slightest factual
basis for the series of article and commentaries published by the Times , beginning last Saturday, claiming that the Russian
military intelligence service, the GRU, paid bounties to Taliban guerrillas to induce them to attack and kill American soldiers in
Afghanistan. Not a single soldier out of the 31 Americans who have died in Afghanistan in 2019-2020 has been identified as a victim
of the alleged scheme. No witnesses have been brought forward, no evidence produced.
The sole foundation of the reports in the Times , since reinforced by similar articles
in the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press, and accounts on cable and network television,
are the unsupported, uncorroborated statements of unnamed intelligence officials. These officials give no proof of their claims about
the operation of the supposed network of GRU agents -- how the money came from Russia to Afghanistan, how the money was distributed
to Taliban fighters, what actions the Taliban fighters carried out, what impact these actions had on any American military personnel.
Yet six days into this press campaign, there has been no acknowledgement in the "mainstream" corporate media that there is
anything dubious or unsubstantiated about this narrative. Instead, the main focus has been to demand that the Trump
administration explain when the president learned of the alleged Russian attack and what he proposes to do about it.
The Times reporters spearheading this campaign are not journalists in any real sense of the term.
They are conduits, passing on material supplied to them by high-level operatives in the CIA and other intelligence agencies, repackaging
it for public consumption and using their status as "reporters" to provide more credibility than would be given to a press release
from Langley, Virginia. In other words, the CIA has provided the plot line, and the newspaper creates the narrative framework to
sell it to the American people.
The Times and individual reporters like David Sanger and Eric Schmitt have a track record. The newspaper played a leading
role in helping the Bush administration fabricate its case for war against Iraq in 2002-2003. It was not just the notorious Judith
Miller, with her tall tales of aluminum tubes being used to build centrifuges as a step to an Iraqi atomic bomb.
There was an entire
chorus of falsification, in which Schmitt (January 21, 2001, "Iraq Rebuilt Bombed Arms Plants, Officials Say") and Sanger (November
13, 2002, "U.S. Scoffs at Iraq Claim of No Weapons of Mass Destruction," and December 6, 2002, "US Tells Iraq It Must Reveal Weapons
Sites") among many articles, played major roles.
In this week's "Russian bounties" campaign, Schmitt and Sanger are at it again. A front-page article published Thursday under
their joint byline carries the headline, "Trump's New Russia Problem: Unread Intelligence and Missing Strategy." This article is
aimed at advancing the claim that Trump was negligent in responding to allegations against Russia, either being too lazy to read
the President's Daily Brief -- a summary of world events and spy reports produced by the CIA -- or choosing to ignore the report
because of his supposed subservience to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The political line of the article is set early on, when the authors claim that "it doesn't require a high-level clearance for
the government's most classified information to see that the list of Russian aggressions in recent weeks rivals some of the worst
days of the Cold War." The list is ridiculously thin, including "cyberattacks on Americans working from home" (no evidence presented)
and "continued concern about new playbooks for Russian actors seeking to influence the November election" (this is a description
of the state of mind at the CIA, not of any actual steps taken by Russia). The purpose is to place the current allegations about
Russian bounties in the context of the long-running effort to portray Russian President Vladimir Putin as the evil genius and puppet
master of world politics.
Schmitt, in an article co-authored with Michael Crowley, refers to "intelligence reports that Russia paid bounties to Taliban-affiliated
fighters to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan," as though this was an established fact. The article cites various unnamed "former
officials" of the Trump and Obama administrations claiming that such an allegation would certainly have been brought to Trump's attention,
and that his failure to take action in response must be seen as negligence.
The article suggests that there is "supporting evidence" for the CIA claims of a Russian bounty plot, citing, among other things,
"detainee interrogations, the recovery of about $500,000 from a Taliban-related target and intercepts of electronic communications
showing financial transfers between the Russian military intelligence unit and Afghan intermediaries." In point of fact, every item
on this list represents an assertion by unnamed intelligence sources, not evidence: no actual detainees, cash hoards or electronic
intercepts have been produced.
Another article by Schmitt, along with three Afghan-based reporters, focuses on the alleged role of an Afghan businessman, Rahmatullah
Azizi, a former drug smuggler and US government contractor, in whose home investigators found a cash hoard of half a million in US
dollars. Again, "US intelligence reports" are cited, claiming Azizi was "a key middleman between the G.R.U. and militants linked
to the Taliban." Again, there is no actual evidence cited, and Azizi himself cannot be found. As for the alleged cash hoard, this
suggests more the proceeds of narcotics trafficking than anything else, an enterprise in which Azizi was supposedly engaged.
The article asserts that the Russian government organized the bounty scheme as "payback" for decades of humiliation in Afghanistan
at the expense of the United States, although how killing a handful of US soldiers would accomplish such a goal is a mystery. Moreover,
the Times also admits, citing a congressman who participated in a White House briefing on the allegations, that the intelligence
briefing did not "detail any connection to specific U.S. or coalition deaths in Afghanistan" and that "gaps remained in the intelligence
community's understanding of the overall program, including its precise motive "
In other words, the Russian "bounties" program has no identifiable victims and no credible motive. This makes the unanimity of
the media chorus that much more damning a self-indictment. Why is there not a single article or commentary in the corporate media
challenging the claims being peddled by the CIA? It is not that these claims are particularly convincing in and of themselves. Far
from it. It is the source of the claims that is decisive: if the US intelligence apparatus says it is so, the American media
obediently salutes.
The real question to be answered about the latest anti-Russian provocation is this: what political considerations are the driving
force of this episode of media fabrication?
It is no coincidence that the Afghanistan "bounties" story has surfaced just at the point where the Trump administration is visibly
reeling in the face of the twin crises of the coronavirus pandemic and the popular upsurge against police violence. The American
ruling class has been deeply shaken by the outraged protests by large interracial crowds, particularly of young people, that have
swept virtually every American city and town. And the financial aristocracy is well aware of the deep-seated popular opposition to
its drive to force workers back to work under conditions where every large factory, warehouse and office is a potential epicenter
for the ongoing resurgence of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The response to this crisis by the political and media representatives of the ruling elite is twofold: seeking to split the working
class along racial lines and seeking to divert domestic social tensions into a campaign against foreign antagonists, particularly
China and Russia.
The New York Times acts as a political mouthpiece of the Democratic Party, which is determined to block any mass radicalization
of workers and youth. In the event that Biden is elected in November and takes office in January 2021, an incoming Democratic administration
will carry out policies no less reactionary than those of Trump.
The campaign against Trump's alleged "dereliction of duty" -- a phrase used by Biden three times during his Tuesday press
conference -- is nothing more than a continuation of the campaign by the Democrats to attack Trump from the right, as too "soft"
on Russia and too unwilling to intervene in the Middle East. This began with the anti-Russia campaign that triggered the two-year-long
Mueller investigation, continued with the Ukraine phone call that led to impeachment and now emerges in the form of increasingly
vehement demands that the US government "retaliate" for an entirely fabricated Russian effort to kill American soldiers.
Larry argument: Russian military intelligence is one of the top intelligence services in the world. They can't be that sloppy.
Notable quotes:
"... If it is true that Russia's military intelligence unit is putting out hits on U.S. military personnel, then they are terrible at their job. The violence they are allegedly inflicting on our soldiers is so inconsequential that the U.S. media rarely does any detailed reporting when a soldier falls in action in sand pits of Taliban-land. And then there are the actual peace talks with the Taliban that, despite dire warnings that this was a fools errand, appears to have paid off. U.S. forces are not being besieged nor savaged at their outposts in Afghanistan. ..."
"... You are a 19 year old black man and want to see your 20th birthday, join the military and ask to be deployed to Afghanistan. You will be safer. ..."
"... The movement of money through Russian banks to Afghan accounts tied to the Taliban should not shock anyone. It is called proceeds from heroin. After more than 20 years of spilling the blood of U.S. warriors in Afghanistan, we have made no dent in the production, distribution and sale of heroin, which is funding warlords and corrupt politicians alike in Afghanistan. This is not Russian bounty money. This is U.S. funded mayhem. Every America who buys heroin or some version of the drug on the streets is helping put money in the pockets of fanatics like the Taliban. ..."
"... The so-called intelligence officers, the faux journalists and the craven politicians are putting our nation at risk by spreading a lie and smearing Donald Trump. This cannot stand. ..."
"... Is it possible that the "Russian bounty" story was ginned up to prevent the withdrawal from Afghanistan and Germany? ..."
"... Looks like Liz Cheney and the Democrats are working together to put a kibbosh on withdrawal. ..."
"... When peace occurs, promotions stop. Without a battlefield officers must find other ways to move up the ladder. I think the colonel covers this quite accurately in his Artists and Bureaucrats paper. ..."
"... Given that electronic transfers of USD are traceable, how likely is it that GRU would do this vs physically carrying a payment into Afghanistan? To carry $1M you just need a single stack of $100 bills 43 inches long. By land you have Iran and Uzbekistan a former Soviet Republic. If they used a passenger jet they could fly in from almost anywhere. ..."
"... For some historical perspective from someone who really knew a lot about pre-2003 Afghanistan, see Michael Scheuer's third "Pillar of Truth" about Afghanistan: "Afghans Cannot Be Bought" from his 2004 "Imperial Hubris": ..."
"... It's another leak to sabotage Trump, except now the saboteurs are getting less creative and more lazy. ..."
Anyone who embraces the stupid and absurd claim that Russia's military intelligence outfit, the
GRU, is paying (has been paying) the Taliban to kill U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan, is
either guilty of ignorance or congenitally retarded. It is that simple. There is not gray area
here. The claim is a lie.
Let us start with this fact--the Taliban do not need a financial incentive to kill U.S.
military personnel. They have willingly taken up that cause for more than 20 years.
Then there is this fact--the number of U.S. military personnel who died in the last six
months in Afghanistan are dwarfed by the number of young black men killed in Chicago over the
Memorial Day Holiday. If the Russians goal is to kill Americans they would be better off
spending their money on the drug gangs that infest the American cities governed by Democrats.
They would get more bang for their bucks. Only eight U.S. military personnel have died in
Afghanistan in 2020 and only four of those were killed in "hostile" engagements. The other four
succumbed to accidents. Twenty six U.S. military personnel died in Afghanistan in 2019. Twenty
of those were from hostile actions. ( Icasualties.org provides the
details).
If it is true that Russia's military intelligence unit is putting out hits on U.S. military
personnel, then they are terrible at their job. The violence they are allegedly inflicting on
our soldiers is so inconsequential that the U.S. media rarely does any detailed reporting when
a soldier falls in action in sand pits of Taliban-land. And then there are the actual peace
talks with the Taliban that, despite dire warnings that this was a fools errand, appears to
have paid off. U.S. forces are not being besieged nor savaged at their outposts in
Afghanistan.
The Democrats supposed concern for the lives of U.S. military personnel fighting in foreign
shit-holes stands in stark contrast to their silence about the mass slaughter of young black
men in the major U.S. cities that have been ruled by Democrat politicians for more than a
generation. Compare the murder body count in these cities (comprised largely of young, black
males) with the U.S. soldiers allegedly killed in Afghanistan because of a Russian bounty--2124
U.S. citizens murdered in the United States in 2019 vice 20 U.S. soldiers killed in combat in
Afghanistan:
You are a 19 year old black man and want to see your 20th birthday, join the military and
ask to be deployed to Afghanistan. You will be safer.
The movement of money through Russian banks to Afghan accounts tied to the Taliban should
not shock anyone. It is called proceeds from heroin. After more than 20 years of spilling the
blood of U.S. warriors in Afghanistan, we have made no dent in the production, distribution and
sale of heroin, which is funding warlords and corrupt politicians alike in Afghanistan. This is
not Russian bounty money. This is U.S. funded mayhem. Every America who buys heroin or some
version of the drug on the streets is helping put money in the pockets of fanatics like the
Taliban.
Fortunately, the money is so good that the Taliban are pulling their punches in going after
U.S. troops. The Taliban make more from selling dope to the world than the Russian could ever
offer. As long as the U.S. leaves the poppy fields alone, there is little incentive to attack
us.
The behavior of the Democrats and some Republicans in accepting the damnable lie that the
U.S. has solid, reliable intelligence about a Russian scheme to fund the Taliban to kill
Americans is dangerous. The incessant cry about the non-existent Russian wolf is fraught with
peril. At a minimum, it puts the Russians in the position of believing that these so-called
political leaders are serious about picking a fight with Moscow and killing Russians. Russia is
not going to sit back and be a punching bag for fools obsessed with ridding Washington, DC of
Donald Trump.
The so-called intelligence officers, the faux journalists and the craven politicians are
putting our nation at risk by spreading a lie and smearing Donald Trump. This cannot stand.
"The so-called intelligence officers, the faux journalists and the craven politicians are
putting our nation at risk by spreading a lie and smearing Donald Trump."
When peace occurs, promotions stop. Without a battlefield officers must find other ways to
move up the ladder. I think the colonel covers this quite accurately in his Artists and
Bureaucrats paper.
A question to my betters (no sarcasm intended). The NYT is trying to shore up its story by
stating
"Russia's complicity in the bounty plot came into sharper focus on Tuesday as the The New
York Times reported that American officials intercepted electronic data showing large
financial transfers from a bank account controlled by Russia's military intelligence agency
to a Taliban-linked account."
Given that electronic transfers of USD are traceable, how likely is it that GRU would do
this vs physically carrying a payment into Afghanistan? To carry $1M you just need a single
stack of $100 bills 43 inches long. By land you have Iran and Uzbekistan a former Soviet
Republic. If they used a passenger jet they could fly in from almost anywhere.
To do a wire transfer GRU would have to be (falsely) confident that their source account
was very well disguised, something like a successful bakery in Pakistan. I can't believe they
would use an account from a bank in Russia, that would be too obvious.
I don't believe the story, just asking about the plausibility of using a wire
transfer.
For some historical perspective from someone who really knew a lot about pre-2003
Afghanistan, see Michael Scheuer's third "Pillar of Truth" about Afghanistan: "Afghans Cannot
Be Bought" from his 2004 "Imperial Hubris":
I note that nobody in the comments section of the NYT article ever asks the obvious
question, the one that Larry Johnson zeroed in on very quickly.
This one: if Afghanistan is now awash with cash as a result of "Russian bounties" on dead
GIs then where and when were those GIs killed?
After all, of necessity one is the other side of the coin to the other.
The more money there is in Afghanistan then, logically, the more successful the Taliban
must have been in collecting those bounties. Even though they haven't been very successful at
all.
That actually vividly shows that so called Democrats are completly in the pocket of MIC
Notable quotes:
"... The Crow amendment would block funding if the U.S. draws down below 8,000 troops and again below 4,000 troops "unless the administration certifies that doing so would not compromise the U.S. counterterrorism mission in Afghanistan, not increase risk for U.S. personnel there, be done in consultation with allies, and is in the best interest of the United States," reports The Hill. "It would also require an analysis on the effects of a drawdown on the threat from the Taliban, the status of human and civil rights, an inclusive Afghan peace process, the capacity of Afghan forces and the effect of malign actors on Afghan sovereignty." ..."
"... Rep. Jason Crow's (D-Colo.) NDAA amendment will require several certifications, including an assessment of whether any "state actors have provided any incentives to the Taliban, their affiliates, or other foreign terrorist organizations for attacks against United States, coalition, or Afghan security forces or civilians in Afghanistan in the last two years, including the details of any attacks believed to have been connected with such incentives." ..."
"... Crow's amendment adds several layers of policy goals to the U.S. mission in Afghanistan, which has already stretched on for 19 years and cost over a trillion dollars. As made clear in th e Afghanistan Papers, most of these policy goals were never the original intention of the mission in Afghanistan , and were haphazardly added after the defeat of al Qaeda. With no clear vision for what achieving these fuzzy goals would look like, the mission stretches on indefinitely, an unarticulated victory unachievable. ..."
"... "the U.S. counterterrorism mission in Afghanistan"...The US just wants to permanently occupy Afghanistan. ..."
The House Armed Services Committee voted Wednesday night to put roadblocks on President
Donald Trump's vow to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan, apparently in response to
bombshell report
published by The New York Times Friday that alleges Russia paid dollar bounties to the
Taliban in Afghanistan to kill U.S troops.
The Crow amendment would block funding if the U.S. draws down below 8,000 troops and again
below 4,000 troops "unless the administration certifies that doing so would not compromise the
U.S. counterterrorism mission in Afghanistan, not increase risk for U.S. personnel there, be
done in consultation with allies, and is in the best interest of the United States," reports
The Hill. "It would also require an analysis on the effects of a drawdown on the threat from
the Taliban, the status of human and civil rights, an inclusive Afghan peace process, the
capacity of Afghan forces and the effect of malign actors on Afghan sovereignty."
Rep. Jason Crow's (D-Colo.) NDAA amendment will require several certifications, including an
assessment of whether any "state actors have provided any incentives to the Taliban, their
affiliates, or other foreign terrorist organizations for attacks against United States,
coalition, or Afghan security forces or civilians in Afghanistan in the last two years,
including the details of any attacks believed to have been connected with such incentives."
The amendment "lays out, in a very responsible level of specificity, what is going to be
required if we are going to in fact make decisions about troop levels based on conditions on
the ground and based on what's required for our own security, not based on political
timelines," said Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.-R.), the daughter of former Vice President Dick
Cheney.
"And that is crucially important, and I think it is our number one priority," added Cheney,
who is now the number three Republican in the House.
The U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan is down to 8,600 troops. Trump is said to be eager to
deliver on his campaign promise and further draw down the U.S. presence after the 19-year war
in Afghanistan.
"A great nation does not force the next generation to fight their wars, and that's what
we've done in Afghanistan," said Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fl.) "I think the best day to have not had
the war in Afghanistan was when we started it, and the next best day is tomorrow. I don't think
there's ever a bad day to end the war in Afghanistan. Our generation is weary of this and tired
of this."
Crow's amendment adds several layers of policy goals to the U.S. mission in Afghanistan,
which has already stretched on for 19 years and cost over a trillion dollars. As made clear in
th
e Afghanistan Papers, most of these policy goals were never the original intention of the
mission in Afghanistan , and were haphazardly added after the defeat of al Qaeda. With no
clear vision for what achieving these fuzzy goals would look like, the mission stretches on
indefinitely, an unarticulated victory unachievable.
"the U.S. counterterrorism mission in Afghanistan"...The US just wants to permanently
occupy Afghanistan. End of story. For now, for instance, the Uyghurs are a nice foil to
undermine China. But in a possible future, in which lets' say China gets destabilized and CCP
falls and revert to war lordism, I can see the US invading Xinjiang to rein in the Islamic
terrorism and then to try to create a separate state. But Xinjiang is not Kosovo, Han and
their allies represent a plurality of the population, just under 50%...
Amazing how anonymous sources prevail over people willing to speak in public when they say
what you want to believe and that is the power of the deep state.
Apologies for abusing the blog board. But I cannot think that there is a bigger game at
play, in which staying in Afghanistan is just a small piece of the Go game being played.
In respect with Russia, after the fall of the soviet communism, there wasn't a fundamental
ideological reason left to confront Russia. But now, because Russia managed to evade
submission into the rapacious hands of the US Oligarchy, everything is being used as a reason
to tie Russia down, like Gulliver was tied down by Lilliputians.
The problem the US has now, is that it cannot create a common front against Russia and in
fact, it has started punishing its so called "allies" (no more than subjects in reality). And
because of this, Germany has said a clear and crisp "Nein" against the US interference with
NS2, and against the US request at UN to maintain the arms embargo against Iran.
It is funny and interesting to see how the Israel plan of annexing of part of West Bank
will unfold. To be consistent, the EU will either have to stop sanctioning Russia for Crimea,
or start sanctioning Israel... The EU cannot have it both ways (the US can though).
House Using Shaky Russian Bounty Story To Keep U.S. Troops in Afghanistan
Jason Crow, Liz Cheney and any other member of congress that support continuing the US
governments wholly avoidable and tragic folly in Afghanistan - which has cost the lives of
2,353 US service men/women killed in action and 20,149 wounded in action (also innumerable
Afghan deaths/wounded) - need to be tested for the presence of psychotropic drugs in their
systems.
"And that is crucially important, and I think it is our number one priority," added
Cheney, who is now the number three Republican in the House.
Liz Cheney's statement is the height of delusion.
Our nation is bankrupt, unemployment is rampant, 1st/2nd qtr 2020 GDP is down 17% due to a
specious medical quarantine with no medical basis in fact enacted via bureaucratic fiat and
masses of unhinged protestors/rioters running amok in the streets seeking to erase this
nations history (warts and all) by tearing down monuments/statues and redefining/eliminating
words/phrases from our national lexicon.
If continued US warmongering in Afghanistan is such a great idea Jason Crow should put his
soldier suit back on and take Liz Cheney, her draft dodging daddy and any member of congress
supporting this insanity over to visit so they can put their worthless words into action
instead of sacrificing the life of one more US service member to further their megalomaniacal
aspirations.
There is not one US national security interest at stake in Afghanistan.
There are however plumb sinecures and defense contracts to be had.
Trump could do a "Surge" again and they wouldn't say a word about it, except maybe
complain it wasn't big enough, even if it cost another couple thousand lives and a trillion
dollars. That would be just fine and dandy. It's like that old game "Red light, Green Light
go". He's always got a green light to go to war and always a red light to end one.
"... Some of that context is that Mike Pompeo said , "I was the CIA director – We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses." So we know for certain that U.S. intelligence agencies lie to you and me. We saw it with WMD, and we might be seeing it again now. ..."
"... We could talk about the fact that the U.S. has been funding the Taliban for years! Yes, we fund them, sometimes arm them, and then fight them. This is barely a secret . So for all intents and purposes, the U.S. does the same thing our corporate media is now accusing Russia of doing (with no proof). ..."
"... Now, I'm not implying Trump is some kind of hippy peacenik. (He would look atrocious with no bra and flowers in his hair.) No, the military under Trump has dropped more bombs than under Obama , and that's impressive since Obama dropped more bombs than ever before. ..."
"... However, in certain areas of the world, Trump has threatened to create peace. Sure, he's doing it for his own ego and because he thinks his base wants it, but whatever the reason, he has put forward plans or policies that go against the military industrial complex and the establishment war-hawks (which is 95 percent of the establishment). ..."
"... And each time this has happened, he is quickly thwarted, usually with hilarious propaganda. (Well, hilarious to you and me. Apparently believable to people at The New York Times and former CIA intern Anderson Cooper.) ..."
This is not a column defending Donald Trump. Across my career, I have said more positive words about the scolex family of intestinal
tapeworms than I have said about Donald Trump. (Scolex have been shown to read more.)
No, this is a column about context. When The New York Times reports anonymous sources from
the intelligence community say Russia paid Taliban fighters to kill American soldiers, context
is very important.
Some of that context is that Mike Pompeo said , "I was the CIA director
– We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses." So we know for certain
that U.S. intelligence agencies lie to you and me. We saw it with WMD, and we might be seeing
it again now.
But that's not the context I'm referring to.
We could talk about the context of the fact that the Taliban does not need to be paid to
kill American soldiers because their entire goal for the past twenty years has been to kill
American soldiers. Paying them a bounty would be like offering the guy sleeping with your wife
twenty bucks to sleep with your wife.
But that's not the context I'm referring to.
We could talk about the fact that the U.S. has been funding the Taliban for
years! Yes, we fund them, sometimes arm them, and then fight them. This is
barely a secret . So for all intents and purposes, the U.S. does the same thing our
corporate media is now accusing Russia of doing (with no proof).
But that's not the context I'm referring to.
No, the context I'm referring to is how our military industrial complex (with the help of
our ruling elite and our corporate media) have stopped Trump from pushing us toward the brink
of peace. Yes, the brink of peace.
Now, I'm not implying Trump is some kind of hippy peacenik. (He would look atrocious with no
bra and flowers in his hair.) No, the military under Trump has dropped
more bombs than under Obama , and that's impressive since Obama dropped more bombs than
ever before.
However, in certain areas of the world, Trump has threatened to create peace. Sure, he's
doing it for his own ego and because he thinks his base wants it, but whatever the reason, he
has put forward plans or policies that go against the military industrial complex and the
establishment war-hawks (which is 95 percent of the establishment).
And each time this has happened, he is quickly thwarted, usually with hilarious propaganda.
(Well, hilarious to you and me. Apparently believable to people at The New York Times and
former CIA intern Anderson Cooper.)
I know four things for sure in life. Paper beats rock. Rock beats scissors. Scissors beat
paper. And propaganda beats peace. All one has to do is look at a calendar.
Trump has essentially threatened to create peace or pull U.S. troops out of a war zone in
three countries – North Korea, Afghanistan, and Syria. Let's start with Syria.
April 4,
2018 : President Trump orders the Pentagon to plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria.
This cannot be allowed because it goes against the U.S. imperial plan. So what happens
within days of Trump's order?
April 7, 2018 : Reports surface of a major chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria.
What are the odds that within days of Trump telling the Pentagon to withdraw, Bashar
al-Assad decides to use the one weapon that will guarantee American forces continue attacking
him? Assad may not be a chess player, but I also don't think he ate that many paint chips as a
kid. And sure enough, over the past two years we've now heard from four
whistleblowers at the Organization for The Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) saying
the so-called chemical attack didn't happen. (Notice that the number "four" is even bigger than
the numbers "one," "two," and "three.")
But establishment propaganda beats peace any day and twice on Sunday. The false story
succeeded in keeping America entrenched in Syria.
The DPRK
Let's move on to North Korea. As you surely know, Donald Trump "threatened" to create peace
with the hermetic country. Simply saying he would attempt such a thing sent weapons contractor
stocks tumbling -- one of the many reasons peace had to be stopped.
Feb
27, 2019 : Donald Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong Un meet in Vietnam.
The summit fails, and reports begin emerging that Mike Pompeo and John Bolton succeeded in
napalming any progress.
March 15, 2019 : Pompeo and Bolton deny derailing North Korea nuclear talks.
From The Nation ,
"There were reports from South Korea that the presence at the talks of John Bolton, Trump's
aggressively hawkish national-security adviser, helped torpedo the talks."
But just destroying the peace talks wasn't enough. The American people needed some good,
solid propaganda to reassert the idea that Kim Jung Un was a dastardly bloodthirsty
dictator.
March 30,
2019: The New York Times reports North Korea executed and purged their top nuclear
negotiators.
Yes, apparently Kim Jung Un must've fed his top diplomats to his top alligators. Then, two
months later we learn
June 4, 2019: The fate of the North Korean negotiator "executed" after the failed summit
"grows murkier" with new reports that he's still alive.
One would have to say that his being alive does indeed make the report that he's dead
"murkier." Within the next day or two it becomes
quite clear the diplomat is very much in the land of the living. But the propaganda put
forward by The New York Times and many other outlets has already done its job.
Far more people saw the reports that the man had been murdered than saw the later
retraction. And to this day, the Times has not removed the initial
article saying he was executed. Exactly how wrong does propaganda have to be, to warrant an
online deletion? Dead versus alive is a pretty binary designation.
And now we get to the outrage du jour, and it's a bombshell!
Bounties!
May 26,
2020: Pentagon commanders begin drawing up options for an early Afghanistan troop
withdrawal, following Trump's request.
June 16, 2020 : "President Donald Trump confirmed in public for the first time his
administration's plans to cut the U.S. military troop presence in Germany from its current
level of roughly 35,000 to a reduced force of 25,000." – ForeignPolicy.com
June 26,
2020: The New York Times reports Russia paid the Taliban to attack U.S. troops. (According
to anonymous sources from an intelligence community that proudly admits they lie to us all the
time, sometimes just to amuse themselves.)
So when this story first came out, I thought, "You know, Trump has been stopped from
withdrawing troops in the past by ridiculous propaganda that seems to land like a giant turd
right after he announces his intentions. Maybe I'll check what happened in the days preceding
this jaw-dropping story."
So just days after Trump goes against the military industrial complex and against the ruling
establishment by announcing he'll be withdrawing about a third of our troops from Germany, and
just weeks after announcing an early withdrawal from Afghanistan, a seemingly mind-blowing
story drops about Russia paying the Taliban to kill American troops.
This serves to remind everyone what a threat Russia is (so we better put more troops in
Germany!) and serves to keep us in Afghanistan (because screw those Russian-funded
Taliban!).
Look, I'm not saying Trump is a hero or a great guy or even a man who wants peace. I'm not
even saying he's a man. He very well may be a giant blood-sucking leech in a human skin suit.
(A poorly tailored human skin suit.)
All I'm saying is the timing doesn't add up. Either these landmark stories that destroy
every chance of peace are false (in fact we've already proven two out of three of them are
false), or peace has exceedingly, ridiculously, laughably bad timing.
Feature photo | Abdullah Abdullah, right, President Ashraf Ghani's fellow leader under a
recently signed power-sharing agreement, holds a meeting with U.S. peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad
aimed at resuscitating a U.S.-Taliban peace deal signed in February, at the presidential
palace, in Kabul, Afghanistan, May 20, 2020. Credit | Sapidar Palace via AP
Lee Camp is an American stand-up comedian, writer, actor and activist. Camp is the host
of the weekly comedy news TV show "Redacted Tonight With Lee Camp" on RT America. He is a
former comedy writer for the Onion and the Huffington Post and has been a touring stand-up
comic for 20 years.
This article was published with special permission from the author. It originally
appeared at Consortium News .
Stories published in our Daily Digests section are chosen based on the interest of our
readers. They are republished from a number of sources, and are not produced by MintPress News.
The views expressed in these articles are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect
MintPress News editorial policy.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect
MintPress News editorial policy.
My take on Tucker and Maddow: both serve those who write their paychecks, but one of the
two bosses is a better businessman.
Tucker does not duplicate Hannity which lets them serve different (if overlapping)
segments of the audience. Showing Paralimpil and Gabbard to the viewers did not lead to any
major perturbation in American politics, but it lets his viewer feel that they are better
informed than the fools who watch Maddow. And it helps that to a degree they are.
I get that Tucker invites good a reasonable people on his show and gives voice space where
they would not otherwise get it. That is deliberate.
I bet you that the stats show that the demented monotone oozing out of MSNBC and CNN etc
has been a serious turn off for a sector of audience that is well informed and exercise
critical faculties. That is exactly what Tucker needs to pay for his program as I would be
fairly sure these people are Consumers of a desirable degree and advertisers like Tucker's
formula and Fox Bosses like Tuckers income generator.
I don't think it is more complex than that and his bosses will entertain most heresies as
long as the program generates advertiser demand for that time slot.
So Tucker is OK and he is reasonable and he will interview a broad spectrum. Good for him.
But he smooths the pillow and caresses the establishment arse.
The organisers projected an image of the cover of the Russian Constitution against the
background of Bill Clinton, Boris Yeltsin, and the inscription "1993. It was yours " Then
there is an image of the Russian people and the message "2020. It will be ours!", followed by
a call to come to vote, was projected on the building of the US Embassy. The light projection
was organised by the art group "Re:Venge".
https://www.stalkerzone.org/the-russian-constitution-was-projected-onto-the-us-embassy-building-in-moscow/
Ha, I really like this one ! Would have loved to watch 'das dumme Gesicht' (something like
>>stupid face<< but stronger. like the Germans say) of the latest Trump's edition
of silly ambassadors, lol !!!
"... Some countries like Italy (maybe Germany) are warming to Russia a little bit but Russia has a long way to go just to get back to their pre-2014 status with Europe. That is 'tightening their grip?'. I know, this is how propagandists speak. ..."
VK, re: Russia's grip on Europe is gradually tightening from the U.K.'s
INDEPENDENT
It's behind a paywall but I read just enough to be curious as to how someone could
possibly justify a clickbait title like that.
I suspect that the rest of the article is just
going to recap Russia's alleged sins in order to fan hatred but how can someone objectively
say that Russia is tightening its grip on Europe?
FUCKUS banned Russia from the Olympics on a bogus state sponsored steroid scam, no
reinstatement on horizon.
FUCKUS kicked Russia out of the now G7 and imposed a trade embargo that destroyed a large
commercial relationship w/Germany.
What is the 'overwhelming' evidence that the Russians poisoned the Skripal's, Novichok can be
made by just about anyone.
Some countries like Italy (maybe Germany) are warming to Russia a little bit but Russia
has a long way to go just to get back to their pre-2014 status with Europe. That is
'tightening their grip?'. I know, this is how propagandists speak.
It's been nearly four years since the myth of Trump-Russia collusion made its debut in
American politics, generating an endless stream of stories in the corporate press and hundreds
of allegations of conspiracy from pundits and officials. But despite netting scores of
embarrassing admissions, corrections, editor's notes and retractions in that time, the theory
refuses to die.
Over the years, the highly elaborate "Russiagate" narrative has fallen away piece-by-piece.
Claims about Donald Trump's various back channels to Moscow -- Carter Page ,
George Papadopoulos ,
Michael Flynn ,
Paul Manafort ,
Alfa Bank -- have each been thoroughly discredited. House Intelligence Committee
transcripts released in May have revealed that nobody who asserted a Russian hack on Democratic
computers, including the
DNC's own cyber security firm , is able to produce evidence that it happened. In fact, it
is now clear the entire investigation into the Trump campaign was
without basis .
It was alleged that Moscow manipulated the president with " kompromat " and black mail,
sold to the public in a " dossier " compiled by a former British
intelligence officer, Christopher Steele. Working through a DC consulting firm , Steele was hired by
Democrats to dig up dirt on Trump, gathering a litany of accusations that Steele's own primary
source would later dismiss as "hearsay" and "rumor."
Though the FBI was
aware the dossier was little more than sloppy opposition research, the bureau nonetheless
used it to obtain warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.
Even the claim that Russia helped Trump from afar, without direct coordination, has fallen
flat on its face. The "
troll farm " allegedly tapped by the Kremlin to wage a pro-Trump meme war -- the Internet
Research Agency -- spent only $46,000 on Facebook ads, or around 0.05 percent
of the $81 million budget of the Trump and Clinton campaigns. The vast majority of the IRA's
ads had nothing to do with U.S. politics, and more than half of those that did were published
after the election, having no impact on voters. The Department of Justice, moreover,
has dropped its charges
against the IRA's parent company, abandoning a major case resulting from Robert Mueller's
special counsel probe.
Though few of its most diehard proponents would ever admit it, after four long years, the
foundation of the Trump-Russia narrative has finally given way and its edifice has crumbled.
The wreckage left behind will remain for some time to come, however, kicking off a new era of
mainstream McCarthyism and setting the stage for the next Cold War.
It Didn't Start With
Trump
The importance of Russiagate to U.S. foreign policy cannot be understated, but the road to
hostilities with Moscow stretches far beyond the current administration. For thirty years, the
United States has
exploited its de facto victory in the first Cold War, interfering in Russian elections in
the 1990s, aiding oligarchs as they looted the country into poverty, and orchestrating Color
Revolutions in former Soviet states. NATO, meanwhile, has been enlarged up to Russia's border,
despite American assurances the alliance wouldn't expand "
one inch " eastward after the collapse of the USSR.
Unquestionably, from the fall of the Berlin Wall until the day Trump took office, the United
States maintained an aggressive policy toward Moscow. But with the USSR wiped off the map and
communism defeated for good, a sufficient pretext to rally the American public into another
Cold War has been missing in the post-Soviet era. In the same 30-year period, moreover,
Washington has pursued one disastrous
diversion after another in the Middle East, leaving little space or interest for another
round of brinkmanship with the Russians, who were relegated to little more than a talking
point. That, however, has changed.
The Crisis They Needed
The Washington foreign policy establishment -- memorably dubbed "
the Blob " by one Obama adviser -- was thrown into disarray by Trump's election win in the
fall of 2016. In some ways, Trump stood out as the dove during the race, deeming "endless wars"
in the Middle East a scam, calling for closer ties with Russia, and even questioning the
usefulness of NATO. Sincere or not, Trump's campaign vows shocked the Beltway think tankers,
journalists, and politicos whose worldviews (and salaries) rely on the maintenance of empire.
Something had to be done.
In the summer of 2016, WikiLeaks
published thousands of emails belonging to then-Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, her
campaign manager, and the Democratic National Committee. Though damaging to Clinton, the leak
became fodder for a powerful new attack on the president-to-be. Trump had worked in league with
Moscow to throw the election, the story went, and the embarrassing email trove was stolen in a
Russian hack, then passed to WikiLeaks to propel Trump's campaign.
By the time Trump took office, the narrative was in full swing. Pundits and politicians
rushed to outdo one another in hysterically denouncing the supposed election-meddling, which
was deemed the "political equivalent" of the 9/11
attacks , tantamount to
Pearl Harbor , and akin to the Nazis' 1938
Kristallnacht pogrom. In lock-step with the U.S. intelligence community -- which soon
issued a
pair of reports endorsing the Russian hacking
story -- the Blob quickly joined the cause, hoping to short-circuit any tinkering with NATO or
rapprochement with Moscow under Trump.
The allegations soon broadened well beyond hacking. Russia had now waged war on American
democracy itself, and "sowed discord" with misinformation online, all in direct collusion with
the Trump campaign. Talking heads on cable news and former intelligence officials -- some of
them playing both
roles at once -- weaved a dramatic plot of conspiracy out of countless news reports,
clinging to many of the "bombshell" stories long after their key claims were
blown up .
A
large segment of American society eagerly bought the fiction, refusing to believe that
Trump, the game show host, could have defeated Clinton without assistance from a foreign power.
For the first time since the fall of the USSR, rank-and-file Democrats and moderate
progressives were aligned with some of the most vocal Russia hawks across the aisle, creating
space for what many have called a " new Cold War. "
Stress Fractures
Under immense pressure and nonstop allegations, the candidate who shouted "America First"
and slammed NATO as "
obsolete " quickly adapted himself to the foreign policy consensus on the alliance, one of
the first signs the Trump-Russia story was bearing fruit.
Demonstrating the Blob in action, during debate on the Senate floor over Montenegro's bid to
join NATO in March 2017, the hawkish John McCain castigated Rand Paul for daring to oppose the
measure, riding on anti-Russian sentiments stoked during the election to accuse him of "working for Vladimir
Putin." With most lawmakers agreeing the expansion of NATO was needed to "push back" against
Russia, the Senate approved the request nearly
unanimously and Trump signed it without batting an eye -- perhaps seeing the attacks a veto
would bring, even from his own party.
Allowing Montenegro -- a country that illustrates everything wrong with
NATO -- to join the alliance may suggest Trump's criticisms were always empty talk, but the
establishment's drive to constrain his foreign policy was undoubtedly having an effect. Just a
few months later, the administration would put out its National
Security Strategy , stressing the need to refocus U.S. military engagements from
counter-terrorism in the Middle East to "great power competition" with Russia and China.
On another aspiring NATO member, Ukraine, the president was also hectored into reversing
course under pressure from the Blob. During the 2016 race, the corporate press savaged the
Trump campaign for working behind the scenes to " water down " the Republican Party platform after it opposed a
pledge to arm Ukraine's post-coup government. That stance did not last long.
Though even Obama decided against arming the new government -- which his administration
helped to install
-- Trump reversed that move in late 2017, handing Kiev hundreds of Javelin anti-tank missiles.
In an irony noticed by
few , some of the arms went to
open neo-Nazis in the Ukrainian military, who were integrated into the country's National
Guard after leading street battles with security forces in the Obama-backed coup of 2014. Some
of the very same Beltway critics slamming the president as a racist demanded he pass weapons to
out-and-out white supremacists.
Ukraine's
bid to join NATO has all but stalled under President Volodymyr Zelensky, but the country
has nonetheless played an outsized role in American politics both before and after Trump took
office. In the wake of Ukraine's 2014 U.S.-sponsored coup, "Russian aggression" became a
favorite slogan in the American press, laying the ground for future allegations of
election-meddling.
Weaponizing Ukraine
The drive for renewed hostilities with Moscow got underway well before Trump took the Oval
Office, nurtured in its early stages under the Obama administration. Using Ukraine's revolution
as a springboard, Obama launched a major rhetorical and policy offensive against Russia,
casting it in the role of an aggressive ,
expansionist power.
Protests erupted in Ukraine in late 2013, following President Viktor Yanukovych's refusal to
sign an association agreement with the European Union, preferring to keep closer ties with
Russia. Demanding a deal with the EU and an end to government corruption, demonstrators --
including the above-mentioned neo-Nazis -- were soon in the streets clashing with security
forces. Yanukovych was chased out of the country, and eventually out of power.
Through cut-out organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy, the Obama
administration poured millions of
dollars into the Ukrainian opposition prior to the coup, training, organizing and funding
activists. Dubbed the "Euromaidan Revolution," Yanukovych's ouster mirrored similar US-backed
color coups before and since, with Uncle Sam riding on the back of legitimate grievances while
positioning the most
U.S.-friendly figures to take power afterward.
The coup set off serious unrest in Ukraine's Russian-speaking enclaves, the eastern Donbass
region and the Crimean Peninsula to the south. In the Donbass, secessionist forces attempted
their own revolution, prompting the new government in Kiev to launch a bloody "war on terror"
that continues to this day. Though the separatists received some level of support from Moscow,
Washington placed sole blame on the Russians for Ukraine's unrest, while the press breathlessly
predicted an all-out invasion that never materialized.
In Crimea -- where Moscow has kept its Black Sea Fleet since the late 1700s -- Russia took a
more forceful stance, seizing the territory to keep control of its long term naval base. The
annexation was accomplished without bloodshed, and a referendum was held weeks later affirming
that a large majority of Crimeans supported rejoining Russia, a sentiment
western polling firms have since
corroborated . Regardless, as in the Donbass, the move was labeled an invasion, eventually
triggering a raft of sanctions from the
U.S. and the EU (and more
recently, from
Trump himself ).
The media made no effort to see Russia's perspective on Crimea in the wake of the revolution
-- imagining the U.S. response if the roles were reversed, for example -- and all but ignored
the preferences of Crimeans. Instead, it spun a black-and-white story of "Russian aggression"
in Ukraine. For the Blob, Moscow's actions there put Vladimir Putin on par with Adolf Hitler,
driving a flood of frenzied press coverage not seen again until the 2016
election.
Succumbing to Hysteria
While Trump had already begun to cave to the onslaught of Russiagate in the early months of
his presidency, a July 2018 meeting with Putin in Helsinki presented an opportunity to reverse
course, offering a venue to hash out differences and plan for future cooperation. Trump's
previous sit-downs with his Russian counterpart were largely uneventful, but widely portrayed
as a meeting between master and puppet. At the Helsinki Summit, however, a meager gesture
toward improved relations was met with a new level of hysterics.
Trump's refusal to interrogate Putin on his supposed election-hacking during a summit press
conference was taken as irrefutable proof that the two were conspiring together. Former CIA
Director John Brennan declared it an
act of treason , while CNN gravely
contemplated whether Putin's gift to Trump during the meetings -- a World Cup soccer ball
-- was really a secret spying transmitter. By this point, Robert Mueller's special counsel
probe was in full effect, lending official credibility to the collusion story and further
emboldening the claims of conspiracy.
Though the summit did little to strengthen U.S.-Russia ties and Trump made no real effort to
do so -- beyond resisting the calls to directly confront Putin -- it brought on some of the
most extreme attacks yet, further ratcheting up the cost of rapprochement. The window of
opportunity presented in Helsinki, while only cracked to begin with, was now firmly shut, with
Trump as reluctant as ever to make good on his original policy platform.
Sanctions!
After taking a beating in Helsinki, the administration allowed tensions with Moscow to soar
to new heights, more or less embracing the Blob's favored policies and often even outdoing the
Obama government's hawkishness toward Russia in both rhetoric and action.
In March 2018, the poisoning of a former Russian spy living in the United Kingdom was blamed
on Moscow in a highly
elaborate storyline that ultimately fell
apart (sound familiar?), but nonetheless triggered a wave of retaliation from western
governments. In the largest diplomatic purge in US history, the Trump administration expelled
60 Russian officials in a period of two days, surpassing Obama's ejection of 35 diplomats in
response to the election-meddling allegations.
Though Trump had called to lift rather
than impose penalties on Russia before taking office, worn down by endless negative press
coverage and surrounded by a coterie of hawkish advisers, he was brought around on the merits
of sanctions before long, and has used them liberally ever since.
Goodbye INF, RIP
OST
By October 2018, Trump had largely abandoned any idea of improving the relationship with
Russia and, in addition to the barrage of sanctions, began shredding a series of major treaties
and arms control agreements. He started with the Cold War-era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces
Treaty (INF), which had eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons -- medium-range missiles
-- and removed Europe as a theater for nuclear war.
At this point in Trump's tenure, super-hawk John Bolton had assumed the position of national
security advisor, encouraging the president's worst instincts and using his newfound influence
to convince Trump to ditch the INF treaty. Bolton -- who helped to detonate a number of arms control
pacts in previous administrations -- argued that Russia's new short-range missile had
violated the treaty. While there remains some dispute over the missile's true range and whether
it actually breached the agreement, Washington failed to pursue available dispute mechanisms
and ignored Russian offers for talks to resolve the spat.
After the U.S. officially scrapped the agreement, it quickly began testing formerly-banned
munitions. Unlike the Russian missiles, which were only said to have a range overstepping the
treaty by a few miles, the U.S. began testing nuclear-capable land-based cruise
missiles expressly banned under the INF.
Next came the Open Skies Treaty (OST), an idea originally floated by President Eisenhower,
but which wouldn't take shape until 1992, when an agreement was struck between NATO and former
Warsaw Pact nations. The agreement now has over 30 members and allows each to arrange
surveillance flights over other members' territory, an important confidence-building measure in
the post-Soviet world.
Trump saw matters differently, however, and turned a minor dispute over Russia's
implementation of the pact into a reason to discard it altogether, again egged on by militant
advisers. In late May 2020, the president declared
his intent to withdraw from the nearly 30-year-old agreement, proposing nothing to replace
it.
Quid Pro Quo
With the DOJ's special counsel probe into Trump-Russia collusion
coming up short on both smoking-gun evidence and relevant indictments, the president's
enemies began searching for new angles of attack. Following a July 2019 phone call between
Trump and his newly elected Ukrainian counterpart, they soon found one.
During the call ,
Trump urged Zelensky to investigate a computer server he believed to be linked to Russiagate,
and to look into potential
corruption and nepotism on the part of former Vice President Joe Biden, who played an
active role in Ukraine following the Obama-backed coup.
Less than two months later, a " whistleblower
" -- a CIA officer detailed to the White House, Eric Ciaramella -- came forward with an "urgent
concern" that the president had abused his office on the July call. According to his
complaint , Trump threatened to withhold U.S. military aid, as well as a face-to-face
meeting with Zelensky, should Kiev fail to deliver the goods on Biden, who by that point was a
major contender in the 2020 race.
The same players who peddled Russiagate seized on Ciaramella's account to manufacture a
whole new scandal: "Ukrainegate." Failing to squeeze an impeachment out of the Mueller probe,
the Democrats did just that with the Ukraine call, insisting Trump had committed grave
offenses, again conspiring with a foreign leader to meddle in a U.S. election.
At a high point during the impeachment trial, an expert called to testify by the Democrats
revived George W.
Bush's "fight them over there" maxim to
argue for U.S. arms transfers to Ukraine, citing the Russian menace. The effort was doomed
from the start, however, with a GOP-controlled Senate never likely to convict and the evidence
weak for a "quid pro quo" with Zelensky. Ukrainegate, like Russiagate before it, was a failure
in its stated goal, yet both served to mark the administration with claims of foreign collusion
and press for more hawkish policies toward Moscow.
The End of New START?
The Obama administration scored a rare diplomatic achievement with Russia in 2010, signing
the New START Treaty, a continuation of the original Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty inked in
the waning days of the Soviet Union. Like its first iteration, the agreement places a cap on
the number of nuclear weapons and warheads deployed by each side. It featured a ten-year sunset
clause, but included provisions to continue beyond its initial end date.
With the treaty set to expire in early 2021, it has become an increasingly hot topic
throughout Trump's presidency. While Trump sold himself as an expert dealmaker on the campaign
trail -- an artist , even -- his negotiation
skills have shown lacking when it comes to working out a new deal with the Russians.
The administration has
demanded that China be incorporated into any extended version of the treaty, calling on
Russia to compel Beijing to the negotiating table and vastly complicating any prospect for a
deal. With a nuclear arsenal around one-tenth the size of that of Russia or the U.S., China has
refused to join the pact. Washington's intransigence on the issue has put the future of the
treaty in limbo and largely left Russia without a negotiating partner.
A second Trump term would spell serious trouble for New START, having already shown
willingness to shred the INF and Open Skies agreements. And with the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty (ABM) already killed under the Bush administration, New START is one of the few
remaining constraints on the planet's two largest nuclear arsenals.
Despite pursuing massive escalation with Moscow from 2018 onward, Trump-Russia conspiracy
allegations never stopped pouring from newspapers and TV screens. For the Blob -- heavily
invested in a narrative as fruitful as it was false -- Trump would forever be "Putin's puppet,"
regardless of the sanctions imposed, the landmark treaties incinerated or the deluge of warlike
rhetoric.
Running for an Arms Race
As the Trump administration leads the country into the next Cold War, a renewed arms race is
also in the making. The destruction of key arms control pacts by previous administrations has
fed a proliferation powder keg, and the demise of New START could be the spark to set it
off.
Following Bush Jr.'s termination of the ABM deal in 2002 -- wrecking a pact which placed
limits on Russian and American missile defense systems to maintain the balance of mutually
assured destruction -- Russia soon resumed funding for a number of strategic weapons projects,
including its hypersonic missile. In his announcement of the new technology in
2018, Putin deemed the move a response to Washington's unilateral withdrawal from ABM, which
also saw the U.S. develop new weapons .
Though he inked New START and campaigned on vows to pursue an end to the bomb, President
Obama also helped to advance the arms build-up, embarking on a 30-year
nuclear modernization project set to cost taxpayers $1.5 trillion. The Trump administration
has embraced the initiative with open arms, even
adding to it , as Moscow follows suit with upgrades to its own arsenal.
In May, Trump's top arms control envoy promised to spend Russia and China
into oblivion in the event of any future arms race, but one was already well underway.
After withdrawing from INF, the administration began churning
out previously banned nuclear-capable cruise missiles, while fielding an entire new class
of
low-yield nuclear weapons. Known as "tactical nukes," the smaller warheads lower the
threshold for use, making nuclear conflict more likely. Meanwhile, the White House has also
mulled a live bomb test -- America's first since 1992 -- though has apparently shelved
the idea for now.
A Runaway Freight Train
As Trump approaches the end of his first term, the two major U.S. political parties have
become locked in a permanent cycle of escalation, eternally compelled to prove who's the bigger
hawk. The president put up mild resistance during his first months in office, but the
relentless drumbeat of Russiagate successfully crushed any chances for improved ties with
Moscow.
The Democrats refuse to give up on "Russian aggression" and see virtually no pushback from
hawks across the aisle, while intelligence "leaks" continue to flow into the imperial press,
fueling a whole new round of election-meddling
allegations .
Likewise, Trump's campaign vows to revamp U.S.-Russian relations are long dead. His
presidency counts among its accomplishments a pile of new sanctions, dozens of expelled
diplomats and the demise of two major arms control treaties. For all his talk of getting along
with Putin, Trump has failed to ink a single deal, de-escalate any of the ongoing strife over
Syria, Ukraine or Libya, and been unable to arrange one state visit in Moscow or DC.
Nonetheless, Trump's every action is still interpreted through the lens of Russian
collusion. After announcing a troop drawdown in Germany on June 5, reducing the U.S. presence
by just one-third, the president was met with the now-typical swarm of baseless charges. MSNBC
regular and retired general Barry McCaffrey dubbed the move "a gift to
Russia," while GOP Rep. Liz Cheney said the meager troop movement
placed the "cause of freedom in peril." Top Democrats in the House and Senate
introduced bills to stop the withdrawal dead in its tracks, attributing the policy to
Trump's "absurd affection for Vladimir Putin, a murderous dictator."
Starting as a dirty campaign trick to explain away the Democrats' election loss and jam up
the new president, Russiagate is now a key driving force in the U.S. political establishment
that will long outlive the age of Trump. After nearly four years, the bipartisan consensus on
the need for Cold War is stronger than ever, and will endure regardless of who takes the Oval
Office next.
It is not just senility. Looks like Ukrainegate is not enough for her and she wants to throw kitchen sink at Trump. Charging for "alleged"
action is directly from Stalin's NKVD practice
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday called for US sanctions against Russia's intelligence
service over bounties that it reportedly offered Taliban militants to kill American soldiers in
Afghanistan.
B ased on anonymous intelligence sources, The New York
Times ,
Washington Post , and
Wall Street Journal released bombshell reports alleging that Russia is paying the
Taliban bounties for every U.S. soldier they can kill. The story caused an uproar in the United
States, dominating the news cycle and leading presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Joe
Biden to
accuse Trump of "dereliction of duty" and "continuing his embarrassing campaign of
deference and debasing himself before Vladimir Putin." "This is beyond the pale," the former
vice-president concluded .
However, there are a number of reasons to be suspicious of the new reports. Firstly, they
appear all to be based entirely on the same intelligence officials who insisted on anonymity.
The official could not provide any concrete evidence, nor establish that any Americans had
actually died as a result, offering only vague assertions and admitting that the information
came from "interrogated" (i.e. tortured) Afghan militants. All three reports stressed the
uncertainty of the claims, with the only sources who went on record -- the White House, the
Kremlin, and the Taliban -- all vociferously denying it all.
The national security state also has a history of using anonymous officials to plant stories
that lead to war. In 2003, the country was awash with stories that Saddam Hussein possessed
weapons of mass destruction, in 2011 anonymous officials warned of an impending genocide in
Libya, while in 2018 officials accused Bashar al-Assad of attacking Douma with chemical
weapons, setting the stage for a bombing campaign. All turned out to be untrue.
"After all we've been through, we're supposed to give anonymous 'intelligence officials' in
The New York Times the benefit of the doubt on something like this? I don't think so,"
Scott Horton, Editorial Director of Antiwar.com and author of " Fool's Errand: Time to End the War in Afghanistan ," told
MintPressNews . "All three stories were written in language conceding they did
not know if the story was true," he said, "They are reporting the 'fact' that there was a
rumor."
Horton continued: "There were claims in 2017 that Russia was arming and paying the Taliban,
but then the generals admitted to Congress they had no evidence of either. In a humiliating
debacle, also in 2017, CNN claimed a big scoop about Putin's support for the Taliban
when furnished with some photos of Taliban fighters with old Russian weapons. The military
veteran journalists at Task and Purpose
quickly debunked every claim in their piece."
Others were equally skeptical of the new scandal. "The bottom line for me is that after
countless (Russiagate related) anonymous intelligence leaks, many of which were later proven
false or never substantiated with real evidence, I can't take this story seriously. The
intelligence 'community' itself can't agree on the credibility of this information, which is
similar to the situation with a foundational Russiagate document, the January, 2017
intelligence 'assessment,'" said Joanne Leon , host of the Around the Empire Podcast , a show which covers U.S. military
actions abroad.
The timing of the leak also raised eyebrows. Peace negotiations between the U.S. and the
Taliban are ongoing, with President Trump committing to pulling all American troops out of the
country. A number of key anti-weapons of mass destruction treaties between the U.S. and Russia
are
currently expiring , and a scandal such as this one would scupper any chance at peace,
escalating a potential arms race that would endanger the world but enrich weapons
manufacturers. Special Presidential Envoy in the Department of the Treasury, Marshall
Billingslea, recently
announced that the United States is willing to spend Russia and China "into oblivion" in a
new arms race, mimicking the strategy it used in the 1980s against the Soviet Union. As a
result, even during the pandemic, business is
booming for American weapons contractors.
"The national security state has done everything they can to keep the U.S. involved in that
war," remarked Horton, "If Trump had listened to his former Secretary of Defense James Mattis
and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, we'd be on year three of an escalation with plans
to begin talks with the Taliban next year. Instead Trump talked to them for the last
year-and-a-half and has already signed a deal to have us out by the end of next May."
"The same factions and profiteers who always oppose withdrawal of troops are enthusiastic
about the 'Bountygate' story at a time when President Trump is trying to advance negotiations
with the Taliban and when he desperately needs to deliver on 2016 campaign promises and improve
his sinking electoral prospects," said Leon.
If Russia is paying the Taliban to kill Americans they are not doing a very good job of it.
From a high of 496 in 2010, U.S. losses in Afghanistan have slowed
to a trickle, with only 22 total fatalities in 2019, casting further doubt on the scale of
their supposed plan.
Ironically, the United States is accusing the Kremlin of precisely its own policy towards
Russia in Syria. In 2016, former Acting Director of the C.I.A. Michael Morell appeared on the
Charlie Rose show and
said his job was to "make the Russians pay a price" for its involvement in the Middle East.
When asked if he meant killing Russians by that, he replied, "Yes. Covertly. You don't tell the
world about it. You don't stand up at the Pentagon and say, 'We did this.' But you make sure
they know it in Moscow."
Like
RussiaGate , the new scandal has had the effect of pushing liberal opinion on foreign
policy to become far more hawkish, with Biden now campaigning on being "tougher" on China and
Russia than Trump would be. Considering that the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists recently set
their famous Doomsday Clock -- an estimation of
how close they believe the world is to nuclear armageddon -- to just 100 seconds to midnight,
the latest it has ever been, the Democrats could be playing with fire. The organization
specifically singled out U.S.-Russia conflict as threatening the continued existence of the
planet. While time will tell if Russia did indeed offer bounties to kill American troops, the
efficacy of the media leak is not in question.
Feature photo | U.S. forces and Afghan commandos are seen in the town of Asad Khil near the
site of a U.S. bombing east of Kabul, Afghanistan. Rahmat Gul | AP
Putin has to stay within neoliberal framework because this is a the dominant social framework in existence. But he is determine
to "tame the markets" when necessary which is definitely anathema to neoliberals. So he is kind of mixture of neoliberal and traditional
New Deal style statist. At the same time he definitely deviates from neoliberalism in some major areas, such as labor market and monopolies.
In fact, much of his economic and social policies have a decidedly neoliberal bent. As Tony Wood argues, Putin has reformed
and consolidated the Yeltsin system. There is not as much of a break with Yeltsin as liberals -- or apparently leftists looking
for any hope -- want to believe.
You have no clue. This is a typical left-wing "Infantile Disorder" point of view based on zero understanding of Russia and neoliberalism
as a social system. Not that I am a big specialist, but your level of ignorance and arrogance is really stunning.
Neoliberalism as a social system means internal colonization of population by financial oligarchy and resulting decline of
the standard of living for lower 80% due to the redistribution of wealth up. It also means subservience to international financial
capital and debt slavery for vassal countries (the group to which Russia in views of Washington belongs) .
The classic example is Ukraine where 80% of population are now live on the edge of abject poverty. Russia, although with great
difficulties, follows a different path. This is indisputable.
The neoliberal resolution which happened under alcoholic Yeltsin was stopped or at least drastically slowed down by Putin.
Some issues were even reversed. For example, the USA interference via NGO ended. Direct interference of the USA into internal
affairs of Russia ( Russia was a USA colony under Yeltsin ) also diminished, although was not completely eliminated (and this
is impossible in view of the USA position in the the hegemon of the neoliberal "International" and owner of the world reserve
currency.)
Those attempts to restore the sovereignty of Russia were clearly anti-neoliberal acts of Putin. After all the slogan of neoliberalism
is "financial oligarchy of all countries unite" -- kind of perversion of Trotskyism (or. more correctly, "Trotskyism for the rich.")
In general, Yeltsin's model of neoliberalism in Russia (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semibankirschina )
experienced serious setbacks under Putin's rule, although some of his measures were distinctly neoliberal.
Recent "Medvedev's" pension reform is one (which was partially a necessity due to the state of Russian finances at the time;
although the form that was chosen -- in your face, without some type of carrot -- was really mediocre, like almost anything coming
from Medvedev ); some botched attempt in privatization of electrical networks with Chubais at the helm is another -- later stopped,
etc.
But in reality, considerable if not dominant political power now belongs to corporations, whether you want it or not. And that
creates strong neoliberal fifth column within the country. That's a huge problem for Putin. The alternative is dictatorship which
usually does not end well. So there is not much space for maneuvering anyway. You need to play the anti-neoliberal game very skillfully
as you always have weak cards in hands, the point which people like VK never understand.
BTW, unlike classic neoliberals, Putin is a consistent proponent of indexation of income of lower strata of the population
to inflation, which he even put in the constitution. Unlike Putin, classic neoliberals preach false narrative that "the rising
tide lifts all boats."
All-in-all whenever possible, Putin often behaves more like a New Deal Capitalism adherent, than like a neoliberal. He sincerely
is trying to provide a decent standard of living for lower 80% of the population. He preserves a large share of state capital
in strategically important companies. Some of them are still state-owned (anathema for any neoliberal.)
But he operates in conditions where neoliberalism is the dominant system and when Russia is under constant, unrelenting pressure,
and he needs to play by the rules.
Like any talented politician, he found some issues were he can safely deviate from neoliberal consensus without too hard sanctions.
In other matters, he needs to give up to survive.
"... One can read this most recent flurry of Russia, Russia, Russia paid the Taliban to kill GIs as an attempt to pre-empt the findings into Russiagate's origins. ..."
"... But Moscow recognized from the start that Washington was embarked on a fool's errand in Vietnam. There would be no percentage in getting directly involved. And so, the Soviets sat back and watched smugly as the Vietnamese Communists drove U.S. forces out on their "own resources." As was the case with the Viet Cong, the Taliban needs no bounty inducements from abroad. ..."
"... Former CIA Director William Casey said: "We'll know when our disinformation program is complete, when everything the American public believes is false." ..."
"... If Durham finds it fraudulent (not a difficult task), the heads of senior intelligence and law enforcement officials may roll. That would also mean a still deeper dent in the credibility of Establishment media that are only too eager to drink the Kool Aid and to leave plenty to drink for the rest of us. ..."
"... I am not a regular Maddow-watcher, but to me she seemed unhinged -- actually, well over the top. ..."
One can read this most recent flurry of Russia, Russia, Russia paid the Taliban to kill GIs
as an attempt to pre-empt the findings into Russiagate's origins.
O n Friday The New York Times featured a report based on anonymous intelligence
officials that the Russians were paying bounties to have U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan with
President Donald Trump refusing to do anything about it. The flurry of Establishment media
reporting that ensued provides further proof, if such were needed, that the erstwhile "paper of
record" has earned a new moniker -- Gray Lady of easy virtue.
Over the weekend, the Times ' dubious allegations grabbed headlines across all media
that are likely to remain indelible in the minds of credulous Americans -- which seems to have
been the main objective. To keep the pot boiling this morning, The New York Times' David
Leonhardt's daily web piece
, "The Morning" calls prominent attention to a banal
article by a Heather Cox Richardson, described as a historian at Boston College, adding
specific charges to the general indictment of Trump by showing "how the Trump administration
has continued to treat Russia favorably." The following is from Richardson's newsletter on
Friday:
"On April 1 a Russian plane brought ventilators and other medical supplies to the
United States a propaganda coup for Russia;
"On April 25 Trump raised eyebrows by issuing a joint statement with Russian President
Vladimir Putin commemorating the 75th anniversary of the historic meeting between American
and Soviet troops on the bridge of the Elbe River in Germany that signaled the final defeat
of the Nazis;
"On May 3, Trump called Putin and talked for an hour and a half, a discussion Trump
called 'very positive';
"On May 21, the U.S. sent a humanitarian aid package worth $5.6 million to Moscow to
help fight coronavirus there. The shipment included 50 ventilators, with another 150 promised
for the next week;
"On June 15, news broke that Trump has ordered the removal of 9,500 troops from
Germany, where they support NATO against Russian aggression. "
Historian Richardson added:
"All of these friendly overtures to Russia were alarming enough when all we knew was that
Russia attacked the 2016 U.S. election and is doing so again in 2020. But it is far worse
that those overtures took place when the administration knew that Russia had actively
targeted American soldiers. this bad news apparently prompted worried intelligence officials
to give up their hope that the administration would respond to the crisis, and instead to
leak the story to two major newspapers."
Hear the siren? Children, get under your desks!
The Tall Tale About Russia Paying for Dead U.S. Troops
Times print edition readers had to wait until this morning to learn of Trump's
statement last night that he was not briefed on the cockamamie tale about bounties for killing,
since it was, well, cockamamie.
Late last night the president tweeted: "Intel just reported to me that they did not find
this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me or the VP. "
For those of us distrustful of the Times -- with good reason -- on such neuralgic
issues, the bounty story had already fallen of its own weight. As Scott Ritter pointed out
yesterday:
"Perhaps the biggest clue concerning the fragility of the New York Times ' report
is contained in the one sentence it provides about sourcing -- "The intelligence
assessment is said to be based at least in part on interrogations of captured Afghan
militants and criminals." That sentence contains almost everything one needs to know
about the intelligence in question, including the fact that the source of the information is
most likely the Afghan government as reported through CIA channels. "
And who can forget how "successful" interrogators can be in getting desired answers.
Russia & Taliban React
The Kremlin called the Times reporting "nonsense an unsophisticated plant," and from
Russia's perspective the allegations make little sense; Moscow will see them for what they are
-- attempts to show that Trump is too "accommodating" to Russia.
A Taliban spokesman called the story "baseless," adding with apparent pride that "we" have
done "target killings" for years "on our own resources."
Russia is no friend of the Taliban. At the same time, it has been clear for several years
that the U.S. would have to pull its troops out of Afghanistan. Think back five decades and
recall how circumspect the Soviets were in Vietnam. Giving rhetorical support to a fraternal
Communist nation was de rigueur and some surface-to-air missiles gave some substance to
that support.
But Moscow recognized from the start that Washington was embarked on a fool's errand in
Vietnam. There would be no percentage in getting directly involved. And so, the Soviets sat
back and watched smugly as the Vietnamese Communists drove U.S. forces out on their "own
resources." As was the case with the Viet Cong, the Taliban needs no bounty inducements from
abroad.
Besides, the Russians knew painfully well -- from their own bitter experience in
Afghanistan, what the outcome of the most recent fool's errand would be for the U.S. What point
would they see in doing what The New York Times and other Establishment media are
breathlessly accusing them of?
CIA Disinformation; Casey at Bat
Former CIA Director William Casey said: "We'll know when our disinformation program is
complete, when everything the American public believes is false."
Casey made that remark at the first cabinet meeting in the White House under President
Ronald Reagan in early 1981, according to Barbara Honegger, who was assistant to the chief
domestic policy adviser. Honegger was there, took notes, and told then Senior White House
correspondent Sarah McClendon, who in turn made it public.
If Casey's spirit is somehow observing the success of the disinformation program called
Russiagate, one can imagine how proud he must be. But sustained propaganda success can be a
serious challenge. The Russiagate canard has lasted three and a half years. This last gasp
effort, spearheaded by the Times , to breathe more life into it is likely to last little
more than a weekend -- the redoubled efforts of Casey-dictum followers notwithstanding.
Russiagate itself has been unraveling, although one would hardly know it from the
Establishment media. No collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Even the sacrosanct
tenet that the Russians hacked the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks has been disproven
, with the head of the DNC-hired cyber security firm CrowdStrike
admitting that there is
no evidence that the DNC emails were hacked -- by Russia or
anyone else .
U.S. Attorney John Durham. (Wikipedia)
How long will it take the Times to catch up with the CrowdStrike story, available
since May 7?
The media is left with one sacred cow: the misnomered "Intelligence Community" Assessment of
Jan. 6, 2017, claiming that President Putin himself ordered the hacking of the DNC. That
"assessment" done by "hand-picked analysts" from only CIA, FBI and NSA (not all 17 intelligence
agencies of the "intelligence community") reportedly is being given close scrutiny by U. S.
Attorney John Durham, appointed by the attorney general to investigate Russiagate's
origins.
If Durham finds it fraudulent (not a difficult task), the heads of senior intelligence and
law enforcement officials may roll. That would also mean a still deeper dent in the credibility
of Establishment media that are only too eager to drink the Kool Aid and to leave plenty to
drink for the rest of us.
Do not expect the media to cease and desist, simply because Trump had a good squelch for
them last night -- namely, the "intelligence" on the "bounties" was not deemed good enough to
present to the president.
(As a preparer and briefer of The President's Daily Brief to Presidents Reagan and HW
Bush, I can attest to the fact that -- based on what has been revealed so far -- the Russian
bounty story falls far short of the PDB threshold.)
Rejecting Intelligence Assessments
Nevertheless, the corporate media is likely to play up the Trump administration's rejection
of what the media is calling the "intelligence assessment" about Russia offering -- as Rachel
Maddow indecorously put it on Friday -- "bounty for the scalps of American soldiers in
Afghanistan."
I am not a regular Maddow-watcher, but to me she seemed
unhinged -- actually, well over the top.
The media asks, "Why does Trump continue to disrespect the assessments of the intelligence
community?" There he goes again -- not believing our "intelligence community; siding, rather,
with Putin."
In other words, we can expect no let up from the media and the national security miscreant
leakers who have served as their life's blood. As for the anchors and pundits, their level of
sophistication was reflected yesterday in the sage surmise of Face the Nation's Chuck Todd, who
Aaron Mate reminds us, is a "grown adult and professional media person." Todd asked guest John
Bolton: "Do you think that the president is afraid to make Putin mad because maybe Putin did
help him win the election, and he doesn't want to make him mad for 2020?"
"This is as bad as it gets," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday, adding the aphorism
she memorized several months ago: "All roads lead to Putin." The unconscionably deceitful
performance of Establishment media is as bad as it gets, though that, of course, was not
what Pelosi meant. She apparently lifted a line right out of the Times about how Trump
is too "accommodating" toward Russia.
One can read this most recent flurry of Russia, Russia, Russia as a reflection of the need
to pre-empt the findings likely to issue from Durham and Attorney General William Barr in the
coming months -- on the theory that the best defense is a pre-emptive offense. Meanwhile, we
can expect the corporate media to continue to disgrace itself.
Vile
Caitlin Johnstone, typically,
pulls no punches regarding the Russian bounty travesty:
"All parties involved in spreading this malignant psyop are absolutely vile, but a special
disdain should be reserved for the media class who have been entrusted by the public with the
essential task of creating an informed populace and holding power to account. How much of an
unprincipled whore do you have to be to call yourself a journalist and uncritically parrot
the completely unsubstantiated assertions of spooks while protecting their anonymity? How
much work did these empire fluffers put into killing off every last shred of their dignity?
It boggles the mind.
It really is funny how the most influential news outlets in the Western world will
uncritically parrot whatever they're told to say by the most powerful and depraved
intelligence agencies on the planet, and then turn around and tell you without a hint of
self-awareness that Russia and China are bad because they have state media.
Sometimes all you can do is laugh."
Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27-years as a CIA analyst he led the Soviet
Foreign Policy Branch and prepared The President's Daily Brief for Presidents Nixon,
Ford, and Reagan. In retirement, he co-created Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
(VIPS).
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
Aaron , June 30, 2020 at 12:33
If anything, all roads lead to Israel. You have to consider the sources, the writers,
journalists, editors, owners, and rich people from which these stories come. This latest
ridiculous story will certainly help Trump, so the sources of these Russia stories are
actually fans of Trump, they love his tax cuts, he helps their revenue streams, and he's the
greatest friend and Zionist to Israel so far and also Wall Street. I think most Americans can
understand that Putin doesn't possess all of the supernatural all-encompassing powers and
mind-controlling omnipotence that Pelosi and her ilk attribute to him. That's why at his
rallies, when Trump points to where the journalists are and sneers at them calling them
bloodsuckers and parasites and all that, the people love it, because of stuff like this. It's
like saying "look at those assholes, those liberal journalists over at CNN say that you voted
for me because of Vladimir Putin?!" It just pisses off people to keep hearing that mantra
over and over. So it's a gift to Trump, it helps him so much. And seeing that super expensive
helicopter flying around the barren rocky slopes of the middle east, seems like it's out of
some Rambo movie. And like Rambo, the tens of thousands of American servicemen that were
sacrificed over there, and still commit suicides at a horrific rate, have always been treated
by the architects of these wars that only helped the state of Israel, as the expendables.
Whether it's a black life, a soldier fighting in Iraq, a foreclosed on homeowner by Mnuchin's
work, or a brainwashed New York Times subscriber, we don't seem to matter, we seem to feel
the truth that to these people were are indeed expendable. The question to answer I think is,
not who is a Russian asset, but who is an Israeli asset?
Andrew Thomas , June 30, 2020 at 12:04
Great reporting as usual, Ray. But special kudos for the NYT moniker 'Gray lady of easy
virtue.' I almost laughed out loud. A rare occurrence these days.
Michael P Goldenberg , June 30, 2020 at 10:45
Thanks for another cogent assessment of our mainstream media's utter depravity and
reckless irresponsibility. They truly have become nothing more than presstitutes and enemies
of the people.
Bob Van Noy , June 30, 2020 at 10:42
"It's all over but the shouting" goes the idiom and I think that is true of Russiagate,
especially, thank all goodness, here at Robert Parry's Journalistic site!
I have a theory that propaganda has a lifetime but when it reaches a truly absurd level,
it's all over. Clearly, we've reached that level Thanks to all at CN
evelync , June 30, 2020 at 10:33
You call Rachel Madcow "unhinged", Ray ..well, yes, I'm shocked at myself that there was a
time that I tuned in to her show .
Sorry Ms Madcow you've turned yourself into a character from Dr Strangelove
The key threats – climate change, pandemics, nuclear war – and why we continue
to fail to address these real things while filling the airwaves instead with the tiresome
russia,russia,russia mantra – per Accam's razer suggests that it serves very short term
interests of money and power whoever whatever the MICIMATT answers to.
"Former CIA Director William Casey said: "We'll know when our disinformation program is
complete, when everything the American public believes is false." "
Who exactly was the "we" Casey was answering to each day?
I know it wasn't me or the planet or humanity or anyone I know.
Bill Rice , June 30, 2020 at 10:20
If only articles like this were read by the masses. Maybe people would get a clue. Blind
patriotism is not patriotic at all. Skepticism is healthy.
torture this , June 30, 2020 at 09:54
It's a shame that VIPS reporting is top secret. It's the only information coming from
people familiar with the ins and outs of spy agencies that can be trusted.
GeorgeG , June 30, 2020 at 09:45
Ray,
You missed the juicy stuff. See: tass.com/russia/1172369 Russia Foreign Ministry: NYT article
on Russia in Afghanistan fake from US intelligence. Here is the kicker:
The Russian Foreign Ministry pointed to US intelligence agencies' involvement in Afghan
drug trafficking.
"Should we speak about facts – moreover, well-known [facts], it has not long been a
secret in Afghanistan that members of the US intelligence community are involved in drug
trafficking, cash payments to militants for letting transport convoys pass through, kickbacks
from contracts implementing various projects paid by American taxpayers. The list of their
actions can be continued if you want," the ministry said.
The Russian Foreign Ministry suggested that those actions might stem from the fact that
the US intelligence agencies "do not like that our and their diplomats have teamed up to
facilitate the start of peace talks between Kabul and the Taliban (outlawed in Russia –
TASS)."
"We can understand their feelings as they do not want to be deprived of the above
mentioned sources of the off-the-books income," the ministry stressed.
Thomas Fortin , June 30, 2020 at 12:08
Affirmative Ray, two of my old comrades who were SF both did security on CIA drug flights
back in the day, and later on both while under VA care decided to die off God I miss them,
great guys and honest souls.
DH Fabian , June 30, 2020 at 09:41
One point remains a mystery. Why would anyone think that when the US invades a country,
someone would need to pay the people of that country a bounty to fight back?
Mark Clarke , June 30, 2020 at 09:27
If Biden wins the presidency and the Democrats take back the Senate, Russiagate will
strengthen and live on for many years.
Al , June 30, 2020 at 12:11
All to deflect from Clinton's private server while SOS, 30,000 deleted emails, and the
sale of US interests via the Clinton Foundation.
Zedster , June 30, 2020 at 12:56
That, or we learn Chinese.
Skip Scott , June 30, 2020 at 09:08
Another interesting aside is that Tulsi Gabbard's "Stop funding Terrorists" bill went
nowhere in Congress. So it's Ok for us and our Arab allies to fund them, but not the
Russians? Maybe we should go back to calling them the Mujahideen?
Thomas Scherrer , June 30, 2020 at 12:10
Preach, my child.
And aloha to the last decent woman in those halls.
Do you not think that the timing of all this (months after the report was allegedly
presented to Trump) is an attempt to stop Trump from signing an agreement with the Taliban
that will allow him to withdraw American troops from that country?
Skip Scott , June 30, 2020 at 08:58
Great article Ray, but I have to question whether Durham will fulfill his role and get to
the bottom of the origins of RussiaGate. If he actually does name names and prosecute, how
will the MSM cover it? What will Ms. Madcow have to say? Ever since the fizzling failure of
the Epstein investigation, I have had my doubts about Barr and his minion Durham. I hope I'm
wrong. Time will tell.
Thomas Fortin , June 30, 2020 at 12:24
I think on here I can talk about this issue you brought up Scott, on other places when I
tried to have a rational discussion on the matter, I got shouted down, well they tried
anyway.
I highly suggest to any readers of this here on Consortium to get Gore Vidal's old book,
Imperial America, and also watch his old documentary, THE UNITED STATES OF AMNESIA.
Here is the point of it,
"Officially we have two parties which are in fact wings of a common party of property with
two right wings. Corporate wealth finances each. Since the property party controls every
aspect of media they have had decades to create a false reality for a citizenry largely
uneducated by public schools that teach conformity with an occasional advanced degree in
consumerism."
-GORE VIDAL, The United States of Amnesia
Also,
"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party and it has two right wings:
Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in
their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more
corrupt -- until recently and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments
when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is
no difference between the two parties."
? Gore Vidal
Others have pointed out the same like this,
"Nobody should have any illusions. The United States has essentially a one-party system and
the ruling party is the business party."
? Noam Chomsky
"In the United States [ ] the two main business-dominated parties, with the support of the
corporate community, have refused to reform laws that make it virtually impossible to create
new political parties (that might appeal to non-business interests) and let them be
effective. Although there is marked and frequently observed dissatisfaction with the
Republicans and Democrats, electoral politics is one area where notions of competitions and
free choice have little meaning. In some respects the caliber of debate and choice in
neoliberal elections tends to be closer to that of the one-party communist state than that of
a genuine democracy."
? Robert W. McChesney, Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies is a foolish
idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can
throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in
policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other
party which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately
the same basic policies."
? Carroll Quigley [1910 – 1977 was an American historian and theorist of the evolution
of civilizations. He is remembered for his teaching work as a professor at Georgetown
University, for his academic publications.]
Teddy Roosevelt, whose statue is under attack in NYC, had this to say,
"The bosses of the Democratic party and the bosses of the Republican party alike have a
closer grip than ever before on the party machines in the States and in the Nation. This
crooked control of both the old parties by the beneficiaries of political and business
privilege renders it hopeless to expect any far-reaching and fundamental service from
either."
-THEODORE ROOSEVELT, The Outlook, July 27, 1912
I suggest also that you look up on line this article, Heads They Win, Tails We Lose: Our Fake
Two-Party System
by Prof. Stephen H. Unger at Columbia, here is his concluding thought,
"The drift toward loss of liberty, unending wars, environmental degradation, growing economic
inequality can't be stopped easily, but it will never be halted as long as we allow corporate
interests to rule our country by means of a pseudo-democracy based on the two-party
swindle."
With this all in mind, and if your my age, you might recall about how over the past more then
50 years, no matter which party gets in power, nothing of any significance changes, the wars
continue, the transfer of wealth to the few, and the erosion of basic civil liberties
continues pretty well unabated.
Trump is surrounded by neo-cons and I expect nothing will happen to change anything. I would
get into how most called liberals are hardly that, but in reality neo-cons, but I've said
enough for now, when you consider the statements I shared, then the Matrix begins to come
unraveled.
Grady , June 30, 2020 at 08:01
Not to mention the potential peace initiative with Afghanistan and Taliban that is
looming. Peace is not profitable, so who has the dual interests in maintaining protracted war
in a strategic location while ensuring the poppy crop stays the most productive in the world?
It seems said poppy production under the pre war Taliban government was minimal as they
eliminated most of it. Attacking the Taliban and thwarting its rule allowed for greater
production, to the extent it is the global leader in helping to fulfill the opiate demand.
Gary Webb established long ago that the intelligence community, specifically the CIA, has
somewhat of a tradition in such covert operations and logic would dictate they're vested
interest lies in maintaining a high yield crop while feeding the profit center that is the
MIC war machine. While certainly a bit digressive, the dots are there to connect.
Paul , June 30, 2020 at 07:54
My friend, I love your columns. Thank you, you have been one of the few sane voices on
Russiagate from the beginning.
Sadly most Americans and most people in the world will not receive these simple truths you
are telling. (not their fault)
We will continue our fight against the system.
Peace, Paul from South Africa
Voice from Europe , June 30, 2020 at 07:38
Don't think this will be the last Russiagate gasp whoever becomes the next president.
The 'liberal democrats' believe their own delusions and as long as they control the MSM, they
won't stop. Lol.
Thomas Fortin , June 30, 2020 at 12:29
You should read my reply to Scott, most of these Democrats are not liberals, but neo-cons
who just liberal virtue signal while in reality supporting the neo-con agenda. I hate it how
the so called alternative or independent media abuse terms and words, which obscures
realities. Anyway, take a look at my reply and the quotes I shared.
"Definition of liberal, one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox,
traditional, or established forms or ways, progressive, broad-minded, . willing to respect or
accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas, denoting a political
and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free
enterprise."
? Derived from Webster's and the Oxford Dictionaries
"Liberal' comes from the Latin liberalis, which means pertaining to a free man. In
politics, to be liberal is to want to extend democracy through change and reform. One can see
why that word had to be erased from our political lexicon."
? Gore Vidal, "The Great Unmentionable: Monotheism and its Discontents," The Lowell Lecture,
Harvard University, April 20, 1992.
Once again I would like to compliment Mr McGovern on his magnificently Biblical
appearance. That full set would do credit to any Old Testament prophet.
I see him as the USA's own Jeremiah.
Tom Welsh , June 30, 2020 at 06:12
Seeing that picture of Johnson's sad, wicked bloodhound features really, really makes me
wish I had had a chance to be outside his tent pissing in. I'd have been careful to drink as
many gallons of beer as possible beforehand.
Although it would have been better, from a humanitarian pont of view, just to set fire to
the tent.
Tom Welsh , June 30, 2020 at 06:10
"Historian Richardson "
Clearly a serious exaggeration.
Tom Welsh , June 30, 2020 at 06:09
Ah, the Chinook! The 60-year-old helicopter that epitomises everything Afghan patriots
love about the USA. It's big, fat, slow, clumsy, unmanoeuvrable, and may carry enough US
troops to make shooting it down a damaging political blow against Washington.
Vivek , June 30, 2020 at 05:43
Ray,
What do you make of Barbara Honeggar's second career as a alternative story peddler?
see hXXps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB21BVFOIjw
CNfan , June 30, 2020 at 03:43
A brilliant piece, with a deft touch depicting the timeless human follies running our
foreign policy circus. Real-world experience, perspective, and courage like Ray's were the
dream of the drafters of our 1st Amendment. And ending with Caitlin's hammer was effective.
As to who benefits? I suspect the neocons – our resident war-addicts and Israeli
assets. Paraphrasing Nancy, "All roads lead to Netanyahu."
So,Russia what will do in next Upcoming Years during these covid-19.
Realist , June 30, 2020 at 02:54
Ray, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has embraced these allegations against
Russia as the gospel truth and has threatened to seek revenge against Putin once he occupies
the White House.
He said Americans who serve in the military put their life on the line. "But they should
never, never, never ever face a threat like this with their commander in chief turning a
blind eye to a foreign power putting a bounty on their heads."
"I'm quite frankly outraged by the report," Biden said. He promised that if he is elected,
"Putin will be confronted and we'll impose serious costs on Russia."
This is the kind of warmongering talk that derailed the expected landslide victory for the
Queen of Warmongers in 2016. This time round though, Trump has seemingly already swung and
badly missed three times in his responses to the Covid outbreak, the public antics attributed
to BLM, and the Fed's creation of six trillion dollars in funny money as a gift to the most
privileged tycoons on the planet. In baseball, which will not have a season in spite of the
farcical theatrics between ownership and players, that's called a "whiff" and gets you sent
back to the bench.
According to all the pollsters, Donnie's base of white working class "deplorables" are
already abandoning his campaign–bigly, prompting the none-too-keen Biden to assume that
over-the-top Russia bashing is back in season, especially since trash-talking Nobel Laureate
Obama is now delivering most of the mute sock puppet Biden's lines. It was almost comical to
watch Joe do nothing but grin in the framed picture to the left of his old boss during their
most recent joint interview with the press. This dangerous re-set of the Cold War is NOT what
the people want, nor is it good for them or any living things.
DH Fabian , June 30, 2020 at 10:18
Biden already lost 2020 -- in spite of the widely-disliked Trump. This is why Democrats
began working to breath life back into Russia-gate by late last year, setting the stage to
blame Russia for their 2020 defeat. We spent the past 25 years detailing the demise of the
Democratic Party (replaced by the "New Democrat Party"), and it turned out that the party
loyalists didn't hear a word of it.
John A , June 30, 2020 at 02:15
As a viewer from afar, in Europe, I find it mindboggling how the American public seem to
believe all this nonsense about Russia. Have the people there really been that dumbed down by
chewing gum for the eyes television and disgusting chemical and growth h0rmone laced food?
Sad, sad, sad.
Tom Welsh , June 30, 2020 at 06:17
John, I think there is something to what you say about dumbing down. I recall Albert Jay
Nock lamenting, in about 1910, how dreadfully US education had already been dumbed down
– and things have been going steadily downhill ever since.
But I don't think we can quite release the citizenry from responsibility on account of
their ignorance. (Isn't it a legal maxim that ignorance is not an excuse?)
There is surely deep down in most people a sly lust for dominance, a desire to control and
forbid and compel; and also a quiet satisfaction at hearing of inferior foreigners being
harmed or killed by one's own "world class" armed forces.
TS , June 30, 2020 at 11:14
> As a viewer from afar, in Europe, I find it mindboggling how the American public seem
to believe all this nonsense about Russia.
May I remind you that most of the mass media in Europe parrot all this nonsense, and a
large segment of the public swallows it?
Charles Familant , June 30, 2020 at 00:50
Mr. McGovern has not made his case. To his question as to why Taliban militants need any
additional incentive to target U.S. troops in Afghanistan, it is not far-fetched to believe
these militants would welcome additional funds to continue their belligerency. Waging war is
not cheap and is especially onerous for relatively small organizations as compared to major
powers. What reason would Putin have to pay such bounty? The increase in U.S. troop
casualties would provide Trump an additional rationale to bring the troops home, as he had
promised during his campaign speeches in 2015 and 2016. This action would be a boon to his
re-election prospects. Putin is well aware that if Biden wins in November, there is little
likelihood of the hostility in Afghanistan or anywhere else being brought to an end. But,
more to the point, the likelihood of U.S. sanctions against Russia being curtailed under a
Biden presidency is remote. To what he deemed rhetorical, Mr. McGovern asks how successful
were U.S. interrogators of such captured Taliban in the past, I remind him that there were
opposing views regarding which techniques were most effective. Might not these interrogators
have, in the present case, employed more effective means? Finally, it should not even be a
question as to why any news agency does not reveal its sources. But in this case, the New
York Times specifically mentions that the National Security Council discussed the
intelligence finding in late March. Further, if it is true that Trump, Pence et al ignored
the said briefs of which the administration was well aware, this should be no surprise to any
of us. Case in point: how long did it take Trump to respond to the present pandemic? One
telling observation: Mr. McGovern says that Heather Cox Richardson is "described as a
historian at Boston College.' She is not just "described as a historian" Mr. McGovern, she IS
a historian at Boston College; in fact, she is a professor at that college and has authored
six scholarly works that have been published as books, the most recent of which in March of
this year by the Oxford University Press. Mr. McGovern states that the points Richardson made
her most most recent newsletter as "banal." I see nothing banal in that newsletter, but
rather a list of relevant factual occurrences. Finally (this time it really is final), Mr.
McGovern employs the use of sarcasm to discount what Richardson and others have contended
regarding this most recent expose. And seems to give more credibility to the comments made by
Trump and his cohorts, as though this administration is remarkable for its integrity.
Sam F , June 30, 2020 at 11:05
Plausible interest does not make unsupported accusations a reality. What bounties did the
US offer?
Have you forgotten that the US set up Al Qaeda in Afghanistan with weapons to attack the USSR
there?
Zhu , June 30, 2020 at 00:34
Come December this year, which losing party will blame which scapegoat? Russia? China? The
Man in the Moon? It must be a hard decision!
Zhu , June 30, 2020 at 00:31
Unfortunately, bad ideas and conspiracy fictions rarely disappear completely. But that
Afghans need to be paid to kill invaders is the dumbest conspiracy fiction yet.
Thomas Fortin , June 29, 2020 at 21:31
Excellent report Ray, as usual.
Interesting note here, I watched The Hill's Rising program, and listened to young
conservative Saagar say, although he does not believe that Russia-gate is credible, he made
the statement that Russia is supplying the Taliban weapons and wants us to get out of
Afghanistan, and that is considered a fact by all journalists!
Saagar is a bit conflicted, he does not, but does believe the gods of intelligence, like so
many did with the Gulf of Tonkin so long ago, I remember that all too well.
As I look out upon the ignorant masses and useful idiots who strain at those Confederate and
other monuments, while continuing to elect the same old people back into office who continue
the status quo, its a bit discouraging. We were told so long ago about our current situation,
that,
"It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a
populace, that they are incapable of exercising the sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy
attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments
of their own debasement and ruin." [James Monroe, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1817]
As a historian of some sort and educational film maker, I do my best to educate people,
though its a bit overwhelming at times how ignorant and fascist brain-washed most are.
Monroe, like the other founders knew the secret of maintaining a free and prosperous
republic, from the same piece, "Let us, then, look to the great cause, and endeavor to
preserve it in full force. Let us by all wise and constitutional measures promote
intelligence among the people as the best means of preserving our liberties."
George Carlin got it right about why education "sucks", it was by design, so our work is cut
out for us.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what
never was and never will be."
~Thomas Jefferson
GMCasey , June 29, 2020 at 21:25
Why would Putin even bother? America and its endless wars is doing itself in. Afghanistan
is said to be," the graveyard of empires." It was for Alexander the Great -- –it was
for Russia and I suppose that it will be for America too -- -
DW Bartoo , June 29, 2020 at 20:50
Ray, I certainly hope that Durham and Barr will not wait too long a time to make public
the truth about Russiagate.
Indeed, certain heads should, figuratively, roll, and as well, the whole story about who
was behind the setting up of Flynn needs to, somehow, make it through the media flack.
Judge Sullivan's antics having been rather thoroughly shot down, though the media is
desperately trying to either spin or ignore the reality that it was not merely Flynn that
Sullivan was hoping to harm, but also the power of the executive branch relative to the
judicial branch.
The role of Obama and of Biden who, apparently, suggested the use of the Logan Act as the
means to go after Flynn, who we now know was intentionally entrapped by the intrepid FBI,
need to be made clear as well.
Just as with the initial claims that torture was the work of "a few bad apples", when
anyone with any insight into such "policy" actions had to have known that it WAS official
policy (crafted by Addington, Bybee, and Yoo, as it turned out, directed to do so by the Bush
White House), so too, must it be realized that it was not some rogue agents and loose
cannons, but actual instructions "from above", explicit or implicit, that "encouraged" the
behavior of those who spoke of "Insurance" policies designed to hamper, hinder, and harm the
incoming administration.
Clearly, I am no fan of Trump, and while I honestly regard the Rule of Law as essentially
a fairytale for the gullible (as the behavior of the "justice" system from the " qualified
immunity" of the police, to the "absolute immunity" of prosecutors, judges, and the political
class must make clear,to even the most giddy of childish believers in U$ purity, innocence,
and exceptionalism, that the "law" serves to protect wealth and power and NOT the public), I
should really like to consider that even in a pretend democracy, some things are simply not
to be tolerated.
Things, like torture, like fully politicized law enforcement or "intelligence" agencies,
like secret court proceedings, where judges may be lied to with total impunity and actual
evidence is not required. As well as things like a media thoroughly willing to requrgitate
blatant propaganda as "fact" (while having, again, no apparent need of genuine evidenc), or
other things like total surveillance, and the destruction of habeas corpus.
One should like to imagine that such things might concern the majority.
Yet, a society that buys into forever wars, lesser-evil voting, and created Hitler like
boogeymen, that countenances being lied into wars and consistently lied to about virtually
everything, is hardly likely to discern the truth of things until the "Dream" collapses into
personal pain, despair, and Depression.
Unless there is an awakening quite beyond that already tearing down statues, but yet still
, apparently, unwilling to grasp the totality of the corruption throughout the entire edifice
of "authority", of the total failure of a system that has no real legitimacy, except that
given it by voters choosing between two sides of the same tyranny, it may be readily
imagined, should Biden be "victorious", that Russiagate, Chinagate, Irangate, Venezuelagate,
and countless other "Gates" will become Official History.
In which case, this is not a last gasp, of Russiagate, but a new and full head of steam
for more of the same.
How easy it has been for the lies to prevail, to become "truth" and to simply disappear
the voices of those who ask for evidence, who dare question, who doubt.
How easy to co-opt and destroy efforts to educate or bring about critically necessary
change.
There are but a few months for real evidence to be revealed.
If Durham and Barr decide not to "criminalize policy differences", as Obama, the
"constitutional scholar", did regarding torture, then what might we imagine will be the
future of those who have an understanding of even those lies long being used, and with recent
additions, for example, to torture Julian Assange?
All of the deceit has common purpose, it is to maintain absolute control.
If Russiagate is not completely exposed, for all that it is and was intended to be, then
quaint little discussions about elite misbehavior will be banished from general awareness,
and those who persist in questioning will be rather severely dealt with.
Antonia , June 30, 2020 at 11:43
ABSOLUTELY. Well said. NOW where to make the changes absolutely necessary?
Zalamander , June 29, 2020 at 18:47
Thanks Ray. There are multiple reasons for the continued existance of Russiagate as the
Democratic party has no real answers for the economic depression affecting millions of
Americans. Neoliberal Joe Biden is also an exceptionally weak presidential candidate, who
does not even support universal healthcare for all Americans like every other advanced
industrialized country has. That said, the Dems are indeed desperate to deflect attention
away from the Durham investigation, as it is bound to expose the total fraud of Crossfire
Hurricane.
Sam F , June 29, 2020 at 18:16
Thanks, Ray, a very good summary, with reminders often needed by many in dealing with
complex issues.
This is an attempt to move Trump in the direction of more harsher politics toward Russia. So not Bolton's but Obama ears are
protruding above this dirty provocation.
Notable quotes:
"... According to the anonymous sources that spoke with the paper's reporters, the White House and President Trump were briefed on a range of potential responses to Moscow's provocations, including sanctions, but the White House had authorized no further action. ..."
"... Bolton is one of the only sources named in the New York Times article. Currently on a book tour, Bolton has said that he witnessed foreign policy malfeasance by Trump that dwarfs the Ukraine scandal that was the subject of the House impeachment hearings. But Bolton's credibility has been called into question since he declined to appear before the House committee. ..."
"... "Who can forget how 'successful' interrogators can be in getting desired answers?" writes Ray McGovern, who served as a CIA analyst for 27 years. Under the CIA's "enhanced interrogation techniques," Khalid Sheik Mohammed famously made at least 31 confessions, many of which were completely false. ..."
"... This story is "WMD [all over] again," said McGovern, who in the 1980s chaired National Intelligence Estimates and prepared the President's Daily Brief. He believes the stories seek to preempt DOJ findings on the origins of the Russiagate probe. ..."
"... The bungled media response and resulting negative press could also lead Trump to contemplate harsher steps towards Russia in order to prove that he is "tough," which may have motivated the leakers. It's certainly a policy goal with which Bolton, one of the only named sources in the New York Times piece, wholeheartedly approves. ..."
"... Not only did CIA et al.'s leak get even with Trump for years of insults and ignoring their reports (Trump is politically wounded by this story), but it also achieved their primary objective of keeping Putin out of the G7 and muzzling Trump's threats to withdraw from NATO because Russia is our friend (well his, anyway). ..."
"... Point 4: the whole point of the Talibans is to fight to the death whichever country tries to control and invade Afghanistan. They didn't need the Russians to tell them to fight the US Army, did they? ..."
"... Point 5: Russia tried to organise a mediation process between the Afghan government and the Talibans already in 2018 - so why would they be at the same time trying to fuel the conflict? A stable Afghanistan is more convenient to them, given the geographical position of the country. ..."
"... As much as I love to see everyone pile on trump, this is another example of a really awful policy having bad outcomes. If Bush, Obama, trump, or anyone at the pentagon gave a crap about the troops, they wouldn't have kept them in Afghanistan and lied about the fact they were losing the whole time. ..."
"... the idea is stupid. Russia doesn't need to do anything to motivate Afghans to want to boot the invaders out of their country, and would want to attract negative attention in doing so. ..."
"... Contrast with the CIA motivations for this absurd narrative. Chuck Schumer famously commented that the intelligence agencies had ways of getting back at you, and it looks like you took the bait, hook, line and sinker. ..."
"... And a fourth CIA goal: it undermines Trump's relationship with the military. ..."
"... Having failed in its Russia "collusion" and "Russia stole the election" campaigns to oust Trump, this is just the latest effort by the Deep State and mass media to use unhinged Russophobia to try to boost Biden and damage Trump. ..."
"... The contemporary left hate Russia , because Russia is carving out it own sphere of influence and keeping the Americans out, because it saved Assad from the western backed sunni head choppers (that the left cheered on, as they killed native Orthodox, and Catholic Christians). The Contempary left hate Russia because it cracks down on LGBT propaganda, banned porn hub, and return property to the Church , which the leftist Bolsheviks stole, the Contempaty left hate Russia because it cracked down on it western backed oligarchs who plundered Russia in the 90's. ..."
Bombshell report
published by The New York Times Friday alleges that Russia paid dollar bounties to the Taliban in Afghanistan to kill U.S
troops. Obscured by an extremely bungled White House press response, there are at least three serious flaws with the reporting.
The article alleges that GRU, a top-secret unit of Russian military intelligence, offered the bounty in payment for every U.S.
soldier killed in Afghanistan, and that at least one member of the U.S. military was alleged to have been killed in exchange for
the bounties. According to the paper, U.S. intelligence concluded months ago that the Russian unit involved in the bounties was also
linked to poisonings, assassination attempts and other covert operations in Europe. The Times reports that United States intelligence
officers and Special Operations forces in Afghanistan came to this conclusion about Russian bounties some time in 2019.
According to the anonymous sources that spoke with the paper's reporters, the White House and President Trump were briefed
on a range of potential responses to Moscow's provocations, including sanctions, but the White House had authorized no further action.
Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said in a statement Saturday night that neither Trump nor Vice President Pence
"were ever briefed on any intelligence alleged by the New York Times in its reporting yesterday."
On Sunday night, Trump tweeted that not only was he not told about the alleged intelligence, but that it was not credible."Intel
just reported to me that they did not find this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me or @VP" Pence, Trump wrote Sunday
night on Twitter.
Ousted National Security Advisor John Bolton said on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday that Trump was probably claiming ignorance
in order to justify his administration's lack of response.
"He can disown everything if nobody ever told him about it," said Bolton.
Bolton is one of the only sources named in the New York Times article. Currently on a book tour, Bolton has said that
he witnessed foreign policy malfeasance by Trump that dwarfs the Ukraine scandal that was the subject of the House impeachment hearings.
But Bolton's credibility has been called into question since he declined to appear before the House committee.
The explanations for what exactly happened, and who was briefed, continued to shift Monday.
White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany followed Trump's blanket denial with a statement that the intelligence concerning
Russian bounty information was "unconfirmed." She didn't say the intelligence wasn't credible, like Trump had said the day before,
only that there was "no consensus" and that the "veracity of the underlying allegations continue to be evaluated," which happens
to almost completely match the Sunday night statement from the White House's National Security Council.
Instead of saying that the sources for the Russian bounty story were not credible and the story was false, or likely false, McEnany
then said that Trump had "not been briefed on the matter."
"He was not personally briefed on the matter," she said. "That is all I can share with you today."
It's difficult to see how the White House thought McEnany's statement would help, and a bungled press response like this is communications
malpractice, according to sources who spoke to The American Conservative.
Let's take a deeper dive into some of the problems with the reporting here:
1. Anonymous U.S. and Taliban sources?
The Times article repeatedly cites unnamed "American intelligence officials." The Washington Post and The
Wall Street Journal articles "confirming" the original Times story merely restate the allegations of the anonymous
officials, along with caveats like "if true" or "if confirmed."
Furthermore, the unnamed intelligence sources who spoke with the Times say that their assessment is based "on interrogations
of captured Afghan militants and criminals."
That's a red flag, said John Kiriakou, a former analyst and case officer for the CIA who led the team that captured senior
al-Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah in Pakistan in 2002. "When you capture a prisoner, and you're interrogating him, the prisoner is going to tell you what he thinks you want to hear,"
he said in an interview with The American Conservative . "There's no evidence here, there's no proof."
Kiriakou believes that the sources behind the report hold important clues on how the government viewed its credibility.
"We don't know who the source is for this. We don't know if they've been vetted, polygraphed; were they a walk-in; were they
a captured prisoner?"
If the sources were suspect, as they appear to be here, then Trump would not have been briefed on this at all.
With this story, it's important to start at the "intelligence collection," said Kiriakou. "This information appeared in the
[CIA World Intelligence Review] Wire, which goes to hundreds of people inside the government, mostly at the State Department and
the Pentagon. The most sensitive information isn't put in the Wire; it goes only in the PDB."
"If this was from a single source intelligence, it wouldn't have been briefed to Trump. It's not vetted, and it's not important
enough. If you caught a Russian who said this, for example, that would make it important enough. But some Taliban detainees saying
it to an interrogator, that does not rise to the threshold."
2. What purpose would bounties serve?
Everyone and their mother knows Trump wants to pull the troops out of Afghanistan, said Kiriakou.
"He ran on it and he has said it hundreds of times," he said. "So why would the Russians bother putting a bounty on U.S. troops
if we're about to leave Afghanistan shortly anyway?"
That's leaving aside Russia's own experience with the futility of Afghanistan campaigns, learned during its grueling 9-year
war there in the 1980s.
The Taliban denies it accepted bounties from Russian intelligence.
"These kinds of deals with the Russian intelligence agency are baseless -- our target killings and assassinations were ongoing
in years before, and we did it on our own resources," Zabihullah Mujahid, a spokesman for the Taliban, told The New York Times
. "That changed after our deal with the Americans, and their lives are secure and we don't attack them."
The Russian Embassy in the United States called the reporting
"fake news."
While the Russians are ruthless, "it's hard to fathom what their motivations could be" here, said Paul Pillar, an academic
and 28-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency, in an interview with The American Conservative. "What would they
be retaliating for? Some use of force in Syria recently? I don't know. I can't string together a particular sequence that makes
sense at this time. I'm not saying that to cast doubt on reports the Russians were doing this sort of thing."
3. Why is this story being leaked now?
According to U.S. officials quoted by the AP,
top officials in the White House "were aware of classified intelligence indicating Russia was secretly offering bounties to the Taliban
for the deaths of Americans" in early 2019. So why is this story just coming out now?
This story is "WMD [all over] again," said McGovern, who in the 1980s chaired National Intelligence Estimates and prepared the
President's Daily Brief. He believes the stories seek to preempt DOJ findings on the origins of the Russiagate probe.
The NYT story serves to bolster the narrative that Trump sides with Russia, and against our intelligence community estimates and
our own soldiers lives.
The stories "are likely to remain indelible in the minds of credulous Americans -- which seems to have been the main objective,"
writes McGovern. "There [Trump] goes again -- not believing our 'intelligence community; siding, rather, with Putin.'"
"I don't believe this story and I think it was leaked to embarrass the President," said Kiriakou. "Trump is on the ropes in the
polls; Biden is ahead in all the battleground states."
If these anonymous sources had spoken up during the impeachment hearings, their statements could have changed history.
But the timing here, "kicking a man when he is down, is extremely like the Washington establishment. A leaked story like this
now, embarrasses and weakens Trump," he said. "It was obvious that Trump would blow the media response, which he did."
The bungled media response and resulting negative press could also lead Trump to contemplate harsher steps towards Russia
in order to prove that he is "tough," which may have motivated the leakers. It's certainly a policy goal with which Bolton, one of
the only named sources in the New York Times piece, wholeheartedly approves.
Barbara Boland is TAC's foreign policy and national security reporter. Previously, she worked as an editor for the Washington
Examiner and for CNS News. She is the author of Patton Uncovered , a book about General George Patton in World War II, and her work
has appeared on Fox News, The Hill , UK Spectator , and elsewhere. Boland is a graduate from Immaculata University in Pennsylvania.
Follow her on Twitter @BBatDC .
Caitlin Johnstone was the first journalist to question this NYT expose' several days ago in her blog. After looking into
it, I had to agree with her that the story was junk reporting by a news source eager to stick it to Trump for his daily insults.
NYT must love the irony of a "fake news" story catching fire and burning Trump politically. After all, paying people to kill
their own enemies? That is a "tip," not a bounty. It is more of an intel footnote than the game-changer in international relations
as asserted by Speaker Pelosi on TV as she grabbed her pearls beneath her stylish COVID mask.
I was surprised that Ms. Boland could not think of any motivation for leaking the story right now given recent grousing
on the Hill about Trump's inviting Putin to G7 over the objections of Merkel and several other NATO heads of state. I even
posted a congratulatory message in Defense One yesterday to the US Intel community for mission accomplished.
Not only did CIA
et al.'s leak get even with Trump for years of insults and ignoring their reports (Trump is politically wounded by this story),
but it also achieved their primary objective of keeping Putin out of the G7 and muzzling Trump's threats to withdraw
from NATO because Russia is our friend (well his, anyway).
That "bounty" story never passed the smell test, even to my admittedly untrained nose. My real problem is that it's a story
in the first place, given that Trump campaigned on a platform that included bringing the boys home from sand hills like Afghanistan;
yet here we are, four years later, and we're still there.
Point 4: the whole point of the Talibans is to fight to the death whichever country tries to control and invade Afghanistan.
They didn't need the Russians to tell them to fight the US Army, did they?
Point 5: Russia tried to organise a mediation process between the Afghan government and the Talibans already in 2018 - so
why would they be at the same time trying to fuel the conflict? A stable Afghanistan is more convenient to them, given the
geographical position of the country.
This whole story is completely ridiculous. Totally bogus.
As much as I love to see everyone pile on trump, this is another example of a really awful policy having bad outcomes. If
Bush, Obama, trump, or anyone at the pentagon gave a crap about the troops, they wouldn't have kept them in Afghanistan and
lied about the fact they were losing the whole time.
Of course people are trying to kill US military in Afghanistan. If I lived in Afghanistan, I'd probably hate them too. And
let's not forget that just a few weeks ago the 82nd airborne was ready to kill American civilians in DC. The military is our
enemy too!
Moreover, the idea is stupid. Russia doesn't need to do anything to motivate Afghans to want to boot the invaders out of
their country, and would want to attract negative attention in doing so.
The purported bounty program doesn't help Russia, but the anonymous narrative does conveniently serve several CIA purposes:
1. It makes it harder to leave Afghanistan.
2. It keeps the cold war with Russia going along.
3. It damages Trump (whose relationship with the CIA is testy at best).
Then there's the question of how this supposed intelligence was gathered. The CIA tortures people, and there's no reason
to believe that this was any different.
1. Russia wants a stable Afghanistan. Not a base for jihadis.
2. The idea that Russia has to encourage Afghans to kill Invaders is a hoot. They don't ever do that on their own.
3. Not only do Afghans traditionally need no motivation to kill infidel foreign Invaders, but Russia would have to be incredibly
stupid to bring more American enmity on itself.
Contrast with the CIA motivations for this absurd narrative. Chuck Schumer famously commented that the intelligence agencies
had ways of getting back at you, and it looks like you took the bait, hook, line and sinker.
Either that, or you're just cynical. You'll espouse anything, however absurd and full of lies, as long as it damages Trump.
I don't have a clue if this bounty story is correct, but I can imagine plenty of reasons why the Russians would do it. It's
easy enough to believe it or believe it was cooked up by CIA as you suggest.
There will be one of these BS blockbusters every few weeks until the election. There are legions of buried-in democrat political
appointees that will continue to feed the DNC press. It will be non-stop. The DNC press is shredding the 1st amendment.
Not shredding the First Amendment, just shining light on the pitfalls of a right to freedom of speech. There are others
ramifications to free speech we consider social goods.
These aren't buried-in democrats. These people could care less which political party the President is a member of. They
only care that the President does what they say. Political parties are just to bamboozle the rubes. They are the real power.
The best defence that the WSJ and Fox News could muster was that the story wasn't confirmed as the NSA didn't have the same
confidence in the assessment as the CIA. "Is there anything else to which you would wish to draw my attention?" "To the curious
incident of the denial from the White House", "There was no denial from the White House". "That was the curious incident".
I note that Fox News had buried the story "below the scroll" on their home page - if they had though the story was fake,
the headlines would be screaming at MSM.
Pravda was a far more honest and objective news source than The New York Times is. I say that as someone who
read both for long periods of time. The Times is on par with the National Enquirer for credibility, with the
latter at least being less propagandistic and agenda-driven.
Having failed in its Russia "collusion" and "Russia stole the election" campaigns to oust Trump, this is just the latest
effort by the Deep State and mass media to use unhinged Russophobia to try to boost Biden and damage Trump.
The extent to which the contemporary Left is driven by a level of Russophobia unseen even by the most stalwart anti-Communists
on the Right during the Cold War is truly something to behold. I think at bottom it comes down to not liking Putin or Russia
because they refuse to get on board with the Left's social agenda.
The contemporary left hate Russia , because Russia is carving out it own sphere of influence and keeping the Americans out,
because it saved Assad from the western backed sunni head choppers (that the left cheered on, as they killed native Orthodox,
and Catholic Christians). The Contempary left hate Russia because it cracks down on LGBT propaganda, banned porn hub, and return
property to the Church , which the leftist Bolsheviks stole, the Contempaty left hate Russia because it cracked down on it
western backed oligarchs who plundered Russia in the 90's.
The Contempary left wants Russia to be Woke, Broke, Godless, and Gay.
The democrats are now the cheerleaders of the warfare -welfare state,, the marriage between the neolibs-neocons under the
Democrat party to ensure that President Trump is defeated by the invade the world, invite the world crowd.
"The Trumpies are right in that this was obviously a leak by the intel community designed to hurt Trump. But what do you
expect...he has spent 4 years insulting and belittling them. They are going to get their pound of flesh."
Intel community was behind an attempted coup of Trump. He has good reason not to trust them and insulting is only natural.
Hopefully John Durham will indict several of them
Interesting take. I certainly take anything anyone publishes based on anonymous sources with a big grain of salt,
especially when it comes from the NYT...
Control freaks that cannot even control their own criminal impulses!
...They suffer from god-complexes, since they do not believe in God, they feel an obligation to act as God, and decide the fates
of over 7 billion people, who would obviously be better off if the PICs were sent to the Fletcher Memorial Home for Incurable Tyrants!
Pentagon says 'no corroborating evidence' to support NYT's report
The Wall Street Journal
reported on Tuesday that the National Security Agency "strongly dissented from other
intelligence agencies' assessment that Russia paid bounties for the killing of US soldiers in
Afghanistan."
The Journal cites "people familiar with the matter" and does not give much detail,
but the story is noteworthy, as the NSA has dissented from other agencies in the past over
allegations against Russia. A January 2017 intelligence
assessment that concluded Russia interfered in the 2016 election on President Trump's
behalf was given "high confidence" by the CIA and FBI while the NSA gave "moderate
confidence."
Another account of the NSA not giving much weight to this intelligence was given to CBS
News reporter Catherine Herridge on Monday. An unnamed intelligence official
told Herridge that the NSA deemed a report on the Russian bounties "uncorroborated." The
official said the report "does not match well-established and verifiable Taliban and Haqqani
practices" and lacks "sufficient reporting to corroborate any links."
The CIA is used as an example in the Journal's report of an agency the NSA
allegedly disagreed with over the intelligence. So far, the CIA has declined to comment on
the issue besides a
vague statement from CIA Director Gina Haspel. "When developing intelligence assessments,
initial tactical reports often require additional collection and validation Leaks compromise
and disrupt the critical interagency work to collect, assess, and ascribe culpability,"
Haspel said.
The Journal's disclosure reinforces the Trump administration's claim that the
intelligence was not strong enough, and there was no consensus among intelligence officials
on the information.
The Pentagon said on Monday it has not seen "corroborating evidence" to support The
New York Times report that alleged Russian GRU agents offered bounties to Taliban-linked
militants to kill US troops.
Secretary of Defense Mark Esper reiterated the Pentagon's
claims in a statement on Tuesday. "Although the Department of Defense has no
corroborating evidence at this time to validate recent allegations regarding malign activity
by Russian personnel against US forces in Afghanistan, I want to assure all of our service
members that the Department takes very seriously any and all potential threats against US
military personnel," Esper said.
Even though the intelligence remains unconfirmed, members of Congress from both sides of
the aisle are brainstorming
ways to punish Moscow over the allegations . Suggestions include imposing new sanctions
on Russia and even designating Moscow as a state sponsor of terrorism. Senator Ben Sasse
(R-NE) said he wants to see a plan that will put "Taliban and GRU agents in body bags."
The political establishment in the US dare not explicitly mention drug use as a pathology
of black communities specifically - as a group it is taboo to criticize them -- they are
persecuted victims, full stop. Saying otherwise is to kiss their votes away not to mention
bring down their wrath.
David Habakkuk
Some of the intricacies you mention go a bit over my head, but the delay in release of
your ISC report corresponds with the notion of this latest story of GRU bribery of Afghan
militants being essentially if nothing other than an election year campaign tactic. Seems if
released it will come on the heels of this provocative fantasy of the NYT and WAPO. Fancy
that.
CNN outdid itself by interviewing Clapper this morning. Host re-capped story and said 'if
true' about a dozen times.
Trump followed his 'I was not briefed tweet' with a stronger, 'the intel guys told him
this was not credible'. Trump can be a buffoon but in his version of events ...
1. Intel comm is flooded with stuff to verify, 'Russian hit contracts', 'Putin kidnapped
Lindbergh baby', 'Loch Ness monster a GRU agent', .... that doesn't immediately get to his
desk.
2. Anon source leaks one of these early claims for their own purpose (seeing Clapper reminds
us that this does happen),
3. It takes him a day to sort it out.
True or not, this looks plausible but sets off alarm bells to the CNN Clown Car.
Clapper says brilliant things like Trump could be finessing the truth by getting a written
but not a verbal brief. Host shakes head at wise observation and follows up with more 'if
true' questions for the proven liar ...
CNN defends the most reactionary elements of our security state and snarls at anyone who
challenges them. With watchdogs like these what can go wrong?
'The Russian intelligence unit behind the attempted murder in Salisbury of the former
double agent Sergei Skripal secretly offered to pay Taliban-linked fighters to kill British
and American soldiers in Afghanistan, according to US reports.
'The revelation piles pressure on the UK to take robust action against the Kremlin amid
continuing anger over the government's delay in publishing a key report on Russian attempts
to destabilise the UK.'
The 'Sky' piece actually makes clear that these are claims originating in the United
States, one of whose key purposes is to put pressure on the British government:
'It is understood the intelligence was only shared with British officials recently but
Boris Johnson has now been briefed. Downing Street will be under pressure to respond to the
news and take action against Moscow.'
Another relevant development, although how this fits into the picture is at the moment
very far from clear to me, is that the announcement yesterday that the former MI6 person Sir
Mark Sedwill, who has been 'National Security Adviser' since 2017 and Cabinet Secretary since
2018, is to stand down in September.
The 'intelligence unit' supposedly to have been responsible alike for attempting to
assassinate Sergei and Yulia Skripal and placing a 'bounty' on the head of American, and
British, servicemen belongs to the GRU – their supposed target's former employer
– which comes under General Valery Gerasimov, Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the
Russian Federation.
If you believe that unit of this organisation sent two hitmen, equipped with a hypertoxic
nerve agent, to kill one of his organisation's former employees, and bungled it so badly that
he, together with his daughter, survived, I have a very attractive bridge on the Thames, not
far from where I live, which I am very happy to sell you.
If you believe that any employees of this organisation would be involved in 'freelance'
assassinations, either of its former employees or of British and American servicemen, without
Gerasimov's authorisation, I will include the MI6 HQ at Millbank, to make a 'package
deal.'
Interested, TTG?
Rather clearly, the link between the new BS, and the patent BS about Salisbury –
in the cover-up over which Sedwill has played a crucial role – very strongly suggests
that we are dealing with yet another of the collusive 'information operations' practised by
incompetent and corrupt elements in the 'deep state' in the U.S., U.K. and Western
Europe.
This clearly linked to a 'bulldogs under the carpet' struggle which goes to the top of the
Conservative Party, and also beyond it. The 'Sky' version starts with Tobias Ellwood, the
Tory MP who chairs the Commons Defence Select Committee, using the new claims to agitate for
publication of what the 'Guardian' termed 'a key report on Russian attempts to destabilise
the UK.'
This report, by the Intelligence and Security Committee, is clearly being deployed to put
pressure on Johnson, as repeated references to it in both the 'Guardian' and 'Sky' versions
indicate.
So, having started with it, the latter concludes:
'News of this Russian plan, and the direct targeting of British troops, will again raise
the question of when the long overdue report into Russian interference by parliament's
Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) will be published.
'The report, which examined claims of Russian interference in Britain, was sent to Downing
Street on 17 October last year for sign-off.
'That process usually takes no more than 10 days, but the report is still yet to be
published and the ISC hasn't been reconvened after December's general election.'
As the 'Guardian' report indicates, however, a crucial element in all this is clearly
Christopher Steele:
'In his confidential submission to the committee, the former spy Christopher Steele has
reportedly suggested that the Kremlin has a "likely hold" over Trump, a claim that has been
fiercely disputed but which would sour the government's relations with the White House once
published. "These worrying reports should be the catalyst for the prime minister to finally
release the ISC report No. 10 have been stalling for more than six months," said shadow
foreign secretary Lisa Nandy. "Under this government, Britain is retreating from the world
stage and the fear among our allies is that Boris Johnson is afraid to stand up to Vladimir
Putin's Russia."
'Lib Dem spokesman Alistair Carmichael echoed the call for the ISC report to be
published:
'"These reports throw up serious questions about Trump's soft-touch when it comes to
Russia. The Foreign Secretary must also make clear whether the UK had any knowledge of these
reports and what conversations he has had with his US counterpart about sanctions towards
Russia given these shocking revelations."'
The crux of the matter, however, may well have to do with the cases brought against Steele
and his company Orbis by the 'Alfa Group' oligarchs – Petr Aven, Mikhail Fridman, and
German Khan – and the Cyprus-based internet entrepreneur Aleksej Gubarev.
The very broad construction of 'fair report privilege' which means that in your country,
so long the rubbish you print has been given some kind of endorsement by corrupt government
officials, there is no redress for those lied about, is not available in the U.K.
On the other hand, maintaining a kind of 'omerta' is much easier over here than on your
side.
On 29 April, a 'chink' opened in this, when Chuck Ross, of the 'Daily Caller', posted on
'Scribd' the transcript of the cross-examination of Steele by Hugh Tomlinson, QC, on behalf
of the Alfa oligarchs, on 17-18 March.
Unfortunately, Ross seems to have fallen, hook, line and sinker, for a classic 'limited
hangout' ploy. He was happy to use Tomlinson's exploitation of the IG Report to discredit
Steele, which was in parts extremely telling, without noticing that that some of Steele's
responses were not simply to be dismissed.
If you read the transcript carefully, it seems clear that the successive changes in
Steele's account, in the four witness statements he submitted between 17 February and 16
March, were designed both to suggest that Horowitz and the FBI were colluding to make him the
'patsy', to reveal some of what they were trying to conceal, and to threaten to let out
more.
As it happens, we are still waiting for the judgement by Mr Justice Warby in that case.
However, it was reported on 25 June that the Gubarev case is to open on 20 July, and this
will be public.
At the moment, for what it is worth, my SWAG is that we are seeing a collusive
'stitch-up', one of whose functions is to find ways of avoiding finding in favour of Steele
– very difficult, given the preposterous nature of the dossier – while letting
him off sufficiently lightly to ensure that he colludes in keeping crucial skeletons within
cupboards. It may also be important that the verdicts do not appear to vindicate Trump too
comprehensively.
The 'NYT' report is, I think, likely to be involved with this process.
Also involved here is the hope clearly visible among so many that Biden will be elected,
and any danger either of the 'skeletons' accumulated during three decades of fatuous and
corrupt policymaking, or of more sensible policies, will be over.
My suspicion is that if Trump's people had more 'killer instinct', they would be looking
to get hold of all the material which has been produced in the London cases asap, and see
what use can be made of it to 'unmask' a subversive conspiracy which there is every reason to
believe goes right to the top of the Democratic establishment.
At the moment, however, both they, and their co-conspirators and 'useful idiots' of whom
we appear to have some here on SST, appear to be really quite likely to get away it: partly
because of their own utter lack of any sense of integrity or honour, but also because of the
lack of 'killer instinct' on the part of their opponents.
RE: the spectre of drug trading in US foreign engagements. The inability to even mention
the role of drugs in failed US black communities, as well in all the recent high profile
"police shooting" deaths of blacks is curious.
Why the silent treatment on this critically pivotal issue? How much "black rage" comes
from the ravages of drugs in these very same communities -- but no one dares talk about it
.Let alone do anything about it.
Stopping covid pales to the challenge of stopping the real killer; abusive drugs
destroying US lives and communities -black and white. Brown, yellow, olive.
Absolutely agreed, top to bottom. The only scenario where this makes sense, is if the
Russians were engaging in some sort of emotional revenge scheme - which is ludicrous.
To buy this story ignoring Russian character, it's not how they think, and it's not how
they see us. And you have to overlook the sober competence that marks their foreign
policy.
Look at how they made up with Turkey, after Erdogan ordered the shoot down of the SU.
Russia did make the Turks pay, but they weren't fools, they didn't sacrifice the
relationship. They understood there were things to be be gained by leveraging Turkey away
from NATO. And in what world do the Afghans need an incentive to attack US forces. Warfare is
the national sport.
U.S. diplomat Chas Freeman: "China is fully integrated into the global economy Trying to
contain China, we're more likely to end up containing ourselves. We need to realize that
the monopolies on wealth and power that we once had are no longer there."
This comment is not about Russia but about the mindset in our political, economic and
foreign policy establishment that has enabled the strengthening of our adversaries.
One thing we can be certain - the neocon and neoliberal policy mavens have weakened the US
and it's national interest over the past 50 years. The question is how have enemies of US
national interest captured all levers of power and sustained it for decades? The exploration
of this question would be about real reflection and introspection about our body politic.
Actually, the alliance of a certain traditional 'Anglo' kind of 'Russophobe', like Tobias
Ellwood, whom I mentioned in my previous comment, and the 'insulted and injured' from the
former Russian and Soviet empires, does now involve a very substantial number of influential
Jews, on both sides of the Atlantic.
Given the obvious continuities between what is happening now and the way that Neville
Chamberlain and Colonel Beck between them successfully pushed pushed Hitler and Stalin
together – see on this in particular the work of the Israeli historian Gabriel
Gorodetsky – there are ironies.
It is, of course, given the long history of Russian anti-Semitism, understandable in its
way.
However, as our host, channelling Captain Jack Aubrey, notes on another thread, politics
is very often a matter of choosing 'the lesser of two weevils.'
It is also commonly a matter of avoiding situations where one's choice has unexpected, and
unwanted, effects on the preferences of others: as when Stalin in August 1939 decided that
making terms with Hitler was the 'lesser weevil.'
(For a recent concise restatement and defence by Gorodetsky of his view of the period, see
an 'H-Diplo' discussion of Stephen Kotkin's 'Stalin. Waiting for Hitler, 1929-41' at
As to the views of figures like Victoria Nuland, David Kramer, and Jonathan Winer on the
'choice of weevils' at the moment, there are aspects which, I must admit, I find
puzzling.
An entry, headlined 'Putin and Religion', from a site called 'ReligionFacts', provides
some accurate information about the Putin 'sistema':
'Buddhism, Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are defined by law as
Russia's traditional religions and a part of Russia's historical heritage. These religions
have enjoyed limited state support in the Putin era.'
Also in that entry, you will find a quotation from Putin, in 2014 – that is, in the
wake of the crisis created by events on the 'Maidan' the previous year – writing of
how: 'It was in Crimea, in the ancient city of Chersonesus or Korsun, as ancient Russian
chroniclers called it, that Grand Prince Vladimir was baptised before bringing Christianity
to Rus.'
That was in 988, at any absolutely central point in the formation of Russian 'national
identity.'
At no point in the subsequent thousand years had any ruler of 'Rus' described Judaism as
one of Russia's 'traditional religions' and 'a part of Russia's historical heritage.'
As I actually think a good few Jews who came to Israel from the Soviet Union realise, it
would have been inconceivable when they were young.
However, the likes of Nuland, Kramer and Winer have preferred to intrigue with
'Banderistas' – the heirs of the architects of the Lvov pogrom, if you've heard of that
– in an attempt to wrest the whole of Ukraine, including Crimea, and Sevastopol, away
from Russia.
And they have preferred to attempt to topple Putin in cahoots with Berezovsky and
Khodorkovsky, who, as well as being Jewish and part-Jewish, were among the more disreputable
representatives of the 'semibankirshchina' which looted Russia under Yeltsin, and who in
general Russian 'deplorables', who were thrown into poverty at the time, do not much
like.
(Indeed, I rather suspect a good few of their fellow-countrymen came to think figures like
Berezovsky and Khodorkovsky would have looked to advantage dangling from lamp-posts.)
Ironically perhaps, some of the best Western commentators on this history – among
other things, on neo-Nazis in Ukraine – are Jewish: obvious names include Stephen F.
Cohen, Vladimir Golstein, Eric Kraus, and Yasha Levine.
But I do sometimes wonder whether there is a kind of 'Cassandra's curse' – that, in
a way that was certainly not true in the past, Jewish refugees from the former Russian Empire
in the U.S. U.K., and Western Europe, and their descendants, cease to be heard when they are
challenging silly conventional wisdoms, but have a 'fast track' to the top, if they
habitually talk rubbish.
One of the most incisive, and amusing, 'Cassandras', ironically, is Eric Kraus, who was
for many years a fund manager based in Moscow, but now seems to be sailing the seas, (a
combination of 'Wandering Jew' and 'Flying Dutchman', perhaps?) as the result of what appears
to have been a spectacularly acrimonious divorce from his Russian wife.
His principal unheeded prophecy is that the kind of policies which Western élites
have followed since 1989 would inevitably have the effect of making Putin and other Russians
see China as, by far, 'the lesser weevil': which, given the dramatic increase in that
country's economic strength, was hardly going to be in the best interests of either Europeans
or Americans.
One of Eric's 'party pieces' is an email exchange he once had with Michael McFaul. As he
recalled in a market commentary in 2012, after the beginning of that figure's –
disastrous – stint as Ambassador in Moscow:
'Very amusingly, T&B still has an e-mail sent ten years ago by Mr. McFaul, then a
Stanford professor, that "Russia was so afraid of China that they would be compelled to seek
a military alliance with America under whatever terms the US chose to impose". Failure has
obviously gone to his head, and he has moved on to great things – as a singularly
incompetent and provocative ambassador, he is now contributing to the growing rift between
Moscow and Washington. Beijing should be grateful .'
As a few quick Google searches will inform you, in addition to being in charge of the GRU,
General Gerasimov is an absolutely pivotal figure in the steadily increasing military
co-operation – not alliance, as yet at least – between Russia and China.
The reports we have been discussing restate two old charges, which are related to another
piece of BS – the notion of a 'Gerasimov Doctrine.'
So, in addition to supposedly have intervened in favour of Trump by hacking the emails of
the DNC, it is suggested that his people have pioneered chemical terrorism with their
supposed attack on the Skripals. In addition to this, it is now suggested that he places a
'bounty' on the head of American, and British, servicemen.
Frankly, if when he sits down with General Li Zuocheng, the chief of the Joint Staff
Department of the Central Military Commission of the People's Republic of China, Gerasimov
feels a sense of relief, and perhaps indeed being among friends, it would hardly be
surprising.
And if Western military planners begin to think that, actually, there may be problems if
the kind of discussions now under way greatly increase the ability of both Russian and more
particularly Chinese naval forces to inflict devastating damage on American, or British,
forces, they may, in the dim and distant future, begin to realise that disseminating this
kind of BS has costs.
An irony of course is that the problem for Chamberlain really was that the choice of
'weevils' was unappetising, to put it rather mildly. There were many, and hardly surprising
or discreditable, reasons why willingness to allow the Red Army to implement its war plans by
advancing into Europe became a 'sticking point.'
What they were too obtuse to realise was that the effect of this was to offer Stalin a
'weevil' which he concluded, quite rightly, involved an unacceptably large risk that the
Soviet Union would have to face the full might of the most powerful military machine in human
history, effectively, on its own.
And this was happening at what – thanks of course in substantial measure to his own
actions – was a point of 'maximum vulnerability.'
Moreover, hardly surprisingly, Chamberlain and his colleagues greatly exacerbated Soviet
fears that this was what 'Perfidious Albion' had been trying to achieve all along. As is
evident if you read Putin's recent article, republished in 'The National Interest', these
perceptions are still very much alive today.
As an old-style 'Perfidious Albionian', while I think that Chamberlain and his associates
very emphatically failed to choose the 'lesser weevil', I actually do not find it so
difficult to have some sympathy for the reasons they made the choices they did.
And I also think that the use of denunciations of 'appeasement', by people who show no
sign whatsoever of attempting to grasp what the arguments of the 'Thirties were about, have
become both stupid and unhelpful: a sure way of avoiding thought.
The greatest irony, however, is that we see American, and British, foreign policy being
run by people who habitually denounce 'appeasement', but whose mentality and assumptions
actually directly parallel those of Chamberlain and his associates.
It is, moreover, in substantial measure as a result of this that such figures have become
involved in a conspiracy to subvert the Constitution of the American Republic – with
'Anglos' like Ellwood, Steele, Dearlove, and indeed Fiona Hill collaborating with the figures
like Nuland, Kramer and Winer.
And, quite clearly, they do not have the excuses Chamberlain had.
The notion that Putin is some kind of reincarnation of Stalin is the product of lies,
originally told by Berezovsky and his like, and accepted without question by their 'useful
idiots' in London and Washington.
Who are also, of course, 'useful idiots' of Beijing.
Many here seem to think Russia is a nation totally separate from the now-defunct Soviet
Union, that Russia is incapable or unwilling to engage in the seamier aspects of
realpolitik like all other nations. Funny, Putin does not ascribe to this view. A short
time ago, someone posted a link to a lecture by the KGB defector, Yuri Bezmenov
Bezmenov was trying to please the new owners. Russia does not have resources to
engage like USA in Full Spectrum Dominance games. Like Obama correctly said, Russia now is a
regional power.
Also, why bother to do petty dirty tricks in Afghanistan, if an internal fight between two
factions of the neoliberal elite, is a really bitter and dirty fight. You cannot do better
than neoliberal Dems in weakening and dividing the country. Why spend money, if you can just
wait.
The enormity of problems within Russia itself also excludes any possibilities of trying to
emulate the imperial behavior of the USA and CIA dirty tricks. Russia does not have the
printing press for the world reserve currency, which the USA still has.
And Putin is the first who understands this precarious situation, mentioning this
limitation several times in his speeches. As well as the danger of being pushed into
senseless arms race with the USA again by the alliance of the USA neocons and Russian MIC,
which probably would lead to similar to the USSR results -- the further dissolution of Russia
into smaller statelets. Which is a dream of both the USA and the EU, for which they do not
spare money.
Russia is a very fragile country -- yet another neoliberal country with a huge level of
inequality and a set of very severe problems related to the economy and "identity politics"
(or more correctly "identity wedge"), which both EU and the USA is actively trying to play.
Sometimes very successfully.
Ukraine coup d'etat was almost a knockdown for Putin, at least a powerful kick in
the chin; it happened so quick and was essentially prepared by Yanukovich himself with his
pro-EU and pro-nationalist stance. Being a sleazy crook, he dug the grave for his government
mostly by himself.
Now the same game can be repeated in Belorussia as Lukachenko by-and-large outlived his
usefulness, and like most autocratic figures created vacuum around himself -- he has neither
viable successor, not the orderly, well defined process of succession; but economic problems
mounts and mounts. This gives EU+USA a chance to repeat Ukrainian scenario, as like in
Ukraine, years of independence greatly strengthened far-right nationalist forces (which BTW
were present during WWII ; probably in less severe form than in Ukraine and Baltic countries
but still were as difficult to suppress after the war). Who, like all xUUSR nationalists are
adamantly, pathologically anti-Russian. That's where Russia need to spend any spare money,
not Afghanistan.
Currently, the personality of Putin is kind of most effective guarantee of political
stability in Russia, but like any cult of personality, this cannot last forever, and it might
deprive Russia of finding qualified successor.
But even Putin was already burned twice with his overtures to Colonel Qaddafi(who after
Medvedev's blunder in the UN was completely unable to defend himself against unleashed by the
West color revolution), and Yanukovich, who in addition to stupidly pandering to nationalists
and trying to be the best friend of Biden proved to be a despicable coward, making a color
revolution a nobrainer.
After those lessons, Putin probably will not swallow a bait in a form of invitation to be
a "decider" in Afghanistan.
So your insinuations that Russian would do such stupid, dirty and risky tricks are not
only naive, they are completely detached from the reality.
The proper way to look at it is as a kind of PR or even false flag operation which was
suggested by David Habakkuk:
...we are dealing with yet another of the collusive 'information operations' practised by
incompetent and corrupt elements in the 'deep state' in the U.S., U.K. and Western Europe.
likbez: Well I suggested it may have been a false flag, but I'm more inclined to think it
may have been Pakistan's ISI.
And what is your evidence for claiming that the EU and USA want to break up Russia into
'smaller statelets'? That smells a bit fishy. It would make the world a more dangerous place.
I don't see or hear of sane people here or in Europe wishing for that. Maybe a few whackos?
Let's hope they never get their hands on the levers of power.
We hear more about unconfirmed reports from the mainstream media than we do about the
facts of the attempted coup against President Trump. A coup which run by the Obama White
House with full participation of the mainstream media. In fact since Trump took office this
coup has been continued with full force by these same anonymous unconfirmed leaks which get
reported as fact but weeks later are confirmed lies. I personally can't believe anything from
the mainstream media and the resist faction, in fact they all need to go to jail for what
they have done. I bring this up in the context of this thread because everything that's
reported or leaked must be first thought of as apart of this coup, this has been the pattern
for the last 3 and half years. If it doesn't fit this pattern of the on going coup then we
can start to consider if it's true or not.
TTG has actually provided the nugget of information that can be used to dismiss this
allegation without, apparently, realising it.
It is here, when he quoted from the NYT article:
"The crucial information that led the spies and commandos to focus on the bounties included
the recovery of a large amount of American cash from a raid on a Taliban outpost that
prompted suspicions."
So that vast swathe of cash represents the bounties that have been paid for the killing of
American and British soldiers by the Taliban.
Okay.
Think about it.
Think about it.
Think about it.
If the payment has already been made then the deed has already been done because,
obviously, that's how a "bounty" works.
So all we need ask is a simple question: has there been a dramatic uptick in fatalities
amongst American and British troops?
Yes? Or no?
Because *both* of these statements can not be true:
1) Fatality rates amongst the troops have not increased.
2) The massive amounts of cash now being found in Afghanistan are the result of a bounty paid
by the Russians for dead GIs.
You can have one, or you can have the other.
But you can't have both.
I hardly think paying a performance bonus for successful attacks on Coalition targets in
Afghanistan is going to break the GRU's budget. There are better arguments against this
story's veracity.
Regarding a possible Minsk Euromaidan and repeat of the Orange Revolution in Belarus, I
would like to hear the opinion of Andrei Martyanov on this. I strongly suspect he would laugh
his socks off at the prospect of any such action being permitted by Moscow.
Furthermore, any such attempt would likely be massively counterproductive, as it would
give Russia the perfect excuse for an Anschluss operation which would make Crimea's
annexation look like chicken feed. In the wake of 2014 the details for such a contingency
must surely have been worked out in great detail. Hey presto - an unannounced Zapad 2020
exercise and you'd have the sum of all NATO fears; Russian forces deployed right up to the
Suwałki gap.
TTG, you are obviously unable to share with us any info you may have on the USG's
assessment of the hypothetical possibility described above, but do you have a view on the
chances of a successful color revolution being achievable in Belarus?
Isn't that what I said about Webb and his allegations?
"But if Gary Webb is that guy claiming the CIA is responsible for flooding Los Angeles
with crack cocaine, I agree with you. That's total bullshit."
Hersh laid out Noriega's narco-trafficking and money laundering in 1986. North's White
House emails subsequent to Hersh's work showed his and Poindexter's use of Noriega to support
the Contras in spite of Noirga's illicit activities. This was an "active policy of laissez
faire towards allies engaged in drug trafficking" as I also said earlier. Your insistence of
characterizing the relationship as being either "the USG as a major player in drug
trafficking" or a state of perfect grace is simplistically binary and flat wrong. We were an
enabler and made the choice of "the lesser of two weevils" as Colonel Lang used the
phrase.
You're getting wrapped around the axle over the term "bounty." The Russians are merely
providing financial support to an indigenous force with the expectation that they will
continue lethal attacks against US and coalition forces. This is not an unusual foreign
policy, covert intelligence or military tactic. There were 22 US troops killed in 2019, the
highest number since 2014. Nine have died this year. Most of those have been from Taliban
attacks.
The use of the term "bounty" by the NYT was likely used to inflame and increase the
outrage.
TTG "The Russians are merely providing financial support to an indigenous force with the
expectation that they will continue lethal attacks against US and coalition forces."
I'm sorry, that argument leaves me cold. Very, very cold.
If the Russian policy is to see lethal attacks against US forces then they would be
supplying *arms* to the Taliban, not *money*.
After all, if you give the Taliban a wad of cash then they can do whatever they want with
it. But if you give them a gun, well, let's be honest: a gun is rather limited in its
application.
On the other hand if the Taliban is being given "financial support" then it is merely your
supposition that this is intended to buy a lot of dead bodies.
Why, exactly, is that the only (or even likely) reason for the Russians to supply
financial support to the Taliban?
There are many reasons the Russians may want to do that, first and foremost to buy
influence amongst a group that in all probably will become the next government of
Afghanistan.
Both you and the NYT appear intent upon reaching a very shaky conclusion constructed atop
a mountain of unwarranted assumptions. And all of it - all of it - pivoting upon an single
very subjective word: "expectation"
"The source tells CNN that intelligence of this nature with risk to US troops should be
assumed to be true until you know otherwise."
He/she is saying that truth is based on the severity of the accusation. This sounds more
like something a politician would say rather than a professional Intel officer.
Not just NYT and WaPo - Associated Press is also happy to sacrifice its credibility to
promote the Russia/Taliban story:
"In early 2020, members of the elite Naval Special Warfare Development Group, known to the
public as SEAL Team Six, raided a Taliban outpost and recovered roughly $500,000. The
recovered funds further solidified the suspicions of the American intelligence community that
the Russians had offered money to Taliban militants and linked associations."
So ... eh ... the Taliban doesn't use money, except when it gets bounties in dollars from
Russia to kill Americans??? AP doesn't explain how that recovered cash "solidified the
suspicions". https://apnews.com/02975c59e71e65327e2f582cd1a91f43
"... Bolton is of course not right in his pathetic spin job on the use of lies to promote military agendas, which just looks like a feeble attempt to justify the psychopathic measures he himself took to deceive the world into consenting to the unforgivably evil invasion of Iraq. What he is right about is that conflicts between nations take place in an "anarchic environment internationally where different rules apply." ..."
"... We haven't been shown any hard evidence for Russians paying bounties in Afghanistan, and we almost certainly never will be. This doesn't matter as far as the imperial propagandists are concerned; they know they don't need actual facts to get this story believed, they just need narrative control. All the propagandists need to do is say over and over again that Russia paid bounties to kill the troops in Afghanistan in an increasingly assertive and authoritative tone, and after a while people will start assuming it's true, just because the propagandists have been doing this. ..."
"... This is all because "international law" only exists in practical terms to the extent that governments around the world agree to pretend it exists. As long as the U.S.-centralized empire is able to control the prevailing narrative about what Russia is doing, that empire will be able to continue to use the pretext of "international law" as a bludgeon against its enemies. That's all we're really seeing here. ..."
On
a December 2010 episode of Fox News'
Freedom
Watch
, John Bolton and the show's host Andrew Napolitano were
debating
about recent
WikiLeaks
publications
,
and naturally the subject of government secrecy came up.
"Now I want to make the case for secrecy in government when it comes to the conduct of national security affairs, and
possibly for deception where that's appropriate," said
Bolton,
the former Trump national security adviser
.
"You know Winston Churchill said during World War Two that in wartime
truth is so important it should be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies."
"Do you really believe that?" asked an incredulous Napolitano.
"Absolutely," Bolton replied.
"You would lie in order to preserve the truth?" asked Napolitano.
"If I had to say something I knew was false to protect American national security, I would do it," Bolton answered.
"Why do people in the government think that the laws of society or the rules don't apply to them?" Napolitano asked.
"Because they are not dealing in the civil society we live in under the Constitution," Bolton replied. "They are
dealing in the anarchic environment internationally where different rules apply."
"But you took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and the Constitution mandates certain openness and certain
fairness," Napolitano protested. "You're willing to do away with that in order to attain a temporary military goal?"
"I think as Justice Jackson said in a famous decision, the Constitution is not a suicide pact," Bolton said. "And I
think defending the United States from foreign threats does require actions that in a normal business environment in
the United States we would find unprofessional. I don't make any apology for it."
I am going to type a sequence of words that I have never typed before, and don't expect to ever type again:
John Bolton is right.
Bolton is of course
not
right
in his pathetic spin job on the use of lies to promote military agendas, which just looks like a feeble attempt to
justify
the
psychopathic measures he himself took
to deceive the world into consenting to the unforgivably evil invasion of
Iraq. What he is right about is that conflicts between nations take place in an "anarchic environment internationally
where different rules apply."
Individual nations have governments with laws that are enforced by those governments. Since we do not have a single
unified government for our planet (at least not yet), the interactions between those governments is largely anarchic,
and not in a good way.
"International law," in reality, only meaningfully exists to the extent that the international community is
collectively willing to enforce it. In practice what this means is that only nations that have no influence over the
dominant narratives in the international community are subject to "international law."
This is why you will see
leaders
in African nations sentenced to prison
by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes, but the USA can
get away with
actually
sanctioning ICC personnel
if they so much as talk about investigating American war crimes and suffer no
consequences for it whatsoever. It is also why
Noam
Chomsky famously said
that if the Nuremberg laws had continued to be applied with fairness and consistency, then
every post-war U.S. president would have been hanged.
And this is also why so much effort gets poured into controlling the dominant international narrative about nations
like Russia which have resisted being absorbed into the U.S. power alliance. If you have the influence and leverage
to control what narratives the international community accepts as true about the behavior of a given targeted nation,
then you can do things like manufacture international collaboration with aggressive economic sanctions of the sort
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is
currently
calling for
in response to the
completely
unsubstantiated narrative
that Russia paid Taliban fighters bounties to kill occupying forces in Afghanistan.
In its ongoing
slow-motion
third world war
against nations which refuse to be absorbed into the blob of the U.S. power alliance, this tight
empire-like cluster of allies stands everything to gain by doing whatever it takes to undermine and sabotage Russia
in an attempt to shove it off the world stage and eliminate
the
role it plays
in opposing that war. Advancing as many narratives as possible about Russia doing nefarious things
on the world stage manufactures consent for international collaboration toward that end in the form of economic
warfare, proxy conflicts, NATO expansionism and other measures, as well as facilitating a new arms race by
killing
the last of the U.S.-Russia nuclear treaties
and
ensuring
a continued imperial military presence
in Afghanistan.
We haven't been shown any hard evidence for Russians paying bounties in Afghanistan, and we almost certainly never
will be. This doesn't matter as far as the imperial propagandists are concerned; they know they don't need actual
facts to get this story believed, they just need narrative control. All the propagandists need to do is say over and
over again that Russia paid bounties to kill the troops in Afghanistan in an increasingly assertive and authoritative
tone, and after a while people will start assuming it's true, just because the propagandists have been doing this.
They'll add new pieces of data to the narrative, none of which will constitute hard proof of their claims, but after
enough "bombshell" stories reported in an assertive and ominous tone of voice, people will start assuming it's a
proven fact that Russia paid those bounties. Narrative managers will be able to simply wave their hands at a
disparate, unverified cloud of information and proclaim that it is a mountain of evidence and that anyone doubting
all this proof must be a kook. (This by the way is a textbook
Gish
gallop fallacy
, where a bunch of individually weak arguments are presented to give the illusion of a single
strong case.)
This is all because "international law" only exists in practical terms to the extent that governments around the
world agree to pretend it exists. As long as the U.S.-centralized empire is able to control the prevailing narrative
about what Russia is doing, that empire will be able to continue to use the pretext of "international law" as a
bludgeon against its enemies. That's all we're really seeing here.
A ll Western mass media outlets are now shrieking about the story The New York Timesfirst reported , citing zero evidence and
naming zero sources, claiming intelligence says Russia paid out bounties to Taliban-linked
fighters in Afghanistan for attacking the occupying forces of the U.S. and its allies in
Afghanistan. As of this writing, and probably forevermore, there have still been zero
intelligence sources named and zero evidence provided for this claim.
As we
discussed yesterday , the only correct response to unsubstantiated claims by anonymous
spooks in a post-Iraq invasion world is to assume that they are lying until you've been
provided with a mountain of hard, independently verifiable evidence to the contrary. The fact
that The New York Times instead chose to uncritically parrot these evidence-free claims
made by operatives within intelligence agencies with a known track record of lying about
exactly these things is nothing short of journalistic malpractice. The fact that western media
outlets are now unanimously regurgitating these still 100–percent baseless assertions is
nothing short of state propaganda.
The consensus-manufacturing, Overton window-shrinking Western propaganda apparatus has been
in full swing with mass media outlets claiming on literally no basis whatsoever that
they have confirmed one another's "great reporting" on this completely unsubstantiated
story.
The Wall Street Journal article
co-authored by Gordon Lubold cites only anonymous "people," who we have no reason to believe
are different people from the NYT's sources, repeating the same unsubstantiated assertions
about an intelligence report. The article cites no evidence that Lubold's "stunning
development" actually occurred beyond " people familiar with the report said
" and " a person
familiar with it said ."
The fact that both Hudson and Lubold were lying about having confirmed TheNew
York Times' reporting means that Savage was also lying when he said they did. When they say
the report has been "confirmed," what they really mean is that it has been agreed upon. All the
three of them actually did was use their profoundly influential outlets to uncritically parrot
something nameless spooks want the public to believe, which is the same as just publishing a
CIA press release free of charge. It is unprincipled stenography for opaque and unaccountable
intelligence agencies, and it is disgusting.
None of this should be happening. The New York Timeshas admitted
itself that it was wrong for uncritically parroting the unsubstantiated spook claims which
led to the Iraq invasion, as has
The Washington Post . There is no reason to believe Taliban fighters would require
any bounty to attack an illegitimate occupying force. The Russian government has denied these
allegations . The Taliban
has denied these allegations . The Trump administration has denied that the
president or the vice president had any knowledge of the spook report in question, denouncing
the central allegation that liberals who are promoting this story have been fixated on.
Yet this story is being magically transmuted into an established fact, despite its being
based on literally zero factual evidence.
Western propagandists are turning this completely empty story into the mainstream consensus,
not with facts, not with evidence, and certainly not with journalism, but with sheer brute
force of narrative control. And now you've got former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democrats'
presumptive presidential nominee,
once again attacking Trump for being insufficiently warlike,
this time because "he failed to sanction or impose any kind of consequences on Russia for
this egregious violation of international law."
You've also got President George W. Bush's former lackey Richard Haas promoting "a
proportionate response" to these baseless allegations.
"Russia is carrying out covert wars vs US troops in Afghanistan and our democracy here at
home," Haas tweeted with a link to The
New York Times story. "A proportionate response would increase the costs to Russia of its
military presence in Ukraine and Syria and, using sanctions and cyber, to challenge Putin at
home."
Haas is the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, a wildly influential think
tank with its fingers in most major U.S. news outlets.
"This story is published just in time to sabotage US-Russia arms control talks,"
Antiwar 's Dave DeCamp noted on Twitter . "As the
US is preparing for a new arms race -- and possibly even live nuclear tests -- The New York
Times provides a great excuse to let the New START lapse, making the world a much more
dangerous place. Russiagate has provided the cover for Trump to pull out of arms control
agreements. First the INF, then the Open Skies, and now possibly the New START. Any talks or
negotiations with Russia are discouraged in this atmosphere, and this Times story will
make things even worse."
"US 'intelligence' agencies (ie, organized crime networks run by the state) want to sabotage
the (admittedly very inadequate) peace talks in Afghanistan," tweeted journalist Ben
Norton. "So they get best of both worlds: blame the Russian bogeyman, fueling the new cold war,
while prolonging the military occupation. It's not a coincidence these dubious Western
intelligence agency claims about Russia came just days after a breakthrough in
peace talks . Afghanistan's geostrategic location (and trillions worth of minerals) is too
important to them."
All parties involved in spreading this malignant psyop are absolutely vile, but a special
disdain should be reserved for the media class who have been entrusted by the public with the
essential task of creating an informed populace and holding power to account. How much of an
unprincipled whore do you have to be to call yourself a journalist and uncritically parrot the
completely unsubstantiated assertions of spooks while protecting their anonymity? How much work
did these empire fluffers put into killing off every last shred of their dignity? It boggles
the mind.
It really is funny how the most influential news outlets in the western world will
uncritically parrot whatever they're told to say by the most powerful and depraved intelligence
agencies on the planet, and then turn around and tell you without a hint of self-awareness that
Russia and China are bad because they have state media.
"Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction." "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass
destruction." "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction."
How many Iraqi civilians have been starved and slaughtered since 2001?
Duckandcover , June 30, 2020 at 09:19
Another false rumor Adam Schiff can run with. He's good at that. It will keep him occupied
for the next four years.
Francis Lee , June 30, 2020 at 05:18
I'm just wondering. Is the US deep state and its media accomplices preparing its
population for a kinetic war against Russia, or is the whole thing just a bluff to get Russia
to surrender without a fight. The Russians, however, will not back down in face of this
increasing intimidation. So what next for the Americans? The problem with the big bluff play
is that the Americans may well have talked their way into war and won't have an exit
strategy. Congratulations must go in particular to the MSM for pushing the world toward the
edge of extinction and possibly over.
Atul Thakker , June 30, 2020 at 00:39
Even if it was all true, were we this outraged after watching Charlie Wilson's War?
David S Hall , June 29, 2020 at 21:29
Obviously a CIA campaign to get a more willing stooge into the Whitelivesmatter House. My
American memory is famously short, can't quite recall who it was created and funded the
Taliban and supplied them with advanced weapons and training to attack the Soviet Army of
Occupation. I imagine the current Taliban would much prefer Verbas to Rubles.
Jean , June 29, 2020 at 19:58
I am totally a Bernie Girl but am being inundated with pitiful pleas to vote for the
Bumpkin, the senile old Neoliberal Bumpkin, because ..Trump. I was almost persuaded until
reading this. The Cheeto is a horror and a whore and has a lot of blood on his hands. But
Byebyedon is worse. He'll lay this country at the feet of the war profiteers and say thank
you for letting me be your whore. I'm not voting for him. Nor for any other neoliberal
warmongering Hillary loving ass wipe the DNC can vomit up. I'm writing in Buddha. Seems to me
a good dead guy could do a better job than all these ass wipes put together. You go
Caitlyn!!!
vinnieoh , June 29, 2020 at 18:51
In passing Caitlin mentions narrative control, the subject she so expertly dissects. It's
important at the premier of this farcically phony addition to the narrative, to remember
that:
It doesn't have to be true;
It doesn't even need a very long half-life;
It doesn't even need to be investigated before it is dropped in the "hold" basket.
All that is need is to be entered into the "official narrative"; because it was reported,
became a media topic, it thus has become "real" and can be later concatenated in a litany of
other "offenses" committed by our shibboleths against us.
It's easy, they do it almost in their sleep now, and the serious faces of our vigilant
media never blink an eye, and no perspiration is seen on their upper lips. One big obedient,
happy family. It doesn't matter how many out in teevee land or social media land believe it,
only that none of the voices of the official narrative break ranks.
Sam F , June 29, 2020 at 18:43
Those who agreed upon and spread this "malignant psyop" of "evidence-free claims" have
engaged in journalistic malpractice and state propaganda, and have long betrayed the public
trust to provide truth and hold power to account.
Mass media and all branches of federal and state government must be regulated for balance
of viewpoints with checks and balances in all areas, and monitored for corrupt influence.
Without such controls we cannot restore democracy.
Realist , June 29, 2020 at 16:56
Basically, the CIA is meddling in the presidential election yet again. They want the
public not only to believe that this absurd fantasy is true but that Trump and his awful
minions looked the other way and gave the evil emperor Putin carte blanche to kill Americans.
What baseless charge could possibly be more inflammatory? Betraying your own armed forces
would be the apex of high treason. This is yet another doubling down on the failed
"Russiagate" conspiracy theory. Not only totally preposterous and completely unsupported but
quite unnecessary if the objective is to extract Trump from the White House. Trump has
already cooked his own goose in the political arena with his handling of the Covid crisis,
the BLM "demonstrations" and the Congressional giveaway of newly-created Fed funny money to
the most financially privileged individuals on the planet. The intel agencies obviously have
no clue that they conspicuously give away their game by being so over-the-top bombastic in
their unending attempts to frame Putin, Russia, and, most importantly, Trump. And the MSM
seem just as clueless about the role they play as witless tools of these behind-the-scenes
string pullers.
Skip Scott , June 30, 2020 at 08:41
I am not yet sure that Trump has "cooked his own goose". Biden is such a horrible
candidate it seems that the DNC wants to lose, and Trump's base never sees anything done by
him as "wrong," or his fault. Whenever I start thinking that the public couldn't get any
dumber or more manipulated, events prove me wrong. One thing is certain, more "theater of the
absurd" lies ahead. Buckle up!
BTW, good to hear from your Realist.
AnneR , June 30, 2020 at 11:15
Ah, but, Realist, can't have too many depleted uranium cased weapons to hand, just in
case, just in case the Strumpet should win against all the odds, at least as advertised by
the pollsters (as was the case in 2016).
And what better for these "liars, cheats, robbers" (as Pompeo averted – with mucho
pride – were the trademarks of the CIA et al) than to once again, despite all common
sense, nominate the Russians as our "real" enemies. The f***ing Blue faces cannot let their
Cold Warrior Russophobic deep seated perceptions of the world go.
And – as one expects – there is no mention in the MSM (as represented in this
household by the faithful Blue Face upholder, NPR) of the CIA (with Brzezinski's full
support) in Afghanistan deliberately helping to create, support, train the mujahadeen
(including what would become the Taliban) to fight, kill and keep the USSR in Afghanistan
until it had its "Vietnam" and shrank economically, thus influentially. No thought that,
well, even if (big if) this NYT tale proves even remotely based in some fact: we are reaping
what we sowed; serves us right. Please – we'd never look at anything done to *us* in
that way. We seem incapable.
Drew Hunkins , June 29, 2020 at 16:19
Anyone who believes the Russian bounty Taliban story is beyond hope and one must not waste
two seconds of their energies trying to reach them. There's now a segment of our (U.S)
population that is TOTALLY immune to any rational and reasonable explanations and facts
pertaining to Russia, a Russia that's a peace and justice champion around the globe promoting
cooperative relations throughout the world community.
AnneR , June 30, 2020 at 11:17
So very true, Drew. So very true – assuming that they consider it at all, that
is.
John Drake , June 29, 2020 at 16:13
Looks like a get Trump disinformation operation. First concoct this pile of nastiness, and
don't tell Potus . Then release it through subservient mass media(best yet with high
stature). Potus says, "huh", didn't know and looks foolish, as well as being positioned into
the Russian stooge trope- mission accomplished.
Next act assorted Congress critters get to pontificate, posture and look patriotic.
Americans are so gullible. Like the Taliban needs a bounty to kill Americans; that's their
job, their goal is to get rid of US presence no need for extra incentive. And of course ,
Russia could care less and would not be so stupid. If you look at a lot of this stuff the
deep state comes up with there is no motive, it doesn't pass the smell test.
Mark Ames twit: "Dubious spy-sourced #BountyGate story getting WAY more
traction than WaPo's bombshell Afghanistan Papers last December, exposing DC conspiracy of lies
to keep their disastrous war going. That deeply-reported story vanished w/out consequences."
"... And Trump said further in a Saturday night tweet : "Intel just reported to me that they did not find this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me or VP." ..."
"... it was likely deemed "chatter" or unsubstantiated rumor picked up either by US or British intelligence -- and subsequently leaked to the press to revive the pretty much dead Russiagate narrative of some level of "Trump-Putin collusion". ..."
"... And of course newly minted "resistance hero" John Bolton, busy with a media blitz promoting his book, made statements to NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday stating his belief that the president was likely briefed on the matter . The former national security adviser called the Trump denial "remarkable" -- enough to grab headlines . ..."
"... Meanwhile, speaking of America's longest war, does anyone at all of Capitol Hill remember this actual confirmed and exhaustively documented story? ..."
A group of Congressional Democrats
will be briefed at the White House Tuesday in response to ongoing accusations that Trump
was made aware of but ignored what The New York Times described last Friday as a Russian
military intelligence operation that sought to kill American troops in Afghanistan by issuing
bounties to Taliban fighters.
This following a Monday briefing of at least seven Republican lawmakers, also as both
Republican and Democratic leaders demand answers and full briefings from the CIA and Pentagon.
Crucially it remains, however, that the White House and the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence have firmly rejected that the president was ever briefed.
On Saturday Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said in a statement that he had
"confirmed that neither the President nor the Vice President were ever briefed on any
intelligence alleged by the New York Times in its reporting."
And Trump said further in a Saturday night tweet : "Intel just
reported to me that they did not find this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me
or VP."
A carefully worded and to be expected somewhat vague Monday evening statement from CIA
Director Gina Haspel appeared to vindicate the White House's assertion of lack of credible
intelligence behind it. Essentially the CIA director seemed to reference the danger of
"cherry-picking" from lower level unvetted raw information.
"When developing intelligence assessments, initial tactical reports often require additional
collection and validation," Haspel
said .
"Leaks compromise and disrupt the critical interagency work to collect, assess, and ascribe
culpability," she added, strongly suggesting that indeed there was not enough to go on
concerning the Russian bounty allegations for it to rise to the level of the
commander-in-chief.
A number of pundits took this as a clear denial that there was anything significant or
worthy of briefing the president on regarding alleged "Russian bounties" -- meaning it was
likely deemed "chatter" or unsubstantiated rumor picked up either by US or British intelligence
-- and subsequently leaked to the press to revive the pretty much dead Russiagate narrative of
some level of "Trump-Putin collusion".
Still, Congress wants answers in what's already indeed looking like
a revived Russiagate scenario conveniently timed for the outrage machine to kick into full
gear just ahead of the November election.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said: "If the reports are true,
that the administration knew about this Russian operation and did nothing, they have broken the
trust of those who serve and the commitment to their families to ensure their loved one's
safety," according to The Hill. "It is imperative that the House Armed Services Committee
receive detailed answers from the Department of Defense."
And of course newly minted "resistance hero" John Bolton, busy with a media blitz promoting
his book, made statements to NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday stating his belief that the
president was likely briefed on the matter . The former national security adviser called the
Trump denial "remarkable" -- enough to grab headlines .
But considering his careful, ambiguous remarks, it's clear that belief is the operative
word here :
"He can disown everything if no-one ever told him about it," Bolton said... "It looks like
just another day in the office at the Trump White House."
Bolton said he didn't know the quality of the intelligence on the Russian bounty plan, or
the extent of it. And not all information that flows through the many U.S. intelligence
agencies is passed on to the commander in chief, Bolton noted.
"There needs to be a filter of intelligence for any president, especially for this
president," he said.
"Active Russian aggression like that against American servicemen is a very, very serious
matter," Bolton added.
So at this point we are still merely at the level of "impossible to verify or confirm
anything", despite the major outlets behind the original story, namely the NY Times and
Washington Post, claiming to have "confirmed" each other's reporting.
* * *
Meanwhile, speaking of America's longest war, does anyone at all of Capitol Hill remember
this actual confirmed and exhaustively documented story?
Regarding the latest NYT drivel, always replace the target's name (in this case Russia)
with the US. I'm sure everyone here knows that Washington DC blames others for the sins
they've committed themselves.
vk | Jun 28 2020 15:46 utc | 17:
Playing the contrarian here. No politician, especially Putin, would admit it as it would
make themselves look incompetent. Russia got enough crap flung their way.
Having read the NY Times article, I'm struck by how thin it is in objective terms,
journalistically speaking. Even if one accepted the legitimacy of running self-serving,
secret-state sourced pieces like this, there should at least be a story. In this article, if
one were to cut away the parts where the writers admit (commendably) the things they don't
know, and all the background of Perfidious Muscovy's alleged war on the good (which, even if
one buys into it, isn't news broken by this article), there would be barely anything left:
just a naked assertion without details or narrative. And yet the mainstream media echo
chamber kicks into gear completely untroubled.
I guess I'm advocating for the propagandists to at least show some pride in their
work.
As for the substance of the article, meager as it is: aside from the fact that there's no
reason to believe it on the basis of this (ahem) reporting, I haven't seen anybody point out
that it's difficult to see what policy Russia would be advancing by doing it.
If Moscow wanted to aid the Taliban in ongoing military operations, this would be an
extremely inefficient use of Russian resources.
On the other hand, one could see such payments as encouraging fighters to break discipline
and attack U.S. forces despite the extant U.S.-Taliban ceasefire, thus attacking both sides
and thereby prolonging the war. I wouldn't put such unsavory tactics beyond Russia (or any
other state), but I find it hard to believe they'd risk poisoning relations with the future
rulers of Afganistan just to give the U.S. a tiny additional impetus to do what it already
specializes in without their encouragement: waging endless, no-win wars.
Still, I could be made to believe that last possibility if there were any actual reporting
to support it, or even more skillful propaganda to fool me.
From the TASS piece quoted by b on Afghanistan "The Russian Foreign Ministry suggested
that those actions might stem from the fact that the US intelligence agencies "do not like
that our and their diplomats have teamed up to facilitate the start of peace talks between
Kabul and the Taliban"
The US is divided between nationalists and an anglo globalist deep state. I have started
reading the Mathew Ehret articles at Strategic Culture https://www.strategic-culture.org/contributors/matthew-ehret/
Putin has said the domestic problems in the US are signs or symptoms of a much deeper
problem. The last four or so articles by Ehret are about the anglo deep state that is driving
the globalist agenda.
one could see such payments as encouraging fighters to break discipline and attack U.S.
forces despite the extant U.S.-Taliban ceasefire,...
David G | Jun 28 2020 17:22 utc
David made clear that this is a hypothetical that he discusses only as a point to argue
something else.
Still, the article was sufficiently well written that it made clear that no American
soldiers were killed after the ceasefire with Taliban in February. There article is actually
clear that the evidence is thinner than the air at the highest peaks in Afghanistan (which
are pretty high), so anyone with some mental faculties (meaning, pitifully small minority of
the readers, although THAT estimate is based on the comments and recommends that were
probably manipulated) can figure it out.
On the other hand, for people who treat our media with some trust, Russians are incredible
bunglers. The unit that supervised the bounties (or most probably among the Russian
intelligence units) is also attributed with failed assassination of Skripals, three (!!??)
failed poisoning attempts on a Bulgarian weapon manufacturers and a failed coup in
Montenegro, and now, additionally it is credited with a scheme to kill American soldiers that
did not result in any killing, but in a wad of American currency found in a Taliban outpost.
I guess that the full name of the unit is Boris & Natasha Ltd.
Russian (alleged) scheme to split Catalonia from Spain and another, to have Bernie Sanders
win primaries, failed too. One could write an article summarizing that record to conclude
that because of indefatigable efforts of our intelligence agencies and their apt allies (yes,
Australia, you can bask in glory as well), we can sleep in peace.
Yeah, for the mental exercise if nothing else, I try to imagine a scenario in which the
Russians might have done this. As you say, if the "bounties" have been on offer during the
ceasefire, they have had no effect. The Times article is vague enough that it leaves open it
might be referring to a pre-ceasefire time frame, but then we're back to it being a stupid
way to try to support the Taliban militarily.
Back in the real world, Scott Ritter, noting the real Russia wants the U.S. out of
Afghanistan, suggests the report originated from the Afghan security agency (NDS), was picked
up by the CIA, and turned into a junk intelligence product good enough for the NY Times, the
motive being an attempt to sabotage the (putative) U.S. withdrawal and generally mess with
Trump. https://www.rt.com/op-ed/493174-nyt-report-russia-afghanistan/
The 'deep state' spits this stuff out anonymously because they know that our sheep in the
NYT, WaPo, and WSJ will publish it without criticism and the sheep reporting it on news shows
will accept it without fact.
Critical thinking: comparing motives
The deep state hates Trump's plan to withdraw troops from Germany, Afghanistan, re-admit
Russia to the G7 (making it the G8), and wants to stir up conflict with Russia.
Russia: Motives
- Piss off their EU customers so that they will pay a premium to buy US / Qatar LNG instead
of Russian NG?
- Derail Trump's plan to withdraw from Afghanistan, Germany, get back into the G7/8, and my
favorite from CNN's 'Russia Expert' Putin is a tactician not a strategist (ie. Putin is
really dumb).
- Russia wants to provoke a U.S. retaliation for us to kill their troops.
Since there is no rational motive for Russia to do this but their are motives for the
'unnamed sources' to like or exaggerate their claims our MSM should question this tall
tale.
I love the outrage by commentators, 'If Trump was not informed then someone should be
fired'. Note, our idiotic MSM accepts the premise as a fact.
BTW I don't know what to make of Veterans Today, it's on the very end of the spectrum of
what I am willing to read before I consider a website too far out there but it does have a
good article every once in a while, and yeah, it's kind of a guilty pleasure even when it
doesn't.
I still think the balance of evidence favors this being U.S. deep state
misinformation.
Americans pay their government to lie to them through major news media! Although it's been
ongoing for decades, some are just now getting the message! But then, that's only some. And
polling data shows demonstratively that a majority of the American public still find the
national government and major media credible--but just barely. Many are incensed at this
recent data and continue to rebel; but against what specifically, they have no unified
answer.
If honest reporting from major media actually became the norm, would we believe
it?
karlof1 @76, I take your post about about 'duh everyone knows American News Media lies
(synopsis)' as sarcasm directed at me. I wish it was true that a slim majority of
Americans still believe the MSM but the vast majority is greatly influenced by them.
Examples, if you poll Americans at which countries are a big threat to the U.S., Iran,
Russia, N.Korea and China fluctuate wildly based on who our corrupt foreign policy
establishment is attacking at the moment. So while the U.S. public distrusts the MSM in the
abstract, they still absorb their poisonous fruit. Let me mourn I am not pretending to have a brand new revelation but as an Engineer I
see this as a system that is incapable of correcting itself so it bothers me. If something is
bad but I see a possibility that it can get better it does not bother me as much but this
feedback is perfectly broken.
1. Deep state lies to MSM. 2. MSM accepts lies uncritically, 3. public never punishes
liars in group 1 or 2 because hey, they are attacking Iranians, Russians, Chinese ... who
cares about them.
The only way this changes is for us to lose a war ... fan-damn-tastic.
America, the pariah state is getting walled off from the rest of the world.
With reference to my comment at #18, younger people are quickly getting infected, I should
add that the large gatherings in the form of protests across the nation are also a key
vector.
As we noted earlier Tuesday, several pundits took the DNI and CIA statements as a clear
denial that there was anything significant or worthy of briefing the president on regarding
alleged "Russian bounties" -- meaning it was likely deemed "chatter" or unsubstantiated rumor
picked up either by US or British intelligence -- and subsequently leaked to the press to
revive the pretty much dead Russiagate narrative of some level of "Trump-Putin collusion".
In short, when your 'unsubstantiated chatter' hit-piece loses steam, prop it up with a slain
Marine .
Looks like the same people who used to push records up the pop charts are now manipulating
the Amazon best sellers charts, though I wouldn't put this past Amazon themselves.
No one buys this garbage other than uni libraries.
scott157 , 2 minutes ago
Matt Taibbi hits ANOTHER grand slam!!!!! regarding robin diangelo, she should cease
scissoring and try a penis........it would spread sunshine all over her
place.......................
Michael Norton , 4 minutes ago
Someone should write a book called White Strength.
novictim , 4 minutes ago
And let us never forget the crackpot theory that only Blacks cannot be racist 'cuz P + P +
R -> (Prejudice + Power) = Racism.
This social theory defines blacks as being definitionally incapable of possessing power
over whites. Ya, that's not racist at all!
johnnyg , 5 minutes ago
Teaming up with Ruth Frankenberg to help attack "fellow whites"? Oy vey!
I wonder if it's "fragility" to need every university, multinational corp, media monopoly,
and celebrity constantly patting you on the *** and silencing any criticism of your constant
terrible behavior?
I was surprised by the reference to Russia-gate as the prior example of propaganda
manipulation of the US public. What about 9-11? Three sky-scrappers in broad daylight, are
collapsed by planted demolitions, with explosions, melted structural steel, and perfect
complete vertical destruction. Which everyone watched over and over, yet everyone believes
that it was planes hijacked by Saudls that did this, on buildings designed to survive a plane
crash. And one building was not hit by a plane. Then, the US and NATO attacked Afghanistan,
and the US, UK, and their coalition attacked Iraq, because of obvious demolition in NY,
blamed on Saudis. Crazy. Double crazy. In plain sight. After the success of those 2 mental
manipulations, it is sure that any nonsense story with political implications will work. And
there unmentioned is climate heating, accelerating, to the demise of us all, even the
so-called elite and their money.
The "foreign intelligence official" who supposedly leaked this deso to NYT may have come from a country that wishes to increase
US-Russian hostility, in particular, I would be unsurprised if the country in question was
one characterized by some pretty intense fluctuations regarding its territorial size courtesy
of comparable fluctuations in Russian controlled territory over the centuries.
First, Russia is, generally speaking, not in the habit of paying people, in
particular people they arent very fond of, for things they were going to do anyway. If
you think the Talebs require Russian financial incentives to kill Americans where they
reasonably can I have a bridge over the Pacific to sell you.
Secondly, while there is plently of things the Russian would want to extract payback
for, using the Talebs of all people adds to much risk for too little gain. Even using
the same "scheme" of offering boutnies, well. Offering bounties to
Syrian/Iraqi/Lebanese organisations for pretty much the same thing would be less risky
(these organisations are farther from the Russian homeland and have less of a hostile
history with Russia, in addition, Iran rather then Russia would likely get blamed for
it) and about as rewarding.
Third: I fully expect that Trump was not briefed on this "information". It is
actually quite simple, a lot of "intelligence" goes into the US. Then you have people
called analysts, who, among other frequently more interesting things, make judgement
calls in what to pass on or not and if yes with what caveats. This process is repeated
several times, until at some point something ends up with the US National Security
council and/or the president himself.
If the analysts make the, in my opinion wholly justified decisions, that the information
is somewhere between speculation and outright lies, they will not pass it further up the
foodchain.
What I do not know is what types of record keeping are used in the US for the analysts,
who probably have to document their decision on whether to pass certain information or not
in writing probably including their reasoning, it is quite possible that one of the
reasons for not sending it up the food chains was that the "foreign intelligence official"
may have come from a country that wishes to increase US-Russian hostility, in particular, I
would be unsurprised if the country in question was one characterized by some pretty
intense fluctuations regarding its territorial size courtesy of comparable fluctuations in
Russian controlled territory over the centuries.
Notable also that this ludicrous story, whose promotion by the MI6 Guardian confirms the
obvious suspicions about it, also includes the wild claim that the Russian unit responsible
for the bounties was also behind the "Novichok" "attack" on the Skripals.
It is another loyalty oath operation designed to force intelligent people into professing to
believe incredible nonsense.
The bottom line of the bounty claim is that very few Americans have in fact been killed. If
there were an actual bounty the country is full of GIs ripe for plucking. And the money
compares well with poppy growing.
"... Assuming this is based on true events for the moment, is there a significant chance this could've been a false flag cover for an op by someone else? Thinking along the lines of the Israeli's "We're CIA" assassination ops of nuclear engineers in Iran here. Would the Paki intell services or even Iran attempt this in Afghanistan, perhaps? ..."
"... I had thought the Russians fear radical Islam as much or more than we do, so I can imagine them paying bounties to Talibs for ISIL scalps much easier than US ones, were they interested enough to play in that sandbox at all. ..."
"... And it's disgusting how you continue to politicize intelligence. You clearly don't understand how raw intel gets verified. Leaks of partial information to reporters from anonymous sources is dangerous because people like you manipulate it for political gain. ..."
"... Let The NY Times show what it got! We'll be waiting with bated breath. Propaganda all the time. 24x7. There can be no rational discourse in the USA. ..."
"... This story seems like more of a non-story, instigated by those who are still trying to maintain the Russian Hoax: the MSM/Resistance, neocon warmongers/NeverTrumpers, et al. As the election grows nigh, Leftists and their allies on the Right are getting more and more shrill and unhinged, demanding conformity of thought and grasping for ways to maintain the perpetual outrage of their ranks over Any. Little. Thing. Sorest of losers, all. I have a feeling they'll still be filled with anger even if Biden wins -- I noticed a growing number of perpetually aggrieved even while Obama was still POTUS. Is it something in the water? ..."
"... This story is obvious crap and it is purveyed by obvious Democrat shills - the NYT, quoting obvious anti Trump sources that have a well earned reputation for lying - the Five eyes intelligence community. ..."
"... This whole "story" stinks to high heaven. Judy Miller redux - regime-change info ops, coordinated across multiple media organizations. I happen to dislike Trump, Pompeo et al as much as the next person but here we have, yet again, another "scoop" with zero actual evidence, only the say-so of some nameless "intel officials," whose jobs might be described more accurately as state propaganda managers. ..."
Now you want to portray NYT as the paragon of truth-telling!! .
...But then isn't your ancestry from Lithuania. Your hatred is strong. I get that - I see that all time with people from the
ex-Soviet republics formerly ruled by Russia. Hope others see that too.
You hit the nail. TTG sometimes sounds really like a Ukrainian nationalist on those issues.
TTG simply can't think strategically in this case due to his bias.
If Russia wanted to hurt the USA in Afghanistan then Strela launchers would be in hands of Taliban long ago with plausible
deniability that they obtained them from Libya.
The problem with thinking of people like TTG is that for Russia, the USA presence in Afghanistan is actually useful.
As in "never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake".
Afghanistan occupation is a part of "Full Spectrum Dominance" play and, as such is a blunder. The USA simply does not has the
resources for world control, despite the dominance of neocons who are ready to fight for it to the last dollar. The especially
prominent attitude in the State Department and NSC (Bolton is a nice example of those MIC bottom-feeders)
It drains the USA resources, and it turns the people of Asian xUSSR republics (so called Stans) against the USA and as such,
makes neocolonial policies in xUSSR republics more difficult.
The DOJ only dropped charges against two of Prigozhin's companies. The case against the IRA and 13 trolls still stands. Prigozhin
was able to use Concord's business status and his lawyers' "client, not client" status to dig out evidence on the case without
exposing himself to the court. His strategy was both brilliant and cynical.
The K-pop and Tik-Tok trolling of Parscale and the Trump rally was brilliant and cost not a dime. It didn't limit the attendance
of the rally since sign up was not limited. It did screw up Parscale's data collection and tricked him into believing there was
more enthusiasm for Trump that there actually was. It embarrassed him and Trump. And yes, this methodology is closely related
to what the Russians did in 2016 except the Tik-Tok trolling was masterminded by a 51 year old Iowan grandmother rather than a
former Russian KGB officer.
Boy, I never thought I'd see TTG be so gullible. The NY Times story is being rolled out in conjunction with British reporting,
which oddly claims the same thing. The provenance of this so-called intelligence is so thin and questionable that it is natural
to ask who has the agenda and what is their goal? Creating and maintaining the Russian boogey man as the ultimate threat does
not serve US National Security interests. The Russians have been pretty consistent over the last 20 years about eliminating radical
Islamists. They, unlike many in the United States, understand the threat.
So, here is their "brilliant" super secret plan--ally themselves with the guys they spent ten years fighting in Afghanistan, pay
them to kill Americans and Brits and other US allies with the understanding that their super secret plan will be discovered and
will be used as justification for attacking Russia. Yeah, that makes total sense. Russians are stupid, don't cha know.
@srw
The USA needs its boogieman under the bed.
When it is under a child's bed the answer is warm milk cookies and a mommies hug.
When it is under a IC person's bed the answer is heroin, hookers and cold cash.
When we leave Afghanistan and its poppy fields to the Taliban they may just do what they had done 20 years ago close down the
trade.
That would mean that the only readily available supply of nod juice would be Chinese Fentanyl or Mexican Brown.
Long live anti semitism, where right and left are in concert. By the way, we Jews also control the US military industrial complex
and most intelligence agencies. The moderator approved your comment, I doubt he will let mine get through.
This Skynews report makes it sound like this is a British story based on British leaks of one of their own parliamentary documents.
If that is so, then the story may have been rejected by the US IC and never briefed to the WH.
https://news.sky.com/.../russia-paid-taliban-fighters-to...
Three years ago General John Nicholson, Commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, testified before the Senate about Russian
support to the Talibs.
Two years ago in an interview with BBC he repeated the charge that the Russians were supporting and arming the Taliban. He
quoted stories written in Taliban media sources about support from the Russians. He also cited captured Russian-made night vision
goggles, medium and heavy machine guns as well as small arms. He says that although the Russians and Talibs are not natural allies,
they use the narrative of ISIS fighters in Afghanistan as justification for legitimizing support.
Assuming this is based on true events for the moment, is there a significant chance this could've been a false flag cover
for an op by someone else? Thinking along the lines of the Israeli's "We're CIA" assassination ops of nuclear engineers in Iran
here. Would the Paki intell services or even Iran attempt this in Afghanistan, perhaps?
A Russian motive is difficult to imagine in this for me. Mindless revenge for what happened forty years ago strikes me as just
barely plausible. I had thought the Russians fear radical Islam as much or more than we do, so I can imagine them paying bounties
to Talibs for ISIL scalps much easier than US ones, were they interested enough to play in that sandbox at all.
I never heard this. And it's disgusting how you continue to politicize intelligence. You clearly don't understand how raw
intel gets verified. Leaks of partial information to reporters from anonymous sources is dangerous because people like you
manipulate it for political gain.
"The K-pop and Tik-Tok trolling of Parscale and the Trump rally was brilliant and cost not a dime. It didn't limit the attendance
of the rally since sign up was not limited."
Are you sure? AOC for one applauded this is as well but remember, Congress shall not abridge the right of the people to peacefully
assemble.
"Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) credited "teens on TikTok" for the lower than expected turnout at President Trump's
rally on Saturday night in Tulsa, Okla., his first since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic." The Hill
Trump's been trying to get us out of Afghanistan for a long time. Yet there are those who are making a BFD over the report,
as though we're supposed to impeach the POTUS or start WWIII because of the allegation. Who are all of the dead soldiers killed
by Russian-paid bounty hunters anyway, and what proof is there that they were killed at Putin's directive?
This story seems like more of a non-story, instigated by those who are still trying to maintain the Russian Hoax: the MSM/Resistance,
neocon warmongers/NeverTrumpers, et al. As the election grows nigh, Leftists and their allies on the Right are getting more and
more shrill and unhinged, demanding conformity of thought and grasping for ways to maintain the perpetual outrage of their ranks
over Any. Little. Thing. Sorest of losers, all. I have a feeling they'll still be filled with anger even if Biden wins -- I noticed
a growing number of perpetually aggrieved even while Obama was still POTUS. Is it something in the water?
The Sky News story says a British security official is confirming the reports are true. It doesn't sound like this defense
official originated the story. Some are now speculating whether Boris Johnson was briefed or if he was kept in the dark. The Brits
will demand an in-person answer from their government on Monday. A CNN report refers to a British security official. Might be
the same source. NYT and WaPo refer to US officials for their sources.
You are usually good at reading between the lines. Usually. It does not sound that way to me. The implication in the article
is that this "story" exists in the report cited and that this is what has been planted in the US media. We will see.
This story is obvious crap and it is purveyed by obvious Democrat shills - the NYT, quoting obvious anti Trump sources
that have a well earned reputation for lying - the Five eyes intelligence community.
Why would anyone give this story a grain of credibility?
Even without that, I can think of a heap of perfectly acceptable Russian engagements with the Taliban - exactly like our own.
Is the taliban going to be the next government in Afghanistan? Probably.
Do the US, Britain and Russia talk to the Taliban? definitely.
Does everyone supply the Taliban with weapons? Yes - at times we all have, although the place is swimming in weapons anyway.
Do we or the Russians pay the Taliban and others for intelligence? Of course we do.
Would we or the Russians pay for salvaged equipment of technical interest? Of course.
Would the Russians pay for documents and details of American or NATO casualties? I would think not, because it would encourage
killing for money and their own special forces become targets because the Afghans are entrepreneurial, as evidenced by the
"trade" in live bodies for the torture program.
You are repeating the same error in logic that Habakkuk criticized you for. You say there are many "stories" and then you treat
these stories as proven facts. Are you the sole author of this line?
This whole "story" stinks to high heaven. Judy Miller redux - regime-change info ops, coordinated across multiple media
organizations. I happen to dislike Trump, Pompeo et al as much as the next person but here we have, yet again, another "scoop"
with zero actual evidence, only the say-so of some nameless "intel officials," whose jobs might be described more accurately as
state propaganda managers.
How many more times are people gonna fall for this same routine? Even the Wapo, WSJ "confirmations" are a bait-and-switch.
The only thing they confirm is that intel officials are indeed pushing this story, not its veracity. It's a circular claim --
like Cheney citing NYT "confirmation" of the unproven allegations his own office had passed on to Judy Miller.
You can only speculate as to why this, why now. Just six months ago it was Iranians -- per Pompeo and his own cadre of "intel
officials" -- who were offering bounties and sponsoring their own spoiler wing of the Taliban. So maybe it's a pre-fab "story"
already in the propaganda repertory. The motive? Obviously it's to revive the Russiagate zombie one more time and make it go the
distance -- the full four years of the Trump admin. And it creates media bubble pressure to extend the Afghan occupation. The
kind of pressure that seems to have worked like a charm in case of Syria -- where Trump's order somehow got modified from withdrawal
to open-ended occupation and oil-thievery.
The relationship between flagship media and their contacts in the "intelligence community" isn't journalism. It's the relationship
an advertising agency has to a client. They market the client's product and get paid in "scoops" and, with it, increased traffic.
Italicized/bold text was excerpted from Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops, Intelligence
Says found at the Grey Lady Down:
The disclosure comes at a time when Mr. Trump has said he would invite Mr. Putin to an expanded meeting of the Group
of 7 nations, but tensions between American and Russian militaries are running high.
What a startling coincidence.
What would the Russians hope to gain? Revenge?
If it was revenge the Russians sought they could have simply sat back and let the Taliban continue on with business as usual
without having to break a sweat or get their hands dirty - while sitting back and snickering at the futility of US efforts in
Afghanistan.
Has there been any evidence presented to support the anonymous European intelligence officials extraordinary claims?
The Gray Lady Down report only offers other Russia bad stories which are light on evidence and heavy on innuendo.
It sounds like more of the same old sabotage Trump has been dealing with since assuming office. Why else would this leak and
why else would Trump be left out of the loop? This reminds me of what Harry Reid once said on CNN during the 2016 election: intelligence
officials should lie to Trump in briefings.
Trump and these officials need to set aside the pettiness and do what's right. That means pulling out of Afghanistan in a timely
and appropriate manner without putting lives at risk.
Petty scoundrels from NYT are not that inventive. They just want to whitewash Russiagate fiasco. This whole "story" stinks to high heaven. Judy Miller redux
- regime-change info ops, coordinated across multiple media organizations.
Notable quotes:
"... After Iraq WMD and Russia Collusion, we should ask for real evidence instead of the "top intelligence sources". And we should not buy we can't provide any evidence because of sources & methods. ..."
"... On a practical note, how was a Taliban soldier militant meant to verify his claim to a bounty? I assume that scalping was not a feasible option, but if you are going to offer a bounty then you are going to want proof that the person claiming that bounty did, indeed, do the job. ..."
After Iraq WMD and Russia Collusion, we should ask for real evidence instead of the "top
intelligence sources". And we should not buy we can't provide any evidence because of
sources & methods.
Be skeptical of anything published by Pravda on the Hudson and Pravda on the Potomac
when it comes to intelligence matters. Especially months before a general election.
On to Moscow! Where's Bomb'n Bolton when we need him?
"a European intelligence official told CNN."..... "The official did not specify as to the
date of the casualties, their number or nationality, or whether these were fatalities or
injuries."
So, unknown official, unknown date, unknown if there were any actual casualties.
"The US concluded that the GRU was behind the interference in the 2016 US election and
cyberattacks against the Democratic National Committee and top Democratic officials."
Quick, someone tell the House Impeachment Inquiry Committee! Oh, wait, that was Ukraine.
What did Mueller collude, I mean conclude, about that Russian interference?
Let me quote the former acting DNI:
"You clearly don't understand how raw intel gets verified. Leaks of partial information to
reporters from anonymous sources is dangerous because people like you manipulate it for
political gain."
I believe he was tweeting that to the press, but then they are doing this for political
reasons. Lockdowns and socialist revolutionary riots must not be working in the left's
favor. I wonder why?
On a practical note, how was a Taliban soldier militant meant to verify his claim to a
bounty? I assume that scalping was not a feasible option, but if you are going to offer a bounty
then you are going to want proof that the person claiming that bounty did, indeed, do the
job.
So if a coalition soldier died on *this* day how was a Talibani supposed to confirm to
the GRU that "Yep, I did that. Where's my money?"
TTG, I think you are being led away from the truth by your significant bias against Russia.
Those with a blinkered vision see only what they want to see. No mystery there.
Now you want to portray NYT as the paragon of truth telling!! Haven't we seen enough
examples of the lying by Jewish owned neocon media, especially the Times? Now that the
Russia-gate fire is nearly put out, these guys are pumping this story. You really need to understand the depth of hatred the Jews have for Russia and Russians
that makes them like this. That's the only country /civilisation that got away from their
grasp just when they thought have got it. Not once, but twice in the last century.
But then isn't your ancestry from Lithuania. Your hatred is strong. I get that - I see
that all time with people from the ex-Soviet republics formerly ruled by Russia. Hope
others see that too.
Regardless of its veracity, this story will definitely hit Trump where it hurts -
chapeau to the individual(s) who conceived this work of fiction, if indeed it is so.
Again, whether or not performance bonuses* were actually offered by the GRU, has anyone
considered that this may still be a Russian Intelligence op?
Perhaps we should first ask whether the Kremlin wants to deal with a US under
another 4 years of Trump. From their FP POV, the huge uncertainty and instability they see
in the US now will surely be ramped up to a whole new level, in the event that he is
re-elected. And of course all hope that Trump may be able to improve the relationship with
Russia was dashed long ago, by Russiagate and the ongoing Russophobia among the Borg.
Jeffrey's mission in Syria is a case in point. At least the US Deep State is the devil they
know.
If the answer to the above question is "no" it must surely be a trivial matter for the
GRU to feed such a damaging story to Trump's enemies in the USIC.
* "bounties" is an emotive word, useful to Trump's enemies, evoking individual pay for an
individual death - real personal stuff. As others have pointed out the practicality of such
a scheme seems improbable. Surely it is more likely that any such incentive pay would be
for the group, upon coalition casualties confirmed in the aftermath of an attack. The
distinction may not seem important, but the Resistance media can be relied upon to use
language designed to inflict the most harm.
'Intel' without evidence is "bunk". Have we learned nothing from Chrissy Steele and the
Russiagate fiasco - I know a guy who knows a guy who said... the Russians are bad and
Donald Trump is an a......e. Bob Mueller and 18 pissed off democrats have concluded that
the Russians are systemically bad and Donald Trump is an a......e. 4 months before a
Presidential election intel sources have revealed to the NYT that the Russians are very
very bad and Donald Trump is an a......e. Ah yes, the New York Ridiculously Self Degraded
Times has broken another important story. I wonder why? Enough already...and yes, we have
made a systemic laughing stock of ourselves.
Oh, and remind me again of why we've been staying around Kabul - something about improving
the lot of women, or gays, or someone?
I'm personally not ready to "duck and cover" after reading this.
I have accepted the fact that Russia is no longer the Soviet Union. I am watching
television news at night but no longer see the clock ticking as I turn it off and go to
sleep. So far, no one I know has taken to building a fallout shelter in his back yard.
I want an answer to this question: Whatever happened to the pillow and blanket I had to
bring to school and store in the school's basement in case we all had to retreat there and
be locked down in it during the bombing? Who do I go to to get reparations for the cost of
those items? (I was never given the opportunity to retrieve them when I graduated.) Did
Khrushchev have to take his shoe to a cobbler after using it to pound on the table while
threatening to bury us?
There's a rich history of stories about USI involvement in the drug trade. CIA was
involved in the heroin trade during the Viet Nam War. The Iran-Contra mess involved selling
Columbian cocaine to help finance Nicaraguan anti-Communist rebels. US involvement in the
Afghanistan drug trade has been talked about for years. As I said, there are no glitter
fartin' unicorns here.
The Iranian statistics do not lie. Transhipment of drugs across Iran from Afghanistan
has been increasing since the American invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.
The US Office of Foreign Asset Control, the US DIA, the CIA etc. are powerless to do
anything about that but are, evidently, all powerfull against USD transactions of the
Iranian government.
Projection, yet another time. An old and very effective dirty propaganda trick. Fake news outlet are intelligence services
controlled outlets.
Notable quotes:
"... Reporters from the New York Times and the Washington Post were called up by unnamed 'officials' and told to write that Russia pays some Afghans to kill U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. There is zero evidence that the claim is true. The Taliban spokesman denies it. The numbers of U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan is minimal. The alleged sources of the claims are criminals the U.S. has taken as prisoners in Afghanistan. ..."
"... The journalistic standards at the New York Times and Washington Post must be below zero to publish such nonsense without requesting real evidence. The press release like stories below from anti-Trump/anti-Russian sources have nothing to do with ' great reporting ' but are pure stenography. ..."
"... If the Russians were truly inclined in a direction leading them to "pay bounties" for American scalps in Afghanistan, they would instead be doing what we once did: providing state-of-the-art Manpads to Afghan jihadis. Any sort of bar room or shit house rumor these days is attributed to "intelligence officials" or "intelligence sources", always unnamed of course. ..."
"... The paragraph about "reasons to believe" is vacuous in the extreme: ..."
"... "The intelligence assessment is said to be based at least in part on interrogations of captured Afghan militants and criminals. The officials did not describe the mechanics of the Russian operation, such as how targets were picked or how money changed hands. It is also not clear whether Russian operatives had deployed inside Afghanistan or met with their Taliban counterparts elsewhere." ..."
"... We know from the past that US forces were torturing TOTALLY RANDOM INDIVIDUALS, occasionally to death. Needless to say, "officials did not describe the mechanics" of the interrogation, neither did not describe any corroborative details. The most benign scenario is that "captured Afghan militants and criminals" are pure fiction rather than actual people subjected to "anal inspections", "peroneal strikes", left overnight hanging from the ceiling etc. to spit out random incoherent tidbits about the Russians, like "it is also not clear".... A long list of "not clear"'s. ..."
"... Together, it is very crude "manufacturing of consent", and unfortunately, this is a workable technique of manipulation. Crudity is the tool, not a defect in this case. I will explain later what I mean, this post is probably too long already. ..."
Evidence Free Press Release Claims 'Russia Did Bad, Trump Did
Not Respond' - NYT , WaPo Publish ItA. Pols , Jun 27 2020 14:34 utc |
1
There were allegations about emails that someone exfiltrated from the DNC and provided to
Wikileaks . Russia must have done it. The FBI and other intelligence services were
all over it. In the end no evidence was provided to support the claims.
There were allegations that Trump did not really win the elections. Russia must have done
it. The various U.S. intelligence service, together with their British friends, provided all
kinds of sinister leaks about the alleged case. In the end no evidence was provided to
support the claims.
A British double agent, Sergej Skirpal, was allegedly injured in a Russian attack on him.
The intelligence services told all kind of contradicting nonsense about the case. In the end
no evidence was provided to support the claims.
All three cases had two points in common. The were based on sources near to the U.S. and
British intelligence community. They were designed to increase hostility against Russia. The
last point was then used to sabotage Donald Trump's original plans for better relations with
Russia.
Now the intelligence services make another claim that fits right into the above
scheme.
Reporters from the New York Times and the Washington Post were called up
by unnamed 'officials' and told to write that Russia pays some Afghans to kill U.S. soldiers
in Afghanistan. There is zero evidence that the claim is true. The Taliban spokesman denies
it. The numbers of U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan is minimal. The alleged sources of the
claims are criminals the U.S. has taken as prisoners in Afghanistan.
All that nonsense is again used to press against Trump's wish for better relations with
Russia. Imagine - Trump was told about these nonsensical claims and he did nothing about
it!
The same intelligence services and 'officials' previously paid bounties to bring innocent
prisoners to Guantanamo Bay, tortured them until they made false confessions and lied about
it. The same intelligence services and 'officials' lied about WMD in Iraq. The same
'intelligence officials' paid and pay Jihadis disguised as 'Syrian rebels' to kill Russian
and Syrian troops which defend their countries.
The journalistic standards at the New York Times and Washington Post
must be below zero to publish such nonsense without requesting real evidence. The press
release like stories below from anti-Trump/anti-Russian sources have nothing to do with '
great
reporting ' but are pure stenography.
Posted by b at
13:43 UTC |
Comments (3)If the Russians were truly inclined in a direction leading them to "pay
bounties" for American scalps in Afghanistan, they would instead be doing what we once did:
providing state-of-the-art Manpads to Afghan jihadis. Any sort of bar room or shit house
rumor these days is attributed to "intelligence officials" or "intelligence sources", always
unnamed of course.
Biden is the intelligence services' ideal candidate -- an easily manipulated empty suit.
There's a reason why charges of Biden wrongdoing are as easily dismissed as nonsensical
charges against Trump and Russia get fabricated. And that reason is that the media is as
happy to be manipulated as Biden.
The paragraph about "reasons to believe" is vacuous in the extreme:
"The intelligence assessment is said to be based at least in part on interrogations
of captured Afghan militants and criminals. The officials did not describe the mechanics of
the Russian operation, such as how targets were picked or how money changed hands. It is
also not clear whether Russian operatives had deployed inside Afghanistan or met with their
Taliban counterparts elsewhere."
We know from the past that US forces were torturing TOTALLY RANDOM INDIVIDUALS,
occasionally to death. Needless to say, "officials did not describe the mechanics" of the
interrogation, neither did not describe any corroborative details. The most benign scenario
is that "captured Afghan militants and criminals" are pure fiction rather than actual people
subjected to "anal inspections", "peroneal strikes", left overnight hanging from the ceiling
etc. to spit out random incoherent tidbits about the Russians, like "it is also not
clear".... A long list of "not clear"'s.
This is disturbing, although this is precisely the quality of "intelligence" that gets
released to the public. The second disturbing aspect is that the article was opened to
comments, and as usually in such cases, the comments are full of fury at Russians and Trump,
and with the numbers of "recommend"'s reaching thousands. On non-Russian topics, if comments
are allowed, one can see a much wider spectrum of opinion, sometimes with huge numbers of
"recommend"'s to people who criticize and doubt the official positions. Here I lost patience
looking for any skeptical comment.
Together, it is very crude "manufacturing of consent", and unfortunately, this is a
workable technique of manipulation. Crudity is the tool, not a defect in this case. I will
explain later what I mean, this post is probably too long already.
"... On Saturday, the Russian Foreign Ministry dismissed the NYT story as "fake information." ..."
"... This unsophisticated plant clearly illustrates the low intellectual abilities of the propagandists from US intelligence, who, instead of inventing something more plausible, resort to conjuring up such nonsense. ..."
"... "Then again, what else can one expect from intelligence services that have bungled the 20-year war in Afghanistan," the ministry said. ..."
"... Moscow has suggested that this misinformation was "planted" because the US may be against Russia "assisting" in peace talks between the Taliban and the internationally-recognised government in Kabul. ..."
The Russian Foreign Ministry has rejected a US media report
claiming Moscow offered to pay jihadi militants to attack US soldiers in Afghanistan. It said such 'fake news' merely betrays the
low skill levels of US spy agencies. Citing US intelligence officials – unnamed, of course – the New York Times reported that, last
year, Moscow had "covertly offered rewards" to Taliban-linked militants to attack American troops and their NATO allies
in Afghanistan.
On Saturday, the Russian Foreign Ministry dismissed the NYT story as "fake information."
This unsophisticated plant clearly illustrates the low intellectual abilities of the propagandists from US intelligence,
who, instead of inventing something more plausible, resort to conjuring up such nonsense.
"Then again, what else can one expect from intelligence services that have bungled the 20-year war in Afghanistan," the
ministry said.
Moscow has suggested that this misinformation was "planted" because the US may be against Russia "assisting"
in peace talks between the Taliban and the internationally-recognised government in Kabul.
US-led NATO troops have been fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan since 2001. The campaign, launched in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist
attacks, has cost Washington billions of dollars and resulted in the loss of thousands of American soldiers' lives. Despite maintaining
a military presence for almost two decades, the US has failed to defeat the Taliban, which is still in control of vast swaths of
the country.
Moreover, the office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction has compiled several reports detailing how
tens of millions of US taxpayers' funds have been spent on dubious regeneration projects.
This whole "story" stinks to high heaven. Judy Miller redux - regime-change info ops, coordinated across multiple media
organizations.
Notable quotes:
"... To be clear, this is journalistic malpractice. Mainstream media outlets which publish anonymous intelligence claims with no proof are just publishing CIA press releases disguised as news. They're just telling you to believe what sociopathic intelligence agencies want you to believe under the false guise of impartial and responsible reporting. This practice has become ubiquitous throughout mainstream news publications, but that doesn't make it any less immoral. ..."
"... "Same old story: alleged intelligence ops IMPOSSIBLE to verify, leaked to the press which reports them quoting ANONYMOUS officials," tweeted journalist Stefania Maurizi. ..."
"... "So we are to simply believe the same intelligence orgs that paid bounties to bring innocent prisoners to Guantanamo, lied about torture in Afghanistan, and lied about premises for war from WMD in Iraq to the Gulf of Tonkin 'attack'? All this and no proof?" ..."
"... "It's totally outrageous for Russia to support the Taliban against Americans in Afghanistan. Of course, it's totally fine for the US to support jihadi rebels against Russians in Syria, jihadi rebels who openly said the Taliban is their hero," ..."
"... On the flip side, all the McResistance pundits have been speaking of this baseless allegation as a horrific event that is known to have happened, with Rachel Maddow going so far as to describe it as Putin offering bounties for the "scalps" of American soldiers in Afghanistan. This is an interesting choice of words, considering that offering bounties for scalps is, in fact, one of the many horrific things the US government did in furthering its colonialist ambitions , which, unlike the New York Times allegation, is known to have actually happened. ..."
By Caitlin Johnstone , an independent journalist based
in Melbourne, Australia. Her website is here and you can follow her on
Twitter @caitoz
Whenever one sees a news headline ending in
"US Intelligence Says", one should always mentally replace everything that comes before it with "Blah blah blah we're probably lying."
"Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill Troops, US Intelligence Says", blares the
latest viral headline from the New York Times . NYT's unnamed sources
allege that the GRU "secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing coalition forces in Afghanistan -- including
targeting American troops", and that the Trump administration has known this for months.
To be clear, this is journalistic malpractice. Mainstream media outlets which publish anonymous intelligence claims with no proof
are just publishing CIA press releases disguised as news. They're just telling you to believe what sociopathic intelligence agencies
want you to believe under the false guise of impartial and responsible reporting. This practice has become ubiquitous throughout
mainstream news publications, but that doesn't make it any less immoral.
In a post-Iraq-invasion world, the only correct response to unproven anonymous claims about a rival government by intelligence
agencies from the US or its allies is to assume that they are lying until you are provided with a mountain of independently verifiable
evidence to the contrary. The US has far too extensive a record of lying
about these things for any other response to ever be justified as rational, and its intelligence agencies consistently play a foundational
role in those lies.
Voices outside the mainstream-narrative control matrix have been calling these accusations what they are: baseless, lacking in
credibility, and not reflective of anything other than fair play, even if true.
"Same old story: alleged intelligence ops IMPOSSIBLE to verify, leaked to the press which reports them quoting ANONYMOUS officials,"
tweeted journalist Stefania Maurizi.
"So we are to simply believe the same intelligence orgs that paid bounties to bring innocent prisoners to Guantanamo, lied
about torture in Afghanistan, and lied about premises for war from WMD in Iraq to the Gulf of Tonkin 'attack'? All this and no proof?"
tweeted author and analyst Jeffrey Kaye.
"It's totally outrageous for Russia to support the Taliban against Americans in Afghanistan. Of course, it's totally fine
for the US to support jihadi rebels against Russians in Syria, jihadi rebels who openly said the Taliban is their hero," tweeted author and analyst Max Abrams.
On the flip side, all the McResistance pundits have been
speaking of this baseless allegation as a horrific event that is known to have happened, with Rachel Maddow
going so far as to describe it as Putin offering
bounties for the "scalps" of American soldiers in Afghanistan. This is an interesting choice of words, considering that
offering bounties for scalps is, in fact, one of the many horrific things
the US government did in furthering its colonialist ambitions , which, unlike the New York Times allegation, is known to have
actually happened.
It is true, as many have been pointing out, that it would be fair play for Russia to fund violent opposition the the US in Afghanistan,
seeing as that's exactly what the US and its allies have been doing to Russia and its allies in Syria, and did to the Soviets in
Afghanistan via Operation Cyclone . It is also true
that the US military has no business in Afghanistan anyway, and any violence inflicted on US troops abroad is the fault of the military
expansionists who put them there. The US military has no place outside its own easily defended borders, and the assumption that it
is normal for a government to circle the planet with military bases is a faulty premise.
But before even getting into such arguments, the other side of the debate must meet its burden of proof that this has even happened.
That burden is far from met. It is literally the US intelligence community's job to lie to you. The New York Times has an extensive
history of pushing for new wars at every opportunity,
including the unforgivable
Iraq invasion , which killed a million people, based on lies. A mountain of proof is required before such claims should be seriously
considered, and we are very, very far from that.
I will repeat myself: it is the US intelligence community's job to lie to you. I will repeat myself again: it is the US intelligence
community's job to lie to you. Don't treat these CIA press releases with anything but contempt.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
Trump himself has rubbished the NYT's Russia/Taliban story on Twitter today:
"Nobody briefed or told me, @VP Pence, or Chief of Staff @MarkMeadows about the so-called
attacks on our troops in Afghanistan by Russians, as reported through an "anonymous source"
by the Fake News @nytimes. Everybody is denying it & there have not been many attacks on
us..... " https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1277202159109537793
NYT exclusive: breaking, bombshell report, bombshell report, Russia pays Taliban to kill
U.S. Troops
The puppets dance for their puppet masters yet again. I was struck that in all of the MSM
responses on CNN and FOX every single host accepted it as an absolute fact that this was
true. If an unnamed source said something to a reporter at the NYT then it must have happened
in that way and the facts are irrefutable. Wow our 'journalists' are pathetic.
1. The guy who leaked this could be twisting a half or even quarter truth to embarrass
Trump, derail our withdrawal from Germany or Afghanistan ... nahh impossible. Our CIA guys
never have an agenda.
2. This could be disinformation against Russia ... nahh we are the good guys, that's not
how we roll.
The guy on CNN could not believe the WH statement that they were not briefed, 'it strains
credibility'. Maybe one POW made an outlandish claim to get better treatment and lower level
staff did not think the claim itself had enough credibility. Nope, it was leaked by an
Intelligence guy, therefore it must be true.
journalism is dead. buried, dug up, cremated and then scattered over a trash dump in
the U.S.
Bartiromo's interview with Barr on
"Sunday Morning Futures," is the first time the Attorney General has given a time frame for
the information. He also noted that he was surprised by the lack of public interest in Durham's
investigation.
Unfortunately, in the opinion of this writer, the lack of public interest in the Durham
probe may have more to do with the Justice Department's secrecy to discuss the investigation
publicly and the failure – as of yet – to indict or hold many of those involved
legally accountable for their actions.
Although Barr has been the most informative on the Durham investigation during his
interviews, other Justice Department officials have been less than cooperative when asked about
developments in the probe and therefore making it less likely to garner public interest.
Durham's investigation, however, is expanding on the evidence amassed by both Congress and
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz's December report. That report revealed
numerous omissions and lies in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Application on Carter
Page, a short term 2016 Trump campaign volunteer.
"So that has been surprising to me, that people aren't concerned about civil liberties and
the integrity of our governmental process in terms of the future of Durham's investigation,"
Barr said. "You know, he's pressing ahead as hard as he can. And I expect that, you know, we
will have some developments hopefully before the end of the summer." Still, Barr made it clear
that Durham's probe is expected to continue passed the November's election.
He noted one caveat, that depends "on who wins the election."
He also discussed with Bartiromo the unmasking of Trump campaign officials during the
2016 elections saying, "I would say it's unusual for an outgoing administration, high level
officials, to be unmasking very, you know, very much in the days they're preparing to leave
office. Makes you wonder what they were doing."
"... You can fool someone for a long time, you can fool a lot of people for a short time - but you can't fool a lot of people for a long time. That is, unless those people are willing to live the lie. ..."
"... I think the reason the MSM's propaganda is so effective nowadays (and I'm thinking specifically about the world since the Iraq invasion in 2003) is that, deep down, maybe in the collective inconsciousness level, the working classes from the First World countries know their superior living standards depend on imperial brutality over the rest of the world. ..."
"... The current increased smear campaigns against the so called Russian Bots, Assad Apologists etc., is surely just the first part of of a an attempt to implement very serious censorship and control over the internet to attempt to completely block out any alternative voices. ..."
"... Obivously western intelligence servies, NATO leak stuff to western msm to intimidate and censor political oppostion in every western country. ..."
"... Orwell's great fear was totalitarianism. Either from the left or the right. What we have now is much more subtle. The MSM retains the illusion of freedom and most people go along with it. We may even realize we are being manipulated but the only alternative is posting on sites like MOA. ..."
"... The Skirpal charade was a front for several things but mainly, I think, to turn the focus away from Brexit and to opening the Cold War front again. ..."
"... George Orwell has been a presence throughout this thread. It was unfortunate he was hurried by MI6 to finish the last pages of 'Animal Farm' so it could be translated into Arabic and be used to discredit Communist parties in Western Asia. This always raised the ire of Communist organisations through following decades .This being said he wrote some great text especially for me the revealing 1939 novel - Coming up for A ..."
"... I don't know if wars are really an extension of diplomacy by other means, but they certainly seem to be... an extension of ideology and propaganda. Ideas are very important in preparing and fighting wars; especially today, though, in reality the way we think about our western imperial war-fighting, goes back well over a century, back to the Whiteman's Burden and other imperialist myths. ..."
"... For the last thirty years we've essentially been fighting 'liberal crusades for freedom and democracy.' That, at least, was the 'cover story' the pretext presented to the people. There's an irony here. Just like Islamic State, we've been engaging in 'holy warfare' too! ..."
Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in
Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the
facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles
reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been
killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who
had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers
in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over
events that had never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what
happened but of what ought to have happened according to various 'party lines'.
George Orwell, Looking back on the Spanish War
, Chapter 4
Last week saw an extreme intensifying of the warmongers' campaign against individuals who
publicly hold and defend a different view than the powers-that-be want to promote. The campaign
has a longer history but recently turned personal. It now endangers the life and livelihood of
real people.
In fall 2016 a
smear campaign was launched against 200 websites which did not confirm to NATO propaganda.
Prominent sites like Naked
Capitalism were among them as well as this site:
While the ProPornOT campaign was against websites the next and larger attack was a
general defaming of specific content.
The neoconservative Alliance For
Securing Democracy declared that any doubt of the veracity of U.S. propaganda stories
discussed on Twitter was part of a "Russian influence campaign". Their ' dashboard ' shows the most prominent hashtags and
themes tweeted and retweeted by some 600 hand-selected but undisclosed accounts. (I have reason
to believe that @MoonofA is among them.) The dashboard gave rise to an endless line of
main-stream stories faking concern over alleged "Russian influence". The New York
Times published several such stories including this
recent one :
Russia did not respond militarily to the Friday strike, but American officials noted a sharp
spike in Russian online activity around the time it was launched.
A snapshot on Friday night recorded a 2,000 percent increase in Russian troll activity
overall, according to Tyler Q. Houlton, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security.
One known Russian bot, #SyriaStrikes, had a 4,443 percent increase in activity while another,
#Damsucs, saw a 2,800 percent jump, Mr. Houlton said.
A person on Twitter, or a bot, is tagged by a chosen name led with an @-sign. Anything led
with a #-sign is a 'hashtag', a categorizing attribute of a place, text or tweet. Hashtags have
nothing to do with any "troll activity". The use of the attribute or hashtag #syriastrike
increased dramatically when a U.S. strike on Syria happened. Duh. A lot of people remarked on the
strikes and used the hashtag #syriastrike to categorize their remarks. It made it easier for
others to find information about the incident.
The hashtag #Damsucs does not exit. How could it have a 2,800% increase? It is obviously a
mistyping of #Damascus or someone may have used as a joke. In June 2013 an Associated
Press story famously
carried the dateline "Damsucs". The city was then under artillery attack from various Takfiri
groups. The author likely felt that the situation sucked.
The spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security Tyler Q. Holton, to which the
Times attributes the "bot" nonsense, has a Twitter account under his name and also tweets as
@SpoxDHS. Peter Baker, the NYT author, has some 150,000 followers on Twitter and tweets several
times per day. Holton and Tyler surely know what @accounts and #hashtags are.
One suspects that Holton used the bizzare
statistic of the infamous ' Dashboard '
created by the neoconservative, anti-Russian lobby . The dashboard creators asserted that the
use of certain hashtags is a sign of 'Russian bots'. On December 25 the dashboard showed that
Russian trolls and bots made extensive use of the hashtag #MerryChristmas to undermine America's
moral.
One of the creators of the dashboard, Clint Watts, has since confessed that it is mere
bullshit :
"I'm not convinced on this bot thing," said Watts, the cofounder of a project that is widely
cited as the main, if not only, source of information on Russian bots. He also called the
narrative "overdone."
As government spokesperson Holton is supposed to spout propaganda that supports the
government's policies. But propaganda is ineffective when it does not adhere to basic realities.
Holton is bad at his job. Baker, the NYT author, did even worse. He repeated the
government's propaganda bullshit without pointing out and explaining that it obviously did not
make any sense. He used it to further his own opinionated, false narrative. It took a day for the
Times to issue a paritial correction of the fact free tale.
With the situation in Syria developing in favor of the Syrian people, with dubious government
claims around the Skripal affair in Salisbury and the recent faked 'chemical attack' in Douma the
campaign against dissenting reports and opinions became more and more personal.
Last December the Guardian commissioned a hatchet
job against Vanessa Beeley
and Eva Bartlett . Beeley and
Bartlett extensively reported
(vid) from the ground in Syria on the British propaganda racket "White Helmets". The
Guardian piece defended the 'heros' of the White Helmets and insinuated that both
journalists were Russian paid stooges.
In March the self proclaimed whistle-blower and blowhard Sibel Edmonds of Newsbud
launched a lunatic broadside smear attack
(vid) against Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett. The Corbett Report debunked (vid) the nonsense. (The debunking
received 59,000 views. Edmonds public wanking was seen by less than 23,000 people.)
Some time ago the CIA propaganda outlets Voice of America and Radio Free Europe
started a 'fact-checking' website and named it Polygraph.info . (Some satirist or a clueless intern
must have come up with that name. No country but the U.S. believes that the unscientific results
of polygraph tests have any relation to truthfulness. To any educated non-U.S. citizen the first
association with the term 'polygraph' is the term 'fake'.)
Ben Nimmo, the Senior Fellow for Information Defense at the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic
Research Lab, studies the exploits of "Ian56" and similar accounts on Twitter. His recent
article in the online publication Medium profiles such fake pro-Kremlin accounts and
demonstrates how they operate.
...
Nimmo, and several other dimwits quoted in the piece, came to the conclusion that Ian56 is a
Kremlin paid troll, not a real person. Next to Ian56 Nimmo 'identified' other 'Russian troll'
accounts:
One particularly influential retweeter (judging by the number of accounts which then
retweeted it) was @ValLisitsa, which posts in English and Russian. Last year, this account
joined the troll-factory #StopMorganLie campaign.
Had Nimmo, a former NATO spokesperson, had some decent education he would have know that
@ValLisitsa, aka Valentina Lisitsa , is a famous
American-Ukrainian pianist. Yes, she sometimes tweets in Russian language to her many fans in
Russia and the Ukraine. Is that now a crime? The videos of her world wide performances
on Youtube have more than 170 million views. It is absurd to claim that she is a 'Russian troll'
and to insinuate that she is taking Kremlin money to push 'Russian troll' opinions.
Earlier this month Newsweek also
targeted the journalists Beeley and Bartlett and smeared a group of people who had traveled
to Syria as 'Assad's pawns'.
On April 14 Murdoch's London Times took personal aim at the members of a group of
British academics who assembled to scientificly investigate dubious claims against Syria. Their
first investigation report though, was
about the Skripal incident in Salisbury. The London Times also targeted Bartlett and
Beeley. The piece was leading on page one with the
headline: "Apologists for Assad working in universities". A page two splash and an editorial
complemented the full fledged attack on the livelihood of the scientists.
Tim Hayward, who initiated the academic group, published
a (too) mild response.
On April 18 the NPR station Wabenews
smeared the black activists Anoa Changa and Eugene Puryear for appearing on a Russian TV
station. It was the begin of an ongoing, well concerted campaign launched with at least seven
prominent smear pieces issued on a single day against the opposition to a wider war on Syria.
On April 19 the BBCtook aim at Sarah Abdallah , a Twitter account with over 130,000
followers that takes a generally pro Syrian government stand. The piece also attacked Vanessa
Beeley and defended the 'White Helmets':
In addition to pictures of herself, Sarah Abdallah tweets constant pro-Russia and pro-Assad
messages, with a dollop of retweeting mostly aimed at attacking Barack Obama, other US
Democrats and Saudi Arabia.
...
The Sarah Abdallah account is, according to a recent study by the online research firm
Graphika, one of the most influential social media accounts in the online conversation about
Syria, and specifically in pushing misinformation about a 2017 chemical weapons attack and the
Syria Civil Defence, whose rescue workers are widely known as the "White Helmets".
...
Graphika was commissioned to prepare a report on online chatter by The Syria Campaign , a
UK-based advocacy group organisation which campaigns for a democratic future for Syria and
supports the White Helmets.
The Syria Campaign Ltd. is a
for profit 'regime change' lobby which, like the White Helmets it promotes, is sponsored with
millions of British and U.S. taxpayer money.
Brian Whitaker, a former Middle East editor for the Guardian ,
alleged that Sarah Abdullah has a 'Hizbullah connection'. He assumes that from two terms she
used which point to a southern Lebanese heritage. But south Lebanon is by far not solely
Hizbullah and Sarah Abdallah certainly does not dress herself like a pious Shia. She is
more likely a Maronite or secular whatever. Exposing here as 'Hizbullah' can easily endanger her
life. Replying to Whitaker the British politician George Galloway asked:
George Galloway @georgegalloway - 14:50 UTC - Replying to
@Brian_Whit
Will you be content when she's dead Brian?
...
Will you be content Brian when ISIS cut off her head and eat her heart? You are beneath
contempt. Even for a former Guardian man
Whitaker's smear piece was not even researched by himself. He plagiarized it, without naming
his source,
from Joumana Gebara, a CentCom approved Social Media
Advisor to parts of the Syrian 'opposition'. Whitaker is prone to fall for scams like the 'White
Helmets'. Back in mid 2011 he promoted the "Gay Girl in
Damascus", a scam by a 40 year old U.S. man with dubious financial
sources who pretended to be a progressive Syrian woman.
Also on April 19 the Guardian
stenographed a British government smear against two other prominent Twitter accounts:
Russia used trolls and bots to unleash disinformation on to social media in the wake of the
Salisbury poisoning, according to fresh Whitehall analysis. Government sources said experts had
uncovered an increase of up to 4,000% in the spread of propaganda from Russia-based accounts
since the attack, – many of which were identifiable as automated bots.
Notice that this idiotic % increase claim, without giving a base number, is similar to the one
made in the New York Times piece quoted above. It is likely also based on the lunatic
'dashboard'.
[C]ivil servants identified a sharp increase in the flow of fake news after the Salisbury
poisoning, which continued in the runup to the airstrikes on Syria.
One bot, @Ian56789, was sending 100 posts a day during a 12-day period from 7 April, and
reached 23 million users, before the account was suspended. It focused on claims that the
chemical weapons attack on Douma had been falsified, using the hashtag #falseflag. Another,
@Partisangirl, reached 61 million users with 2,300 posts over the same 12-day period.
The prime minister discussed the matter at a security briefing with fellow Commonwealth
leaders Malcolm Turnbull, Jacinda Ardern and Justin Trudeau earlier this week. They were
briefed by experts from GCHQ and the National Cyber Security Centre about the security
situation in the aftermath of the Syrian airstrikes.
The political editor of the Guardian , Heather Steward, admitted that her 'reporting'
was a mere copy of government claims:
A day earlier Ian56/@Ian56789 account with 35,000 followers had suddenly been blocked by
Twitter. Ben Nimmo was extremely happy about this success.
But after many users protested to the Twitter censors the account was revived.
Neither Ian, nor Partisangirl, are 'bots' or have anything to do with Russia. Partisangirl,
aka Syria Girl, is the twitter moniker of Maram Susli, a Syrian-Australian scientist specialized
in quantum chemistry. She was already interviewed on Australian TV (vid) four years
ago and has been back since. She has published videos of herself talking about Syria on Youtube and on Twitter and held
presentations on Syria at several international conferences. Her account is marked as 'verified'
by Twitter. Any cursory search would have shown that she is a real person.
The claim of bots and the numbers of their tweets the government gave to the Guardian
and Sky News are evidently false . With just a few clicks
the Guardian and Sky News 'journalists' could have debunked the British government
claims. But these stenograhers do not even try and just run with whatever nonsense the government
claims. Sky News even manipulated the picture of Partisangirl's Twitter homepage in the
video and screenshot above. The original shows Maram Susli speaking about Syrian refugees at a
conference in Germany. The picture provides that she is evidently a living person and not a
'bot'. But Sky News did not dare to show that. It would have debunked the government's
claim.
After some negative feed back on social media Sky News contacted the 'Russian bot' Ian
and invited him to a live interview
(vid). Ian Shilling, a wakeful British pensioner, managed to deliver a few zingers against the
government and Sky News . He also published a
written response:
I have been campaigning against the Neocons and the Neocon Wars since January 2002, when I
first realised Dick Cheney and the PNAC crowd were going to use 9/11 as the pretext to launch a
disastrous invasion of Iraq. This has nothing to do with Russia. It has EVERYTHING to do with
the massive lies constantly told by the UK & US governments about their illegal Wars of
Aggression.
...
Brian Whitaker could not hold back. Within the 156,000 tweets Ian wrote over seven years
Whitaker found one(!)
with a murky theory (not a denial) about the Holocaust. He alleged that Ian believes in
'conspiracy theories'. Whitaker then linked to and discussed one Conspirador Norteño who
peddles 'Russian bots' conspiracy theories. Presumably Whitaker did not get the consp-irony of
doing such.
On the same day as the other reports the British version of the Huffington Post
joined the Times in its earlier smear against British academics, accusing Professor
Hayward and Professor Piers Robinson of "whitewashing war crimes". They have done no such thing.
Vanessa Beeley was additionally attacked.
Also on the 19th the London Times aimed at another target. Citizen Halo , a well known Finnish grandma, was declared to be a
'Russian troll' based on Ben Nimmo's pseudo-scientific trash, for not believing in the Skripal
tale and the faked 'chemical attack' in Syria. The Times doubted her nationality and
existence by using quotes around her as a "Finnish activist".
Meanwhile the defense editor of the Times , Deborah Haynes, is stalking Valentina Lisitsa on
Twitter. A fresh smear-piece against the pianist is surely in the works.
The obviously organized campaign against critical thinking in Britain extended beyond the
Atlantic. While the BBC , Guardian, HuffPo, Times and Sky News published
smear pieces depicting dissenting people as 'Russian bots', the Intercept pushed a piece
by Mehdi Hasan bashing an amorphous 'left' for rejecting a U.S. war on Syria:
Dear Bashar al-Assad Apologists: Your Hero Is a War Criminal Even If He Didn't Gas Syrians
.
Mehdi Hasan is of course eminently qualified to write such a piece. Until recently he worked
for Al Jazeerah , the media outlet of the Wahhabi dictatorship of Qatar which supports the
Qatari sponsored al-Qaeda in its war against Syria. The Mehdi Hasan's piece repeats every false
and debunked claim that has been raised against the Syrian government as evidence for the Syrian
president's viciousness. Naturally many of the links he provides point back to Al
Jazeerah's propaganda. A few years ago Mehdi Hasan tried to get a job with the conservative
British tabloid Daily Mail . The Mail did not want him. During a later TV discussion Hasan
slammed the Daily Mail for its reporting and conservative editorial position. The paper
responded by
publishing his old job application. In it Mehdi Hasan emphasized his own conservative
believes:
I am also attracted by the Mail's social conservatism on issues like marriage, the family,
abortion and teenage pregnancies.
A conservative war-on-Syria promoter is bashing an anonymous 'left' which he falsely accuses
of supporting Assad when it takes a stand against imperial wars. Is that a 'progressive' Muslim
Brotherhood position? (Added: Stephen Gowans and Kurt Nimmo
respond to Hasan's screed.)
On the same day Sonali Kolhatkar at Truthdig , as pseudo-progressive as the
Intercept , published a quite similar piece: Why
Are Some on the Left Falling for Fake News on Syria? . She bashes the 'left' - without citing
any example - for not falling for the recent scam of the 'chemical attack' in Douma and for
distrusting the U.S./UK government paid White Helmets. The comments against the piece are
lively.
Those working in the media are up in arms over alleged fake news and they lament the loss of
paying readership. But they have only themselves to blame. They are the biggest creators of fake
news and provider of government falsehood. Their attacks on critical readers and commentators are
despicable.
Until two years ago Hala Jabar was foreign correspondent in the Middle East for the Sunday
Times . After fourteen years with the paper and winning six awards for her work she was 'made
redundant' for her objective reporting on Syria. She remarks on the recent media push against
truth about Syria and the very personal attacks against non-conformist opinions:
In my entire career, spanning more than three decades of professional journalism, I have
never seen MSM resolve to such ugly smear campaigns & hit pieces against those questioning
mainstream narratives, with a different view point, as I have seen on Syria, recently.
.2/ This is a dangerous manoeuvre , a witch hunt in fact, aimed not only at character
assassination, but at attempting to silence those who think differently or even sway from
mainstream & state narrative.
.3/ It would have been more productive, to actually question the reason why more & more
people are indeed turning to alternative voices for information & news, than to dish out ad
hominem smears aimed at intimidating by labelling alternative voices as conspirators or
apologists.
.4/ The journalists, activists, professors & citizens under attack are presenting an
alternative view point. Surely, people are entitled to hear those and are intelligent enough to
make their own judgments.
.5/ Or is there an assumption, (patronizing, if so), that the tens of thousands of people
collectively following these alternative voices are too dumb & unintelligent to reach their
own conclusions by sifting through the mass information being dished at them daily from all
sides?
.6/ Like it or hate it, agree or disagree with them, the bottom line is that the people
under attack do present an alternative view point. Least we forget, no one has a monopoly on
truth. Are all those currently launching this witch hunt suggesting they do?
The governments and media would like to handle the war on Syria like they handled the war in
Spain. They want reports without "any relation to the facts". The media want to "retail the lies"
and eager propagandists want to "build emotional superstructures over events that never
happened."
The new communication networks allow everyone to follow the war on Syria as diligently as
George Orwell followed the war in Spain in which he took part. We no longer have to travel to see
the differences of what really happens and what gets reported in the main stream press. We can
debunk false government claims with freely available knowledge.
The governments, media and their stenographers would love to go back to the old times when
they were not plagued by reports and tweets from Eva, Vanessa, Ian, Maram and Sarah or by
blogposts like this one. The vicious campaign against any dissenting report or opinion is a sorry
attempt to go back in time and to again gain the monopoly on 'truth'.
It is on us to not let them succeed.
Posted by b on April 21, 2018 at 23:02 UTC |
Permalink
next page " Excellent.
The good news about both The Intercept and Truthdig pieces is that the comments quickly showed
that readers knew what the publishers were up to.
The Intercept seemed to have removed Hasan's obscene act of prostitution within a day.
The reality is that we simply have to expect the imperialists, now reduced to propaganda and
domestic repression, to act in this way: there is no point in attempting to shame them and they
never did believe in journalistic principles or standards or ethics. They are the scum who
serve a cannibalistic system for good wages and a comfortable life style- that is what the
'middle class' always did do and always will.
No longer is it possible to control TV, Radio and printed newspapers and use them to set the
message. There are now an almost infinite set of channels including youtube, twitter, blogs,
podcasts,streamed radio... It's like there is a public bitcoin/bitnewsledger where new
information only gets written into the ledger if it is authenicated by sufficient
endorsements.
In the past, a lie could travel around the world before the truth got its shoes on (Mark Twain
I believe) but the truth is catching up. We are in the midst of the great changeover where
older people still rely on traditional information channels yet younger internet enabled
peoplecan leverage the new channels more effectively to educate themselves.
Western propagandists are freaking out because nobody believes their lies anymore. The more
they freak out, the more we know they have lost the narrative.
I just fear for the safety of these independent journalists. It is not beneath the deep
state to assassinate their enemies. These people need to be very careful.
For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that
dramatically furthered the nation's understanding of Russian interference in the 2016
presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect's
transition team and his eventual administration. (The New York Times entry, submitted in this
category, was moved into contention by the Board and then jointly awarded the Prize.)
The hysterical, side-splitting laughter over this chicken-choking, circle-jerking drivel
will echo in eternity. Galactic stupidity simply doesn't get any more cosmic, except perhaps
awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Henry Kissinger and Barack Obama.
This is a fight between Deep States of the Rothschild-UK 'Octopus,' US-centric
Rockefeller-Kochs, Russian (itself split between competing and intertwined Anglo-American
clans/Eurasianists vs Altanticists) and China (also divided between sovereignty oriented
Shanghai and Rothschild affiliated Hong Kong which was founded upon the opium trade in
cooperation with the UK-Octopus).
The main point of contention is whether we have a hard or soft landing as the New World
Order is born, with the UK-Octopus needing to instigate an epic crisis so as to bury countless
trillions of worthless derivatives it sits upon, specifically seeking to collapse the USD as a
global fiat and use the ensiung chaos to assist the Chinese as they establish an unasailable
Yuan fiat. A war with Russia will bring the US-centric Deep State to it's knees and so this
forms the basis of the not-so secret alliance between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, while
China attempts to remain neutral since Xi prefers a smooth transition since the US-centric
group may well launch a nuclear false flag attack on the Korean peninsula, thus irradiating the
region and dooming the potential for a Chinese dominated century, should the interests of yhis
group be ignored.
All gloves are off and the dispostions of various players are suddenly crystal clear after
the firing of Octopus agent Tillerson by Trump via twitter led immediately to the launching of
operation 'Novichok,' and was followed up with an attempted series of false flags in East
Ghouta which were planned so as to bring the US and Russia to war.
Other important players include the US military (itself divided between Octopus NATO and
US-centric Pentagon), the CIA, which is always on all sides of any conflict but was until
recently headed by Koch protege Mike Pompeo, as well as smaller Arab, Persian and Turkish Deep
States all jockeying for advantage and position. Even the Vatican is included and said to be
divided between Polish Cardinals on one side, with German, Italian and many Spanish speaking
Cardinals as opponents. There are other Deep States as well and in every instance they are
divided between one of the two main parties and themselves to one or another degree.
Media and social control is mainly the preserve of the UK Octopus, so as all of us have
understood for some time, anything included within it, from the NYTimes to most of Hollywood,
is completely worthless. Alternative media was created as an alternative to Octopus media,
while Trump takes to twitter so as to bypass their control.
I feel like a US voter forced to choose between Republicans and Democrats, but with the
promised 'Blue Wave' coming in November when Congressional elections are due, certain to be
impeached Donald Trump and his US-centric backers have a very short time frame in which to
change the score.
Ads also appeared on The Jimmy Dore Show channel, a far-left YouTube channel that peddles
conspiracy theories, such as the idea that Syrian chemical weapons attacks are hoaxes.
Syria is really the unifying theme in all these attacks.
I congratulate Bernhard on yet another excellent piece of investigative journalism. My comment
is not intended to criticise or take away from it, but only to point out that Orwell's quote
was taken out of context, in the sense that although he remarks on partisan propaganda, he says
that it is unimportant, since "the broad picture of the war which the Spanish Government
presented to the world was not untruthful. The main issues were what it said they were." On the
other hand, the lies of the pro-NATO press are important because unlike the partisan lies told
by leftist parties during the Spanish Civil War, today's NATO lies are the equivalent of the
official fascist propaganda of that time: they distort and hide the main issues. Here is the
full quote from the link that B has diligently provided:
I remember saying once to Arthur Koestler, 'History stopped in 1936', at which he nodded in
immediate understanding. We were both thinking of totalitarianism in general, but more
particularly of the Spanish civil war. Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever
correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports
which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an
ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete
silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as
cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of
imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager
intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened. I saw, in
fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened
according to various 'party lines'. Yet in a way, horrible as all this was, it was unimportant.
It concerned secondary issues -- namely, the struggle for power between the Comintern and the
Spanish left-wing parties, and the efforts of the Russian Government to prevent revolution in
Spain. But the broad picture of the war which the Spanish Government presented to the world was
not untruthful. The main issues were what it said they were. But as for the Fascists and their
backers, how could they come even as near to the truth as that? How could they possibly mention
their real aims? Their version of the war was pure fantasy, and in the circumstances it could
not have been otherwise.
As a given group loses its grip on power, it tends to employ ever more extreme tactics. This
explains the recent behavior of players like the US government, the UK government, the American
mainstream media and various think tanks. What other extreme behavior should we expect from
such a cabal? After all, they've already shown contempt for conditionally protected freedoms-
all of them- and a willingness to manufacture any narrative they want in order to further their
aims of conquest and profiteering. This whole mess could spiral out of control in countless
ways with terrifying consequences.
@15 Yes but I'm not sure how relevant Orwell's quote is to today. Do we even have a 'left-wing'
anymore? Or a Comintern for that matter? Even fascism wears a smiley face. Seems to me that
what we have is a tightly controlled MSM. That control may be slipping but we have yet to see a
replacement.
Those of us at MoA who are regulars may feel a certain level of complacency based on the level
of discourse here but I assure you that most Americans are still very much zombie followers of
whatever the TV and other media tell them. I believe that there is a strong possibility that MoA and like sites will become the focus
of paid narrative pushers and if that is not successful there are other ways to make b and our
lives difficult.
If b is ever knocked offline for some reason and needs help I encourage him to email his
readers with potential strategies to show/provide support. Thanks again and again for your web site b.
The first casualty of war is the truth.
Many Westerners would recognize this phrase but many of them don't understand that there
-IS- a war (the new Cold War). The longstanding law that prevented government propaganda in the US was revoked several
years ago.
U.S Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to Americans
This type of tyranny has been going on forever in the US. Take A. Lincoln.
More than 14,000 civilians were arrested under martial law during the war throughout the
Union. Abraham Lincoln did so because they expressed views critical of Lincoln or his war. It's the same-o. Different faces same crap.
b- I am sorry to see their attacks on you, if things do go sideways please contact me if I can
be of help in any way.
Do you know what has happened to Tucker Carlson, he has been such a strong voice for truth that
I am concerned for him.
Stay strong and thank you for all you do in support of the truth.
Sure, there are more people that see the lies and bullshit for what they are. Still, seeing it
is not enough. What really matters now is to fully wipe out the mainstream media, to make it
completely extinct, and therefore seeing they're full of shit is only the prerequisite to
pondering how to actually bankrupt and destroy them. That's what everyone who's not fully on
board with the Western regimes' and bankers' propaganda should be thinking about. How to
convince people not only to stop buying their lies, but to stop buying them at all, how to cut
down the vast majority of their readership/viewers to the point they don't matter anymore.
Thank you b. This a very important subject. It wouldn't surprise me if a false flag happened
that would be aimed at censuring all alternative news. This might be centered around a
decoupling of east from west, perhaps when the current financial crisis explodes. Oh, has
anyone heard from Tucker Carlson lately?
You can fool someone for a long time, you can fool a lot of people for a short time - but you
can't fool a lot of people for a long time.
That is, unless those people are willing to live the lie.
I think the reason the MSM's propaganda is so effective nowadays (and I'm thinking
specifically about the world since the Iraq invasion in 2003) is that, deep down, maybe in the
collective inconsciousness level, the working classes from the First World countries know their
superior living standards depend on imperial brutality over the rest of the world. That's why,
for example, the USG and Downing Street haven't lost significant credibility domestically after
Iraq and after Libya. This is a dark social pact: people live the lies only to sleep well at
night and claim plausible deniability after; they only wish it to be over quickly and at the
least human cost from their side (every coffin that comes back to their community from the
Middle East is a crack in the illusion). They believe in Russiagate because, deep down, they
don't want to believe they were capable of electing someone like Trump and, mainly, because
they know their economies are failing, and the only solution is to invade other countries/prop
up the war industry.
Smearing people for appearing on RT! Americans who prattle on about freedom and democracy are
pressuring other not to do this or that which is to inhibit their freedom.
Don't they know it makes them look like dictators without portfolio?
Great article, b. I am a relative newcomer to MoA, having found it through Caitlin Johnstone
(Rogue Journalist), but in a short time, I have come to rely heavily on it for "hidden" news
and incisive analysis. Yes, independent news outlets are vital sources of truth, but their
reach is still tiny compared to that of the Empire and its toads in the media. The well
organized smear campaign against those who refuse to bow down is a frightening development
indeed.
Thanks b for your outstanding dissecting! The Information War is complex yet still remains
simple--all that's required is a critically thinking approach for any personally unconfirmed
sources and the data presented followed by the willingness to ask questions, no matter how
uncomfortable. Such a disciplined mind was once the paramount goal for those seeking wisdom,
but such pursuits are deemed passé, unrequired in the Digital Age. But Big Lie Media's
been working its evil for decades despite many calling out the lies. Funny how the two big
former communist nations are now more credible than the West and expressly seek honest and
open--Win-Win--relationships based on trust and equality. The Moral Table at play during Cold
War 1 is flipped with the Outlaw US Empire being the Evil Empire. And the Evil Empire can't
stand its own nakedness and its oozing social sores.
The liar is often agitated and nervous whereas one with the facts rests easy and remains
calm. In the run up to their summit, note how Trump is already agitated and nervous, already
prefacing his lies to come, whereas Kim is easy and calm, setting the table. Shrillness and
hysteria are the similar signs provided by media liars and is almost always fact-free, supposed
"sources" anonymous.
A magisterial piece of journalism, b. Congratulations, and thank you.
~~
Spain. Orwell. Fascism.
I was born decades after the Spanish Civil War, and to be very honest I never knew much
about it, nor have ever learned since. But Guernica I knew about, even
as a young teenager in school. The culture was shocked into remembering forever that there was
a lie involved with Guernica. That's all I ever really knew, was that Spain was a lie,
underneath which a massacre lay.
They say it was the humanitarian and artistic type of people who kept the truth of Spain
alive against the propaganda of the fascists. I don't know. I believe as I said the other day
that propaganda only works to crowd out the truth, so that people are not exposed to the truth.
But propaganda doesn't work in a battle against the truth, when people are exposed to both
sides of the story.
If you were running a scam based on fake news, and one day you had to make allegations using
this very term, and play your "fake news" card on the table in a round of betting that was
merely one round in a long game - if you did this, you'd be a bad card player, or one driven to
the corner and getting extremely close to leaving the table.
If your playing partner suddenly had to show the "false flag" card on the surface of the
table for the whole game to see - yet another secret hole card exposed and now worthless
forever - you could well think your game was finished. And it is - barring a few nasty
tricks...which will be recorded and placed into the game as IOU's.
Don't anybody be part of that collateral damage - be well. And instead, let's collect on
those IOU's. The game is almost over. Many people will appear to say that the players cannot be
beat. But they are with the losers. We are the players.
I wholeheartedly second your suggestion. I think the battle against the truth by the deep
States everywhere has only begun. They will not stop at smearing individual posters or
sites.
I do think we all need to start becoming more aware of alternatives, to YouTube (how's
DTube?), Twitter (gab?), Facebook, Google (several alternatives) etc. But that will not be
enough because I fear that in time the IP providers will come under pressure too - in all the
western countries, especially. And the domain providers 9we all know them), followed by blog
platforms such as WorldPress. I am not saying it's easy to curtail all of those, but they will
try, as sure as the sun sets in the West.
Of course, the biggest attacks will be mounted against anonymous commenters and posters.
That's already in the works at several outlets. The idea is of course that by stripping off
anonimity people will self-censor for fear of repercussions to their real life selves.
There are people working on alternative platforms of all sorts. I am somewhat hopeful about
user owned sites though these efforts are nascent. I hope commenters here will share what they
know of alternatives, even knowing this won't be an easy battle. After all, Twitter owes its
popularity to well, its popularity. Same with Facebook or Instagram or youTube. Therein lies
the rub - it won't be easy to wean users from these platforms as many start-ups found out. That
however should not mean that we shouldn't try. More and more Twitter users for example are
cross-posting on gab, and several youTubers started uploading also to Dtube. neither site is
ideal, I know. But neither was Twitter when it started.
The real aim of propaganda is to persuade the politicians and not the public. One man in their
middle wants to start a war and the media make sure that his or her fellow politicians will
hear no other story and make support the only possibility. That's why people like us have to be
vilified, so that all these politicians can invent an excuse for themselves and turn their head
away. What we think really doesn't matter because we are not the ones in control. They only
have to convince the Colin Powells and Frank Timmermans's.
The current increased smear campaigns against the so called Russian Bots, Assad Apologists
etc., is surely just the first part of of a an attempt to implement very serious censorship and
control over the internet to attempt to completely block out any alternative voices.
Amber Rudd
the UK Home Secretary has been banging on about Russian cyber attcks for the past couple of
months. Whilst based on the history of UK Government IT projects I couldn't expect the UK alone
to be capable of implementing any meaningful censorship scheme (they have a track record of
producing so many multi-billion pound national IT project disasters) but with the coordinated
help of the US and others they might just be able to put up enough censorship barriers to be
able to get back to their original plans (removing Assad and whatever else they have in mind).
False-flag chemical attacks haven't quite worked out to plan, but add in a false-flag cyber
attack that apparently disables some of the UK (and/or US/EU) vital services and that should be
enough for them to convince the plebs and sufficient MP's that it has become absolutely
necessary to block Russain and other media and internet sites and force the owners of many
social media channels to disable long lists of people with alternative views.
Prop or Not is NOT a 'friendly neighbourhood' anything. It was exposed a while ago as being a
joint state propaganda project between the CIA and West Ukraine, with the goal of spreading
anti-Russia disinformation, and employing the collusion of some no-integrity US propaganda rags
like The Daily Beast.
My question is their motivation and timing. Why does the rhetoric seem to increase after
the latest attack? Why care if 10% of the population doesn't follow their narrative now? Are
they preparing for a new round of kinetic action? Or do they simply believe their management of
the narrative needs more investment?
If people are going to rely on social media feeds for anything other than information on what
their friends and family are up to, then they are opening themselves up to being manipulated
easily and with a minimum of actual effort.
You no longer need to own a newspaper or a broadcast network to do so.
Ultimately people with a concience and some integrity will realize that something is awry. I'm
no spring chicken and have been on the net for nearly 20 years. There are more ' old ' people
surfing the net than initially may be apparent. As life passes by people become much more
attuned to bullsh*t. T. May's husband is on the board of a large British Armaments company. No
doubt her ministers are all in on many scams. She is a very mediocre character, a fool as her
time as home secretary demonstrated and was only voted in place so as to do the bidding of
others. And in my opinion, when I say others I mean she is the western harlot who jumps when
anyone pulls her string. They say that if you tell a lie often enough people believe it to be
the truth. Not necessarily. There are so many holes in the Skripal and Syrian stories that only
someone who doesn't want to have their view challenged will believe them. The stories are
falling apart and as they do, so does the credibility and trust of the western MSM and Politik.
The reason the Germans and others refused to join in, is I suspect, they realize that in part,
because once that is lost, it takes a great deal more to recover it. The Skripal case and the
latest Syrian faked gas attack is the start of the end for T. May and her govt.
Good comments, especially psychohistorian about being prepared to jump to alternative platforms
... Perhaps Russian ones?
What I was referencing in comment 5 is this relatively new desire by the 'powers that be'
for purity, for absolutely no one from 'our side' dissenting against the mainstream (and
completely bonkers in its anti-Russian extremism) narrative. This is not like the pre-digital
age, when small-circulation real leftist publications were not subject to mainstream and
official government extermination campaigns. And I don't think this is simply because of
digital age reach, because the readership for the real alternative media's left/anti-imperial
perspective doesn't engage enough people to be meaningful in terms of power and elections. At
least in the US; less certain about elsewhere.
There's something angry, extreme, and extremely insecure about the psychology of the Western
ruling class right now. My bet is that because of that insecurity they won't be so dangerous to
Russia/China in the years to come, but instead the anger will be directed at internal
left/anti-militarist dissenters. For some reason our reality bugs the sh!t out of them despite
our small numbers.
Until recently I used to read articles at both The Intercept and at Truthdig, but have since
realized both of these 'news' outlets actively censor posts that are too accurate, too
insightful of what the US government and MSM are doing in Syria and how they are manipulating
public opinion with the White Helmets, staged false gas attacks, etc. I don't trust Pierre
Omidyar, the philanthropist behind The Intercept, he has questionable political alliances. I
have had many of my posts at both Truthdig and The Intercept censored even though they were
entirely within comment rules. The Intercept has a lot of really BAD journalists posting crap
there, like this ass clown Mehdi Hasan. Even Glenn Greenwald, a multi millionaire, is suspect.
Both of these websites are psuedo-left and should not be trusted!
From the resistance trench with love , Apr 22 2018 11:40 utc |
52
....attacks on critical readers and commentators are despicable..
Indeed, but "the one free of sin to throw the first stone" ....
From my experience at several supposed "alternative media", most of them somehow pro-Russian
in the sense that they do not promote the sick warmongerism coming from the US and UK
stablishments against Russia and its allies in Syria and against Syria herself, every site has
its biases and slandering attacks by the owners of the blogs or by the "community" os
sycophants residing there are everyday bread for any newcomer who could express a bit of
dissent against the general editorial view.
I mayself have been obliged to change my nickname several times already to avoid attacks or
banning/censorship, when my position about Syrai and Russia does not differ almost in the least
with that of the people mentioned above who are being object of smearing campaign by the
MSM....and this has happened to me in the supposed pro-Russian "alt-media"....
Thus, I would recommend to apply a bit of self-criticism and reflect about how anyone of us
are probably contributing to the same effort of the bullies mentioned above against mainly
common citizens who only try to commit themselves to spread some of the truth they are finding
online through research and intensive reading, and try to offer an alternative point of view or
simply debunk the usual nonsense especially against certain ideologies, mostly spreaded by US
commenters.....
I noticed the part about Ian Shillilng being accused of denying the Holocaust or implying it
was a govt conspiracy.
I find that interesting, because a co-worker asked me out to the blue "Do you even believe
the Holocaust happened?" It's a strange question with no relation to Russiagate, yet pops up a
lot so it clearly has an agenda. The question made no sense but I did recognized it as a
familiar attack by the warmongers. My response was to to respond to such a ridiculous,
dishonest question and I ignored it.
He went to ask if I was "stupid" for not seeing that Mueller's indictments over lying to the
FBI and tax evasion/money laundering in Ukraine are NOT are not same thing as proving Russia
meddled to deny Hillary her Presidency.
Thanks for the article b.
As painful as it is to watch the increasing attempts at censoring non-msm voices, we can take
solace in the fact that, like a cornered rat, the establishment has no other option left but an
all-out, full-retard attack on anyone not toeing the line. While the damage they are doing is
real, this should be balanced with the fact that this attack comes out of weakness and not
strength: they are the ones "losing", and knowledge of that reality makes them increasingly
unhinged.
At first I thought this is some kind of joke. Than I watched few times, I still believe CNN
guy is in some kind of mission here, let's say to distract its viewers from existential matters
that grips ordinary people in the US. His insistence on the "Russians" is illogical at
first...this woman appear to be serious but when it comes to CNN everything is set-up, not just
everyone can come to CNN, period. No facts involved the conversation is about NOTHING, that is
the US national narrative being imposed by the ruling class trough various media. Just like
"attack" on Syria and Syria's gas attack. There were none, there were no cruise missile fired,
there were no downed ones! CNN's role is also to entertain its audience as well, everything but
not talk about social and economic issues. In other words to indoctrinate - shift attention,
not to ask unpleasant questions.
The NYT and NPR are warmonger institutions. It is sad that ppl who consider themselves to be
liberals, democrats, blue team (anti-war?- that's a stretch!) embrace these institutions as
purveyors of truth or even real news.
I don't feel that the quote is out of context. Yes, you show that Orwell clearly didn't
consider it a big deal at that time, but what is happening now is that what he describes is
omnipresent, the main stream of information we get, there is nothing else if you don't search
for alternatives. It is beyond doubt that Orwell, in the present context, would never have
added what he added in that book.
So in that light I feel the quote is extremely relevant and a good start of the article.
I want to express my thanks for this site and am really glad I was pointed towards MoA by
other sources of real information.
Meanwhile, the same western media give free pass to liberal warcriminals like Macron's France
that just today call for permanent illegal occupation of Syria - after illegally bombing it.
But no, it is people like us who call out this BS that gets silenced and harassed by the
same ignorant western media/"journalists" along with the western deep state spy networks!
What an excellent source of information the MoA site offers those of us who are seeking the
truth and living in an Empire full of lies.Over the past few months, I have perused this site
regularly and always find it very helpful in gaining a better and more concise understanding
of
what is really going on in our world.
I am also astounded at how helpful it is for me to read the comments of so many who are
regulars here.
The courtesy and level of intellectual dialog that goes on here in the comments section is a
rare thing indeed! We all must fight for truth for the sake of our families and loved ones.
"Fake" and "Genuine" are used to describe the video with the water being poured over people.
Fisk calls them genuine because the video was taped in the place where it pretends to be, not
in a film set or a location where nothing was going on. It was filmed in the real hospital with
real doctors, nurses and victims.
The video therefore is real (not staged), but the claim that people are suffering from gas
wounds is false.
You can thus also say that the video is fake: it is said to show victims of a gas attack, while
the doctor says they were suffering from suffocation, and only when someone shouted "gas", did
people start hosing each other down (which as someone posted in another article, would have
only made things worse if they had chlorine on them). As evidence of a gas attack, the video is
fake.
As long as a person is not claiming that the video shows victims of a real gas attack
aftermath, we're all on the same side I guess.
The response is of course to more eagerly call out the neocons propangada, western media
propaganda and so forth,
get a twitter account, get a blog, lets multiply this movement, because these people will of
course not stop at destroying peoples lives in the newspapers, they will call for censorship,
registrations and sooner or later jail for these views.
Orwell's great fear was totalitarianism. Either from the left or the right. What we have now is
much more subtle. The MSM retains the illusion of freedom and most people go along with it. We
may even realize we are being manipulated but the only alternative is posting on sites like
MOA.
The UK has no credibility left now. May's farcical handling of the Brexit negs has exposed
her as little more than a Tory mouthpiece, parroting party bon mots whilst having no clue where
she is heading. And I suspect her civil servants haven't, either!
The Skirpal charade was a front for several things but mainly, I think, to turn the focus
away from Brexit and to opening the Cold War front again. But what is alarming was her open
support for attacks on Syria. It's been known for some time that the UK has special forces
operating in Syria covertly; May's tub-thumping pretty much clarified that the Uk is as
determined as Washington and that Rothschild puppet Macron to force a regime change in
Syria.
You said she must go. I said the same thing last September after the fall-out from the June
election and other foot-in-mouth incidents: she'd be gone before year end. How wrong I was. She
has figures in the background protecting her.
Crushing dissent goes completely against 'liberal values' which is about the only high ground
left for the humanitarian regime changers a.k.a the Franquistas. So that is not going to
happen. On the other hand, social media is the easiest place to use covert operatives, even MSM
has other sponsors and actors, social media can be directly controlled by governments , and the
'intelligence community'. So they are just using the net for what they set it up for.
Propaganda for domestic consumption in the USA, isn't really meant to convince as much as to
scare people into submission. People don't obey Big Brother because they like him or believe
him, but because they cannot talk back to him and are scared of him. Media Scare tactics work
less if people can talk back, hear their own voice, not just Big Brother from every
loudspeaker.
Martin Luther (not King) said that "A lie is like a snowball: the further you roll it the
bigger it becomes." The snowball is melting because there is shift in the narrative given what
is happening on the ground in Syria. I find it fascinating that as it melts down layer by
layer, the first trojan horse outfits to implode are left humanitarian ones like the Intercept,
Newsbud, Democracy Now. The right wing ones like Fox, Young Turks, just concentrate on dumbing
down the conversation to reduce reality to bombastic and misleading 'political' points. This is
a another way to control the conversation, to scare people into thinking that facts or not
facts but partisan political 'opinions'. Look at how Jimmy Dore's in the interview mentioned by
B with Carla Ortiz, is trying to dumb down the conversation and keeps feigning ignorance.
Thankfully she blows him out of the water. Good job Carla!
The snowball is big and melting slowly. Who's next?
Vesti has a great 10-minute clip dated yesterday from a Russian talk show with Margarita
Simonyan of RT doing much of the talking. What she says is really encouraging about how she's
trying to talk, not to power (which already knows the real truth that it's obscuring) but to
common people, because there are those among the common people who do speak up and who really
do shape public opinion - not governments.
She cited Roger Waters as an example, who was speaking at a concert and telling the truth
about the White Helmets. She said, someone has to read in order to speak. And someone has to
write so someone can read. And that's what RT is doing, and that's how it works. And it is
working.
George Orwell has been a presence throughout this thread.
It was unfortunate he was hurried by MI6 to finish the last pages of 'Animal Farm' so it
could be translated into Arabic and be used to discredit Communist parties in Western Asia.
This always raised the ire of Communist organisations through following decades .This being said he wrote some great text especially for me the revealing 1939 novel - Coming up
for A
What many people don't realize is that fascism is a greedy habit, it expands to finally swallow
up those who think they are protected by silence or looking the other way. The individuals and
organizations villified today are the real heroes, and even if they suffer today, they will be
vindicated in the end. But unfortunately the gullible masses would by then be in the open
prison of fascism.
I don't know if wars are really an extension of diplomacy by other means, but they certainly
seem to be... an extension of ideology and propaganda. Ideas are very important in preparing
and fighting wars; especially today, though, in reality the way we think about our western
imperial war-fighting, goes back well over a century, back to the Whiteman's Burden and other
imperialist myths.
For the last thirty years we've essentially been fighting 'liberal crusades for freedom and
democracy.' That, at least, was the 'cover story' the pretext presented to the people. There's
an irony here. Just like Islamic State, we've been engaging in 'holy warfare' too!
The reason our media is so full of lies and distortions and propaganda is because the harsh
realities of our New Imperialism wars are so out of synch with the reality of what's happening
and crucially the attitudes of the general public who don't want to fight more overseas wars,
and especially if they are 'crusades' for democracy and freedom. But what's happened recently
is that dissent is being targeted as tantamount to treason. This is rather new and
disturbing.
It's because the ruling elite are... losing it and way too many people are questioning their
ideas about the wars we are fighting and their legitimacy and 'right to rule.'
In many ways the Internet is bringing about a kind of revolution in relation to the people's
access to 'texts' and images that reminds one of the great intellectual upheavals that the
translation of the Bible had on European thought four hundred years ago. Suddenly Bibles were
being printed all over the place and people could read the sacred texts without having to ask
the educated priests to 'filter' and translate and explain what it all meant. In a way
Wikileaks was doing the same thing... allowing people access to secret material, masses of it,
bypassing the traditional newsmedia and the journalistic 'preists.'
Attorney General William Barr is bringing increasing clarity to the focus of U.S. Attorney
John Durham's criminal investigation into the conduct of the Russia collusion
investigators.
In a series of recent interviews, the nation's chief enforcement officer has dropped some
big hints about what is under investigation, who is and isn't being investigated, and what
evidence uncovered by the Durham team is emerging as important.
Barr also has suggested what events in the timeline are emerging as important in the 2016-17
effort to find dirt on President Trump and his campaign and transition team.
Here are the seven most important revelations Barr has made over the last month.
1.
Timetable: Durham's investigation has been slowed by the pandemic. But some action is expected
by end of summer, and the probe could stretch beyond Election Day.
Barr told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo on Sunday that the coronavirus has slowed Durham's
ability to interview witnesses and use a grand jury if needed, though he did not officially
confirm there was grand jury activity in the case.
"It is a fact that there have not been grand juries in virtually all districts for a long
period of time," Barr said.
But most importantly, the attorney general laid out a likely timeline for when the first
actions might be taken in the case, while stressing the probe could carry beyond the
election.
"In terms of the future of Durham's investigation, he's pressing ahead as hard as he can,
and I expect that we will have some developments, hopefully before the end of the summer," Barr
said. "But as I've said, his investigation will continue. It's not going to stop because of the
election. What happens after the election may depend on who wins the election."
2. Barr
believes evidence used by the FBI to justify opening an investigation into the Trump campaign's
ties to Moscow was very thin.
The attorney general has made clear in multiple interviews that Australian diplomat
Alexander Downer's meeting with Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos at a London bar in May
2016 was a weak justification for opening Crossfire Hurricane.
Downer claimed Papadopoulos made comments about Russians possessing dirt on Hillary Clinton,
and the FBI believed that was enough to predicate a counterintelligence investigation.
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz agreed in his report that was enough, but found
substantial evidence the FBI cheated afterwards to keep the probe going in the absence of
evidence of wrongdoing.
Barr does not seem to accept the opening of the FBI probe was justified.
Papadopoulos' alleged "comment in a London wine bar" would be "a very slender reed to get
law enforcement and intelligence agencies involved in investigating the campaign of one's
political opponent," Barr declared Sunday.
Barr isn't the only high-profile figure to think that. Former FBI Assistant Director for
Intelligence Kevin Brock has said the FBI memo opening Crossfire Hurricane did not meet the
standards for opening a counter-intelligence investigation.
3. Investigators are focused
on what happened before Crossfire Hurricane officially started, including when Christopher
Steele first began compiling his dossier.
In multiple interviews, Barr has made clear Durham's team is examining what actions
government officials and private individuals may have taken in the winter and spring of 2016
before the FBI officially opened its probe of the Trump campaign on July 31, 2016.
Perhaps the most tantalizing statement Barr has made on this came Sunday when he suggested
it was important that Steele began working on his dossier before July 2016, raising the
possibility that some unexplained events earlier that year may have been connected to that
early Steele work.
"I understand why it is important to try to determine whether there was any activity before
July, before the Papadopoulos wine bar conversation," Barr explained. "And so people are
looking at that. It's significant also that the dossier was initiated before July."
4.
Barr views the FBI's continuation of the Russia probe after the Steele dossier "collapsed" as
an illegitimate effort to remove the president.
Barr has repeatedly cited the fact that the FBI continued to rely on the Steele dossier
after the former MI6 agent's primary sub-source contradicted information in the dossier in
January 2017 and March 2017 -- and failed to tell the FISA court about the problems with the
repudiated evidence.
"The dossier pretty much collapsed at that point -- and yet they continued to use it as a
basis for pursuing this counterintelligence investigation," Barr noted this past weekend.
The attorney general suggested such behavior supports arguments that what was really going
on was an attempted coup to remove Trump from office. "It is the closest we have come to an
organized effort to push a president out of office," he said.
5. There are multiple
criminal investigations into leaks of classified information.
Barr made clear that Durham and others are examining multiple leaks for possible criminal
violations while cautioning proving leak cases can be challenging. One of those is focused on
who leaked Michael Flynn's call with the Russian ambassador.
"Leaking national defense information, unauthorized disclosure of that information is a
felony," Barr said. "We have a lot of leak investigations underway."
6. Barr is concerned
by the outgoing Obama administration's extensive unmasking of Americans' conversations ... but
don't expect Barack Obama or Joe Biden to get in trouble.
After the recent revelation that more than three dozen Obama administration officials sought
to unmask intercepted conversations of incoming Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn,
Barr declared, "It makes you wonder what they were doing."
"It's unusual for an outgoing administration, high-level officials, to be unmasking very
much in the days they're preparing to leave office," he added.
As a sign of that concern, Barr has named a U.S. attorney from Texas to assist Durham to
examine the unmaskings for any illegalities.
But Barr also tamped down any expectation that the former president or vice president will
be investigated, stating clearly they are not targets of the probe.
"As to President Obama and Vice President Biden, whatever their level of involvement, based
on the information I have today, I don't expect Mr. Durham's work will lead to a criminal
investigation of either man," the attorney general said last month. "Our concern over potential
criminality is focused on others."
7. Durham is examining whether political pressures
were applied during the intelligence community's assessment of Russia's intentions in 2016
election meddling. That could be bad news for former CIA chief John Brennan.
In the Obama administration's final days, Brennan, outgoing DNI James Clapper and then-FBI
Director James Comey release the Intelligence Community Assessment, which declared Russia
meddled in the 2016 election with hacking and Facebook ads and that Moscow's intention was to
help Trump win.
The first conclusion is widely accepted, while the second is more controversial, especially
now that evidence has been declassified showing Russia was feeding derogatory disinformation
about Trump to Steele. Why, experts wonder, would Russia be doing that if Putin wanted Trump to
win?
Barr said Durham is investigating whether any political pressure was brought to bear to come
to that second conclusion. Sources have told Just the News there is some evidence that CIA
analysts and others had concerns about the strength of the evidence about Russia's
intentions.
play_arrow Itinerant , 1 hour ago
The first conclusion is widely accepted ... declared Russia meddled in the 2016 election
with hacking and Facebook ads
And it's high time for a dose of reality.
1. There's no evidence of a hack , as CrowdStrike stated in interviews that have been
released. There is a lot of evidence that it was a leak from inside the DNC premises, and
that Guccifer is an Intelligence Agency persona.
2. There's no evidence that Putin (or his administration) directed any purported Russian
meddling campaign.
3. There's no evidence that the Facebook ads were not click bait and were ever intentioned
to cause "Division". No coherent account can be given as to what "disinformation" they were
trying to spread, and why the Russian leadership would want to spread such "disinformation".
In fact, "it was so sophisticated that it remained hidden in plain view". That's because the
whole story is just psychological projection, based on assumptions of what the Russians would
want to do (no connection to anything they've ever said). Just look at some of the examples,
and you can reach no other conclusion than: Click bait.
CallOfTheWild , 3 hours ago
The Watch Pot NEVER BOILS.....WTF
Brennan
Clapper
Comey
McCabe
Strzok
Page
Ohr
Halper
Mifsud
Baker
Preistep
Yates
Rosenstein
Obama
Wray
Simpson
Clinton x2
Weissmann
Lynch
Jarrett
Rice
Fritsch
Power
McLaughlin
Ferrante
Boomer's revenge , 6 hours ago
Un acceptable. They commited a treasonous Coup d'état with impunity, insulting and
ridiculing all of us as they did it. "Could smell the Trump voters at Walmart".
ComradeChe , 7 hours ago
There was genius in the "Russian Collision" narrative; they kept it up, incessantly, even
as it was factually falling apart. There was no link. And still they kept at it. The result
was that everyone is SICK TO DEATH of this crap. No one cares. The Trump haters gonna hate
regardless-- and everyone else, whether they back the president or not, are just over it. It
blew up in Pelosi's face-- but no one cares.
Now, most of America is three mortgage payments behind and they don't give a damn about
anything but trying to keep their lives together. Obama, Rice, Clapper, Brennan et al pulled
off the most egregious political crime in the history of the republic. Even in his wildest
dreams Tricky **** Nixon couldn't get the IRS, the NSA and the CIA to do political hits for
him. But Obama-- nails it. The trifecta: the IRS 'rogue agents from Cincinnati' stifle the
Tea Party; the FBI/CIA jerk off the FISA Court with a bought and paid for shovel full of BS,
and then use the NSA to spy on a political candidate-- and better yet, conspire with foreign
intelligence services who utilize electronic surveillance within the US, so the CIA can keep
its skirts clean; and lastly, the circular firing squad of the National Security council
facilitates the 'unmasking' of dozens of Americans who are not terrorists, or spies but
political opponents.
No this didn't happen in Guatemala. This happened in the US.
And you know what? Obama and all his minions ARE going to get away with it. Barry got away
with presenting a birth certificate cobbled together on Adobe Illustrator; they didn't even
bother to make a PDF out of it. It was BAM in your face, 23 different fonts on 15 different
layers. So what? Hillary got away with keeping hundreds of Top Secret Codeword documents on a
home made web server. So what? Then she got away with accepting a sweet &130 million
payoff for the Clinton Foundation, right after she okayed the transfer of 25% of our enriched
Uranium to... wait for it... Putin. And then the IC blames Trump for being a stooge of
Putin.
It's too rich. If you are waiting for justice, forget it. I've seen this movie before.
Arch_Stanton , 8 hours ago
1. Timetable: Durham's investigation has been slowed by the pandemic. But some action is
expected by end of summer, and the probe could stretch beyond Election Day.
There will be no action, or should I say inaction, until after the election
2. Barr believes evidence used by the FBI to justify opening an investigation into the
Trump campaign's ties to Moscow was very thin.
3. Investigators are focused on what happened before Crossfire Hurricane officially
started, including when Christopher Steele first began compiling his dossier.
4. Barr views the FBI's continuation of the Russia probe after the Steele dossier
"collapsed" as an illegitimate effort to remove the president.
This is true and we all knew this over 3 years ago.
5. There are multiple criminal investigations into leaks of classified information.
Multiple leaks? No kidding.
6. Barr is concerned by the outgoing Obama administration's extensive unmasking of
Americans' conversations ... but don't expect Barack Obama or Joe Biden to get in
trouble.
We are all far more than "concerned". This was a coup. Obama initiated this whole coup and
Biden was in on the planning and we know it. Why do they skate?
7. Durham is examining whether political pressures were applied during the intelligence
community's assessment of Russia's intentions in 2016 election meddling. That could be bad
news for former CIA chief John Brennan.
Hoping it's more than news. Hoping for indictments.
This is a joke, and I'm not surprised. If Trump loses, this whole affair will be dropped
and consigned to the memory hole immediately.
Chocura750 , 7 hours ago
Thin justification is enough considering the importance of the claim.
BaNNeD oN THe RuN , 8 hours ago
Perhaps the most tantalizing statement Barr has made on this came Sunday when he
suggested it was important that Steele began working on his dossier before July 2016,
raising the possibility that some unexplained events earlier that year may have been
connected to that early Steele work.
It was reported in real time in 2016 that the Steele Dossier work was initiated at the
request of rival Republican candidates (likely Jeb Bush, possibly Ted Cruz) and they handed
it off to the Clinton Campaign to continue. The Bush family then supported Clinton in the
election. This was a uni-party effort to keep control in the 2 families.
Gerb00 , 8 hours ago
They all skate by, no one goes to jail, they all get multi million dollar gooka dn movie
deals, mr senile and mr o-*** get nobel peace prizes and shrines where the lincoln memorial
used to be..
David Wooten , 8 hours ago
"...the attorney general laid out a likely timeline for when the first actions might be
taken in the case, while stressing the probe could carry beyond the election."
Wrongdoings by past administrations go beyond Obiden to Bush 43 or earlier and also
include most members of the Senate and a fair number in the House. They stretch from Russia
to Ukraine to Libya to Syria to the UK to France to Israel to Assange, etc. They cover
members of both parties in the US and back to Tony Blair in Britain and some very powerful
people. They are all tied together in some way.
It will take far longer than the election to get the bottom of it and, given the
anti-Trump atmosphere that prevails, Durham is unlikely to produce any unsealed indictments
before the election lest they be tainted with politics, ie, helping Trump - as Ken Starr's
report was tainted as undermining Clinton's election.
Those involved are so powerful that the best that can be expected is to remove them from
positions of power, both in and out of government. Some these guys would rather die or bring
on a nuclear war than spend years to decades in prison.
Don't hold your breath.
bumboo , 8 hours ago
Hush Hush. Durham and Barr are part of the establishment. Barr and Robert Muller are
friends (attend same Bible class). One of them invited the other one to his daughter's
wedding (nothing wrong). Part of the Cabal.
Durham investigated the Guantanamo tapes burning by a CIA officer and wrote the per
someone's instructions. The author is assuming that his readers are fools and lazy. Sorry,
those days are gone, thanks to alternate Media and citizen's journalism or empowerment. We
dont have relay journalists in their rocking chair and writing superficial stuff. Did the
writer address Joseph Misfud, the Maltese guy.
There is sufficient information in the public sphere, including inculpatory evidence that
would be more than sufficient to produce indictments. The fact that Trump's AG drags his feet
on this within months of the election suggests Trump continues to waffle and go soft in the
knees when it matters most. In spite of talking a big game, Trump is a softie.
He might be an incredibly sophisticated media manipulator, and good for him, but I'm not
really sure he understands that this burgeoning insurrection, including the complex campaign
to unseat him during his presidency, constitutes an insurgency against the Constitutional
Republic.
This makes the agents within the Deep State traitors, the executing agents acting in the
streets insurrectionists and BLM potentially foreign agents. Trump and his team seem to think
this is all just disgruntled political opposition. IT's nothing of the sort.
The belated discovery of disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok's January 2017 notes raises
troubling new questions about whether President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden were
coordinating efforts during their final days in office to investigate Trump national security
adviser Michael Flynn -- even as the FBI wanted to shut down the case.
Investigators will need to secure testimony from Strzok, fired two years ago from the FBI,
to be certain of the exact meaning and intent of his one paragraph of notes, which were made
public in court on Wednesday.
But they appear to illuminate an extraordinary high-level effort by outgoing Obama-era
officials during the first weekend of January to find a way to sustain a counterintelligence
investigation of Flynn in the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing.
The Justice Department says the notes were written between Jan. 3-5, 2017, the very weekend
the FBI agent who had investigated Flynn's ties to Russia for five months recommended the case
be closed because there was "no derogatory" evidence that he committed a crime or posed a
counterintelligence threat. FBI supervisors overruled the agent's recommendation.
Strzok's notes appear to quote then-FBI Director James Comey as suggesting that Flynn's
intercepted calls with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak "appear legit," bolstering other
recently disclosed evidence showing the bureau saw nothing wrong with Flynn's behavior.
The notes also suggest Biden -- who once claimed he had no knowledge of the Flynn probe --
raised the issue of the Logan Act, an obscure, centuries-old law, as a possible avenue for
continuing to investigate Flynn.
And Strzok appears to quote Obama as suggesting the FBI assign "the right people" to pursue
the case.
You can read the notes here:
These conversations, if accurately portrayed in the Strzok notes, occurred during the same
three-day period in which FBI supervisors overruled their field agent's recommendation to shut
down the Flynn case and pivoted toward the strategy of luring Flynn into an FBI interview where
he might be caught lying.
Sidney Powell, Flynn's lawyer, laid out the potential ramifications of the notes in a court
filing on Wednesday, calling the new evidence "stunning and exculpatory."
"Mr. Obama himself directed that 'the right people' investigate General Flynn. This caused
former FBI Director Comey to acknowledge the obvious: General Flynn's phone calls with
Ambassador Kislyak 'appear legit,'" Powell argued in her new motion.
" According to Strzok's notes, it appears that Vice President Biden personally raised the
idea of the Logan Act. That became an admitted pretext to investigate General Flynn," she
added.
Even if the rebuked judge appeals the decision or the full appeals court reconsiders the
case, Flynn is likely on a path to being a free and innocent man.
The real impact of the notes may be on the Justice Department's ongoing investigation of the
Russia investigators, where U.S. Attorneys John Durham and Jeff Jensen are determining whether
the FBI or others committed crimes in deceiving the courts or Congress about the evidence in
the now-discredited Russia collusion allegations.
A former senior FBI official told Just the News that Strzok's notes about the White House
meeting are a red flag that the Comey-led bureau may have been involving itself illegitimately
in a political dispute between the outgoing Obama administration and incoming Trump
administration.
"It was a political meeting about a policy dispute, and the bureau had no business being
involved," Former Assistant Director for Intelligence Kevin Brock said. "No other FBI director
would ever have attended such a meeting.
"Comey is quoted in the notes as saying the Kislyak call appeared legit. At that point he
should have gotten up and left the room," Brock added.
"The FBI had no business being represented in that meeting. It did not have a
counterintelligence interest any longer."
A second impact of the notes could be on the campaign trail. A few months ago, Biden claimed
he was unaware of the Flynn probe as he was leaving the VP's office.
"I know nothing about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn," he said.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/3Yrblo64caA
He then clarified his denial.
"I was aware that they asked for an investigation,"
Biden said. "But that's all I know about it, and I don't think anything else."
If Powell's interpretation of the notes is correct, Biden was knowledgeable enough to
suggest a possible pretext for continued investigation, the Logan Act. And he eventually
unmasked one of Flynn's intercepted phone calls a week later.
Former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes told Just the News on Wednesday the
newly discovered notes affirm his long-held suspicion that the Obama White House was trying to
influence the FBI's Russia probe in untoward ways.
" Now we know both Obama and Biden were directly involved in planning the attack on Flynn
," Nunes said.
"The Obama administration exploited our intelligence community to spy on their political
opponents and engineer bogus investigations and prosecutions of them.
"This is the single biggest abuse of power I've seen in my lifetime," he added.
divideand conquer 1. To gain or maintain power by generating tension among others, especially those less powerful,
so that they cannot unite in opposition.
Notable quotes:
"... In its most general form, identity politics involves (i) a claim that a particular group is not being treated fairly and (ii) a claim that members of that group should place political priority on the demand for fairer treatment. But "fairer" can mean lots of different things. I'm trying to think about this using contrasts between the set of terms in the post title. A lot of this is unoriginal, but I'm hoping I can say something new. ..."
"... The second problem is that neoliberals on right and left sometimes use identity as a shield to protect neoliberal policies. As one commentator has argued, "Without the bedrock of class politics, identity politics has become an agenda of inclusionary neoliberalism in which individuals can be accommodated but addressing structural inequalities cannot." What this means is that some neoliberals hold high the banner of inclusiveness on gender and race and thus claim to be progressive reformers, but they then turn a blind eye to systemic changes in politics and the economy. ..."
"... Critics argue that this is "neoliberal identity politics," and it gives its proponents the space to perpetuate the policies of deregulation, privatization, liberalization, and austerity. ..."
"... If we assume that identity politics is, first and foremost, a dirty and shrewd political strategy developed by the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party ("soft neoliberals") many things became much more clear. Along with Neo-McCarthyism it represents a mechanism to compensate for the loss of their primary voting block: trade union members, who in 2016 "en mass" defected to Trump. ..."
I've been thinking about the various versions of and critiques of identity politics that are around at the moment.
In its most
general form, identity politics involves (i) a claim that a particular group is not being treated fairly and (ii) a claim that
members of that group should place political priority on the demand for fairer treatment. But "fairer" can mean lots of different
things. I'm trying to think about this using contrasts between the set of terms in the post title. A lot of this is unoriginal,
but I'm hoping I can say something new.
You missed one important line of critique -- identity politics as a dirty political strategy of soft neoliberals.
To be sure, race, gender, culture, and other aspects of social life have always been important to politics. But neoliberalism's
radical individualism has increasingly raised two interlocking problems. First, when taken to an extreme, social fracturing into
identity groups can be used to divide people and prevent the creation of a shared civic identity. Self-government requires uniting
through our commonalities and aspiring to achieve a shared future.
When individuals fall back onto clans, tribes, and us-versus-them identities, the political community gets fragmented. It becomes
harder for people to see each other as part of that same shared future.
Demagogues [more correctly neoliberals -- likbez] rely on this fracturing to inflame racial, nationalist, and religious antagonism,
which only further fuels the divisions within society. Neoliberalism's war on "society," by pushing toward the privatization and
marketization of everything, thus indirectly facilitates a retreat into tribalism that further undermines the preconditions for
a free and democratic society.
The second problem is that neoliberals on right and left sometimes use identity as a shield to protect neoliberal policies.
As one commentator has argued, "Without the bedrock of class politics, identity politics has become an agenda of inclusionary
neoliberalism in which individuals can be accommodated but addressing structural inequalities cannot." What this means is that
some neoliberals hold high the banner of inclusiveness on gender and race and thus claim to be progressive reformers, but they
then turn a blind eye to systemic changes in politics and the economy.
Critics argue that this is "neoliberal identity politics," and it gives its proponents the space to perpetuate the policies
of deregulation, privatization, liberalization, and austerity.
Of course, the result is to leave in place political and economic structures that harm the very groups that inclusionary neoliberals
claim to support. The foreign policy adventures of the neoconservatives and liberal internationalists haven't fared much better
than economic policy or cultural politics. The U.S. and its coalition partners have been bogged down in the war in Afghanistan
for 18 years and counting. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq is a liberal democracy, nor did the attempt to establish democracy in
Iraq lead to a domino effect that swept the Middle East and reformed its governments for the better. Instead, power in Iraq has
shifted from American occupiers to sectarian militias, to the Iraqi government, to Islamic State terrorists, and back to the Iraqi
government -- and more than 100,000 Iraqis are dead.
Or take the liberal internationalist 2011 intervention in Libya. The result was not a peaceful transition to stable democracy
but instead civil war and instability, with thousands dead as the country splintered and portions were overrun by terrorist groups.
On the grounds of democracy promotion, it is hard to say these interventions were a success. And for those motivated to expand
human rights around the world, it is hard to justify these wars as humanitarian victories -- on the civilian death count alone.
Indeed, the central anchoring assumptions of the American foreign policy establishment have been proven wrong. Foreign policymakers
largely assumed that all good things would go together -- democracy, markets, and human rights -- and so they thought opening
China to trade would inexorably lead to it becoming a liberal democracy. They were wrong. They thought Russia would become liberal
through swift democratization and privatization. They were wrong.
They thought globalization was inevitable and that ever-expanding trade liberalization was desirable even if the political
system never corrected for trade's winners and losers. They were wrong. These aren't minor mistakes. And to be clear, Donald Trump
had nothing to do with them. All of these failures were evident prior to the 2016 election.
If we assume that identity politics is, first and foremost, a dirty and shrewd political strategy developed by the Clinton wing
of the Democratic Party ("soft neoliberals") many things became much more clear. Along with Neo-McCarthyism it represents a mechanism to compensate for the loss of their primary voting block: trade union members,
who in 2016 "en mass" defected to Trump.
Initially Clinton calculation was that trade union voters has nowhere to go anyways, and it was correct for first decade or so
of his betrayal. But gradually trade union members and lower middle class started to leave Dems in droves (Demexit, compare with
Brexit) and that where identity politics was invented to compensate for this loss.
So in addition to issues that you mention we also need to view the role of identity politics as the political strategy of the
"soft neoliberals " directed at discrediting and the suppression of nationalism.
The resurgence of nationalism is the inevitable byproduct of the dominance of neoliberalism, resurgence which I think is capable
to bury neoliberalism as it lost popular support (which now is limited to financial oligarchy and high income professional groups,
such as we can find in corporate and military brass, (shrinking) IT sector, upper strata of academy, upper strata of medical professionals,
etc)
That means that the structure of the current system isn't just flawed which imply that most problems are relatively minor and
can be fixed by making some tweaks. It is unfixable, because the "Identity wars" reflect a deep moral contradictions within neoliberal
ideology. And they can't be solved within this framework.
"... Of course ultimately you reach a point where no one truly understands what is real and what isn't any more. ..."
"... Boris Johnson PM of the UK? Surely not, Theresa May? I can barely wipe the smirk from my face. 4th and 5th rate politicians relying on SPADs to run the country. ..."
"... Reading his recent essay on the truths of WWII ( http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/63527 ) yet again sees him posting uncomfortable realities to a West knee deep in vassalage to a crumbling US. ..."
"... Change is coming whether we like it or not, with or without Putin, we'd best tend our own garden and stop worrying about an opposition that simply doesn't exist. ..."
Gerald says:
June 20, 2020 at 5:34 pm surely 'legitimacy' goes to the victor. Once you've won
you can build a sort of legitimacy that the majority will agree with (whether its real
or not) of course if you are a kind of despotic dictatorship (as appears to be
happening in terms of western neoliberal capitalism) then you will merely do as you
wish regardless until confronted with overwhelming opposition at which point you will
infiltrate and co-opt said opposition, pay lip service to their vague claim for
'rights' and continue on your merry way.
I always thought that the greatest thing that the capitalists did in the 20th
century was to get the slaves to love their slavery, its all advertising, hollywood, TV
that's all that politics has become, certainly in the West. Edward Bernays has a lot to
answer for.
Of course ultimately you reach a point where no one truly understands what is
real and what isn't any more.
Boris Johnson PM of the UK? Surely not, Theresa May? I can barely wipe the smirk
from my face. 4th and 5th rate politicians relying on SPADs to run the
country.
There is no wonder that Putin looks like the greatest 21st century leader, the last
of a dying breed. Reading his recent essay on the truths of WWII ( http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/63527
) yet again sees him posting uncomfortable realities to a West knee deep in vassalage
to a crumbling US.
Change is coming whether we like it or not, with or without Putin, we'd best
tend our own garden and stop worrying about an opposition that simply doesn't
exist.
"Why
does life almost come to a halt on June 22? And why does one feel a lump in the throat?"
This how Russian President Vladimir Putin chose to address the fateful day in 1941, when
Germany invaded Russia, with an extraordinarily detailed article on June 19: "75th
Anniversary of the Great Victory: Shared Responsibility to History and our Future."
Citing archival data, Putin homes in on both world wars, adding important information not
widely known, and taking no liberties with facts well known to serious historians. As for the
"lump in the throat", the Russian president steps somewhat out of character by weaving in
some seemingly formative personal experiences of family loss during that deadly time and
postwar years. First, the history:
"On June 22, 1941, the Soviet Union faced the strongest, most mobilized and skilled army
in the world with the industrial, economic, and military potential of almost all Europe
working for it. Not only the Wehrmacht, but also Germany's satellites, military contingents
of many other states of the European continent, took part in this deadly invasion.
"The most serious military defeats in 1941 brought the country to the brink of
catastrophe. By 1943 the manufacture of weapons and munitions behind the lines exceeded the
rates of military production of Germany and its allies. The Soviet people did something that
seemed impossible. the Red Army. no matter what anyone is trying to prove today ,
made the main and crucial contribution to the defeat of Nazism Almost 27 million Soviet
citizens lost their lives, one in seven of the population the USA lost one in 320." [
Emphasis added .]
Somber factual recollections. Significant, too, is Putin's explicit criticism of "crimes
committed by the [Stalin] regime against its own people and the horror of mass repressions."
Nor does he spare criticism of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, denouncing its "secret protocols
as "an act of personal power" which in no way reflected "the will of the Soviet people."
Putin notes that he asked for "the whole body of materials pertaining to contacts between
the USSR and Germany in the dramatic days of August and September 1939," and found facts
"known to very few these days" regarding Moscow's reaction to German demands on carving up
Poland (yet again). On this key issue, he cites, "paragraph 2 of the Secret Protocol to the
German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of August 23, 1939", indicating that it throws new light on
Moscow's initial foot-dragging and its eventual decision to join in a more limited (for
Russia) partition.
Look it up. And while you're at it, GOOGLE Khalkhin Gol River and refresh your memory
about what Putin describes as "intense fighting" with Japan at the time.
The Russian president points out, correctly, that "the Red Army supported the Allied
landing in Normandy by carrying out the large-scale Operation Bagration in Belorussia", which
is actually an understatement. ( See: " Who Defeated the
Nazis: a Colloquy and " Once
We Were Allies; Then Came MICIMATT ."
"No matter what anyone is trying to prove today," writes Putin, who may have had in mind
the latest indignity from Washington; namely, the White House tweet on V-E day this year,
saying "On May 8, 1945,
America and Great Britain had victory over the Nazis."
Lump in Throat
And why does one feel a lump rise in the throat? Putin asks rhetorically.
"The war has left a deep imprint on every family's history. Behind these words, there are
the fates of millions of people Behind these words, there is also the pride, the truth and
the memory.
"For my parents, the war meant the terrible ordeals of the Siege of Leningrad where my
two-year old brother Vitya died. It was the place where my mother miraculously managed to
survive. My father, despite being exempt from active duty, volunteered to defend his
hometown. He fought at the Nevsky Pyatachok bridgehead and was severely wounded. And the more
years pass, the more I treasure in my heart the conversations I had with my father and mother
on this subject, as well as the little emotion they showed.
"People of my age and I believe it is important that our children, grandchildren and
great-grandchildren understand the torment and hardships their ancestors had to endure how
their ancestors managed to persevere and win. We have a responsibility to our past and our
future to do our utmost to prevent those horrible tragedies from happening ever again. Hence,
I was compelled to come out with an article about World War II and the Great Patriotic
War."
Putin was born in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) eight years after the vicious siege by
the German army ended. Michael Walzer, in his War Against Civilians , notes, "More
people died in the 900-day siege of Leningrad than in the infernos of Hamburg, Dresden,
Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki taken together."
Putin notes that the "human truth" of war, "which is bitter and merciless, has been handed
down to us by writers and poets who walked through hell at the front. For my generation, as
well as for many others, their piercing trench prose and poems have left their mark on the
soul forever." He calls particular attention to a poem
by Alexander Tvardovsky , "I was killed near Rzhev," dedicated to those who fought the
formidable German Army Group Center.
Putin explains, "In the battles for Rzhev from October 1941 to March 1943, the Red Army
lost 1,342,888 people, including wounded and missing in action. For the first time, I call
out these terrible, tragic and far from complete figures collected from archive sources. I do
it to honor the memory of the feat of known and nameless heroes", who were largely ignored in
the postwar years.
The Germans were hardly the first to invade Russia. It was occupied for more than two
centuries beginning in 1240 by Mongols from the east, after which its western neighbor was
Europe, the most powerful and expansionist region in world history into the 20th century.
After the Mongols were finally driven out, in came invaders from Lithuania, Sweden, the
Hanseatic League, Napoleon and, 79 years ago today, Hitler.
"The Poet of Russian Grief"
Out of this history (and before the Nazi attack on June 22, 1941) came the deeply
compassionate 19th century poet Nikolay Nekrasov, who, after Pushkin, became my favorite
Russian poet. His poem, "Giving Attention to the Horrors of War") moved me deeply; I have
carried it with me from my college days when I committed it to memory.
I visited Moscow in April 2015 to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the meeting of
American and Russian troops on the Elbe at the end of WWII. It was a heartwarming observance
of the victory of our wartime Grand Alliance and a reminder of what might be possible seven
decades later. I was asked to speak at the ceremony celebrating the meeting on the Elbe, and
was happy to be able to feature Nekrasov's poem to compensate for my out-of-practice
Russian.
On June 22, 2016, the 75th anniversary of the Nazi attack on Russia, I was in Yalta,
Crimea, with an American citizens' delegation and was again asked to speak. It was an even
more appropriate occasion to recite Nekrasov's "Giving Attention to the Horrors of War," and
I shall never forget the poignant experience of personally witnessing, and feeling, just why
Nekrasov is called "the poet of Russian grief." There were several people in the audience old
enough to remember.
Finally, I recited Nekrasov again, in Brussels, at the annual EU Parliament Members' Forum
on Russia in early December 2015. My talk came on the second day of the Forum; until then,
almost all of the talks were pretty much head-speeches. So I tried a little heart therapy and
called my presentation "Stay Human." The late Giulietto Chiesa, one of the Forum moderators
recorded my speech and posted it on his website.
The poem can be heard from
minute 11:00 to 17:00 . There is some voice-over in Italian, but I spoke mostly in
English and some of that is intelligible – audible, I mean. There is no voice-over for
the Nekrasov poem. I shall provide a translation into English below:
Heeding the horrors of war,
At every new victim of battle
I feel sorry not for his friend, nor for his wife,
I feel sorry not even for the hero himself.
Alas, the wife will be comforted,
And best friends forget their friend;
But somewhere there is one soul –
Who will remember unto the grave!
Amidst the hypocrisy of our affairs
And all the banality and triviality
Unique among what I have observed in the world
Sacred, sincere tears –
The tears of poor mothers!
They do not forget their own children,
Who have perished on the bloody battlefield,
Just as the weeping willow never lifts
Its dangling branches
Suffice it to add that I confess to being what the Germans call a "Putin Versteher"
– literally, one who understands Putin. (Sadly, most Germans mean no compliment with
this appellation; quite the contrary.) As one who has studied Russia for half a century,
though, I believe I have some sense for where Russian leaders "are coming from."
That said, like almost all Americans, I cannot begin to know, in any adequate sense, what
it is actually like to be part of a society with a history of being repeatedly invaded and/or
occupied – whether from East or West. In my view, U.S. policy makers need to make some
effort to become, in some degree, Putin Verstehers, or the risk of completely unnecessary
armed confrontation will increase still more.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27-year career as a CIA analyst includes serving as
Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and preparer/briefer of the President's Daily
Brief. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). This
originally appeared at Consortium
News .
Because they seem to creep around Washington, from one administration to the next, forever whispering in the ears of the power players, and more recently, weaving their evil spells directly to millions, as respected members of the MSM
Notable quotes:
"... I advocate for 'scum' as a serviceable moniker of all-around utility for those who do the dirt because it's business and pleasure, all in one. ..."
"... Now that I think of it, " the filth" is British slang for the police. That could work. Cockney rhyming slang is "Sweeney" ("flying squad" = "Sweeny Todd"). That has the right connotations, but it's a little twee. ..."
"... "The Slime" also seems to fit quite nicely. ..."
Um irony work not well on screen, methinks and not for the first (or last) time
But as to "intelligence community" pejorative, I think good old-fashioned 'scum' works
quite well. Mind you, this is for those who have "proven" themselves by persisting and upping
the ante of loathesomeness; I certainly do not mean to include people-in-process who
sometimes exit Big Brother's nether fissure to emerge as woken humans.
I'm thinking specifically and especially of John Kiriakou, for whom I had the honor of
extending jail support during the time he was incarcerated for "outing" a CIA torturer (who,
needless to say, received not even a tap on the wrist).
Keep it simple, pithy, homely, and familiar: I advocate for 'scum' as a serviceable
moniker of all-around utility for those who do the dirt because it's business and pleasure,
all in one.
> I think good old-fashioned 'scum' works quite well.
Now that I think of it, "
the filth" is British slang for the police. That could work. Cockney rhyming slang is
"Sweeney" ("flying squad" = "Sweeny Todd"). That has the right connotations, but it's a
little twee.
Re. preferred pejorative, I lean toward "IC creep" myself. Because they seem to creep
around Washington, from one administration to the next, forever whispering in the ears of the
power players, and more recently, weaving their evil spells directly to millions, as
respected members of the MSM.
The Russian president offers a comprehensive assessment of the legacy of World War II,
arguing that "Today, European politicians, and Polish leaders in particular, wish to sweep the
Munich Betrayal under the carpet. The Munich Betrayal showed to the Soviet Union that the
Western countries would deal with security issues without taking its interests into
account."
Re: the Nuremberg trials , I became fascinated by the writings of Paul R. Pillar who
pointed out that U.S. sanctions are frequently peddled as a peaceful alternative to
war fit the definition of 'crimes against peace' . This is when one country sets up an
environment for war against another country. I'll grant you that this is vague but if this is
applicable at all how is this not an accurate description of what we are doing against Iran
and Venezuela?
In both cases, we are imposing a full trade embargo (not sanctions) on basic civilian
necessities and infrastructures and threatening the use of military force. As for Iran, the
sustained and unfair demonization of Iranians is preparing the U.S. public to accept a
ruthless bombing campaign against them as long overdue. We are already attacking the civilian
population of their allies in Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon.
How Ironic that the country that boasts that it won WW2 is now guilty of the very crimes
that it condemned publicly in court.
"... It is disturbing that no Western leaders are attending the 75th anniversary celebrations of the end of WWII in Moscow. ..."
"... The US began arming Afghan warlords and mujaheddin as early as August 1979, as part of the then US State Secretary Zbigniew Brzezinski's plan to push the USSR into an Afghan version of the Vietnam War. The plan passed muster with the Carter government. The funding and arming of the mujaheddin by the CIA was what led Kabul to request help from Moscow. The Soviets arrived in December 1979. ..."
"... The Russians suffered and endured horrific sacrifices during WWII while simultaneously turning the tide against the Third Reich. An heroic tale much unappreciated by many in the West. The Russians did participate in the Lend-Lease program although the benefits are debated especially for the early and decisive years. ..."
For the events of the 1930s, I recommend reading Micheal Jabara Carley's The Alliance
that Never Was and the Coming of World War II.
This book is essential to understand the intricate politics that ultimately triggered
WWII because it focus on the people that really had the power to stop it: the Nation-States
themselves (through their diplomats).
The politics of the 1930s were very complex, but can be based on one main
contradiction: during the 1930s, there was the widespread belief in France and the UK that
a new world war would result in a worldwide communist revolution. The equation was
war=communism in Europe, according to the conservative governments of those two
nations.
Another important reason WWII happened the way it happened was very simple, but is
denied by the Western nations until modern times: fascism was very popular in Western
Europe and the USA during the 1930s. In France in particular, the local MSM was waging a
vicious propaganda war against the USSR, and we could guess the country was essentially
polarized. The British MSM was also waging it in their home country.
Poland was 100% against the USSR. Their preference would be to preserve their
alliance with the UK-France, but they (i.e. their chief of staff of the Armed Forces) also
explicitly stated to Litvinov that, if it came to choose between Germany and the USSR, they
would choose Germany. It was because of Poland that the USSR wasn't able to fly around
Germany in order to form an alliance with the West (Romania, however, agreed to
extraofficially allow Soviet planes to cross their airspace).
Chamberlain used Poland to officially legitimize his non-alliance with the USSR, but
we now know from his personal letters (many of them to his sister) that the real reason he
didn't do it was his fear of the equation war=communism (in Western Europe). He was
literally "taking one for the team" of capitalism and was very aware of that. His position
was unsustainable, because we now know that it never crossed Hitler's mind to not wage war
against France and the UK, even though his main goal was the USSR. The thing is the Nazis
rose to power with the promise of revenging the Army for WWI.
Churchill was a capitalist and a staunch anti-communist, and, in another universe, he
certainly would do an alliance with the Nazis to crush the USSR. The problem is that the
UK's military doctrine already was completely directed towards Germany, and the British
people already was brainwashed for decades that Germany was the UK's main enemy. You can't
call a total war against an enemy your own people doesn't want to fight against. Changing a
military doctrine of a country takes decades - it simply wasn't possible for Churchill to
shift the British people's minds from an anti-German mode to an anti-Soviet mode in such a
short time. It would only be during the Cold War that it was made possible (as they had the
time to do so), and, nowadays, we can comfortably say most of the British people is
germanophile (at least, the British left) and russophobe. Plus, Churchill could see Hitler
right into his soul, and knew he would wage war from the beginning.
The Americans were completely out of the picture in the 1930s. They were divided
among the isolationists and the interventionists. Exception to the rule were the American
industrialists, who helped mainly Nazi Germany, but also the USSR, in rebuilding
themselves. They did so not because of ideology, but because they were desperate for new
markets after the collapse of 1929. American loyalty was on the cheap in the 1930s.
The humanity owes a big debt to USSR for defeating Nazi Germany and saving the earth from
their unholy empire. While Angela Merkel, instead of Putin, makes the rounds and poses in
photos in the 75th anniversary D-Day in London, the history is being rewritten in front of
our eyes and we have ended up with a majority that fails to question why it took more than
two years to plan and execute the Normandy invasion. As for capitalists funding the build-up
of the Wehrmacht, the saying goes "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will
hang them."
I believe Stalin and the Central Committees decision to occupy those countries on its
periphery and absolutely crush the likely fascist resurgence was the correct decision. I
gather they recognized the oligarchic forces who financed and supported Hitler. Those same
forces are at it again today.
The foresight and analysis of those Russian thinkers was correct then and remains relevant
now.
I guess I need to again remind people that all history is revisioned --it is seen or
read about, then processed through the historian's mind-- revisioned --then written.
Even an event that's 100% written about as it genuinely occurred is revisioned in the
above manner because that's how the human mind works. Before it was discovered how to
doctor them, photographs and film were deemed to be superior recorders of events than
descriptive words because there was no revisioning to alter the content, but that
ceased to be the case 100+ years ago. In today's world, the live broadcast is the closest
thing that avoids the revisioning dilemma--that's why live streams sent via cell
phones and webcams are powerful and hated by those seeking control--they're deprived of the
opportunity to shape the narrative or manipulate the evidence.
In his essay, I expected Putin to write more about International Law and why adherence to
it is so important in the maintenance of peace. Instead, he sent a backhanded message to
those managing the Outlaw US Empire about the fate they'll face if they continue on their
path and exit the UN.
That so many people in the West believe that the US did the most to defeat Nazi Germany is
understandable due to decades of repeated Hollywood propaganda starring the likes of John
Wayne (who never actually went near anything resembling a tank or a nav asl ship) and others.
But what explains the 50% of British people who believe the British did the most to beat the
Nazis?
Is it all that constant blagging about the Battle of Britain (which incidentally was won
for Britain by pilots representing something like 25 different nationalities with the most
significant hits being made by Polish pilots) or the ceaseless propaganda about what a great
warmonger and mass murderer ... er, "hero" Winston Churchill was, in crap media like The
Daily Mail and the BBC?
It is disturbing that no Western leaders are attending the 75th anniversary
celebrations of the end of WWII in Moscow.
@Posted by: Ike | Jun 20 2020 20:17 utc | 20
Indeed, it is disturbing... May be the Russians should turn to the Western people and
invite them to represent their countries?
I am currently available for traveling...I would feel most grateful of having the
opportunity, still have not visited Lenin Mausoleum.... although for being in Moscow for June
24th, I should be carried by a "Moscow Express" flight...
"At the end of his essay Putin defends the veto power of the five permanent members
of the United Nations Security Council. In his view it has prevented that another clash on
a global scale has happened since World War II ended. Putin rejects attempts to abolish
that system."
b, what is your opinion about Germany becoming a permanent member of the UNSC since it is
now, arguably, the most powerful nation in Europe?
Do you think it threatens security/stability by excluding it from the UNSC, while the UK and
France are included? (I think it does, but I'm Canadian, what do I know? :-)
If you are referring to the massacre of Polish POWs and Polish intellectuals, musicians
and artists whose bodies were found in the forests of Katyn by Nazi German soldiers, bear in
mind that Nazi Germany stood to benefit from blaming the massacre directly on the Soviets.
While Russia under President Yeltsin did accept responsibility for the Katyn massacre - after
all, the Soviets did hold the victims as prisoners and should have evacuated them - one still
has to be wary of a narrative shaped and dictated by an enemy nation who milked the
propaganda value of the massacre against the Soviets. That in itself might tell you who the
real murderers were.
The US began arming Afghan warlords and mujaheddin as early as August 1979, as part of
the then US State Secretary Zbigniew Brzezinski's plan to push the USSR into an Afghan
version of the Vietnam War. The plan passed muster with the Carter government. The funding
and arming of the mujaheddin by the CIA was what led Kabul to request help from Moscow. The
Soviets arrived in December 1979.
I'm almost done reading "Life And Fate" by Vasily Grossman, translated by Robert Chandler.
The defense of Stalingrad and the eventual defeat of Field Marshal Paulus, commander of the
6th army, is instructive.
The Russians suffered and endured horrific sacrifices during WWII while simultaneously
turning the tide against the Third Reich. An heroic tale much unappreciated by many in the
West. The Russians did participate in the Lend-Lease program although the benefits are
debated especially for the early and decisive years.
Nah, sorry mate, doesn't even have that. The Soviet Union scared the Japanese
high command into surrendering after the US dropped its demand for unconditional surrender
because it was scared that the Soviet Union would invade the main islands of Japan before it
could.
I have been following the latest shit show between POTUS, DOJ & SDNY. Are Americans
really sure they are ready to go to war with China because I have to be honest. I'm not
entirely convinced you guys have your act together.
Stalin foresaw attempts to belittle the USSR's role in WWII. For example, during the Battle
of Stalingrad there was a team of cinephotographers that filmed different aspects of the
battle, from the siege to the envelopment of the beseigers.
When the battle ended a documentary was compiled, many copies were made, some of which
were shown to enthusiastic audiences in North America. I saw that film in, I believe, March
1943 when I was a 12 year old living in Toronto.
You have to know that 1942 had been a terribly demoralizing year for the Allied side.
Japan was unstoppable running over SE Asia; U-boats were sinking lots of supply ships headed
to the UK in the North Atlantic; there was the fiasco of Dieppe which hit Canadian pride
hard; Rommel and assorted British generals were playing tag back & forth across North
Africa; but the biggest disaster was unfolding across the USSR from Leningrad down to the
lower Volga. So when that documentary opened with a shot of Reichsmarschall von Paulus
trudging through knee-deep snow leading a seemingly endless column of bedraggled German
soldiers to an imprisonment camp, it was a most uplifting moment, unmatched until May
1945.
The ferocity of the Soviet counterattack was awesome: Katyusha rockets; great swarms of
troops under air cover, including women, in white camouflage on skis, heading to the
front.
I and hundreds of thousands of others who saw that film in 1943 know damn well who really
won the war and how. Putin has had enough of insults directed against Russia's record during
WWII from UKUS, but especially from Poland, and has responded forcefully.
I found most interesting his reference to still-locked archives outside of Russia dealing
with the shenanigans that led to WWI. We can only hope that historians will get to them
before the mice!
Why is it there is no mentions that Churchill tasked his Chiefs of Staff to come up with a
plan to attack the Soviet Union and start WW Three in April 1945, a month before the end of
World War Two.
The plan his Chiefs developed was called Operation Unthinkable. It called for the Great
Britain and the allies to attack the Soviet Union on July 1, 1945. This plan went
nowhere.
Then Truman came up with a plan in August 1945 called Operation Totality which called for
dropping atomic bombs on Moscow and 20 of the most important cities in the USSR. This plan
too didn't go anywhere but this marked the end of the Great Britain, America alliance with
Stalin and from this point on, in a 180 degree turn, Stalin and the Communists became the
West's mortal enemies and the Cold War was born.
Why does this development and the reasons for this 180 degree about turn not get any
mention and analysis? Why did the allies turn on a dime and go from being best of buddies
with the Marxist Communists to being worst of enemies with the West desiring to annihilate
the Soviet Union? Why?
May be Mr. Putin aimed at trying a last intend on appeasement, his own Ribbentrop-Molotov
Pact ....May be, even knowing this time it will not work either...
"The great criminal who has ordered the murder, transforms his joy for the crime committed
into currency, giving a reward worthy of a prince. Now that he has ordered the looting and
murder of the two thousand richest men in Italy, Antonio can finally be generous. For the
bloody sack containing Cicero's hands and head, pay the centurion a brilliant million
sesterces. But with it his revenge has not yet cooled, so that the stupid hatred of this
bloodthirsty man still creates a special ignominy for the dead, without realizing that with
himself he will be debased for all time. Antonio orders that the head and the hands are
nailed in the tribune from where Cicero incited the city against him to defend the freedom
of Rome.
The next day a disgraceful spectacle awaits the Roman people. In the speakers' gallery,
the same from which Cicero delivered his immortal speeches, the severed head of the last
defender of liberty hangs discolored. An imposing rusty nail pierces the forehead, the
thousands of thoughts. Livid and with a rictus of bitterness, the lips that formulated the
metallic words of the Latin language more beautifully than those of any other. Closed, the
blue eyelids cover the eyes that for sixty years watched over the republic. Powerless, they
open his hands that wrote the most splendid letters of the time.
But all in all, no accusation made by the great orator from that rostrum against
brutality, against the delirium of power, against illegality, speaks as eloquently against
the eternal injustice of violence as that silent head of a murdered man .
Suspicious the people gather around the desecrated rostra . Dejected, ashamed, it
turns away again. No one dares - it is a dictatorship! - to express a single reply, but a
spasm oppresses their hearts. And dismayed, they lower their heads at this allegory of the
crucified republic...."
Thanks, „b" for this article and the links - I read Putin´s essay and am
impressed with the depth , insight, humanity in his words. I would like to share my views,
gained from living for many years under soviets and their Jewish helpers (like Jakub Berman,
Zambrowski, Fejgin, to name a few). Here my amplifications and few other important details,
omitted by Putin:
1). regarding his description of decisions by different governments - he does not mention
that the Polish government had good reasons not to trust Stalin - because Soviet Union
cooperated with Germany for many years before - in form of having Germans (disguised as some
kind of para military, in order to circumvent the prohibitions following Versailles treaty)
training in the Soviet Union.
2). Another detail is that the British, French and Americans were trying to gain time
before confrontation with Nazis, just the same reasoning Putin allows to Soviet Union.
3).It also can be interpreted that Stalin decided to join the partition of Poland only
after Germany was victorious, similar tactic Stalin used in starting war against Japan after
USA won the war in Pacific and occupied the Kurile Islands.
4). Putin is disguising the aggressive action of USSR vis-a-vis Baltic states by saying
„In autumn 1939, the Soviet Union pursuing its strategic military and defensive goals,
started the process of incorporation of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia." If Hitler would have
stopped at that and not march on Moscow like Napoleon - this action would have mutate into
pure aggression. „incorporation" - my foot!
5). Putin does not mention any Polish names along Petain, Quisling, Vlasov and Bandera --
because there were none, and this is significant, showing that not a single Pole was found to
work - in a quasi government - with Nazis.
6). The spirit of independence he claims for Russian people (earlier in the essay), he is
not giving the People of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania or Poland.
7). Putin mentions „burnt Khatyn" in one breath with Babi Yar - I wonder, is there a
different Kathyn from „the" Katyn, where over 22 Tsd. Polish officers and officials
were butchered on orders of Stalin, Beria, Kaganovich (and one or two more whose names escape
me now).
8). Putin is knowingly or otherwise pushing the antisemitic mantra on Polish nation -
mentioning the ´splendid monument´ for Hitler to be erected in Warsaw, quoting
ambassador Lipski in 1938 this is a blow below the waist line and I did not expect it to be
repeated in this essay, as he used it already on a previous occasion. It is in jarring
contrast with the otherwise solid and even-handed exposition.
In my humble opinion Putin´s essay is a big wink to Poland to stay away from Ukraine
and Belarus and not be a stooge of others (oligarchs, as uncle tungsten says in #27) to try
undermine Russia!
The insinuations about polish antisemitism (as if Poles had monopoly in this subject!!!)
is in line with the possible use of Jewish „forces" in dealing with Polish nationalism,
and unpredictability of events in Eastern Europe, if the color revolutions continue, say in
Belarus..
The possible role of Israeli political calculus should also be kept in mind, as their
´plan B´, when Islam will get too dangerous for many Jews and who will suddenly
discover love to the land of their polish antisemites That is why Poland is mentioned that
many times.
Putin and the Russian Duma have previously accepted that the Katyn massacre occurred under
orders of Stalin and Beria. It's not Western of Polish propaganda.
While I understand that a lot has changed in the last 10 years with regards to the level
of anti-Russia hysteria, and I also understand that this essay is meant to bring forward the
Russian point of view on WW2 as opposed to the propaganda of the West, I stand by my earlier
statement that glossing over the bad things that happened under the orders of Stalin and
simply giving a generic "Stalin was a bad man" statement only leaves an otherwise excellent
historical essay open to be dismissed as propaganda.
There was a deal between US and Stalin that the Red Army would attack Japan 3 months after
the end of the war in Europe, which actually happened on time - the Manchurian campaign which
utterly destroyed the Japanese army in N. China/Manchukuo/Korea began on the 9th of August.
Japan wasn't prepared for this and still assumed the non-aggression agreement with USSR that
had been made in 1939 was still valid.
This wasn't Stalin trying to take advantage, the US were so far from invading the Main
Islands that everyone assumed the war would last another year. This was Stalin doing exactly
what Roosevelt had begged him to do at Yalta. And opening a 2nd front against Japan worked
far better than expected - and far better than when the Western Allies opened a 2nd front in
Europe against the Reich.
Historians, political scientists, Western "experts" and anti-communist "liberals" in Russia
have always attributed the Katyn massacre to the NKVD, the secret police of the Soviet
Union, providing alleged evidence and documents that would prove such authorship. However,
all indications suggest that the Katyn massacre is another historical falsification similar
to the Ukrainian Holodomor or to the figures given on the "millions of deaths" of Soviet
communism. The responsibility for what happened in Katyn, in light of the evidence and
testimonies provided, was the work of the Nazis.
80 years after the events of Katyn (supposedly happened in April 1940) near the city of
Smolensk (border with Belarus), where more than 20 thousand Polish soldiers were executed
in a nearby forest, the propaganda of the cold war returns with force, and the renewed
counterfeits of the West against Russia and the former USSR.
Definitely, there is not a single consistent proof of Soviet authorship in the Katyn
massacre.
Interestingly, on June 18, 2012, the European Communities Court of Justice for Human
Rights, following a claim by Polish relatives of the soldiers executed in Katyn, made a
surprising decision: the "documents" provided by Gorbachev and Yeltsin, after the fall of
the USSR (which we will talk about in the second part of this entry), indicating that
Stalin and the Soviets were guilty of the execution of tens of thousands of Polish officers
near Katyn, were false. A historical slap to the propagandists of the "Russian Katyn".
The alleged documents on the mass execution of Katyn, which appeared in the late 1980s,
were gutted by one of the members of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, Alexander
Yakovlev (a more than likely US agent who trained in North American Columbia University in
the late 1950s), turned out to be false. The European court did not even accept them for
consideration.
The European Court was also unable to clearly decide who was responsible for the
massacre since the judges did not have enough documentary evidence, although they spent
more than a year studying all kinds of historical documents and archival evidence. Until
around 1990, everyone was convinced that the Poles had been killed by the Germans. This
decision of the EECC Court of Justice has been completely ignored by the propagandists of
the Katyn myth.(...)
In the early 19th century, fueling the illusory hope of restoring Greater Poland, the
Poles sided with Napoleon in the war of 1812. The Polish army, created with the help of the
French, became part of the "Great Army "Of Bonaparte as the most reliable foreign
contingent. This was the third Polish invasion of Russia.
The Polish uprising of 1830 began with the widespread extermination of the Russians. In
all the churches they called for the indiscriminate murder of the Russians. In Warsaw, on
Easter night, an entire battalion of the Russian army was taken by surprise in a church.
2,265 Russian soldiers and officers died.
The Polish state, born in November 1918, immediately showed its hostility towards Soviet
Russia. With the help of the Entente, Poland begins preparations for a war against Russia.
Polish politicians had the possibility that a forceful blow from the Polish army would be
dealt to the Russian army.
Poland accompanied its aggressive intentions with a set of propaganda stereotypes about
the aggressiveness of the Bolsheviks. Numerous proposals from the young Soviet state to
conclude a peace treaty and establish diplomatic relations were rejected. Polish military
operations against Russia in the spring of 1920 were undertaken by Poland, not Soviet
Russia.
After tripling numerical superiority, Polish troops, along with the army of the
Ukrainian nationalist military man Simon Petliura, launched a full-scale offensive along
the entire Western Front from Pripyat to Dniester. This was the fourth Polish invasion of
Russian lands. In early May 1920, Polish and Petliura fighters captured Kiev. The invasion
of the allied forces of Poland and Petlyura was accompanied by brutal and inhuman
retaliation against the civilian civilian population.
In the occupied regions of Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania, Polish invaders established
bloody local governments, insulted and robbed civilians, or burned innocent people.
Orthodox churches became Polish Christian churches, national schools closed.(...)
The total number of prisoners of war who died in those concentration camps is not known
with certainty. However, there are various estimates based on the number of Soviet
prisoners of war who returned from Polish captivity - there were 75,699 people. Russian
historian Mikhail Meltiukhov estimates the number of prisoners killed at 60,000 people.
Mortality among prisoners of war reached 50 people per day and as of mid-November 1920 it
was 70 people per day. In the Tukholsky concentration camp alone, during the entire time of
its existence, 22 thousand Red Army prisoners of war died.
In other words, the Poles established in their concentration camps a systematic policy
of extermination with the Russians that reached the character of genocide, something that
has been systematically silenced or hidden by the West in favor of Polish propaganda. For
these crimes, the Poles today neither feel guilty nor have any remorse and disparagingly
call it "Russian propaganda".
In the period between the two world wars, Poland repeatedly threatened to destroy
Bolshevism and Russia as a state. Instead, as General Vladyslaw Anders, an active
participant in Pan-Poland's intervention against Soviet Russia in 1919-1920, admitted,
"There was never a real threat from the USSR to Poland."
Poland was never reluctant to attack Russia to hold, alongside Nazi Germany and Japan, a
parade of victorious Polish-German troops on Moscow's Red Square. Marshal and national hero
of Poland, the dictator Jozéf Pilsudsky, responsible for the mass extermination of
Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians and Jews, dreamed of coming to Moscow and writing "It is
forbidden to speak Russian on the Kremlin wall!"
In January 1934, Poland was the first, five years before the USSR, to conclude a
non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany. In late 1936, the Anti-Komintern Pact was concluded
with the signing of Germany and Japan, which were later joined by Italy, Spain, Romania,
Hungary, Denmark, Finland, Croatia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and the Republic of China (a state
puppet formed by the Japanese empire in occupied territory).
The Poles, at that time, flatly refused to sign any agreement with the USSR, a country
that despite having been throughout the history of countless Polish aggressions reached out
to Poland. As early as mid-August 1939, the Polish Foreign Minister Józef Beck, in
whose office there was a portrait of Hitler, declared that "we have no military agreement
with the USSR, nor do we want to have one."
In developing the plan of attack against Poland in early 1939, Hitler did not take into
account the overtly anti-Soviet policies of the Polish government before the war. He and
his entire circle despised and hated the Poles as a nation (even though they had been his
allies in the 1930s), which was natural since his supremacist ideology did not take into
account other nations than the German one.
In August 1939, before the attack on Poland, Hitler ordered that all Polish women, men,
and children be ruthlessly exterminated. During the years of occupation, the Nazis murdered
more than 6 million Poles, representing 22 percent of the Polish population. 95% of
genetically defective Poles were planned to be evicted from their homeland.
Soviet troops, by contrast, did not allow the Nazis to wipe Poland off the face of the
earth. No other force in the world could do this. "Poles must be very stupid, Winston
Churchill wrote in January 1944, if they don't understand who saved them and who for the
second time in the first half of the 20th century gives them the possibility of true
freedom and independence." These surprising statements by Churchill, a confessed
anti-communist, had nothing to do with the Cold War preparations that the British premier
against the USSR and the socialist countries subsequently devised and that was reflected in
his famous speech by Fulton (USA).
More than 600,000 Soviet soldiers gave their lives, saving the cities and towns of
Poland in battles with the Nazis. On the contrary, during the three weeks of the
Polish-German war of 1939, there were attacks by Polish troops against units of the Red
Army. As a consequence of these attacks, the Soviet army lost more than a thousand of its
men.
The Polish troops, who were in the midst of the Second World War in the territory of the
Soviet Union, refused to fight together with the Red Army against which it should be a
common Nazi enemy and left for Iran in the summer of 1942 While in the USSR, Polish troops
engaged in robbery in cities and towns and committed atrocities in them.
During World War II, up to half a million Polish volunteers fought on the eastern front
against the USSR, as part of the Nazi Wehrmacht (the regular army). In fact, the Germans
did not carry out a forced mobilization of Polish fighters to fight alongside Nazi Germany.
In the SS, the Poles acted voluntarily and in the Wehrmacht, they posed as "Germans" or
"semi-Germans".
During the four years of the war, the Red Army captured 4 million Wehrmacht soldiers and
volunteers from 24 European nationalities. The Poles on that list were in seventh place
(over 60,000 mercenaries), ahead of the Italians (about 49,000).
It should be noted that the mortality of German refugees in Polish camps in 1945-1946.
reached 50%. In the Potulice camp in 1947-1949 half of the prisoners died of starvation,
cold and harassment by the Polish guards. At the end of the war, four million Germans lived
in Poland. According to estimates by the Union of German Exiles, the loss of the German
population during the expulsion from Poland amounted to some 3 million people.
After the unmitigated defeat of the Wehrmacht in Stalingrad, it became clear that if
nothing extraordinary happened in favor of the Hitler regime, nothing would change the
course of events and the Third Reich would eventually implode in the very near future.
So the Nazis "discovered" in 1943, in the Katyn forest near Smolensk, a mass grave with
Polish officers. The Germans immediately declared that, as a result of the opening of the
graves, all those buried there had been executed by members of the Soviet Union's secret
police, the NKVD (People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs), in the spring of 1940. .
The official statement on the Katyn massacre was made by the Nazi government and
released by its Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, on April 13, 1943, in a statement
speaking about the "terrible discovery of the crimes of the Jewish commissioners of the
NKVD "in the Katyn Forest. With this propaganda device, Nazi Germany sought to divide the
anti-Hitler coalition and win the war.
The significance of such a declaration by the Goebbels Department had a cunning
undercurrent: the Polish government-in-exile would strongly oppose Moscow and thereby
pressure the British who sheltered them in London to stop supporting the Kremlin. According
to Berlin's calculations, the Poles would push the British and Americans to fight Stalin,
which could imply a completely different development from the events in World War II.
But Goebbels' calculation was not justified: Britain at the time did not consider it
profitable to believe in the "crime of the Bolsheviks". At the same time, the head of
London's "Polish government", General Wladyslaw Sikorski, took a relentless position and
began to truly become an obstacle to the great international policy of alliances between
the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union.
The Vladislav Sikorsky government in London supported Goebbels's version and began to
distribute it diligently, hoping that this would help regain power in Warsaw and spark a
war between the USSR and its anti-Hitler coalition allies. Sikorsky supported the Germans'
proposal to send to the Katyn region an "International Medical Commission" created by them
under the auspices of the International Red Cross (IRC) with doctors selected by Germany,
as well as experts from 13 allied countries and the German-occupied countries.
When his CRI commission reached Katyn, Goebbels demanded that his subordinates prepare
everything, including a medical report tailored to the Nazis. Under pressure from the Nazis
and so that events such as the terrible fate of Polish officers would not be repeated in
the future, the agreement was signed by the majority of the members of the international
commission.
Members of the commission, such as the doctor from the Department of Forensic Medicine
at Sofia University, Marko Markov, and the Czech professor of forensic medicine, Frantisek
Gajek, did not support Goebbels's version. The representatives of Vichy, France, Professor
Castedo, and Spain, Professor Antonio Piga and Pascual, did not put their signature on the
final document. After the war, all members of the international commission of forensic
experts abandoned their conclusions in the spring of 1943.
The Polish Red Cross Technical Commission, which worked in Katyn in specially "prepared"
places and under the control of the Germans, was unable to reach unequivocal conclusions
about the causes of death of the Polish officers, although they discovered German
cartridges used in the shooting of victims in the Katyn forest. Joseph Goebbels demanded to
keep this a secret so that the Katyn case would not collapse.
A few weeks later, on July 4, 1943, General Sikorsky, his daughter Zofya, and the head
of his cabinet, Brigadier General Tadeusz Klimecki, were killed in a plane crash near
Gibraltar. Only the Czech pilot, Eduard Prchal, survived, who was unable to clearly explain
why he put on a life jacket during this flight, when he generally did not.
The position of the "Western Allies" of the USSR in World War II on the Katyn issue
began to change along with the deterioration of relations between Washington-London and
Moscow, once the "cold war" began by the United States and its allies. The accusations
against the USSR were continued by the American Madden commission in 1951-1952.
Again, Victor@43, you make your point well, but perhaps we need to pay attention to what
karlof1 is saying at the end of his post at 29:
"Instead, he sent a backhanded message to those managing the Outlaw US Empire about
the fate they'll face if they continue on their path and exit the UN."
I'm not sure I understand the meaning of this (perhaps Karlof will elucidate when he has
time) but I do note that the essay has a slightly different focus than b's first link as its
title begins "The Real Lessons..."
So, what, we may ask, are those real lessons? Apparently the instances of Stalin's bad
behavior are not such, or are not what we need to learn.
And further, what is the importance of the final paragraphs of the essay, which call for
the Security Council leaders,(having agreed to do so) representing the nations which were
allied successfully during WWII, to meet as soon as possible? Putin has given in his essay
the example of the League of Nations, the failure of that body to prevent the second great
war. I saw his final statement more as an urgent call for unity in present crisis than as a
threat, but then I'm always a polyanna.
Putin glosses over Stalins aggressions against Finland and his annexations of Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and parts of Romania (Bessarabia, northern Bukovina and the Hertza
region), the latter in violation of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact , are overlooked
He justifies Russia taking back land in Poland because he claimed that was theirs was but
Hitler doing the same was not , and justified as a defensive measure against Germany while
ignoring Poland was a threat to Germany , as they sought alliance with UK/US
Stalin had a very large and well equipped military and was resource rich unlike
Germany.
Stalin began his buildup long before the war, perhaps anticipating Germanys military
expansion, or perhaps he had designs on Europe himself. Remember one of FDR's first moves as
President was recognizing Stalin and providing loans for trade in 1933
From Icebreaker (Suvorov)
In the early 1930s, American engineers traveled to the Soviet Union and built the
Uralvagonzavod (the Ural Railroad Car Factory). Uralvagonzavod was built in such a manner
that it could at any moment switch from producing railroad cars to producing tanks.
The most powerful aviation factory in the world was built in the Russian Far East. The
city Komsomolsk-na-Amure was built in order to service this factory. Both the factory and the
city were built according to American designs and furnished with the most modern American
equipment.
Western technology was the main key to success. The Soviet Union became the world's
biggest importer of machinery and equipment in the early 1930s, at a time when millions were
starving due to his bloody war against peasants, which was called collectivization. The
Soviet collectivization of 1932-1933 is estimated to have resulted in 3.5 to 5 million deaths
from starvation, and another three to 4 million deaths as a result of intolerable conditions
at the places of exile.
Cargo warplanes are used to deliver assault forces with parachutists to the enemy's rear.
Soviet war-transport aviation used the American Douglas DC-3, which was considered to be the
best cargo plane in the world at the start of World War II, as its primary cargo plane. In
1938, the U.S. government sold to Stalin the production license and the necessary amount of
the most complex equipment for the DC-3's production. The Soviet Union also bought 20 DC-3s
from the United States before the war.
In 1939, the Soviet Union produced six identical DC-3 aircraft; in 1940, it produced 51
DC-3 aircraft; and in 1941, it produced 237 DC-3 aircraft. During the entire war 2,419 DC-3s
or equivalent planes were produced in Soviet factories.
In the years 1937-1941, the Soviet Army grew five-fold, from 1.1 million to 5.5 million.
An additional 5.3 million people joined the ranks of the Red Army within one week of the
beginning of the war. A minimum of 34.5 million people were used by the Red Army during the
war. This huge increase in the size of the Soviet Army was accomplished primarily by
ratification of the universal military draft in the Soviet Union on Sept. 1, 1939.
According to the new law, the draft age was reduced from 21 to 19, and in some categories
to 18. This new law also allowed for the preparation of 18 million reservists, so that the
Soviet Union continued to fill the ranks of the Red Army with many millions of soldiers as
the war progressed.
The 9th Army appeared on the Romanian border on June 14, 1941, in the exact place where a
year ago it had "liberated" Bessarabia. If the Soviet 9th Army had been allowed to attack
Romania, Germany's main source of oil would have been lost and Germany would have been
defeated. Hitler's attack of the Soviet Union prevented this from happening. The
concentration of Soviet troops on Romanian borders presented a clear danger to Germany, and
was a major reason for the German invasion of the Soviet Union.
Looking for blame one must not forget to look home. US finance and industrialists built up
the Stalin and Hitler both with money, tech transfers, cartel agreements.
FDR pushed both the British and Poland into decisions which would lead to War.
When Germany tried to negotiate for Free Danzig , which was mostly German , Poland
succumbed to US and British pressure/promises of aid, so they took a hardline and took
measures to assume control over Free Danzig from the League of Nations. As a result Poles
began to persecute ethnic Germans of which there were many , forcing some to flee Poland into
Germany while those who wanted to protect their property stayed and faced the violence.
Everyone in the West knows about the D-Day landings in Normandy on 6 June 1944.
150,000 men on the first day, building up to 2 million men during the peak of Operation
Overlord.
Nobody in the West knows about Operation Bagration in the Eastern front, launched two
weeks after the D-Day landings.
Vastly bigger in every way, and it ended in the complete annihilation of Army Group Centre
and the severe mauling of Army Group North and Army Group South.
Operation Bagration was much more important to the defeat of Germany than Operation
Overlord.
Indeed, the Red Army would have succeeded even if the Normandy landings had not taken
place, whereas it is very, very unlikely that Operation Overlord would have succeeded if it
were not for the Germans being hamstrung by the carnage that was taking place in the
East.
Putin's own words in the center article of B: Stalin and his entourage, indeed, deserve
many legitimate accusations. We remember the crimes committed by the regime against its own
people and the horror of mass repressions. Lets keep that in mind and praise the USSR for
defeating the Nazi regime, never Stalin.
As for Churchill; he was a typical upper class imperialist most of his life but did
save GB in the critical early years of the Battle for Britain with his moral boosters.
Hitler showed how powerful a force nationalism can be to unite a people but simultaneously
demonstrated that by focusing on a country's Ego and not its Soul how wrong it can end up.
His "National Sozialismus" fouled both notions in the West and lead many to embrace globalism
and uncontrolled capitalism, of which we see the results today. He had Germany under his
black magic speeches for just one decade, but these after effects had Europe twisted for
many.
Putin holds on to the existing choice of the 5 permanent UNSC veto holders, probably not to
complicate matters now. The PRC was added in 1972 and the ROC (Taiwan) removed.
There is a lot of cherry picking of history going on when it comes to who did what to whom
in the lead up to WW2. All countries are a lot less innocent than they claim to be.
But I'm not sure why you are posting revisionist history about Katyn since the Russians
already admitted that the Soviets were responsible for the crime.
@ victor... a lot of posters here are suspect of wikipedia, and any number of media outlets
offering up their take on russia...
unfortunately if i was to believe the independent.co.uk - i would believe all the lies and
bulshit around skripal and for the record - i don't... a better source to back up your
viewpoint is needed.. thanks..
Schmatz@45 - as Victor at 52 says, there is no need to suspect anyone else for massacre in
Katyn (and other places btw), Russians admitted it. If you wish to see the signatures, a book
by Pavel Sudoplatov "Special Tasks" (available on Amazon) has a facsimile copy of the order
signed by Beria, Stalin and 2 or 3 more - to liquidate the Polish POW´s...
"No real errors in Putin's excellent essay, but some glossing over of certain major
incidents, including the arrests, deportations and executions of thousands of Poles committed
by the Soviets when they invaded Poland, the absorption of the Baltic countries, and the war
with Finland. Unfortunately, omitting important details just gives ammunition to the many
Putin haters to claim that this is just more Russian historical revisionism and
propaganda."
I agree on the Baltic states. I think it's the one part of Putin's essay I'd take issue
with.
He should have made the strategic case for why the USSR felt compelled to take control of
Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. The Baltic coastline and approach to Leningrad were both very
significant. Of course it's true that Russia lost control of all three for most of the war,
but that doesn't change the strategic validity of Soviet policy in 1940.
The same thing goes for Soviet demands to control some coastal area and islands in Finland
which led to the Soviet-Finnish War of 1939-40.
Instead of making a strategic case, Putin tries to whitewash the Russian takeover by
claiming "consent." That is a weak argument and the only real point of weakness I see in his
essay.
A Senate committee approved subpoenas Thursday for more than 50 mostly Obama-era officials
in a dramatic escalation of the investigation into origins of the Trump-Russia collusion
probe.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is
wielding the subpoena power, said the move will finally put on the hot seat top officials,
including former FBI Director James B. Comey and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
"Comey and McCabe and that whole crowd -- their day is coming," Mr. Graham said.
Others targeted for subpoenas are former National Intelligence Director James R. Clapper,
former CIA chief John O. Brennan, former Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, former Deputy
Attorney General Sally Q. Yates, Justice Department official Bruce Ohr and FBI officials Lisa
Page, Peter Strzok, James Baker and Bill Priestap.
The panel's politically charged inquiry has the potential to rewrite the Russia collusion
narrative that until recently dominated Washington and colored voters' views of the Justice
Department and the Obama administration, in which presumptive Democratic presidential nominee
Joseph R. Biden served as vice president.
Democrats said the investigation is a fishing expedition intended to smear President Trump's
political enemies as the campaign season heats up.
"Never has a chairman devoted the full weight of this committee's resources to pursue a
wholly partisan investigation after being prompted by a presidential campaign," said Sen.
Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat and a panel member.
The committee's probe also is a response to public pressure from Trump supporters who are
frustrated with the lack of accountability for top officials at the FBI and Justice Department
who publicly pushed the unsubstantiated collusion accusations.
Accusations of collusion with Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election dogged Mr.
Trump since he took office and fueled Democrats' charges that he occupies the Oval Office
illegitimately.
Most of Mr. Trump's term was conducted under the cloud of special counsel Robert Mueller's
Russia investigation, which failed to dig up evidence of collusion or charge any Trump allies
on charges related to conspiring with Russia.
Mr. Trump calls the Russia probe a "hoax."
His supporters think it was a political hit job orchestrated by Democrats with the help of a
deep state.
In a party-line vote, Republicans on the panel granted Mr. Graham the authority to
subpoena individuals for documents and testimony about the origins of the Russia probe.
Mr. Graham has the power to subpoena "any current or former executive branch official or
employee involved in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation," the name of the FBI's
investigation into alleged ties to the Trump campaign and Russia.
He also has the authority to subpoena individuals involved in the dissemination of a
report by former British spy Christopher Steele, who compiled a salacious but unverified
opposition-research dossier against Mr. Trump funded by the Democratic National Committee and
the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.
Fusion GPS founder Glenn R. Simpson and Nellie Ohr are expected to receive subpoenas for
their roles in commissioning and distributing the dossier.
Republicans contend that mounting evidence suggests the Russia probe was not on the up and
up.
A report last year by the Justice Department inspector general found multiple errors and
omissions in the FBI's application for a court order to surveil former Trump campaign adviser
Carter Page.
The omissions, which included potentially exculpatory evidence, have raised questions
about whether Mr. Page was a political target by anti-Trump officials in the FBI before and
after the election.
Mr. Graham also wants to probe the case against former National Security Adviser Michael
Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian
ambassador.
The Justice Department moved this year to dismiss the case after spending roughly two years
prosecuting it. The department said the FBI did not have a sufficient basis to interview Flynn
because it sought to close the case after failing to uncover wrongdoing.
Sen. Mazie K. Hirono, Hawaii Democrat, accused Mr. Graham of going over "ground that has
already been covered."
In a bid to upend the subpoena vote, Democrats sought to add a series of amendments to
compel testimony and documents from Mr. Trump's allies.
Among the individuals Democrats want to be subpoenaed are former Trump fixer Michael Cohen,
former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, attorney
Rudolph W. Giuliani and Flynn.
The amendments were defeated easily in a series of party-line votes.
"The fact that you are turning down every single relevant witness tells us and tells the
world this is an irrelevant investigation," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat.
Mr. Graham clapped back that Trump associates were heavily scrutinized in the Mueller
probe.
"I don't understand why you would want to do the Mueller investigation all over again after
we've spent 2½ years and $25 million doing it," said Mr. Graham. "I'm sorry it didn't
turn out the way people liked, but it is behind us. Now we are going to look at what happened
and the misconduct involved and hold people accountable."
Under committee rules, Mr. Graham cannot issue a subpoena unilaterally. The committee
chairman can issue a subpoena only with the consent of the ranking member or a committee
vote.
Democrats said the granting of subpoena power to one person violated the committee's
bipartisan spirit. They accused Mr. Graham of trying to grant himself "unilateral subpoena
authority."
"The resolution would give the chair sole authority to issue literally hundreds of subpoenas
without any agreement from the ranking member of any committee to vote on any specific
subpoena," said Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the committee.
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted last week to authorize
subpoenas from individuals associated with the Russia probe. It is not clear how the two
committees will work together with similar investigations and subpoenas.
It turns out that the BBC really does believe that God is an Englishman. When the simple
impossibility of the official story on the Skripals finally overwhelmed the dramatists, they
resorted to Divine Intervention for an explanation – as propagandists have done for
millennia.
This particular piece of script from Episode 2 of The Salisbury Poisonings deserves an
induction in the Propaganda Hall of Fame:
Porton Down Man: I've got the reports from the Bailey house
Public Health Woman: Tell me, how many hits?
Porton Down Man: It was found in almost every room of the house. Kitchen, bathroom, living
room, bedrooms. It was even on the light switches. We found it in the family car too. But his
wife and children haven't been affected. I like to think of myself as a man of science, but
the only word for that is a miracle.
Well, it certainly would be a miracle that the family lived for a week in the house without
touching a light switch. But miracle is not really the "only word for that". Nonsense is a good
word. Bullshit is a ruder version. Lie is entirely appropriate in these circumstances.
Because that was not the only miracle on display. We were told specifically that the
Skripals had trailed novichok all over Zizzis and the Bishops Mill pub, leaving multiple deadly
deposits, dozens of them in total, which miraculously nobody had touched. We were told that
Detective Bailey was found to have left multiple deadly deposits of novichok on everything he
touched in a busy police station, but over several days before it was closed down nobody had
touched any of them, which must be an even bigger miracle than the Baileys' home.
Perhaps even more amazingly, as the Skripals spread novichok all over the restaurant and the
pub, nobody who served them had been harmed, nobody who took their payment. The man who went
through Sergei's wallet to learn his identity from his credit cards was not poisoned. The
people giving first aid were not poisoned. The ducks Sergei fed were not poisoned. The little
boy he fed the ducks with was not poisoned. So many miracles. If God were not an Englishman,
Salisbury would have been in real trouble, evidently.
The conclusion of episode two showed Charlie Rowley fishing out the perfume bottle from the
charity bin at least two months in the timeline before this really happened, thus neatly
sidestepping one of the most glaring impossibilities in the entire official story. I think we
can forgive the BBC that lie – there are only so many instances of divine intervention in
the story the public can be expected to buy in one episode.
It is fascinating to see that the construction of this edifice of lies was a joint venture
between the BBC and the security services' house journal, the Guardian. Not only is all round
pro-war propagandist "Colonel" Hamish De Bretton Gordon credited as Military Advisor, but
Guardian journalists Caroline Bannock and Steven Morris are credited as Script Consultants,
which I presume means they fed in the raw lies for the scriptwriters to shape into
miracles.
Now here is an interesting ethical point for readers of the Guardian. The Guardian published
in the last fortnight
two articles by
Morris and Bannock that purported to be reporting on the production of the drama and its
authenticity, without revealing to the readers that these full time Guardian journalists were
in fact a part of the BBC project. That is unethical and unprofessional in a number of quite
startling ways. But then it is the Guardian.
[Full disclosure. I shared a flat with Caroline at university. She was an honest person in
those days.]
Again, rather than pepper this article with links, I urge you to read
this comprehensive article , which contains plenty of links and remains entirely
unanswered.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
The original source of this
article is Craig Murray
"... Twitter Robespierres who move from discipline to discipline torching reputations and jobs with breathtaking casualness. ..."
"... The leaders of this new movement are replacing traditional liberal beliefs about tolerance, free inquiry, and even racial harmony with ideas so toxic and unattractive that they eschew debate, moving straight to shaming, threats, and intimidation. They are counting on the guilt-ridden, self-flagellating nature of traditional American progressives, who will not stand up for themselves, and will walk to the Razor voluntarily. ..."
"... Now, this madness is coming for journalism. Beginning on Friday, June 5th, a series of controversies rocked the media. By my count, at least eight news organizations dealt with internal uprisings (it was likely more). Most involved groups of reporters and staffers demanding the firing or reprimand of colleagues who'd made politically "problematic" editorial or social media decisions. ..."
"... The New York Times, the Intercept , Vox, the Philadelphia Inquirier, Variety , and others saw challenges to management. ..."
"... I always question, why does a Black life matter only when a white man takes it?... Like, if a white man takes my life tonight, it's going to be national news, but if a Black man takes my life, it might not even be spoken of It's stuff just like that that I just want in the mix. ..."
"... The traditional view of the press was never based on some contrived, mathematical notion of "balance," i.e. five paragraphs of Republicans for every five paragraphs of Democrats. The ideal instead was that we showed you everything we could see, good and bad, ugly and not, trusting that a better-informed public would make better decisions. This vision of media stressed accuracy, truth, and trust in the reader's judgment as the routes to positive social change. ..."
Sometimes it seems life can't get any worse in this country. Already in terror of a
pandemic, Americans have lately been bombarded with images of grotesque state-sponsored
violence, from the murder of George Floyd to countless scenes of police clubbing and
brutalizing protesters.
Our president, Donald Trump, is a clown who makes a great reality-show villain but is
uniquely toolless as the leader of a superpower nation. Watching him try to think through two
society-imperiling crises is like waiting for a gerbil to solve Fermat's theorem.
Calls to "dominate" marchers and ad-libbed speculations about Floyd's "great day" looking
down from heaven at Trump's crisis management and new unemployment numbers ("
only" 21 million out of work!) were pure gasoline at a tinderbox moment. The man seems
determined to talk us into civil war.
But police violence, and Trump's daily assaults on the presidential competence standard, are
only part of the disaster. On the other side of the political aisle, among self-described
liberals, we're watching an intellectual revolution. It feels liberating to say after years of
tiptoeing around the fact, but the American left has lost its mind. It's become a cowardly mob
of upper-class social media addicts, Twitter Robespierres who move from discipline to
discipline torching reputations and jobs with breathtaking casualness.
The leaders of this new movement are replacing traditional liberal beliefs about tolerance,
free inquiry, and even racial harmony with ideas so toxic and unattractive that they eschew
debate, moving straight to shaming, threats, and intimidation. They are counting on the
guilt-ridden, self-flagellating nature of traditional American progressives, who will not stand
up for themselves, and will walk to the Razor voluntarily.
Now, this madness is coming for journalism. Beginning on Friday, June 5th, a series of
controversies rocked the media. By my count, at least eight news organizations dealt with
internal uprisings (it was likely more). Most involved groups of reporters and staffers
demanding the firing or reprimand of colleagues who'd made politically "problematic" editorial
or social media decisions.
The New York Times, the Intercept , Vox, the Philadelphia
Inquirier, Variety , and others saw challenges to management.
Probably the most disturbing story involved Intercept writer Lee Fang, one of a
fast-shrinking number of young reporters actually skilled in investigative journalism. Fang's
work in the area of campaign finance especially has led to concrete impact, including a
record fine to a conservative Super PAC : few young reporters have done more to combat
corruption.
Yet Fang found himself denounced online as a racist, then hauled before H.R. His crime?
During protests, he tweeted this interview with an African-American
man named Maximum Fr, who described having two cousins murdered in the East Oakland
neighborhood where he grew up. Saying his aunt is still not over those killings, Max asked:
I always question, why does a Black life matter only when a white man takes it?...
Like, if a white man takes my life tonight, it's going to be national news, but if a Black
man takes my life, it might not even be spoken of It's stuff just like that that I just want
in the mix.
Shortly after, a co-worker of Fang's, Akela Lacy, wrote, "Tired of being made to deal
continually with my co-worker @lhfang continuing to push black on black crime narratives after
being repeatedly asked not to. This isn't about me and him, it's about institutional racism and
using free speech to couch anti-blackness. I am so fucking tired." She followed with, "Stop
being racist Lee."
Like many reporters, Fang has always viewed it as part of his job to ask questions in all
directions. He's written critically of political figures on the center-left, the left, and
"obviously on the right," and his reporting has inspired serious threats in the past. None of
those past experiences were as terrifying as this blitz by would-be colleagues, which he
described as "jarring," "deeply isolating," and "unique in my professional experience."
To save his career, Fang had to craft a public apology for
"insensitivity to the lived experience of others." According to one friend of his, it's been
communicated to Fang that his continued employment at The Intercept is contingent upon
avoiding comments that may upset colleagues. Lacy to her credit publicly thanked Fang for his
statement and expressed willingness to have a conversation; unfortunately, the throng of
Intercept co-workers who piled on her initial accusation did not join her in this.
I first met Lee Fang in 2014 and have never known him to be anything but kind, gracious, and
easygoing. He also appears earnestly committed to making the world a better place through his
work. It's stunning that so many colleagues are comfortable using a word as extreme and
villainous as racist to describe him.
Though he describes his upbringing as "solidly middle-class," Fang grew up in up in a
diverse community in Prince George's County, Maryland, and attended public schools where he was
frequently among the few non-African Americans in his class. As a teenager, he was witness to
the murder of a young man outside his home by police who were never prosecuted, and also
volunteered at a shelter for trafficked women, two of whom were murdered. If there's an edge to
Fang at all, it seems geared toward people in our business who grew up in affluent
circumstances and might intellectualize topics that have personal meaning for him.
In the tweets that got him in trouble with Lacy and other co-workers, he questioned the
logic of protesters attacking immigrant-owned businesses " with no connection to police brutality
at all ." He also offered his opinion on Martin Luther King's attitude toward
violent protest (Fang's take was that King did not support it; Lacy responded, "you know
they killed him too right"). These are issues around which there is still considerable
disagreement among self-described liberals, even among self-described leftists. Fang also
commented, presciently as it turns out, that many reporters were "terrified of openly
challenging the lefty conventional wisdom around riots."
Lacy says she never intended for Fang to be "fired, 'canceled,' or deplatformed," but
appeared irritated by questions on the subject, which she says suggest, "there is more concern
about naming racism than letting it persist."
Max himself was stunned to find out that his comments on all this had created a Twitter
firestorm. "I couldn't believe they were coming for the man's job over something I said," he
recounts. "It was not Lee's opinion. It was my opinion."
By phone, Max spoke of a responsibility he feels Black people have to speak out against all
forms of violence, "precisely because we experience it the most." He described being affected
by the Floyd story, but also by the story of retired African-American police captain David
Dorn, shot to death in recent
protests in St. Louis. He also mentioned Tony Timpa, a white man whose 2016 asphyxiation by
police was only uncovered last year. In body-camera footage, police are heard joking after
Timpa passed out and stopped moving, "
I don't want to go to school! Five more minutes, Mom !"
"If it happens to anyone, it has to be called out," Max says.
Max described discussions in which it was argued to him that bringing up these other
incidents now is not helpful to the causes being articulated at the protests. He understands
that point of view. He just disagrees.
"They say, there has to be the right time and a place to talk about that," he says. "But my
point is, when? I want to speak out now." He pauses. "We've taken the narrative, and instead of
being inclusive with it, we've become exclusive with it. Why?"
There were other incidents. The editors of Bon
Apetit and Refinery29 both resigned amid accusations
of toxic workplace culture. The editor of Variety, Claudia Eller, was
placed on leave after calling a South Asian freelance writer "bitter" in a Twitter exchange
about minority hiring at her company. The self-abasing apology ("I have tried to diversify our
newsroom over the past seven years, but I HAVE NOT DONE ENOUGH") was insufficient. Meanwhile,
the Philadelphia Inquirer's editor, Stan Wischowski, was forced out after approving a
headline, "Buildings matter, too."
In the most discussed incident, Times editorial page editor James Bennet was ousted
for green-lighting an anti-protest editorial by Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton
entitled, " Send in the
troops ."
I'm no fan of Cotton, but as was the case with Michael Moore's documentary and many other
controversial speech episodes, it's not clear that many of the people angriest about the piece
in question even read it. In classic Times fashion, the paper has already scrubbed a
mistake they made misreporting what their own editorial said, in an article about Bennet's
ouster. Here's how the piece by Marc Tracy
read originally (emphasis mine):
James Bennet, the editorial page editor of The New York Times, has resigned after a
controversy over an Op-Ed by a senator calling for military force against protesters in
American cities.
James Bennet resigned on Sunday from his job as the editorial page editor of The New York
Times, days after the newspaper's opinion section, which he oversaw, published a
much-criticized Op-Ed by a United States senator calling for a military response to civic
unrest in American cities.
Cotton did not call for "military force against protesters in American cities." He spoke of
a "show of force," to rectify a situation a significant portion of the country saw as spiraling
out of control. It's an important distinction. Cotton was presenting one side of the most
important question on the most important issue of a critically important day in American
history.
As Cotton points out in the piece, he was advancing a view arguably held by a majority of
the country. A Morning Consult poll showed
58% of Americans either strongly or somewhat supported the idea of "calling in the U.S.
military to supplement city police forces." That survey included 40% of self-described
"liberals" and 37% of African-Americans. To declare a point of view held by that many people
not only not worthy of discussion, but so toxic that publication of it without even necessarily
agreeing requires dismissal, is a dramatic reversal for a newspaper that long cast itself as
the national paper of record.
Incidentally, that
same poll cited by Cotton showed that 73% of Americans described protecting property as
"very important," while an additional 16% considered it "somewhat important." This means the
Philadelphia Inquirer editor was fired for running a headline – "Buildings
matter, too" – that the poll said expressed a view held by 89% of the population,
including 64% of African-Americans.
(Would I have run the Inquirer headline? No. In the context of the moment, the use
of the word "matter" especially sounds like the paper is equating "Black lives" and
"buildings," an odious and indefensible comparison. But why not just make this case in a
rebuttal editorial? Make it a teaching moment? How can any editor operate knowing that airing
opinions shared by a majority of readers might cost his or her job?)
The main thing accomplished by removing those types of editorials from newspapers -- apart
from scaring the hell out of editors -- is to shield readers from knowledge of what a major
segment of American society is thinking.
It also guarantees that opinion writers and editors alike will shape views to avoid
upsetting colleagues, which means that instead of hearing what our differences are and how we
might address those issues, newspaper readers will instead be presented with page after page of
people professing to agree with one another. That's not agitation, that's misinformation.
The instinct to shield audiences from views or facts deemed politically uncomfortable has
been in evidence since Trump became a national phenomenon. We saw it when reporters told
audiences Hillary Clinton's small crowds were a "
wholly intentional " campaign decision. I listened to colleagues that summer of 2016 talk
about ignoring poll results, or anecdotes about Hillary's troubled campaign, on the grounds
that doing otherwise might "help Trump" (or, worse, be perceived that way).
Even if you embrace a wholly politically utilitarian vision of the news media – I
don't, but let's say – non-reporting of that "enthusiasm" story, or ignoring adverse poll
results, didn't help Hillary's campaign. I'd argue it more likely accomplished the opposite,
contributing to voter apathy by conveying the false impression that her victory was secure.
After the 2016 election, we began to see staff uprisings. In one case, publishers at the
Nation faced a revolt – from the Editor on down – after
articles by Aaron Mate
and Patrick Lawrence questioning the evidentiary basis for Russiagate claims was run.
Subsequent events, including the recent
declassification of congressional testimony , revealed that Mate especially was right to
point out that officials had no evidence for a Trump-Russia collusion case. It's precisely
because such unpopular views often turn out to be valid that we stress publishing and debating
them in the press.
In a related incident, the New Yorker ran an article about Glenn Greenwald's
Russiagate skepticism that quoted that same Nation editor, Joan Walsh, who had edited
Greenwald at Salon. She suggested to the New Yorker that Greenwald's
reservations were rooted in "disdain" for the Democratic Party, in part because of its
closeness to Wall Street, but also because of the " ascendance
of women and people of color ." The message was clear: even if you win a Pulitzer Prize,
you can be accused of racism for deviating from approved narratives, even on questions that
have nothing to do with race (the New Yorker piece also implied Greenwald's
intransigence on Russia was pathological and grounded in trauma from childhood).
In the case of Cotton, Times staffers protested on the grounds that " Running
this puts Black @NYTimes staff in danger ." Bennet's editorial decision was not merely
ill-considered, but literally life-threatening (note pundits in the space of a few weeks have
told us that
protesting during lockdowns and notprotesting during
lockdowns are both literally lethal). The Times first attempted to rectify the
situation by apologizing, adding a long
Editor's note to Cotton's piece that read, as so many recent "apologies" have, like a note
written by a hostage.
Editors begged forgiveness for not being more involved, for not thinking to urge Cotton to
sound less like Cotton ("Editors should have offered suggestions"), and for allowing rhetoric
that was "needlessly harsh and falls short of the thoughtful approach that advances useful
debate." That last line is sadly funny, in the context of an episode in which reporters were
seeking to pre-empt a debate rather than have one at all; of course, no one got the joke, since
a primary characteristic of the current political climate is a total absence of a sense of
humor in any direction.
As many guessed, the "apology" was not enough, and Bennet was whacked a day later
in a terse announcement.
His replacement, Kathleen Kingsbury, issued a staff directive essentially telling employees
they now had a veto over
anything that made them uncomfortable : "Anyone who sees any piece of Opinion journalism,
headlines, social posts, photos -- you name it -- that gives you the slightest pause, please
call or text me immediately."
All these episodes sent a signal to everyone in a business already shedding jobs at an
extraordinary rate that failure to toe certain editorial lines can and will result in the loss
of your job. Perhaps additionally, you could face a public shaming campaign in which you will
be denounced as a racist and rendered unemployable.
These tensions led to amazing contradictions in coverage. For all the
extraordinary/inexplicable scenes of police viciousness in recent weeks -- and there was a ton
of it, ranging from police slashing tires in Minneapolis,
to Buffalo officers knocking over an elderly man,
to Philadelphia
police attacking protesters -- there were also
12 deaths in the first nine days of protests, only one at the hands of a police officer
(involving a man who may or may not have been aiming a gun at police).
Looting in some communities has been so bad that people have been left without banks to cash
checks, or pharmacies to fill prescriptions; business owners have been wiped out ("
My life is gone ," commented one Philly store owner); a car dealership in San Leandro,
California saw
74 cars stolen in a single night. It isn't the whole story, but it's demonstrably true that
violence, arson, and rioting are occurring.
Even people who try to keep up with protest goals find themselves denounced the moment they
fail to submit to some new tenet of ever-evolving doctrine, via a surprisingly consistent
stream of retorts: fuck you, shut up, send money, do better, check yourself, I'm tired
and racist .
Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey, who argued for police reform and attempted to show solidarity
with protesters in his city, was shouted down after he refused to
commit to defunding the police. Protesters shouted "Get the fuck out!" at him, then chanted "
Shame !" and threw refuse, Game of Thrones-style , as he skulked out of the gathering.
Frey's "shame" was refusing to endorse a position polls show 65% of
Americans oppose , including 62% of Democrats, with just 15% of all people, and only 33% of
African-Americans, in support.
Each passing day sees more scenes that recall something closer to cult religion than
politics. White protesters in Floyd's Houston hometown
kneeling and praying to black residents for "forgiveness for years and years of racism" are
one thing, but what are we to make of white police in Cary, North Carolina, kneeling and
washing the feet of Black pastors? What about Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer kneeling
while dressed in "
African kente cloth scarves "?
There is symbolism here that goes beyond frustration with police or even with racism: these
are orgiastic, quasi-religious, and most of all, deeply weird scenes, and the press is too
paralyzed to wonder at it. In a business where the first job requirement was once the
willingness to ask tough questions, we've become afraid to ask obvious ones.
On CNN, Minneapolis City Council President Lisa Bender was asked a hypothetical question
about a future without police: "What if in the middle of the night, my home is broken into? Who
do I call?" When Bender, who is white, answered , "I know that comes from
a place of privilege," questions popped to mind. Does privilege mean one should let someone
break into one's home, or that one shouldn't ask that hypothetical question? (I was genuinely
confused). In any other situation, a media person pounces on a provocative response to dig out
its meaning, but an increasingly long list of words and topics are deemed too dangerous to
discuss.
The media in the last four years has devolved into a succession of moral manias. We are told
the Most Important Thing Ever is happening for days or weeks at a time, until subjects are
abruptly dropped and forgotten, but the tone of warlike emergency remains: from James Comey's
firing, to the deification of Robert Mueller, to the Brett Kavanaugh nomination, to the
democracy-imperiling threat to intelligence "whistleblowers," all those interminable months of
Ukrainegate hearings (while Covid-19 advanced), to fury at the death wish of lockdown
violators, to the sudden reversal on that same issue, etc.
It's been learned in these episodes we may freely misreport reality, so long as the
political goal is righteous. It was okay to publish the now-discredited Steele dossier, because
Trump is scum. MSNBC could put Michael Avenatti on live TV to air a gang rape allegation
without vetting, because who cared about Brett Kavanaugh – except press airing of that
wild story ended up being a crucial factor in convincing key swing voter Maine Senator Susan
Collins the anti-Kavanaugh campaign was a political hit job (the allegation illustrated, "why
the presumption of innocence is so important,"
she said ). Reporters who were anxious to prevent Kavanaugh's appointment, in other words,
ended up helping it happen through overzealousness.
There were no press calls for self-audits after those episodes, just as there won't be a few
weeks from now if Covid-19 cases spike, or a few months from now if Donald Trump wins
re-election successfully painting the Democrats as supporters of violent protest who want to
abolish police. No: press activism is limited to denouncing and shaming colleagues for
insufficient fealty to the cheap knockoff of bullying campus Marxism that passes for leftist
thought these days.
The traditional view of the press was never based on some contrived, mathematical notion of
"balance," i.e. five paragraphs of Republicans for every five paragraphs of Democrats. The
ideal instead was that we showed you everything we could see, good and bad, ugly and not,
trusting that a better-informed public would make better decisions. This vision of media
stressed accuracy, truth, and trust in the reader's judgment as the routes to positive social
change.
For all our infamous failings, journalists once had some toughness to them. We were supposed
to be willing to go to jail for sources we might not even like, and fly off to war zones or
disaster areas without question when editors asked. It was also once considered a virtue to
flout the disapproval of colleagues to fight for stories we believed in (Watergate, for
instance).
Today no one with a salary will stand up for colleagues like Lee Fang. Our brave
truth-tellers make great shows of shaking fists at our parody president , but not one of them
will talk honestly about the fear running through their own newsrooms. People depend on us to
tell them what we see, not what we think. What good are we if we're afraid to do it?
This is such an IMPORTANT story.
But it's not just happening in newsrooms, it's happening everywhere: college campuses,
corporations and the workplace, social media platforms, politics, you name it. These
ideologues are the Red Guard of a new Cultural Revolution. Their goal is power and their
method is leveraging progressive guilt. I think they are far, far more dangerous than
Donald Trump or anything going on with the right. Thank you Matt for writing about this!
163
Dazed and Confused Jun 13
Bravo for writing this Matt.
You could, of course, have written it without first establishing your bona fides as a trump
detractor. The problem you address has nothing to do with trump and would exist regardless
of who was in the white house. This doesn't mean there are no problems with trump, or that
he hasn't made a bad situation worse. But that is where we are today. Before anyone can
criticize the obviously insane ideological absurdities within the liberal/left wing press
they must first take a swing at trump in case anyone thinks criticism of the press is the
same thing as supporting trump. How sad.
People who post of Twitter are stupid by definition, but people who fire employees for
posting on Twitter are trying to replicate excesses of Stalinism (and, in way, McCarthysm) on a
farce level. As in Marx "history repeats: first as tragedy, the second as farce"
By classifying the (somewhat incorrect; Obama was elected not only because he was half black,
but also because he was half--CIA ;-) Twit below as the cry "fire" in crowded theater, we really
try to replay the atmosphere of Stalinist Russia on a new level.
Notable quotes:
"... Austin Symphony Trombonist Fired Over Racist Comments , The Violin Channel, June 1, 2020 ..."
Have you checked out the 1/2 black president swine flu H1N1, and EBOLA?
What has your 1/2 black president done for you??
The ONLY REASON he was elected was because he is 1/2 black.
People voted on racist principles, not on the real issues . The BLACKS are looting and
destroying their environment. They deserve what
they get. Playing the RACE CARD IS RACIST.
Symphony orchestra spokes-critter Anthony Corroa [ Email him
]announced the firing of Ms. Salas in the dreary schoolmarmish jargon of corporate wokeness:
This language is not reflective of who we are as an organization." And "there is no
place for hate within our organization."
"If none of us ever read a book that was "dangerous," had a friend who was "different," or
joined an organization that advocated "change," we would all be the kind of people Joe
McCarthy wants."
The President of Russia Vladimir Putin has taken the opportunity of the 75th anniversary
of the end of World War II to describe the build-up to the war, the diplomatic and military
considerations Russia took into account during that time, and the results of the allies'
victory.
His essay was published in multiple languages on the Website of the Kremlin:
The part with the Russian view of the behavior of various nation in the late 1930s is most
interesting. But this passage, related to the graphic above, is also very relevant:
The Soviet Union and the Red Army, no matter what anyone is trying to prove today, made the
main and crucial contribution to the defeat of Nazism.
...
This is a report of February 1945 on reparation from Germany by the Allied Commission on
Reparations headed by Ivan Maisky. The Commission's task was to define a formula according
to which defeated Germany would have to pay for the damages sustained by the victor powers.
The Commission concluded that "the number of soldier-days spent by Germany on the Soviet
front is at least 10 times higher than on all other allied fronts. The Soviet front also
had to handle four-fifths of German tanks and about two-thirds of German aircraft." On the
whole, the USSR accounted for about 75 percent of all military efforts undertaken by the
Anti-Hitler Coalition. During the war period, the Red Army "ground up" 626 divisions of the
Axis states, of which 508 were German.
On April 28, 1942, Franklin D. Roosevelt said in his address to the American nation:
"These Russian forces have destroyed and are destroying more armed power of our enemies
– troops, planes, tanks, and guns – than all the other United Nations put
together." Winston Churchill in his message to Joseph Stalin of September 27, 1944, wrote
that "it is the Russian army that tore the guts out of the German military machine "
Such an assessment has resonated throughout the world. Because these words are the great
truth, which no one doubted then. Almost 27 million Soviet citizens lost their lives on the
fronts, in German prisons, starved to death and were bombed, died in ghettos and furnaces
of the Nazi death camps. The USSR lost one in seven of its citizens, the UK lost one in
127, and the USA lost one in 320.
As a German and former officer who has read quite a bit about the war I agree with the
Russian view. It was the little acknowledged industrial power of the Soviet Union and the
remarkable dedication of the Red Army soldiers that defeated the German Wehrmacht.
At the end of his essay Putin defends the veto power of the five permanent members of the
United Nations Security Council. In his view it has prevented that another clash on a global
scale has happened since World War II ended. Putin rejects attempts to abolish that
system.
I have found no major flaw with the historic facts in the essay and recommend to read it
in full.
Posted by b at 17:07 UTC | Comments (22)
thanks for highlighting this b.... the graph at the top is very telling of how many people
remain fairly ignorant of the reality on the ground.. putins speech and text are well worth
the read... s and karlof1 posted a link on the open thread and some of us were talking about
it their.... i found putins comments on the UN especially interesting...
I wonder if the brainwashing going on in the usa about how bad the UN is, is another
example of americans being dumbed right down into believing the UN is useless? that is what
it looks like to me... some of us aren't buying that and i am glad to see putin make some
comments on that as well... thanks for highlighting this.. revisionist history seems to be a
speciality of some..
When I read here and in the article the quotes from Churchill and the "west" praising
Russia's conduct of the war against fascism I can't help but translate them into praise for
Hitler should he have won. British and US oligarchs were funding and supporting Hitler all
along, which is well documented. For the oligarchy it made little difference who won.
The strategy of the imperial oligarchy was to let all its potential competitors deplete
their resources then move in with its full power when the outcome had already been determined
and pray on their weakness. It worked as we see in the global imperial power of the Western
oligarchy as engineered by Roosevelt after the war which has ruled now for 75 years.
What Putin wrote already was common sense among historians, but it is good to see it becoming
more mainstream.
My theory about the USA trying to get the credit for defeating the Third Reich - even
though it has the victory against Japan (an empire that made the Third Reich look like Human
Rights lovers) - comes from the fact that the European Peninsula became the major theater of
the Cold War. The USA had then to create a narrative that could justify its supremacy over
Western Europe, and its attempts to "liberate" Eastern Europe.
Yes, the Korean War happened in the early 1950s, but Japan was secured, Soviet access to
warm water port in Asia was thus blocked and, after the Mao-Nixon pact of 1972, China (and
thus North Korea) was out of the Soviet sphere. That made the European Peninsula even more
important. Indeed, the threat of invading and occupying West Berlin was one of the greatest
leverages the Soviets had and used against the USA during the whole Cold War. This leverage
became even more pronounced after the Soviets successfully crushed the Hungarian
counter-revolution of 1956, which sobered up the CIA and the hampered the USG's ambitions on
absorbing Eastern Europe by propaganda and subversion warfare.
The most baffling news to me recently was when I found out that Poland invaded the CSSR
together with Hitler and occupied a part of the Czech Republic in March 1939 - and I went
through several decades of WW2 "education" just as everyone. Not even Wikipedia mentions the
Polish contribution to the invasion and occupation of the CSSR, which is very telling.
It sheds an entirely new light on the entire development right before WW2, in which Hitler
went all-in to give Poland something for the future return of Danzig. Poland took it, but
didn't realize that it was part of a deal, so Hitler activated Plan B. The process was
certainly aggressive and kicked the Czechs interests as a people/nation, but the overall plan
(I guess developed by Ribbentrop) makes a lot of sense. It is by far not irrational as it is
usually portrayed.
I read the article when it was posted (in full) on Southfront.
It is excellent. Detailed, accurate, insightful, as well as well composed and written.
I recommend that everyone who is able to do so read this article in its entirety.
I also fully agree with the position of Mr. Putin, as stated in his writing.
You are quite correct. All historians know that the role of the Soviet Union in the war was
decisive. When I was a child, growing up in British military circles, nobody troubled to deny
it, while the role of the United States was generally regarded as very minor.
I recall, passing through the Suez Canal on a troopship bound for Malaya, the immense
enthusiasm and loud cheering of the British troops for the crew of a Soviet destroyer,
parading on deck while at anchor in the sweetwater lake. It drove the senior officers mad but
the troops, mostly young working class conscripts, understood that the Red Army had saved
millions of British lives.
As b says, however, by far the most interesting part of Putin's summary is that outlining the
facts of the gyrating foreign policies of the United Kingdom in the 1930s.
Again most of what Putin relates is well known to honest historians. It used to be well
known-thanks largely to the work of the Left- that the well understood strategy of the
Tories, and most of the US business class, was to support a German invasion of the Soviet
Union. Which is why the Nazi economy rested so heavily on US capital- it was expected to pay
political as well as financial dividends by erasing the Communist threat (and, by implication
that of socialism too).
I saw not a single error in Putin's history. It coincides precisely with the analysis I
learned, as a young socialist, from German emigres. One of them, Hans Hess, who was a long
time director of an Art Gallery in the north of England, told us that he, at the time in
Paris, had greeted the news of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with relief. He understood that it
meant that the policy of appeasement had failed, and that the Soviet Union would survive and
prevail.
It needs to be understood that, before the US Cold War, based on the support it got from the
isolationist, ultra right wing Republicans who had never really warmed to the World War, the
view that Putin gives was widely shared by all 'patriotic' (anti collaborationist) political
currents in western Europe. The contempt with which Baldwin, Chamberlain and their ilk were
regarded in the UK used to be enormous- they were held to be little short of traitors.
Seventy years later they and their US equivalents, the Vichy supporters in France and Nazi
collaborators from all over Europe (including Mussolini's political heirs) dominate European
politics.
It is a badge of honour for Russians to be hated by these scum.
The Soviet Union put together a 20 part documentary, The Unknown War, with the assistance of
the U.S in 1978 to tell their part of the story. Mandatory watching for any history buffs, or
those who want to expand their horizons. An incredible 30 hours of footage from the Soviet
perspective. Narrated by Burt Lancaster.
When I was a history student, undergrad and grad, at University of Illinois in 1970s,
students of European history were taught exactly Putin's view. Students of American history
were taught the Hollywood view. The American side of the History department viewed the entire
faculty and student body on the European side as a pack of disloyal Communists. The European
side saw the American side as exactly what they were - schoolteachers and future
schoolteachers. Most of my old profs were glad to get out. Any profs known since retired
early as precisely this issue made the job impossible. Of course at U of I there was and
remains a large contingent of Eastern European descendants of Nazi collaborators who are very
vocal and completely immune to criticism. A protected class. Open display of Nazi regalia,
memorabilia, salutes, songs were always 100% approved because these are after all the victims
of Soviet oppression.
While it is true that numerous folks among the Anglo-American elites would be okay with a
German victory (particularly if it didn't involve the trashing of their own imperial
regimes), Churchill wasn't one of them. For all his odious aspects, this was a defining
characteristic of his as a British nationalist: he wouldn't countenance any compromise with
the Axis. In fact, it is safe to say that he played a very important role in keeping Britain
in the war and not making any sort of peace with Germany after the fall of France.
On the other hand, it is an absolute truth that Hitler and Mussolini were highly respected
among western capitalists who supported the military reinvigoration of the Third Reich.
Mussolini was treated with more favour, but Hitler was also seen positively, not least for
his racialist and racist views which coincided with those of the official Anglo-sphere.
It is interesting to see in Putin's essay confirmation that the roots of WW11 were the greedy
and inhumane attitudes of France and The UK to German reparations for WWI. Today we have The
UK France and the USA losing the war in Syria and now imposing sanctions on the Syrian
people. In Libya they have created chaos and the same bunch of war criminals do f--- all to
assist the country. I have read elsewhere that Churchill could have stopped WWII much earlier
and saved many lives' including the thousands killed in the Dresden firebombing, but wanted a
complete surrender from Germany rather than a conditional one and that the Japanese were
ready to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped as the Soviet Army was poised to
invade Japan after cleaning up China. The USA needed a quick resolution and an extravagant
display of power to establish its global supremacy however so dropped the bombs anyway
killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.
All facts that are glossed over by most western publications.
It is disturbing that no Western leaders are attending the 75th anniversary celebrations of
the end of WWII in Moscow.
I am very grateful that at least one of the current super-powers is led by the humane,
diplomatic, non-empire building Vladimir Putin.
Victor@17, you cannot be blamed for wanting to add to the essay important details, but I
don't think the charge of revisionism is warranted. In the essay, Putin says this:
"...Stalin and his entourage, indeed, deserve many legitimate accusations. We remember the
crimes committed by the regime against its own people and the horror of mass repressions.
In other words, there are many things the Soviet leaders can be reproached for, but poor
understanding of the nature of external threats is not one of them..."
That's a pretty strong statement. Putin is making clear his essay focuses on
misrepresented aspects of Russia's involvement in the war. This is not a blanket endorsement
of all that took place, but a template for careful study of events and increased
understanding as documents pertaining to them become available.
As an American student with a class in "Soviet History" in the 1960's during the Cold War,
what President Putin said about the War is what I was taught at the time.
I don't know when things changed. Probably just Americans lack of knowledge of history and
belief in their exceptionalism.
I was a bit concerned when I heard Lindsey Graham in essence exonerate Rosenstein from any guilt. The investigation has only
just begun. Anyone else get the feeling deals are being done. I mean Graham was in on it from the start wasn't he?
So He's obviously
got some sort of immunity deal to be allowed any where near such a vitally important investigation.
So it will be interesting
to see how they navigate around that one. Another big day tomorrow...I feel that General Flynn may have some interesting input
a little bit further down the track. Patriots world wide. WWG1WGA.
We know Stzrok is all over it but I fear they are looking at taking him down and sparing the other traitors. Time will tell.
In my opinion everyone involved was equally complicit. WWG1WGA UK
Trey you didn't do ANYTHING about it!!!! ALL TALK!!!! You were just on these committees as a gate keeper to ask the questions
that would produce the pre-written responses. YOU ARE COMPROMISED! Everybody watching.... Trey Gowdy KNEW this was a hoax and
DID NOTHING!
And those corporations and CIA financed entity asks readers for donations?
Notable quotes:
"... Amamou briefly served as secretary of state for sport and youth in Tunisia's transitional government, before later resigning. He noted that Maher traveled to the country several times since the Arab Spring protests broke out in 2011, and he found it strange that her affiliations kept changing. ..."
"... Katherine Maher is probably a CIA agent. She's been in Tunisia multiple times since 2011 under multiple affiliations ..."
"... Maher spoke about the libertarian philosophy behind Wikipedia, echoing the Ayn Randian ideology of founder Jimmy Wales. ..."
"... The Grayzone has clearly demonstrated how Wikipedia editors overwhelmingly side with Western governments in these editorial conflicts, echoing the perspectives of interventionists and censoring critical voices. ..."
"... The moderator of the discussion, Mattias Fyrenius, the CEO of the Nobel Prize's media arm, asked Maher: "There is some kind of information war going on – and maybe you can say that there is a war going on between the lies, and the propaganda, and the facts, and maybe truth – do you agree?" ..."
"... "Yes," Maher responded in agreement. She added her own question: "What are the institutions, what is the obligation of institutions to actually think about what the future looks like, if we actually want to pass through this period with our integrity intact?" ..."
"... Like Maher's former employer the National Democratic Institute, the OPT advances US imperial interests in the guise of promoting "internet freedom" and new technologies. It also provides large grants to opposition groups in foreign nations targeted by Washington for regime change. ..."
"... While she serves today as the executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, Katherine Maher remains a fellow at the Truman National Security Project, a Washington, DC think tank that grooms former military and intelligence professionals for careers in Democratic Party politics. ..."
"... As The Grayzone's Max Blumenthal reported, the most prominent fellow of the Truman Project is Pete Buttigieg, the US Naval intelligence veteran who emerged as a presidential frontrunner in the Democratic primary earlier this year. ..."
"... The extensive participation by the head of the Wikimedia Foundation in US government regime-change networks raises serious questions about the organization's commitment to neutrality. ..."
"... Perhaps the unchecked problem of political bias and coordinated smear campaigns by a small coterie of Wikipedia editors is not a bug, but a deliberately conceived feature of the website. ..."
Wikipedia has become a bulletin board for corporate and imperial interests under the watch
of its Randian founder, Jimmy Wales, and the veteran US regime-change operative who heads the
Wikimedia Foundation, Katherine Maher.
Born from seemingly humble beginnings, the Wikimedia Foundation is today swimming in cash
and invested in many of the powerful interests that benefit from its lax editorial policy.
The foundation's largest donors include corporate
tech giants Google, Microsoft, Apple, and Craigslist. With more than $145 million
in assets in 2018, nearly $105 million in annual revenue, and a massive headquarters in San
Francisco, Wikimedia has carved out a space for itself next to these Big Tech oligarchs in the
Silicon Valley bubble.
It is also impossible to separate Wikipedia as a project from the
ideology of its creator. When he co-founded the platform in 2001, Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales was a
conservative
libertarian and devoted disciple of right-wing fanatic
Ayn Rand .
A former futures and options trader, Wales openly preached the gospel of " Objectivism ," Rand's
ultra-capitalist ideology that sees government and society itself as the root of all evil,
heralding individual capitalists as gods.
Wales described his philosophy behind Wikipedia in specifically Randian terms. In a video
clip from a 2008 interview, published by the Atlas Society, an organization dedicated to
evangelizing on behalf of Objectivism, Wales explained that he was influenced by Howard Roark,
the protagonist of Rand's novel The Fountainhead.
Wikipedia's structure was expressly meant to reflect the ideology of its libertarian tech
entrepreneur founder, and Wales openly said as much.
At the same time, however, Wikipedia editors have upheld the diehard Objectivist Jimmy
Wales, as the New York Times put it in 2008, as a "benevolent dictator, constitutional monarch,
digital evangelist and spiritual leader."
Wales has always balanced his libertarian inclinations with old-fashioned American
patriotism. He was summoned before the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government
Operations in 2007 to further explain how Wikipedia and its related technologies could be of
service to Uncle Sam.
Wales began his remarks stating, "I am grateful to be here today to testify about the
potential for the Wikipedia model of collaboration and information sharing which may be helpful
to government operations and homeland security."
"At a time when the United States has been increasingly criticized around the world, I
believe that Wikipedia is an incredible carrier of traditional American values of generosity,
hard work, and freedom of speech," Wales continued, implicitly referencing the George Bush
administration's military occupation of Iraq.
The Wikipedia founder added, "The US government has always been premised on responsiveness
to citizens, and I think we all believe good government comes from broad, open public dialogue.
I therefore also recommend that US agencies consider the use of wikis for public facing
projects to gather information from citizens and to seek new ways of effectively collaborating
with the public to generate solutions to the problem that citizens face."
Wikipedia Jimmy Wales Senate Homeland Security committee Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales
testifying before the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Operations in
2007 In 2012, Wales married Kate Garvey, the former diary secretary of ex-British Prime
Minister Tony Blair. Their wedding, according to the conservative UK Telegraph, was "witnessed
by guests from the world of politics and celebrity."
Wales' status-quo-friendly politics have only grown more pronounced over the years. In 2018,
for instance, he publicly cheered on Israel's bombing of the besieged Gaza strip and portrayed
Britain's leftist former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn as an anti-Semite.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Katherine Maher: US regime-change operative with deep corporate
links Jimmy Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation claim to have little power over the encyclopedia
itself, but it is widely known that this is just PR. Wikimedia blew the lid off this myth in
2015 when it removed a community-elected member of its board of trustees, without
explanation.
At the time of this scandal, the Wikimedia Foundation's board of trustees included a former
corporate executive at Google, Arnnon Geshuri, who was heavily scrutinized for shady hiring
practices. Geshuri, who also worked at billionaire Elon Musk's company Tesla, was eventually
pressured to step down from the board.
But just a year later, Wikimedia appointed another corporate executive to its board of
trustees, Gizmodo Media Group CEO Raju Narisetti.
The figure that deserves the most scrutiny at the Wikimedia Foundation, however, is its
executive director Katherine Maher, who is closely linked to the US regime-change network.
Katherine Maher NDI Atlantic Council Wikimedia Foundation CEO Katherine Maher (right) at a
"Disinformation Forum" sponsored by the US government regime-change entity NDI and the NATO-
and Gulf monarchy-backed Atlantic Council Maher boasts an eyebrow-raising résumé
that would impress the most ardent of cold warriors in Washington.
With a degree in Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies from New York University, Maher studied
Arabic in Egypt and Syria, just a few years before the so-called Arab Spring uprising and
subsequent Western proxy war to overthrow the Syrian government.
Maher then interned at the bank Goldman Sachs, as well as the Council on Foreign Relations
and Eurasia Group, both elite foreign-policy institutions that are deeply embedded in the
Western regime-change machine.
At the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Maher says on her public LinkedIn profile that
she worked in the "US/Middle East Program," oversaw the "CFR Corporate Program," and
"Identified appropriate potential clients, conducted outreach."
At the Eurasia Group, Maher focused on Syria and Lebanon. According to her bio, she
"Developed stability forecasting and scenario modeling, and market and political stability
reports."
Katherine Maher LinkedIn Council on Foreign Relations Eurasia Group
Maher moved on to a job at London's HSBC bank – which would go on to pay a whopping
$1.9 billion fine after it was caught red-handed laundering money for drug traffickers and
Saudi financiers of international jihadism. Her work at HSBC brought her to the UK, Germany,
and Canada.
Next, Maher co-founded a little-known election monitoring project focused on Lebanon's 2008
elections called Sharek961. To create this platform, Maher and her associates partnered with an
influential technology non-profit organization, Meedan, which has received millions of dollars
of funding from Western foundations, large corporations like IBM, and the permanent monarchy of
Qatar.
Meedan also finances the regime-change lobbying website, Bellingcat, which is considering a
reliable source on Wikipedia, while journalism outlets like The Grayzone are formally
blacklisted.
Sharek961 was funded by the Technology for Transparency Network, a platform for
regime-change operations bankrolled by billionaire Pierre Omidyar's Omidyar Network and
billionaire George Soros' Open Society Foundations.
Maher subsequently moved over to a position as an "innovation and communication officer" at
the United Nations Children's Fund, UNICEF. There, she oversaw projects funded by the US Agency
for International Development (USAID), an arm of the US State Department which finances
regime-change operations and covert activities around the globe under the auspices of
humanitarian goodwill.
Soon enough, Maher cut out the middleman and went to work as a program officer in
information and communications technology at the National Democratic Institute (NDI), which was
created and financed directly by the US government. The NDI is a central gear in the
regime-change machine; it bankrolls coup and destabilization efforts across the planet in the
guise of "democracy promotion."
At the NDI, Maher served as a program officer for "internet freedom projects," advancing
Washington's imperial soft power behind the front of boosting global internet access –
pursuing a strategy not unlike the one used to destabilize Cuba.
The Wikimedia Foundation CEO says on her LinkedIn profile that her work at the NDI included
"democracy and human rights support" as well as designing technology programs for "citizen
engagement, open government, independent media, and civil society for transitional, conflict,
and authoritarian countries, including internet freedom programming."
After a year at the NDI, she moved over to the World Bank, another notorious vehicle for
Washington's power projection.
Katherine Maher LinkedIn World Bank NDI
At the World Bank, Maher oversaw the creation of the Open Development Technology Alliance
(ODTA), an initiative that uses new technologies to impose more aggressive neoliberal economic
policies on developing countries.
Maher's LinkedIn page notes that her work entailed designing and implementing "open
government and open data in developing and transitioning nations," especially in the Middle
East and North Africa.
At the time of her employment at the World Bank, the Arab Spring protests were erupting.
In October 2012, in the early stages of the proxy war in Syria, Maher tweeted that she was
planning a trip to Gaziantep, a Turkish city near the Syrian border that became the main hub
for the Western-backed opposition. Gaziantep was at the time crawling with Syrian insurgents
and foreign intelligence operatives plotting to topple the government of President Bashar
al-Assad.
Katherine Maher ✔ @krmaher
Planning to go to Gaziantep in a few days. A timely NYT
report from the Turkish-Syrian border:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/world/middleeast/on-edge-in-turkey-as-syria-war-inches-closer.html?pagewanted=2&smid=tw-share
1 12:25 PM - Oct 13, 2012 Twitter Ads info and privacy
See Katherine Maher's other Tweets
Just two months later, in December, she tweeted that was was on a flight to Libya. Just over a
year before, a NATO regime-change war had destroyed the Libyan government, and foreign-backed
insurgents had killed leader Muammar Qadhafi, unleashing a wave of violence – and
open-air slave markets.
Today, Libya has no unified central government and is still plagued by a grueling civil war.
What Maher was doing in the war-torn country in 2012 is not clear.
Katherine Maher ✔ @krmaher
I'm on the plane to Libya. Holy wow, batman.
View image on Twitter 2 3:21 AM - Dec 9, 2012 Twitter Ads info and privacy
Maher's repeated trips to the Middle East and North Africa right around
the time of these uprisings and Western intervention campaigns raised eyebrows among local
activists.
In 2016, when Maher was named executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, a prominent
Tunisian activist named Slim Amamou spoke out, alleging that "Katherine Maher is probably a CIA
agent."
Amamou briefly served as secretary of state for sport and youth in Tunisia's transitional
government, before later resigning. He noted that Maher traveled to the country several times
since the Arab Spring protests broke out in 2011, and he found it strange that her affiliations
kept changing.
... ... ...
Slim Amamou ✔ @slim404 · Mar 13, 2016
Katherine Maher is probably a CIA agent.
She's been in Tunisia multiple times since 2011 under multiple affiliations
https://twitter.com/Wikimedia/status/708438130626408449
Wikimedia ✔ @Wikimedia
Chief communications officer Katherine Maher (@krmaher) named
interim executive director of Wikimedia Foundation.
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/03/11/katherine-maher-interim-executive-director/
Slim Amamou ✔ @slim404
Wikmedia foundation is changing.. and not in a good way. It's
sad, because rare are organisations that have this reach in developing world
2 11:18 AM - Mar 13, 2016 Twitter Ads info and privacy See Slim Amamou's other Tweets
In
April 2017, in her new capacity as head of the Wikimedia Foundation, Katherine Maher
participated in an event for the US State Department. The talk was a "Washington Foreign Press Center Briefing," entitled "Wikipedia in a
Post-fact World." It was published at the official State Department website.
Maher spoke about the libertarian philosophy behind Wikipedia, echoing the Ayn Randian
ideology of founder Jimmy Wales.
When journalists asked how Wikipedia deals "with highly charged topics," where "some
entities – sometimes countries, sometimes various other entities – are often
engaged in conflict with each other," Maher repeatedly provided a non-answer, recycling vague
platitudes about the Wikipedia community working together.
The Grayzone has clearly demonstrated how Wikipedia editors overwhelmingly side with Western
governments in these editorial conflicts, echoing the perspectives of interventionists and
censoring critical voices.
A few months later, in January 2018, Maher appeared on a panel with Michael Hayden, the
former director of both the CIA and NSA, and a notorious hater of journalists, as well with a
top Indian government official, K. VijayRaghavan.
The talk, entitled "Lies Propaganda and Truth," was held by the organization behind the
Nobel Prize.
The moderator of the discussion, Mattias Fyrenius, the CEO of the Nobel Prize's media arm,
asked Maher: "There is some kind of information war going on – and maybe you can say that
there is a war going on between the lies, and the propaganda, and the facts, and maybe truth
– do you agree?"
"Yes," Maher responded in agreement. She added her own question: "What are the institutions,
what is the obligation of institutions to actually think about what the future looks like, if
we actually want to pass through this period with our integrity intact?"
... ... ...
Wikimedia Foundation CEO Katherine Maher in a
panel discussion with CIA director Michael Hayden Hayden, the former US spy agency chief, then
blamed "the Russians" for waging that information war. He referred to Moscow as "the
adversary," and claimed the "Russian information bubble, information dominance machine, created
so much confusion." Maher laughed in approval, disputing nothing that Hayden said. In the same discussion, Maher
also threw WikiLeaks (which is blacklisted on Wikipedia) under the bus, affirming, "Not
WikiLeaks, I want to be clear, we're not the same organization." The former CIA director next
to her chuckled.
Wikipedia Katherine Maher Open Technology Fund US government Wikimedia Foundation executive
director Katherine Maher is a member of the advisory board of the US government's technology
regime-change arm the Open Technology Fund (OPT)
Today, Maher is a member of the advisory board
of the US government's technology regime-change arm the Open Technology Fund (OPT) – a
fact she proudly boasts on her LinkedIn profile. The OPT was created in 2012 as a project of Radio Free Asia, an information warfare vehicle
that the New York Times once described as a "worldwide propaganda network built by the
CIA." Since disaffiliating from this CIA cutout in 2019, the OPT is now bankrolled by the US
Agency for Global Media, the government's propaganda arm, formerly known as the Broadcasting
Board of Governors.
Like Maher's former employer the National Democratic Institute, the OPT advances US imperial
interests in the guise of promoting "internet freedom" and new technologies. It also provides
large grants to opposition groups in foreign nations targeted by Washington for regime
change.
Katherine Maher Truman National Security Project
While she serves today as the executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, Katherine
Maher remains a fellow at the Truman National Security Project, a Washington, DC think tank
that grooms former military and intelligence professionals for careers in Democratic Party
politics.
The Truman Project website identifies Maher's expertise as "international development."
As The Grayzone's Max Blumenthal reported, the most prominent fellow of the Truman Project
is Pete Buttigieg, the US Naval intelligence veteran who emerged as a presidential frontrunner
in the Democratic primary earlier this year.
The extensive participation by the head of the Wikimedia Foundation in US government
regime-change networks raises serious questions about the organization's commitment to
neutrality.
Perhaps the unchecked problem of political bias and coordinated smear campaigns by a small
coterie of Wikipedia editors is not a bug, but a deliberately conceived feature of the
website.
Ben Norton Ben Norton is a journalist, writer, and filmmaker. He is the assistant editor
of The Grayzone, and the producer of the Moderate Rebels podcast, which he co-hosts with editor
Max Blumenthal. His website is BenNorton.com and he tweets at @BenjaminNorton.
Four years ago on June 15, 2016, a shadowy Internet persona calling itself "Guccifer 2.0"
appeared out of nowhere to claim credit for hacking emails from the Democratic National
Committee on behalf of WikiLeaks and implicate Russia by dropping "telltale" but synthetically
produced Russian "breadcrumbs" in his metadata.
Thanks largely to the corporate media, the highly damaging story actually found in those DNC
emails – namely, that the DNC had stacked the cards against Bernie Sanders in the party's
2016 primary – was successfully obscured .
The media was the message; and the message was that Russia had used G-2.0 to hack into the
DNC, interfering in the November 2016 election to help Donald Trump win.
Almost everybody still "knows" that – from the man or woman in the street to the
forlorn super sleuth, Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller III, who actually based indictments
of Russian intelligence officers on Guccifer 2.0.
Blaming Russia was a magnificent distraction from the start and quickly became the
vogue.
The soil had already been cultivated for "Russiagate" by Democratic PR gems like Donald
Trump "kissing up" to former KGB officer Vladimir Putin and their "bromance" (bromides that
former President Barack Obama is still using). Four years ago today, "Russian meddling" was off
and running – on steroids – acquiring far more faux-reality than the evanescent
Guccifer 2.0 persona is likely to get.
Here's how it went down :
June 12: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced he had "emails related to Hillary
Clinton which are pending publication."
June 14: DNC contractor CrowdStrike tells the media that malware has been found on the
DNC server and claims there is evidence it was injected by Russians.
June 15: Guccifer 2.0 arises from nowhere; affirms the DNC/CrowdStrike allegations of the
day before; claims responsibility for hacking the DNC; claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and
posts a document that forensic examination shows was deliberately tainted with "Russian
fingerprints." This to "corroborate" claims made by CrowdStrike executives the day
before.
Adding to other signs of fakery, there is hard evidence that G-2.0 was operating mostly in
U.S. time zones and with local settings peculiar to a device configured for use within the US ,
as Tim Leonard reports here and here .)
Leonard is a software developer who started to catalog and archive evidence related to
Guccifer 2.0 in 2017 and has issued detailed reports on digital forensic discoveries made by
various independent researchers – as well as his own – over the past three years.
Leonard points out that WikiLeaks said it did not use any of the emails G2.0 sent it, though it
later published similar emails, opening the possibility that whoever created G2.0 knew what
WikiLeaks had and sent it duplicates with the Russian fingerprints .
As Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) told President Trump in a memorandum
of July 24, 2017, titled "Was the 'Russian Hack' an Inside Job?":
"We do not think that the June 12, 14, & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it
suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might
have been ready to publish and to 'show' that it came from a Russian hack."
We added this about Guccifer 2.0 at the time:
"The recent forensic studies fill in a critical gap. Why the FBI neglected to perform any
independent forensics on the original 'Guccifer 2.0' material remains a mystery – as
does the lack of any sign that the 'hand-picked analysts' from the FBI, CIA, and NSA, who
wrote the misnomered 'Intelligence Community' Assessment dated January 6, 2017, gave any
attention to forensics."
Guccifer 2.0 Seen As a Fraud
In our July 24, 2017 memorandum we also told President Trump that independent cyber
investigators and VIPs had determined "that the purported 'hack' of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was
not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external
storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. Information was leaked to
implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the
FBI. " [Emphasis added.].
Right. Ask the FBI. At this stage, President Trump might have better luck asking Attorney
General William Barr, to whom the FBI is accountable – at least in theory. As for Barr,
VIPs informed him in a June 5, 2020
memorandum that the head of CrowdStrike had admitted under oath on Dec. 5, 2017 that
CrowdStrike has no concrete evidence that the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks on July 22,
2016 were hacked – by Russia or by anyone else. [Emphasis added.] This important
revelation has so far escaped attention in the Russia-Russia-Russia "mainstream" media
(surprise, surprise, surprise!).
Back to the Birth of G-2
It boggles the mind that so few Americans could see Russiagate for the farce it was. Most of
the blame, I suppose, rests on a thoroughly complicit Establishment media. Recall: Assange's
announcement on June 12, 2016 that he had Hillary Clinton-related emails came just six weeks
before the Democratic convention. I could almost hear the cry go up from the DNC: Houston, We
Have a Problem!
Here's how bad the problem for the Democrats was. The DNC emails eventually published by
WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016, just three days before the Democratic convention, had been stolen
on May 23 and 25. This would have given the DNC time to learn that the stolen material included
documents showing how the DNC and Clinton campaign had manipulated the primaries and created a
host of other indignities, such that Sanders' chances of winning the nomination amounted to
those of a snowball's chance in the netherworld.
To say this was an embarrassment would be the understatement of 2016. Worse still, given the
documentary nature of the emails and WikiLeaks' enviable track record for accuracy, there would
be no way to challenge their authenticity. Nevertheless, with the media in full support of the
DNC and Clinton, however, it turned out to be a piece of cake to divert attention from the
content of the emails to the "act of war" (per John McCain) that the Russian "cyber attack" was
said to represent .
The outcome speaks as much to the lack of sophistication on the part of American TV
watchers, as it does to the sophistication of the Democrats-media complicity and cover-up. How
come so few could figure out what was going down?
It was not hard for some experienced observers to sniff a rat. Among the first to speak out
was fellow Consortium News columnist Patrick Lawrence, who immediately saw through the
Magnificent Diversion. I do not know if he fancies duck hunting, but he shot the Russiagate
canard quite dead – well before the Democratic convention was over.
Magnificent Diversion
In late July 2016, Lawrence was sickened, as he watched what he immediately recognized as a
well planned, highly significant deflection. The Clinton-friendly media was excoriating Russia
for "hacking" DNC emails and was glossing over what the emails showed ; namely, that the
Clinton Dems had pretty much stolen the nomination from Sanders.
It was already clear even then that the Democrats, with invaluable help from intelligence
leaks and other prepping to the media, had made good use of those six weeks between Assange's
announcement that he had emails "related to Hillary Clinton" and the opening of the
convention.
The media was primed to castigate the Russians for "hacking," while taking a prime role in
the deflection. It was a liminal event of historic significance, as we now know. The
"Magnificent Diversion" worked like a charm – and then it grew like Topsy.
Lawrence said he had "fire in the belly" on the morning of July 25 as the Democratic
convention began and wrote what follows pretty much "in one long, furious exhale" within 12
hours of when the media started really pushing the "the Russians-did-it"
narrative.
Below is a slightly shortened text of his
article :
"Now wait a minute, all you upper-case "D" Democrats. A flood light suddenly shines on your
party apparatus, revealing its grossly corrupt machinations to fix the primary process and sink
the Sanders campaign, and within a day you are on about the evil Russians having hacked into
your computers to sabotage our elections
Is this a joke? Are you kidding? Is nothing beneath your dignity? Is this how lowly you rate
the intelligence of American voters?
Clowns. Subversives. Do you know who you remind me of? I will tell you: Nixon, in his
famously red-baiting campaign – a disgusting episode – during his first run for the
Senate, in 1950. Your political tricks are as transparent and anti-democratic as his, it is
perfectly fair to say.
I confess to a heated reaction to events since last Friday [July 22] among the Democrats,
specifically in the Democratic National Committee. I should briefly explain
The Sanders people have long charged that the DNC has had its fingers on the scale, as one
of them put it the other day, in favor of Hillary Clinton's nomination. The prints were
everywhere – many those of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who has repeatedly been accused of
anti-Sanders bias. Schultz, do not forget, co-chaired Clinton's 2008 campaign against Barack
Obama. That would be enough to disqualify her as the DNC's chair in any society that takes
ethics seriously, but it is not enough in our great country. Chairwoman she has been for the
past five years.
Last Friday WikiLeaks published nearly 20,000 DNC email messages providing abundant proof
that Sanders and his staff were right all along. The worst of these, involving senior DNC
officers, proposed Nixon-esque smears having to do with everything from ineptitude within the
Sanders campaign to Sanders as a Jew in name only and an atheist by conviction.
NEVER
MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Wasserman fell from grace on Monday. Other than this, Democrats from President Obama to
Clinton and numerous others atop the party's power structure have had nothing to say, as in
nothing, about this unforgivable breach. They have, rather, been full of praise for Wasserman
Schultz. Brad Marshall, the D.N.C.'s chief financial officer, now tries to deny that his
Jew-baiting remark referred to Sanders. Good luck, Brad: Bernie is the only Jew in the
room.
The caker came on Sunday, when Robby Mook, Clinton's campaign manager, appeared on ABC's
"This Week" and CNN's "State of the Union" to assert that the D.N.C.'s mail was hacked "by the
Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump." He knows this – knows it in a matter
of 24 hours – because "experts" – experts he will never name – have told him
so.
What's disturbing to us is that experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into
the DNC, stole these emails, and other experts are now saying that Russians are releasing these
emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump.
Is that what disturbs you, Robby? Interesting. Unsubstantiated hocus-pocus, not the
implications of these events for the integrity of Democratic nominations and the American
political process? The latter is the more pressing topic, Robby. You are far too long on
anonymous experts for my taste, Robby. And what kind of expert, now that I think of it, is able
to report to you as to the intentions of Russian hackers – assuming for a sec that this
concocted narrative has substance?
Making lemonade out of a lemon, the Clinton campaign now goes for a twofer. Watch as it
advances the Russians-did-it thesis on the basis of nothing, then shoots the messenger, then
associates Trump with its own mess – and, finally, gets to ignore the nature of its
transgression (which any paying-attention person must consider grave).
Preposterous, readers. Join me, please, in having absolutely none of it. There is no
"Russian actor" at the bottom of this swamp, to put my position bluntly. You will never, ever
be offered persuasive evidence otherwise.
Reluctantly, I credit the Clinton campaign and the DNC with reading American paranoia well
enough such that they may make this junk stick. In a clear sign the entire crowd-control
machine is up and running, The New York Times had a long, unprofessional piece about Russian
culprits in its Monday editions. It followed Mook's lead faithfully: not one properly supported
fact, not one identified "expert," and more conditional verbs than you've had hot dinners
– everything cast as "could," "might," "appears," "would," "seems," "may." Nothing, once
again, as to the very serious implications of this affair for the American political
process.
Now comes the law. The FBI just announced that it will investigate – no, not the DNC's
fraudulent practices (which surely breach statutes), but "those who pose a threat in
cyberspace." it is the invocation of the Russians that sends me over the edge. My bones grow
weary
We must take the last few days' events as a signal of what Clinton's policy toward Russia
will look like should she prevail in November. Turning her party's latest disgrace into an
occasion for another round of Russophobia is mere preface, but in it you can read her
commitment to the new crusade.
Trump, to make this work, must be blamed for his willingness to negotiate with Moscow. This
is now among his sins. Got that? Anyone who says he will talk to the Russians has transgressed
the American code. Does this not make Hillary Clinton more than a touch Nixonian?
I am developing nitrogen bends from watching the American political spectacle. One can
hardly tell up from down. Which way for a breath of air?"
A year later Lawrence interviewed several of us VIPs, including our two former NSA technical
directors and on Aug. 9, 2017 published an
article for The Nation titled, "A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year's DNC
Hack."
Lawrence wrote, "Former NSA experts, now members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity (VIPs), say it wasn't a hack at all, but a leak – an inside job by someone with
access to the DNC's system."
And so it was. But, sadly, that cut across the grain of the acceptable Russia-gate narrative
at The Nation at the time. Its staff, seriously struck by the HWHW (Hillary Would Have Won)
virus, rose up in rebellion. A short time later, there was no more room at The Nation for his
independent-minded writing.
Drop-Hammer , 2 hours ago
His name was (((Seth Rich))).
zoomie92 , 1 hour ago
Direct USB download to chip or portable HD was the only way to get those download speed
shown on the file metadata. This has been proven in multiple independent ways. But the press
is filled with ******* retards - and so is the country.
Franko , 1 hour ago
Rest in Peace Mr Seth.
I believe many US officials have enough and want to tell the others about this.
Question:were they should be go to spread the news?To which country before been
assasinated?
To end like Julian Assange or like Snowden?
belogical , 2 hours ago
...Gucifer had much less to do with this than the Obama admin. They were using the
intelligence community for no good and as their crimes became visible they had to commit
bigger and bigger crimes to cover them up. In the end a large part of the DOJ, FBI and Obama
admin should be held accountable for this, but when you get this high they likely won't. You
can already see Lindsey Graham of the deep state finally holding hearing to spin the
narrative before the Durham probe becomes public. Unfortunate but only a few will get their
hands slapped and the true person, Obama who deserve to be prosecuted will likely skate.
PedroS , 2 hours ago
Crowdstrike. The owners should be in jail for their role.
Slaytheist , 2 hours ago
Crowdstrike IS Guccifer.
They were ordered by the criminal DNC org to cover the fact that the data was downloaded
internally, in order to hide the connection to the Podesta/Clinton ordered hit on person who
did it - Seth Rich.
Weedlord Bonerhitler , 3 hours ago
The computer of a DNC operative named Warren Flood was used to disseminate the Guccifer
2.0 disinfo tranche. Adam Carter had the analysis IIRC.
Giant Meteor , 3 hours ago
Always good to hear from Ray!
philipat , 39 minutes ago
Tick tock, still no indictments and soon the campaign will be in full swing so that
everything will be attacked as "political". Is Durham done?
They gaslighted the whole nation. Amazing achievement. In other words, they are a real criminal gang, a mafia. No questions about it.
This is Nixon impeachment level staff. This are people that brought us Lybia, Syria: this senile Creepy Joe.
Saagar Enjeti blasts former President Obama after it was revealed in transcripts he was the
person who told then-deputy attorney general Sally Yates about Mike Flynn's intercepted phone
call with the Russian ambassador, Joe Biden responds to Flynn claims on Good Morning
America.
"I know nothing about those moves to investigate Flynn." "These documents clearly outline that you were in a meeting at a specific
time specifically about that." "OH! I'm sorry! I thought you asked if I was INVOLVED IN IT!"
The word is "entrapment" - Years ago, one of the officers in the investigations squad said to me, "How can you claim to be
better than them, if you break the law to catch 'em?" - Now I understand what he was saying.
The corrupt and despicable charade against Flynn conducted by at least the FBI and the so
called courts of justice in the United States has destroyed any possible semblance of the
idea that there is equal justice under the law or the laughable notion that anything remotely
like a fair trial is available to anyone for any alleged offence at all.
The message contained in this prosecution and those of other Trump supporters is quite
clear: any person who attempts to assist a political candidate not approved by so called
liberals will be punished. Flynn is an example of what will happen to Trump backers in
future.
I am amazed at the staying power of SST member Robert Willmann in even reporting this
disgusting slow motion attempted lynching.
To put that another way, I now understand why suspects in the USA occasionally risk their
lives by running from Police - they reason it is unlikely they will ever receive a fair
trial.
The net effect of all these so called legal procedures is to destroy what little is left
of America's international legal reputation that reached its highest point at the Nuremberg
trials. That will not be to our advantage when, instead of shredding international treaties,
we one day seek to negotiate the same.
The FBI is the secret police working on behalf of the interests of the oligarchs. The
federal courts role is to implement and enforce the interests of the oligarchs. The Supreme
Court's role is to come up with legal mumbo jumbo to justify this tyranny of the
minority.
All the judges in this case (Sullivan, Wilkins, Rao) as merely proxy warriors, tools of
the oligarchs. It's not coincidental they are also 'people of color'. This has been the m.o.
of the oligarchs for over a hundred years. It was the Spingarn brothers (two lawyers from a
rich Jewish family) who started the NAACP with their front man, the mixed race W.E.B. Du
Bois. The first mission of the NAACP, and the task assigned to Du Bois, to destroy Booker T.
Washington who had a large following in the black community and was advocating for more
harmonious race relations. The oligarchs (Spingarns, et al.) running the NAACP needed to
silence Washington because they wanted to create more racial division to gain power and
subvert American culture. You can read more about this fascinating history in Catholic
historian E. Michael Jones' "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit" (Fidelity, 2008), pp. 679-715;
745-793; 831-843.
Here's a good interview where Jones touches on a lot of this in an interview with Dr. Kirk
Meighoo (Indo Caribbean Diaspora News): https://youtu.be/gtdWbTkBQxk
James Baker, who was general counsel for the bureau during the period surrounding the 2016
election, was welcomed by the social media giant's top lawyer Monday evening.
"Thrilled to welcome @thejimbaker to @Twitter as Deputy General Counsel. Jim is committed to
our core principles of an open internet and freedom of expression, and brings experience
navigating complex, global issues with a principled approach," said Twitter general counsel
Sean Edgett.
"Thanks @edgett!! I'm very excited to join such a great team @Twitter doing such important
work. Glad to be on board," Baker tweeted back.
It brings this very curious information that I wasn't aware of:
On May 15, the US Department of the Treasury released Treasury International Capital (TIC)
data for March 2020. It showed that total foreign ownership of Treasuries dropped by $256.6
billion to $6.81 trillion.
I already knew there was a race to the Renminbi since China recovered from the first wave
of the pandemic (it is mentioned in at least two op-pieces in the Asia Times), but I didn't
know there was a correspondent race from the USD. Let's remember: in 2008, there was a race
to the USD; the USD became stronger than ever with that crisis, and America's dominance in
the financial sector strengthened, not weakened.
Now it may be different. The USD is getting weaker, not stronger. Faith in the USA is
weaning.
Also there's this nice little piece, very poetic, whose only value is in the fact that it
was written by an American who loves his country and served in the Army:
@ Posted by: juliania | Jun 15 2020 22:55 utc | 61
What will become of "Putin's Russia" is a very interesting topic.
Pepe Escobar's interview with Karaganov made it look like Russia's plan is to serve as
some kind of leader of the "non-aligned" countries in a future China-USA bipolar world order.
I found it too vague, could mean anything.
However, there's another, much more interesting, phenomenon: the rise of some right-wing
intellectuals from Russia and the USA who are trying to revive what we call nowadays as
"paleoconservatism". They are the Martyanovs, Dugins, Korybkos the guys who write for Unz and
The Saker, the Russia Insider team around there.
Those "new paleoconservatives" differentiate themselves in the sense that they really try
very hard to be intellectuals -- that is, they do not adopt the irrational methodology of the
typical far-right/neofacism, they abhor the neocons/neoliberals, they abhor the so-called
"woke left/cultural marxists/pluralists/SJWs" (which they frequently associate, if not
equate, to the neoliberals), they believe in some kind of a concept of race or racially
determined culture based on geography and climate, they certainly abhor scientific socialism
(some of them even, under absurd and extremely dumbed down arguments, directly stating Marx's
theory was wrong) but they also abhor Nazism - albeit for reasons that are not, let's say,
"orthodox". They are also against imperialism as the USA is practicing right now, but not
against "self-defense" imperialism, that is, the line is blurry.
But the most important factor that unites this group is their blind faith in Christianism.
They somehow believe that if you fuse capitalism (which, for many of them is not even a
system, but human nature itself) with Christian values (it doesn't need to be Christian
religion per se, you don't need to be a practicing Christian), you somehow get the perfect
mix between man's animal side (capitalism) and spiritual side (Christianism). It's like your
traditional post-war social-democracy, with the difference that they put Christianism in
socialism's place. As a result, you go back to the good ol' times, more or less in the 1950s,
where everything was, allegedly, "in their place".
This obsession with Christianism makes me, jokingly, to call this coterie as the
"Neobyzantines" - a bizarre postmodern chimera born from the degeneration of late stage
capitalism.
But this is the boring part. The cool part about the Neobyzantines is the fact that they
have a geopolitical policy. What's this policy? You guessed it right: they want a Christian
confederation composed of the entire Northern Atlantic (NATO countries)... plus Russia. This,
the Neobyzantines say, will save Christianism (and the correspondent white race) from
subjugation and hegemony of the socialist Yellows (some of them also have a racial-based
theory about why socialism/communism naturally occurs in East Asia; for some of them, South
Korea and Japan are even communist themselves already).
We know Putin was raised as a Neobyzantine. He's an Ocidentalist that believed in the
concept of an European civilization. That's why, in my opinion, he plays such a good sport
with the Orthodox Church, as it is a living fossil of the times of Peter the Great etc. etc.
However, as time passed, he became increasingly disillusioned with the USA and the EU, and
the ties were definitely broken with the invasion and partition of the Ukraine in 2014. His
policies, therefore, clearly became more Eurasianist, but that certainly was the result of
necessity, not free will.
Is Putin may be converting himself to "Neobyzantism"? Will Neobyzantism really become a
thing, or will it just be thrown to the dustbin of History, as was many other ideologies of
the past of which only a Historian knows nowadays?
re: neo-Byzanyines. Clever. And there may be something to that idea. Certainly the general
flavor of Christian conservatism you describe holds some real currency among the national
security types. However, despite ideological commonality across borders, I think it is
clearly nationalist and not internationalist.
The more theatrical "paleo" versions stand out, if only for being one of the few cohesive
alternatives to neoliberalism (socialism and socdem being sadly moribund). But if you dial
down the drama and take away the contrarian personalities, then pan-nationalist Christian
conservatism (and for that matter, the Islamic or Hindu analogs) can be integrated into
neoliberalism too. I don't see why not.
Considering the post-millennial generations may well end up in a Byzantium of some kind in
some decades, this is worth following up on.
Posted by: vk | Jun 15 2020 23:35 utc | 66 Will Neobyzantism really become a thing, or will
it just be thrown to the dustbin of History, as was many other ideologies of the past of
which only a Historian knows nowadays?
I've noticed that trend as well - the rise of the Russian Orthodox Church and the rise of
conservatism in Russia. I see it reflected in the attitudes on the Crosstalk show that I used
to watch regularly.
I agree that trying to resurrect Christianity is a major error. It will just lead to even
greater anti-intellectualism and irrational belief systems, and possibly even eventually into
a "theocracy" - hardly conducive to freedom. As a rabid atheist myself, I despise all of
this.
I think that, if we take it from your approach, the problem with the neobyzantines is more
related to the fact that they can't accept being juniors to the "yellows" (i.e. a non-white,
non-Christian people) than with Chinese-style socialism. They are like the reverse Chicoms in
this sense (and, if that's indeed the case, they are very different than the American
Bannonist far-right).
The Bannonists (I think Bannon himself coin his ideology as "Neopopulism" or something
like that) believe in the reverse case: it is good that the Chinese are to hegemonize the
world in the 21st Century - as long as they do so in a capitalist form, not in a socialist
one, that is, without the CCP at the helm.
Indeed, neoliberalism is very malleable, and for one very simple reason: it is not an
ideology per se, but a doctrine. Doctrines are not as much incisive as ideologies, but they
have the advantage of being very adaptable and quickly digestible. For example: who, at the
beginning of the 1970s, would think that - of all places - neoliberalism would find its most
fertile ground in Latin America? Theoretically, Latin America should be the
anti-neoliberalism area of the world par excellence, as it was the subcontinent that suffered
the most (except, maybe, Africa - but Africa was razed to the ground, there's no material
there to any doctrine or ideology to sprout) under the hands of American neocolonialism. But
here we are: the lack of a strong revolutionary movement in Latin America gave birth to a
strong inferiority complex, which created a political vacuum in which neoliberalism fitted
perfectly (Mexico, then Ménem's "Peripheral Realism", then FHC's "we must be the last
of the top" in Brazil).
Neoliberalism's success story in Latin America is a warning example for historians to
never stick to a sociological formula either for trying to explain History or to try to
predict History. There's always the human factor, that "x" factor that only good old method
of studying History can decipher.
--//--
@ Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Jun 16 2020 1:53 utc | 80
I use the term "Neobyzantine" as some kind of pejorative joke (my humor is very dark). I
don't think those who I would classify as "neobyzantine" feed any illusions about the real
Byzantine Empire - which, as a Christian Empire, was an absolute farce: it was plagued with
schisms after schism inside Christianism that castigated them with endless drama, exiles,
executions, dead emperors and civil wars. No Byzantine citizen ever believed Christianity
would rise someday to become a world religion: it was under the hands of the Western European
medieval lords and their descendants that it became so (conquests of America, Africa, Oceania
and SE Asia).
It is a myth Christianism ever brought unity to the Roman Empire, but it may be true that
the early Christian emperors (from Constantine the Great onward) thought it would. If
Constantine and his successors really thought that, then they were to be proven completely
wrong - as today's schism between Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox are to serve as living
evidence.
I think that, if we take it from your approach, the problem with the neobyzantines is
more related to the fact that they can't accept being juniors to the "yellows"
Well, not sure how that fits into the byzantine analogy, but I do think it is a central
unifying theme of conservatives in the west who are taking an anti-neoliberal position.
I think the position toward capitalism is something between nuanced and contradictory, or
at least very heterogenous. There is plenty of awareness of its ills of a state captive to
private $ and corps. Yet the ideal of free enterprise is celebrated without reservation, with
a real hope for markets that could in theory become non dysfunctional. So no, IMO
anti-neoliberal conservatives in the US are not socialist in the slightest (except the
military has universal health and education). Basically very sympathetic to the "libertarian"
side of it. But that may be unique to the US vs the rest of the "west". I mean this is all
stereotyping very much, everyone has their own emphasis. Also the economic idea are maybe not
so important to the byzantium / historical analogy, we might happen to prioritize them higher
ourselves.
Where does the Chinese socialism fit in? That is contradictory too. One has to make a
judgment of capitalism with Chinese characteristics, and also Socialism with Chinese
characteristics. Neither of those is a direct translation of the European versions of them.
You also have a strong and intimate state power, which the nationalists might actually be
jealous of but I find off-putting. I do think the commonality there, for the would-be
neobyzantines is, again, simple national power.
Kindof like Bannonites, except he represents just one version of this. Specifically, his
version of a conservative anti-neoliberal position is especially uninteresting IMO. And I
dont take most of what he says at face value anyhow. Just a particularly unattractive
nationalist IMO... Finally, I don't think he would make a good byzantine, but maybe I am
romanticizing the idea in my head a little.
Yes, I agree: the Bannonites are certainly not Neobyzantines. They are more like the
traditional fascists: radical in form, conservative in essence. They are like agents of chaos
- a domesticated chaos, of course.
The unifying factor of the Neobyzantines, in my opinion, is the fact that they believe a
universalized (forced upon the masses) Christian moral code can save capitalism. In their
opinion, it is greed by the rich and the depravity of the leftists that is the problem.
They believe that the end of the USSR and the slow rise of China (plus, I guess, the
failure of the West in Christianizing the Middle East and Asia) put an end or proved wrong
the existence of economic systems. In this sense, they lowkey agree with Fukuyama in essence,
albeit kot in form. This would also make the Neobyzantines part of the Postmodern
constellation of ideologies, which preach absolute relativism.
--//--
@ Posted by: A User | Jun 16 2020 3:36 utc | 87
Yes, if you think about it, the American Revolution was a petite-bourgoeis revolution: it
was just a bunch of small planters not wanting to pay taxes.
Thomas Jefferson certainly didn't imagine he was building the world's future sole
superpower. None of the founding fathers imagined that.
However, the American Revolution was important in the sense it was the first European
colony to achieve independency without consent of it metropolis. It showed the other colonies
it was possible. We know the American case would never be replicated, but it inspired the
colonised a world without metropoleis was possible, and opened way for the end of the old
colonial system in 1945.
Vk #66
I don't understand your ridiculous concern that their will be some grand alliance of the
"White Christian" world (the U$, Russia, and the NATO/EU puppets) along with some assorted
Non-White, Non-Christian, countries (India, Japan, South Korea, etc.), against "Yellow
Socialist China". In reality the only "Prominent" person who has entertained this
anachronistic lunacy is the wannabe fascist Drunkard known as Steve Bannon, who has no real
impact on anything beyond grifting illiterate Trump supporters (The last I heard of him, he
was drunkenly proclaiming the creation of a "New Federal State of China's" with some former
Chinese "Communist" billionaire on a dingy boat in New York Harbor, LMAO". In reality most of
the "Neobyzantine" fools you mentioned in both the U$ and Russia, are big advocates of the
phony idea that China is a "rising", "Socialist", superpower that is an alternative to the
Unipolar, U$-led, world order, as evidenced that the "Unz Review" and "The Saker" are filled
with articles by Pro-China hacks such as Pepe Escobar. Personally, I view the "Neobyzantines"
as a bunch of hacks and grifters who in Russia seek to brainwash the population into
believing that the USSR was an evil "Judeo-Bolshevik" abomination while Putin's Russia is an
"Orthodox Christian" paradise and rising Superpower, that is In alliance with the "good
Socialist" China, in a "New Cold War" with the U$, all while covering up the fact that
Putin's Russia is a utter joke compared to the USSR, due to its population wallowing in
poverty and degeneracy (so much for those Orthodox values,
LOL), and it losing half its territory and all its Geopolitical alliances and ideological
support (due to its rejection of Marxism-Leninism). In the U$, these quacks appeal to a very
narrow group of disenfranchised U$ right-wingers who seem to believe that Russia and China
represent some Conservative utopia, LOL. In conclusion, these people are much less
significant then you make them out to be and just serve as mere propagandists for the phony
New Cold War" of the U$ vs. Russia and China which like I said in my previous post is Fake
wrestling to confuse and distract the populations of all three countries as they are
oppressed by the same Neoliberal policies that all three governments implement.
"... Firstly your definition of 'deep state' is too limited, it includes the bureaucracy, much of the judiciary, banks and other financial institutions, and the major political parties. It is not restricted only to the intelligence agencies. It is not a US-specific issue, but a global one. For the deep state exists everywhere, and is often more powerful in commonwealth countries, such as here in apathetic Australia. ..."
"... When the CIA kills Kennedy you know you've got problems... And whilst agents in the CIA probably did not pull the trigger - their "assets" did... If you don't believe me spare me your tiresome ignorant replies and go and do some research... ..."
"... " We were warned about the Military Industrial Complex, Sadly the Government Media Complex, has done way more damage, and will be much harder to overcome" ~ Dr. Mike Savage 2008 ..."
Sky News Australia In this Special Investigation Sky News speaks to former spies, politicians and investigative journalists to
uncover whether US President Donald Trump is really at war with "unelected Deep State operatives who defy the voters".
George Soros, The clintons, The royal family, The Rothschild's, the Federal reserve as a whole, The modern Democrat, cia, fbi,
nsa, Facebook, Google, not to mention all the faceless unelected bureaucrats who create and push policies that impact our every
day lives. This, my lads, is the deep state. They run our world and get away with whatever they want until someone in their circle
loses their use (Epstein)
The Cabal owns the US intelligence agencies, the media, and Hollywood. That's how all these big name corrupted figure heads
aren't in prison for their crimes. The Clinton email scandal is a prime example. This is much bigger than the USA... it's effects
are world wide.
The Four Stages of Ideological Subversion: 1 - Demoralization 2 - Destabilization 3 - Crisis 4 - Normalization Are you not
entertained? The above is "their" roadmap. Learn what it means and spread this far & wide, as that will be the means by which
to end this.
President JFK on April 17, 1961: "Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared
in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching
troops, no missiles have been fired. If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat
conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of 'clear
and present danger,' then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman
or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies
primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of
elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted
vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic,
intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried,
not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.
It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match." thoughts: by saying,
'conducts the Cold War' did he directly call out the CIA???
Most troubling now it is known about the deep state: is Trump a double agent just another puppet just giving the appearance
of working against the deep state?
Thank you Australians for having rhe courage to speak out for us Patriots!!! We know the Deep State Cabal retaliated with the
fires. We love you guys from 💖💗
Well done Skynews. THE DEEP STATE IS REAL. I woke up 10+ years ago. Turn off the TV for 1-2 years to study and awaken. Make
a start on learning with David ickes Videos and books. WWG1 WGA
Before I go and pass this on to as many as I can get to follow it I just wanted to commend those that produced this and I hope
that it gets fuller dissemination because it is such a rare truth in such a time of utter deceit by most all of the MSM (Main
Stream Media) that this country I reside in uses to supposedly inform the American people ...what a crock! Thank You, Australia
for making this available (but beware, the Five Eyes are always very active in related matters to this) ... This has been welcome
confirmation of what many of us have known and attempted to tell others for about 5 years now. Sadly, I doubt that has or will
help very much, The System is so corrupted from top to bottom ... IMnsHO and E.
Firstly your definition of 'deep state' is too limited, it includes the bureaucracy, much of the judiciary, banks and other
financial institutions, and the major political parties. It is not restricted only to the intelligence agencies. It is not a US-specific
issue, but a global one. For the deep state exists everywhere, and is often more powerful in commonwealth countries, such as here
in apathetic Australia.
When the CIA kills Kennedy you know you've got problems... And whilst agents in the CIA probably did not pull the trigger -
their "assets" did... If you don't believe me spare me your tiresome ignorant replies and go and do some research...
" We were warned about the Military Industrial Complex, Sadly the Government Media Complex, has done way more damage, and will
be much harder to overcome" ~ Dr. Mike Savage 2008
14:20 I met a guy from Canada in the early
2000s, a telephone technician, told me about when he worked at the time for the government telephone company in the early 80s.
He was given a really strange job one day, to go do some work in the USA. Some kind of repair work that required someone with
experience and know-how, but apparently someone from out-of-country, he guesses, because there certainly must have been many people
in the USA who could have done it, he figured. He flew down to oregon, then was driven for hours out into the middle of nowhere
in navada, he said. They came to a small building that was surrounded by fencing etc. Nothing interesting. Nothing else around,
he said, as far as he could see. They went in, and pretty much all that was there was an elevator. They went in, and he said,
he didn't know how many floors down it went, or how fast it was moving, but seemed to take quite sometime, he figured about 8
stories down, was his guess, but he didn't know. He was astounded to see that there was telephone recording stuff in there about
the size of two football-fields. He said they were recording everything. He said, even at that time, it was all digital, but they
didn't have the capacity to record everything, so it was set up to monitor phone calls, and if any key words were spoken, it would
start recording, and of course it would record all phone calls at certain numbers. "So, who knows what they've got in there today,
he said" back in the early 2000s. So, imagine what they've got there today, in the 2020s. I didn't know whether or not to believe
this story, until I saw a doc about all of the telephone recording tapes they have in storage, rotting away, which were used to
record everyone's phone calls onto magnetic tape. Literally tonnes and tonnes of tapes, just sitting there in storage now, from
the 1970s, the pre-digital days. They've always been doing it. They're just much better at it today than ever. Now they can tell
who you are by your voice, your cadence, your intonation, etc. and record not just a call here and there, but everything.
"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled is convincing the world he didnt exist" Credit the --- Usual Suspects ---- That's
the playbook of the "Deep State"
The last guy (denying the deep state's existence) was lying. When someone shakes their head when talking in the affirmative
you can be 100% sure it is a lie (micro expressions 101).
Bitcoin Blockchain
1 day ago
1950–1953: Korean War United States (as part of the United Nations) and South Korea vs. North Korea and Communist China
1960–1975: Vietnam War United States and South Vietnam vs. North Vietnam
1961: Bay of Pigs Invasion United States vs. Cuba
1983: Grenada United States intervention
1989: U.S.Invasion of Panama United States vs. Panama
1990–1991: Persian Gulf War United States and Coalition Forces vs. Iraq
1995–1996: Intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina United States as part of NATO acted as peacekeepers in former Yugoslavia
2001–present: Invasion of Afghanistan United States and Coalition Forces vs. the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to fight terrorism
2003–2011: Invasion of Iraq The United States and Coalition Forces vs. Iraq
2004–present: War in Northwest Pakistan United States vs. Pakistan, mainly drone attacks
2007–present: Somalia and Northeastern Kenya United States and Coalition forces vs. al-Shabaab militants
2009–2016: Operation Ocean Shield (Indian Ocean) NATO allies vs. Somali pirates
2011: Intervention in Libya U.S. and NATO allies vs. Libya
2011–2017: Lord's Resistance Army U.S. and allies against the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda
2014–2017: U.S.-led Intervention in Iraq U.S. and coalition forces against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
2014–present: U.S.-led intervention in Syria U.S. and coalition forces against al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Syria
2015–present: Yemeni Civil War Saudi-led coalition and the U.S., France, and Kingdom against the Houthi rebels, Supreme Political Council in Yemen, and allies
2015–present: U.S. intervention in Libya
Deep State is the "Wealthy Oligarchy", an "International Mafia" who controls the Central Bank (a privacy owned banking system
which controls the worlds currencies). The Wealthy Oligarchy "aka Deep State" controls most all Democratic countries, and controls
the International Media. In the United States, both the Republican and Democrat parties are controlled by the Wealthy Oligarchy
aka Deep State.
A beautifully crafted and delivered discourse, impressive! As a Londoner I have become increasingly interested in Sky News
Australia, you are a breath of fresh air and common sense in this world of ever growing liberal media hysteria!
I have to laugh at the people, including our supposedly unbiased and intelligent media, who said the Russia thing was the truth
when it was nothing but a conspiracy theory. Everything else was a conspiacy theory according to the dems ans the mainstream media..
Wall Street and the banksters control the CIA. One can imagine the ramifications of control of the world via the moneyed interests
backed by James Bond and the Green Berets, the latter, under control of the CIA.
Deep State Powers have been messing with your USA long before your War of Independence . Your Founding Fathers knew , why do
you think they wrote your Constitution that way. Now everyone is always crying about something but fail to realize you gave your
freedoms away over time . The Deep State never left it just disguised itself and continued to regain control under a new face
or ideaology. Follow the money . "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."― Edmund Burke
After the John F. Kennedy assassination the took full power,those who are in power now are the descendants of the criminals
who did it,some of their sons just have a different last name but they are the same family,like George Bush and John Kerry are
cousins but different last name and the list goes and goes.
Council on Foreign Relation is more Deep State than CIA and FBI . The two worked for CFR. CFR tel president whom to appoint
to what positions. Nixon got a list of 22 deep state candidates for top US position and all were hired. Obama appointed 11 from
the list. Kissinger is behind the scenes strings puller also.
Thanks Sky and Peter for bringing this to the mainstream attention, it really is time! Wished you had aired John Kiriakou,s
other claims off child sex trafficking to the elites which has been corroborated by so many other sources now and is the grossest
deformity of this deep state which you can see footage of trump talking about. I am amazed and greatful to see Trump has done
more about this than all other presidents in the last 20 years. Lets end this group. All we need to do is shine the light on them
The CIA are only an intelligence and operations functioning part of the deep state its much more complex and larger than just
the CIA. The British empire controls the deep state they always have it is just a modern version of the old East India Company
controlled by the same families with the same ideology.
https://theduran.com/the-origins-of-the-deep-state-in-north-america/
It's funny how for decades "the people" were crying on their knees about how bad every president was n how corrupt n controlled
they were. Now you've got a president with no special interest groups publicly calling out the deep state n ur still bitching.
U know you've got someone representing the people when the cia n fbi r out to get him. In 50 years trump will be looked back at
with the likes of Washington, Lincoln n jfk. Once the msm smear campaign is out of everyone's brain.
When they start spying on people within the United States and when they used in National Defense authorization act that gave
them a lot of power since after 911 to give them more power now they have Homeland Security which is the next biggest threat to
the United States it can be abused and some of these people have a higher security clearance than the president.... they're not
under control the NSA is one of them you don't mention in here either one is about the more that you don't even know about that
they don't have names are acronyms that we knew about that's why the American people have been blindsided by this overtime they've
been giving all this money to do things... allocation of money they gathered to do this and now Congress itself doesn't know temperature
of Schumer when you caught him saying to see I can get back at you three ways to Sunday I mean he's got some words in this saying
to the president of usa donald trump... basically threatening the President right there.. you can see it's alive and well when
Congress is immune from prosecution from anything or anyone....
"I think in light of all of the things going on, and you know what I mean by that: the fake news, the Comeys of the world,
all of the bad things that went on, it's called the swamp you know what I did," he asked. "A big favor. I caught the swamp. I
caught them all. Let's see what happens. Nobody else could have done that but me. I caught all of this corruption that was going
on and nobody else could have done it."
there is no big secret that CIA is deeply involved in drug smuggling operations...i remember interview with ex marine colonel
who said that he was indirectly involved in such operations in panama...
Attempting to infiltrate News rooms😆😅😂 all those faces you see in the MSM are all working for Cia. In 1967 one of the 3
letter agencys bragged about having a reporter working in 1 of the 3 letter news channel!
Wow this was really good. It's funny you showed a clip from abc of kouriakow and it reminded me how much the news in america
has been propagandized and just fake. I'm 38 and it's sad that these days the news is unpatriotic. Well most . Ty sky news Australia
Why no mention of what facilitates the surveilance? Telecom infrastructure is a nations nerve system and the powergrid its
bloodsystem. Who controls them? That is where you find the head of the deep state!
What people aren't aware of is that Facebook YouTube Twitter Instagram Google maps and Google search are all NSA CIA and DIA
creations and CEO's are only highly paid operatives who are not the creators but the face of a product and what better way to
collect all of your information is by you giving it to them
More please? A subject for another installment regarding the Deep State could be Banking, Federal Reserves and Fiat currencies.
Later, another video could be Russia's success at expelling the Deep State in 2000 after it took them over (for a 2nd time) in
1991. Be cognizant, the Deep State initially had for a short time from 1917 via 'it's' 'Bolshivics,' orchestrated the creation
of the Soviet Union through the Bolshivic take over of Russia from it's independence minded and Soveriegn Czarist led Eastern
Orthodox State. Now, President Trump is preventing a similar Deep State take-over by Intelligence agencies, Corporations and elected
political thugs as bad as Leon Trotsky and V I Lennin were to the Russian Czar. The Soviets soon after their (1917) take-over
went Rogue on the Deep State and therefore the Soviet Union was independent until The Deep State orchestrated it's downfall and
anexation of it's substantial wealth and some territory (1991). More, more, more please Sky News, this video was great!
Amazing, Sky News is the ONLY TV News Service in Australia Trying to deliver true news. Australia's ABC news are CIA Deep State
Shills and propagandists - Sarah Ferguson Especially - see her totally CIA scripted Four Corners Report on the Russia Hoax. John
Gantz IS a Deep State Operative Liar.
Isnt it time to see TERM LIMITS in Co gress and to realign our school education to teach the real history of these unites states?
End the control of Congress and watch the agencies fall in step with OUR Conatitution. No one should ever be allowed in Congress
or any other elected position of trust if they are not a devout Constitutionalist. Anyone who takes the oath to see w the people
and fails to so so should be charged with TREASON and removed immediately. Is there a DEEP STATE? Damn right there is and has
been for many decades. Where is our sovereignty? Where is the wealth of a capitalist nation? Why so much poverty and welfare and
why do communists and socialist get away with damaging our country, state or communities. Yes, there has been a deep state filled
with criminals who all need to be charged, tried and executed for TREASON.
The CIA and Australias Federal police have One main Job/activity to feed their Populations with Propaganda & Lies to give them
their Thoughts & Opinions on Everything using their psyOps through MSM News & Programming...you prolly beLIEve this informative
News Story as well. : (
These people denying a deep state with such straight faces are psychopaths. Unwittingly, or maybe not, Schumer made liars of
them with his comment to Maddow
President Trump is correct. He knows exactly what's going on. The 3 letter agencies are up to no good and work against the
fabric of our nation's founding fathers. It's despicable behavior. Just one example is John Brennan (CIA Director) and Barack
Hussein Obama's Terror Tuesdays. Read all about it on the internet now before it's permanently removed. Thank you for creating
this video.
When was the last time we ever witnessed an American President openly abused continually attacked over manufactured news treated
with absolutely no respect for him or the office his family unfairly attacked and misrepresented etc, etc, that's right never,
which proves he threatens the existence of the deep state as discussed. He should declare Martial Law Hang the consequences and
remove every single deep state player everywhere. Foreign influence? read Israel.
People are so fixated on trumps outspoken Sometimes outrageous demeanor which in my opinion it's just being really honest and
yes he can Be rude at times but when you look at the facts He's the only one that has gone against the deep state! those are the
real devils dressed up in sheep's clothing! Wake up!
You are missing the point. It goes further then intelligence agency working against the people. It's the ultra rich literally
trillionaires like the rothchilds that control the cia etc. That is who trump is fighting. The globalists line gates soros etc.
The author is neoliberal apologists, who use idiotic cliché about democratization to
cover neoliberal wolfs teens and appetite. Neoliberalism means impoverishment of countries like
Russia. so Putin actions are logical: he defends interests of Russian people against
international financial oligarchy. Experience of countries like Ukraine and Libya are vivid
examples of what financial oligarchy can do to the countries which do not resists conversion into
debt slaves.
McFaul of course was a color revolution specialist, who tried to unleash White color
revolution in 2011-2012. But he was actually a gift to Russians, as he proved to be a complete
and utter idiot, not a skillful diplomat. After EuroMaydan in 2014 neoliberal fifth column in
Russia was decimated and seized to exist as a political force.
"Russians," says Stent, "have at best been reluctant Europeans" (45). They need and admire
Western technology but managed to miss the Reformation, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment,
and never developed a middle class and a democracy. Putin himself is a "wary European," who
fails "to understand that Europe's successful modernization was a product of both a free market
economy and a democratic political system based on the rule of law." More appealing to him is
China's model of "authoritarian modernization" (52).
Moreover, he is suspicious of the expansion of the European Union, its Eastern Partnership
Initiative (EPI, 2009), and its overtures for former Soviet states to join the EPI or EU.
Disputes over the signing of such an Association Agreement with Ukraine in 2013 exploded into
the Maidan movement, the annexation of Crimea by Russia, the war in eastern Ukraine, and
economic sanctions against Russia. China soon replaced Europe as Russia's largest trading
partner. Instead of President Mikhail Gorbachev's dream of a 'common European home,' Russia has
become the major opponent of European unity, a promoter of Brexit, and an ally of the
anti-liberal axis of 'take-our-country-back' right-wing populist and neo-authoritarian European
parties and governments. Putin is indiscriminate about cultivating allies and has established
friendly relations with a rogues' gallery of strongmen and authoritarian politicians that
includes among others Marine Le Pen, Victor Orban, Silvio Berlusconi, Recep Tayyip
Erdoğan, Bashar al-Assad, Benjamin Netanyahu, Mohammad bin Salman, Narendra Modi, and
Donald J. Trump. But at the same time he has worked to establish ties with moderate and
centrist leaders like Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel.
As scholar and practitioner, Angela Stent is at her best when elaborating the specificities
of Russian dealings with friends and foes. Her chapter on NATO expansion -- "The 'Main
Opponent'" (Putin's words) -- is a judicious and critical review of policies that redivided
Europe and propelled Russia through the logic of a security dilemma to re-engage in offensive
strategies from rearmament to hybrid warfare. Yet while acknowledging that Russia has genuine
security concerns about NATO's moves eastward, she reverts to the notion that Russian
ideological constants are key to the conflict between East and West.
Russia has not, over the past quarter century, been willing to accept the rules of the
international order that the West hoped it would. Those included acknowledging the sovereignty
and territorial integrity of the post-Soviet states and supporting a liberal world order that
respects the right to self-determination. Russia continues to view the drivers of international
politics largely through a nineteenth-century prism. Spheres of influence are more important
than the individual rights and sovereignty of smaller countries. It is virtually impossible to
reconcile the Western and Russian understanding of sovereignty. For Putin, what counts is power
and scale, not rules (137-138).
Stent does not share the default view of some of her fellow Putinologists, among them Masha
Gessen and Michael McFaul, who see almost every malevolent deed of Russian policy as stemming
from one grim personality. She argues instead that Putin and more generally Kremlin policies
are the effusion of something deeply Russian. Like the work of many other analysts of Soviet
and Russian foreign policy behavior, however, the book often neglects or underplays the
intersubjective effects on Kremlin actions, the ways in which initiatives by the more powerful
West precipitate reactions by the East -- NATO expansion and European and American recognition
of Kosovo independence being among the clearest examples.
Losing the West, much of East Central Europe, the Baltic countries, Georgia, and Ukraine,
Russia turned eastward toward Eurasia, to the former South of the USSR, a region that Stent
argues "has been an essential component of [Putin's] main goal restoring Russia as a great
power" (142). He wants, as did Yeltsin, the West to recognize Russia's "sphere of privileged
interests" in the so-called "Near Abroad," where it has "civilizational commonalities" with
former Soviet states (144-145). To the Kremlin the Near Abroad is contested with the West, and
losing it would severely jeopardize Russia's security. Military arrangements, like the
Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), and economic collaboration in the Eurasian
Economic Union (EEU) have bound several republics, notably Belarus, Armenia, and Kazakhstan, to
Russia. In recent years several states, notably Moldova, have gravitated closer to Moscow,
while others, like Turkestan, maintain a guarded distance.
Substantive chapters review Russian relations with Ukraine, China, Japan, the Middle East,
and the United States. Putin's greatest success came in Syria, where he took advantage of the
Obama and Trump administrations' ambivalence about their role in the civil war. Putin sided
with Assad and, along with Iran and its proxies, propelled the brutal dictator to victory over
myriad rebels. For a time he solidified relations with Erdoğan's Turkey, but by 2019 the
two potential allies were at loggerheads both in Syria and Libya. Playing a relatively weak
hand vis-à-vis Europe, China, and the United States, Putin managed to deploy limited
resources to become the principal extra-regional player in the conflict-riven Near East. Given
Trump's reluctance to go to war or remain on the front line, Putin deftly filled the vacuum
left by American confusion and incompetence.
Reading Putin's World , one can see how Putin, successful in some places, bogged down
in others, and threatened in still others, has both increased Russian prestige and extended his
influence while deepening Russia's economic and diplomatic isolation and elevating global
suspicions as to its nefarious actions, from poisonings to election interference. Benefiting
from the gullibility and ignorance of the occupant of the White House, he can sit back and
observe the chaos launched by the Trump administration. But unpredictability should not calm a
realist's mind, and Putin is forced to deal with the contradictory cascade of attitudes and
activities emanating from Washington: friendly personal relations between the two leaders, the
series of sanctions placed on the Russians, the bizarre actions of Trump and his cronies in
Ukraine, unilateral abrogation of arms controls, withdrawal from the Paris Accords on climate
control and the Iranian nuclear agreement, the precipitate withdrawal from Syria, and the
impulsive assassination of high Iranian and Iraqi officials.
Stent ends the book with an assessment of how Russia's strongman has reasserted his
country's role on the world stage while at the same time worsening relations with the West and
facing a renewed arms race and the resurrection of harsh Cold War-like representations of his
country. "Putin has achieved his major objectives . The world can no longer ignore [Russia]. It
is respected -- and feared" (346). In much of the world he is a more attractive figure than his
"partner" Trump. Stent is confident that the West can work with Putin, but "the West has to
recognize what Russia is -- and not what it would like Russia to be" (356). Russia's views of
the world and of its interests have to be taken seriously, even when the West is unwilling to
accede to or compromise with them; "Engagement must be realistic and flexible" (361). Expect
the unexpected. After all, you are dealing with a wiry, wily judo master.
Putin Says US Social Unrest Show "Deep-Seated Internal Crises" by Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2020 - 11:51
The Rubin Report's Pavel Zarubin interviewed Russian President Vladimir Putin on Sunday, where
he said social unrest across the US reveals the deep internal crisis in the country, reported
TASS News .
"What has happened [in the US] is the manifestation of some deep domestic crises," Putin
said, noting that this crisis was festering well before President Trump took office. "When he
won, and his victory was absolutely obvious and democratic, the defeated party invented
all sorts of bogus stories just to call into question his legitimacy," he added.
Putin pointed out the biggest problem of the US political system is the parties and their
special interest of people behind the scenes.
"It seems to me that the problem is that group party interests, in this case, are placed
above the interests of the entire society and the interests of people," Putin said.
While commenting on domestic issues, Putin said his government has been combating the virus
with minimal losses. He said that was not the case in the US, adding the failures of the US'
"management system" led to poor response and widespread destruction. He said the best strategy
has been Moscow's top-down approach as all parts of government operated as a single team.
Putin further expanded on the US social unrest by linking it to the pandemic: "It shows
there are problems. Things connected to the fight with the
coronavirus have shone a spotlight on general problems."
He criticized the lack of strong leadership of virus response efforts, saying that "the
president says we need to do such-and-such, but the governor somewhere tells him where to
go."
In Russia, "I doubt anyone in the government or the regions would say 'we're not going to do
what the government says, what the president says, we think it's wrong,'" Putin said.
Putin believes American democracy will work to end the twin crisis: public health and social
unrest, which have engulfed the country lately.
"I expect that the fundamental basis of US democracy will still allow and help this
country to end this crisis period where it certainly finds itself," he said.
"The FBI agent who first interviewed Steele about his anti-Trump research in London on July
5, 2016 was aware immediately of a connection to Clinton..." Notes and emails that have been
kept so far from Senate investigators show the FBI knew from its earliest interactions with
Christopher Steele in July 2016 that his Russia research project on Donald Trump was connected
to Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party .
The information, so far mentioned only glancingly and in footnotes of a Justice Department
report, could provide the Senate Judiciary Committee with the most powerful evidence yet to
confront witnesses about why the bureau concealed the political origins of Steele's work from
the FISA court.
" So far the bureau is slow-walking this stuff, " a source familiar with senators'
frustrations told Just the News. "We need to see these sort of documents before we question key
witnesses."
Chairman Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) is seeking a vote later this week to authorize subpoenas
that would compel the Christopher Wray-led FBI to produce witnesses and outstanding documents
for the committee's investigation of the Russia investigators.
The effort to acquire the original source materials began last December after DOJ Inspector
General Michael Horowitz released his explosive report blaming the FBI for 17 mistakes,
omissions and acts of misconduct in seeking a FISA warrant against Trump campaign adviser
Carter Page.
While the headlines since that report have mostly focused on FISA abuses, Senate
investigators have also zeroed in on a handful of little-noticed passages in Horowitz's
narrative that reference original FBI source documents showing what agents and supervisors knew
about Steele, the former MI6 agent, and the firm that hired him, Fusion GPS.
It wasn't until late October 2017 that the public and Congress first learned that the law
firm Perkins Coie, on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's
campaign, hired Glenn Simpson's Fusion GPS research firm to have Steele delve into Trump's
Russia connections .
And FBI officials have been vague in their explanations about when they knew Steele's
research was tied to Clinton and the DNC and why they did not explicitly inform the FISA court
that the Steele dossier used to secure the warrant was funded by Trump's election opponent.
But one passage and two footnotes in Horowitz's report that have largely escaped public
attention suggest the FBI agent who first interviewed Steele about his anti-Trump research in
London on July 5, 2016 was aware immediately of a connection to Clinton and that a separate
office of the FBI passed along information from an informant by Aug. 2, 2016 that Simpson's
Fusion GPS was connected to the DNC.
For instance, the agent in London contacted an Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) in
the New York field office (NYFO) shortly after interviewing Steele and obtaining one of the
anti-Trump memos that made up his dossier, according to information in Horowitz's report.
The agent sought advice July 13, 2016 on how to handle the sensitive election-year
allegations from the supervisor in New York, where the FBI had already opened a probe of Page
that would eventually be assumed by Washington headquarters.
"ASAC 1's notes from his July 13 call with Handling Agent 1 closely track the contents of
Report 80, identify Simpson as a client of a law firm, and include the following: 'law firm
works for the Republican party or Hillary and will use [the information described in Report 80]
at some point,'" the Horowitz report stated. "ASAC 1 told us that he would not have made this
notation if Handling Agent 1 had not stated it to him."
Footnote 223 in the report reveals a second line of evidence that came to the FBI from a
confidential human source (CHS) suggesting the Steele-Simpson-Fusion project was tied to
Democrats. That warning was immediately sent to Agent Peter Strzok, the case agent for the
Crossfire Hurricane probe investigating whether Trump and Russia colluded to hijack the 2016
election.
"At approximately the same time that Handling Agent 1 was reporting information about
Simpson to ASAC 1, an FBI agent from another FBI field office sent an email to his supervisor
stating that he had been contacted by a former CHS who 'was contacted recently by a colleague
who runs an investigative firm. The firm had been hired by two entities (the Democratic
National Committee as well as another individual...not name[d]) to explore Donald J. Trump's
longstanding ties to Russian entities.'"
"On or about August 2, 2016, this information was shared by a CD supervisor with the Section
Chief of CD's Counterintelligence Analysis Section I (Intel Section Chief), who provided it
that day to members of the Crossfire Hurricane team (then Section Chief Peter Strzok, SSA 1,
and the Supervisory Intel Analyst,)" the footnote adds.
Senate investigators want to see the original emails and notes from these conversations as
they plan to interrogate dozens of key witnesses in the Russia investigation about whether
there was an intentional effort by he FBI to hide from the courts and Congress the flaws in
their case, exculpatory evidence involving the Trump targets, and derogatory information about
Steele's credibility.
In the end, Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence that any Americans, including
anyone associated with the Trump campaign, colluded with Russia to influence the election.
And evidence that has since emerged shows the FBI determined early on that Steele's dossier
included debunked, uncorroborated information and possible Russian disinformation aimed at
smearing Trump , but agents proceeded anyway with their investigation.
" I presumed it was the Clinton campaign, and Glenn Simpson had indicated that . But I was
not aware of the technicality of it being the DNC that was actually the client of Perkins
Coie," Steele testified in March under questioning from lawyers for Russian bankers suing over
his research.
Steele confirmed during that testimony that his notes of a 2016 FBI meeting showed he told
agents about the Clinton connection.
Congressional investigators have now pieced together at least five instances early in the
Russia case where the FBI was warned of the political origins and motives of Steele's work but
failed to fully inform the courts.
Instead, the FBI's FISA warrant application told the judge Steele was working for a person
interested in possibly defeating Trump but without disclosing it was the opposition research
firm specifically hired by Clinton and the DNC through their law firm to find dirt on Trump in
Russia.
Senate investigators are trying to determine whether that omission was part of a larger,
intentional campaign to mislead the FISA court and Congress in order to keep the Russia
investigation going despite a lack of evidence supporting the collusion theory.
" Look, we've got to get to the bottom of this, to find out how they ended up with this
dossier, how it was believed to be accurate, when did they know it was not accurate? "
explained Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) one of the key members of the Judiciary
Committee.
This guy does not understand the term "neoliberalism" and process of rejection of neoliberal ideology and the collapse of
neoliberal globalization. As such his analysis is by-and-large junk. Still some quotes are interesting enough to the
readers. Undeniably Russia and China are poses both features of the nationa-states and distinct civilizations, but that
changes nothing in their fight against American Imperialism and global neoliberalism.
The weakness of both Russia and China is that they are neoliberal states themselves, so while fighting American neoliberal
imperialism (to a certain extent) externally, they promote neoliberalism internally. China implements something like NEP (New
economic Policy) installed in Russia after revolution. It leads to tremendous level of corruption. Putin promotes something like a
New Deal Capitalism, but that contradicts the logic of neoliberalism and the fact of existince of Russian oligarchs. Political
balance relies just of the power of Putin personality. That might lead to the collapse of state when current leaders are gone, as
this is a very fine balance which requires exceptional political agility. Putin does possessed it, but that does not mean that
Russia can find another Putin. Then what? A new Yeltsin?
Notable quotes:
"... today we are witnessing the end of the liberal world order and the rise of the civilisational state, which claims to represent not merely a nation or territory but an exceptional civilisation ..."
"... Western civilisation is much less able to confront both internal problems such as economic injustice, social dislocation and resurgent nationalism, ..."
Such states define
themselves not as nations but civilisations – in opposition to the liberalism and global
market ideology of the West. By Adrian Pabst The 20th century marked the
downfall of empire and the triumph of the nation state. National self-determination became the
prime test of state legitimacy, rather than dynastic inheritance or imperial rule.
After the
Cold War, the dominant elites in the West assumed that the nation-state model had defeated all
rival forms of political organisation. The worldwide spread of liberal values would create an
era of Western hegemony. It would be a new global order based on sovereign states enforced by
Western-dominated international organisations such as the International Monetary Fund, the
World Bank and the World Trade Organisation.
But today we are witnessing the end of the liberal world order and the rise of the civilisational state, which claims to represent not merely a nation or territory but an
exceptional civilisation. In China and Russia the ruling classes reject Western liberalism and
the expansion of a global market society. They define their countries as distinctive
civilisations with their own unique cultural values and political institutions. The ascent of
civilisational states is not just changing the global balance of power. It is also transforming
post-Cold War geopolitics away from liberal universalism towards cultural exceptionalism.
****
Thirty years after the collapse of totalitarian state communism, liberal market democracy is
in question. Both the West and "the rest" are sliding into forms of soft totalitarianism as
market fundamentalism or state capitalism creates oligarchic concentrations of power and
wealth. Oligarchies occur in both democratic and authoritarian systems, which are led by
demagogic leaders who can either be more liberal, as with France's president Emmanuel Macron,
or more populist, such as Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán. In both the older
democracies of western Europe and in the post-1989 democracies of the former Soviet Union,
fundamental freedoms are in retreat and the separation of powers is under threat.
The resurgence of great power rivalry, especially with the rise of Russia and China, is
weakening Western attempts to impose a unified set of standards and rules in international
relations. The leaders of these powers, including the US under Donald Trump, reject universal
human rights, the rule of law, respect for facts and a free press in the name of cultural
difference. The days of spreading universal values of Western enlightenment have long since
passed.
Globalisation is partly in reverse. Free trade is curtailed by protectionist tariff wars
between the US and China. The promotion of Western democracy has been replaced by an
accommodation with autocrats such as North Korea's Kim Jong-un. But more fundamentally,
geopolitics is no longer simply about the economy or security – Christopher Coker
describes it in The Rise of the Civilizational State (2019) as largely sociocultural and
civilisational. The non-Western world, led by Beijing and Moscow, is pushing back against the
Western claim to embody universal values.
Chinese leader Xi Jinping champions a model of "socialism with Chinese characteristics"
fusing a Leninist state with neo-Confucian culture. Vladimir Putin defines Russia as a
"civilisational state", which is neither Western nor Asian but uniquely Eurasian. Trump rails
against the European multicultural dilution of Western civilisation – which he equates
with a white supremacist creed. Common to these leaders is a hybrid doctrine of nationalism at
home and the defence of civilisation abroad.
It reconciles their promotion of great-power
status with their ideological aversion to liberal universalism. States based on civilisational
identities are bound to collide with the institutions of the liberal world order, and so it is
happening.
Civilisations themselves might not clash, but contemporary geopolitics has turned into a
contest between alternative versions of civilised norms. Within the West, there is a growing
gap between a cosmopolitan EU and a nativist US. And a global "culture war" is pitting the
West's liberal establishment against the illiberal powers of Russia and China. Cultural
exceptionalism is once again challenging, and arguably replacing, liberalism's claim to
universal validity. The powers redefining themselves as state civilisations are gaining
strength.
****
A new narrative has taken hold among the ruling classes in the West: that the aggressive
axis of Russia and China is the main threat to the Western-dominated international system. But
the liberal world order is also under unprecedented strain from within. The Iraq invasion of
2003, the 2008 global financial crash, austerity and the refugee crisis in Europe, which began
in earnest in 2015 and was partly the result of Western destabilisation in Libya and Syria,
have all eroded public confidence in the liberal establishment and the institutions it
controls. Brexit, Donald Trump and the populist insurgency sweeping continental Europe mark a
revolt against the economic and social liberalism that has dominated domestic politics and
neoliberal globalisation. The ascent of authoritarian "strongmen" such as Putin, Xi Jinping,
India's prime minister Narendra Modi, Turkey's President Erdogan and Brazil's new leader Jair
Bolsonaro are a major menace to liberal dominance over international affairs. But the principal
danger to the West is internal – namely the erosion of Western civilisation by
ultra-liberalism.
The dominant idea of the last four decades is the belief that the West is a political
civilisation that represents the forward march of history towards a single normative order. But
experience has shown that this force, with its tendency towards cartel capitalism, bureaucratic
overreach, and rampant individualism, is devastating the West's cultural civilisation. Part of
the legacy of this civilisation is the postwar model of socially embedded markets,
decentralised states, a balance of open economies with protection of domestic industry and a
commitment to the dignity of the person, enshrined in human rights.
It is a legacy that rests on a common cultural heritage of Greco-Roman philosophy and law,
as well as Judeo-Christian religion and ethics. Each, in different ways, stress the unique
value of the person and free human association independent of the state. Western countries
share traditions of music, architecture, philosophy, literature, poetry and religious belief
that make them members of a common civilisation rather than a collection of separate
cultures.
This civilisational heritage and its principles are under threat from the forces of
liberalism. In the name of supposedly universal liberal values, the Clinton administration
adopted as its civilising mission the worldwide spread of market states and humanitarian
intervention. After the 9/11 attacks, left-liberal governments such as Tony Blair's New Labour
waged foreign wars and curtailed civil rights in the name of security.
Emmanuel Macron, the latest cheerleader for Western progressives, has led a crackdown of the
gilets jaunes protesters in France that threatens fundamental freedoms of speech,
association and public demonstration. As Patrick Deneen, the Catholic legal scholar and author
of Why Liberalism Failed (2018), and others have shown, liberalism is undermining the
principles of liberality on which Western civilisation depends, such as free inquiry, free
speech, tolerance for dissent and respect for political opponents.
At the heart of the West is a paradox. It is the only community of nations founded upon the
political values of self-determination of the people, democracy and free trade. These
principles were codified in the 1941 Atlantic Charter signed by Winston Churchill and Franklin
D Roosevelt, and enshrined in the post-1945 international system. Yet liberalism is eroding
these cultural foundations, and we are now living with the consequences. Western civilisation
is much less able to confront both internal problems such as economic injustice, social
dislocation and resurgent nationalism, and the external threats of ecological devastation,
Islamist terrorism and hostile foreign powers.
After the fall of communism, the liberal West sought to recast reality in its progressive
self-image. As Tony Blair put it, only liberal culture is on the "right side of history". The
US and western Europe viewed themselves as carriers of universal values for the rest of
humanity. Liberal leaders mutated into what Robespierre called "armed missionaries". They
exported Western cultural norms of personal self-expression and individual emancipation from
family, religion and nationality. Nations were seen by Western liberals as egos writ large that
desire nothing but to adapt to the imperatives of globalisation and a world without borders or
national identities.
The shallow culture of contemporary liberalism weakens civilisation in the West and
elsewhere. Liberal capitalism promotes cultural standards that glorify greed, sex and violence.
Too many liberals in politics, the media and the academy are characterised by a "closing of the
mind" that ignores the intellectual, literary and artistic achievements that make the West a
recognisable civilisation.
Some cosmopolitan liberals even repudiate the very existence of the West as a civilisation.
In one of his BBC Reith Lectures in 2016, the British-born Ghanaian-American academic Kwame
Anthony Appiah, the grandson of the former Labour chancellor Stafford Cripps, maintained that
we should give up on the idea of Western civilisation. "I believe," Appiah said, "that Western
civilisation is not at all a good idea, and Western culture is no improvement."
****
The rejection of Western universalism by the elites in Russia and China challenges the idea
of the nation state as the international norm for political organisation. The Chinese and the
Russian ruling classes view themselves as bearers of unique cultural norms, and define
themselves as civilisational states rather than nation states because the latter are associated
with Western imperialism – and in the case of China a century of humiliation following
the 19th-century Opium Wars. Martin Jacques, author of When China Rules the World
(2009), argues that, "The most fundamental defining features of China today, and which give the
Chinese their sense of identity, emanate not from the last century when China has called itself
a nation state but from the previous two millennia when it can be best described as a
civilisation state."
... ... ...
Adrian Pabst is a New Statesman contributing writer and the author of "Liberal World
Order and Its Critics" and "The Demons of Liberal Democracy"
If one ventures into the vast wasteland of American television it is possible to miss the
truly ridiculous content that is promoted as news by the major networks. One particular feature
of media-speak in the United States is the tendency of the professional reporting punditry to
go seeking for someone to blame every time some development rattles the National Security plus
Wall Street bubble that we all unfortunately live in. The talking heads have to such an extent
sold the conclusion that China deliberately released a lethal virus to destroy western
democracies that no one objects when Beijing is elevated from being a commercial competitor and
political adversary to an enemy of the United States. One sometimes even sees that it is all a
communist plot. Likewise, the riots taking place all across the U.S. are being milked for what
it's worth by the predominantly liberal media, both to influence this year's election and to
demonstrate how much the news oligarchs really love black people.
As is often the case, there are a number of inconsistencies in the narrative. If one looks
at the numerous photos of the protests in many parts of the country, it is clear that most of
the demonstrators are white, not black, which might suggest that even if there are significant
pockets of racism in the United States there is also a strong condemnation of that fact by many
white people. And this in a country that elected a black man president not once, but twice, and
that black president had a cabinet that included a large number of African-Americans.
Also, to further obfuscate any understanding of what might be taking place, the media and
chattering class is obsessed with finding white supremacists as
instigators of at least some of the actual violence. It would be a convenient explanation
for the Social Justice Warriors that proliferate in the media, though it is supported currently
by little actual evidence that anyone is exploiting right-wing groups.
Simultaneously, some on the right, to include the president, are blaming legitimately dubbed
domestic
terrorist group Antifa , which is perhaps more plausible, though again evidence of
organized instigation appears to be on the thin side. Still another source of the mayhem
apparently consists of some folks getting all excited by the turmoil and breaking windows and
tossing Molotov cocktails, as did
two upper middle class attorneys in Brooklyn last week.
Nevertheless, the search goes on for a guilty party. Explaining the demonstrations and riots
as the result of the horrible killing of a black man by police which has revulsed both black
and white Americans would be too simple to satisfy the convoluted yearnings of the likes of
Wolf Blitzer and Rachel Maddow.
Which brings us to Russia. How convenient is it to fall back on Russia which, together with
the Chinese, is reputedly already reported to be working hard to subvert the November U.S.
election. And what better way to do just that than to call on one of the empty-heads of the
Barack Obama administration, whose foreign policy achievements included the destruction of a
prosperous Libya and the killing of four American diplomats in Benghazi, the initiation of
kinetic hostilities with Syria, the failure to achieve a reset with Russia and the
assassinations of American citizens overseas without any due process. But Obama sure did talk
nice and seem pleasant unlike the current occupant of the White House.
The predictable Wolf Blitzer had a recent interview with perhaps the emptiest head of all
the empowered women who virtually ran the Obama White House. Susan Rice was U.N. Ambassador and
later National Security Advisor under Barack Obama. Before that she was a Clinton appointee who
served as Undersecretary of State for African Affairs. She is reportedly currently being
considered as a possible running mate for Joe Biden as she has all the necessary qualifications
being a woman and black.
While Ambassador and National Security Advisor, Rice had the reputation of being
extremely abrasive . She ran into trouble when she failed to be convincing in support of
the Obama administration exculpatory narrative regarding what went wrong in Benghazi when the
four Americans, to include the U.S. Ambassador, were killed.
"We have peaceful protesters focused on the very real pain and disparities that we're all
wrestling with that have to be addressed, and then we have extremists who've come to try to
hijack those protests and turn them into something very different. And they're probably also,
I would bet based on my experience, I'm not reading the intelligence these days, but based on
my experience this is right out of the Russian playbook as well. I would not be surprised to
learn that they have fomented some of these extremists on both sides using social media. I
wouldn't be surprised to learn that they are funding it in some way, shape, or form."
It should be noted that Rice, a devout Democrat apparatchik, produced no evidence whatsoever
that the Russians were or have been involved in "fomenting" the reactions to the George Floyd
demonstrations and riots beyond the fact that Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden all
believe that Moscow is responsible for everything. Clinton in particular hopes that some day
someone will actually believe her when she claims that she lost to Trump in 2016 due to Russia.
Even Robert Mueller, he of the Russiagate Inquiry, could not come up with any real evidence
suggesting that the relatively low intensity meddling in the election by the Kremlin had any
real impact. Nor was there any suggestion that Moscow was actually colluding with the Trump
campaign, nor with its appointees, to include National Security Advisor designate Michael
Flynn.
Fortunately, no one took much notice of Rice based on her "experience," or her judgement
insofar as she possesses that quality. Glenn Greenwald
responded :
"This is fuxxing lunacy -- conspiratorial madness of the worst kind -- but it's delivered
by a Serious Obama Official and a Respected Mainstream Newscaster so it's all fine This is
Infowars-level junk. Should Twitter put a 'False' label on this? Or maybe a hammer and sickle
emoji?"
Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Maria Zakharova accurately described the
Rice performance as a "perfect example of barefaced propaganda." She wrote on her Facebook
page "Are you trying to play the Russia card again? You've been playing too long – come
back to reality" instead of using "dirty methods of information manipulation" despite "having
absolutely no facts to prove [the] allegations go out and face your people, look them in the
eye and try telling them that they are being controlled by the Russians through YouTube and
Facebook. And I will sit back and watch 'American exceptionalism' in action."
It should be assumed that the Republicans will be coming up with their own candidate for
"fomenting" the riots and demonstrations. It already includes Antifa, of course, but is likely
to somehow also involve the Chinese, who will undoubtedly be seen as destroying American
democracy through the double whammy of a plague and race riots. Speaking at the White House,
National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien
warned about foreign incitement , including not only the Chinese, but also Iran and even
Zimbabwe. And, oh yes, Russia.
One thing is for sure, no matter who is ultimately held accountable, no one in the Congress
or White House will be taking the blame for anything.
Retired federal judge John Gleeson was recently appointed by U.S. District Judge Emmet
Sullivan to argue against dismissal of the case against former National Security Adviser
Michael Flynn and to advise him on whether the court should substitute its own charge of charge
for Flynn for now claiming innocence.
I have been highly critical of Sullivan's orders and particularly the importation of third
parties to make arguments that neither party supports in a criminal case.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.390.0_en.html#goog_1769897594
NOW PLAYING
Flynn asks appeals court to toss criminal charges
Now Gleeson has filed a brief that confirms the worst fears that many of us had about his
appointment. Gleeson assails what he called "a trumped-up accusation of government misconduct."
The ultimate position advocated in Gleeson's arguments would be a nightmare for criminal
defendants, criminal defense counsel and civil libertarians. Indeed, as discussed below,
Gleeson was previously reversed as a judge for usurping the authority of prosecutors.
Gleeson actually makes the Red Queen in "Alice in Wonderland" look like an ACLU lawyer.
After all she just called for "Sentence First–Verdict Afterward" Gleeson is dispensing
with any need for verdict on perjury, just the sentence. However, since these arguments are
viewed as inimical to the Trump Administration,
many seem blind to the chilling implications .
In his
82-page filing Gleeson notably rejects the idea of a perjury charge, which I previously
criticized as a dangerous and ridiculous suggestion despite the support from many legal
analysts. He notes that such a move would be "irregular" and
"I respectfully suggest that the best response to Flynn's perjury is not to respond in
kind. Ordering a defendant to show cause why he should not be held in contempt based on a
perjurious effort to withdraw a guilty plea is not what judges typically do. To help restore
confidence in the integrity of the judicial process, the Court should return regularity to
that process."
This seems a carefully crafted way of saying that the many calls for a perjury charge are as
out of line with prior cases as what these same critics allege was done by the Justice
Department.
However, Gleeson is not striking an independent or principled position. Rather, he is
suggesting that the Court simply treat Flynn as a perjurer, punish him as a perjurer, but not
give him a trial as a perjurer. Thus, he is advocating that the court "should take Flynn's
perjury into account in sentencing him on the offense to which he has already admitted
guilty."
Thus, according to Gleeson, the Court should first sentence a defendant on a crime that the
prosecutors no longer believe occurred in a case that prosecutors believe (and many of us have
argued) was marred by their own misconduct. He would then punish the defendant further by
treating his support for dismissal and claims of coercion as perjury. That according to former
judge Gleeson is a return to "regularity." I have been a criminal defense attorney for decades
and I have never even heard of anything like that. It is not "regular." It is ridiculous.
Gleeson himself came in for criticism in the filing by Flynn's counsel who note that the
former judge appointed by Sullivan not only publicly advocated against Flynn's position but as
a judge was chastised by the Second Circuit for misusing his position to grandstand in a case
involving a deferred prosecution agreement. The defense cited HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 863 F.3d 125, 136 (2d
Cir. 2017) where the Second Circuit reversed Gleeson for exaggerating his role in a way
that "would be to turn the presumption of regularity on its head."
The similarities to the present case are notable, including arguments that Gleeson intruded
upon prosecutorial discretion. The Second Circuit held:
"By sua sponte invoking its supervisory power at the outset of this case to oversee the
government's entry into and implementation of the DPA, the district court impermissibly
encroached on the Executive's constitutional mandate to "take Care that the Laws be
faithfully executed." U.S. Const. art. II, § 3. In the absence of evidence to the
contrary, the Department of Justice is entitled to a presumption of regularity -- that is, a
presumption that it is lawfully discharging its duties. Though that presumption can of course
be rebutted in such a way that warrants judicial intervention, it cannot be preemptively
discarded based on the mere theoretical possibility of misconduct. Absent unusual
circumstances not present here, a district court's role vis-à-vis a DPA is limited to
arraigning the defendant, granting a speedy trial waiver if the DPA does not represent an
improper attempt to circumvent the speedy trial clock, and adjudicating motions or disputes
as they arise."
The Court acknowledged that there may be cases warranting great judicial involvement.
However, the court found that Gleeson had acted on his own presumptions and not evidence. It
also reaffirmed that there is a presumption in favor of the prosecution that he
ignored:
"The district court justified its concededly "novel" exercise of supervisory power in this
context by observing that "it is easy to imagine circumstances in which a deferred
prosecution agreement, or the implementation of such an agreement, so transgresses the bounds
of lawfulness or propriety as to warrant judicial intervention to protect the integrity of
the Court." HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 2013 WL 3306161, at *6. We agree that it is not difficult to
imagine such circumstances. But the problem with this reasoning is that it runs headlong into
the presumption of regularity that federal courts are obliged to ascribe to prosecutorial
conduct and decisionmaking. That presumption is rooted in the principles that undergird our
constitutional structure. In particular, "because the United States Attorneys are charged
with taking care that the laws are faithfully executed, there is a `presumption of regularity
support[ing] their prosecutorial decisions and, in the absence of clear evidence to the
contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties.'" United
States v. Sanchez, 517
F.3d 651 , 671 (2d Cir. 2008) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v.
Armstrong, 517 U.S.
456 , 464, 116 S.Ct. 1480, 134 L.Ed.2d 687 (1996)). In resting its exercise of
supervisory authority on hypothesized scenarios of egregious misconduct, the district court
turned this presumption on its head. See HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 2013 WL 3306161, at *6
("[C]onsider a situation where the current monitor needs to be replaced. What if the
replacement's only qualification for the position is that he or she is an intimate
acquaintance of the prosecutor proposing the appointment?" (citation omitted)).
Rather than
presume "in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary" that the prosecutors administering
the DPA were "properly discharg[ing] their official duties," the district court invoked its
supervisory power -- and encroached on the Executive's prerogative -- based on the mere
theoretical possibility that the prosecutors might one day abdicate those duties. Sanchez,
517 F.3d at 671 (internal quotation mark omitted)."
Gleeson can now argue that he found the case that he did not establish as a judge. However,
his brief is filled with sweeping presumptions against the motivations and analysis of the
Justice Department, even though many outsiders agree with that analysis. The Flynn case is
based on statements that even the FBI agents reportedly did not believe were intentional lies.
Moreover, there is a clear basis to question the materiality element to the criminal charge.
People can disagree reasonably on both points, but that is the point. The Justice Department
has decided that it agrees that the case is flawed in line with the analysis of various
experts. The court might not agree with that interpretation and many other experts may
vehemently oppose it. However, it is a legitimate legal argument that cannot be substituted by
the Court for its own preferences.
None of this seems to penetrate the analysis of Gleeson who shows the same aggrandizement of
judicial authority that got him reversed as a judge. He argues for a court potentially sending
someone to jail when the prosecutors no longer believe he is guilty of a crime and believe that
he was the victim of bias and abuse.
Imagine what that would portend for future criminal defendants who want to argue coercion
and abuse. Their counsel would have to warn them that they could be sent to prison for a longer
period for perjury even if the prosecutors agree with them. Moreover, Gleeson believes that
they should not even be afforded a trial as perjurers, just treated as perjurers.
That is being claimed in the name of "regularity." Unfortunately, such analysis has become
all too regular in this age of rage.
The media's Russiagate failures were just a trial-run for the last four months.
June 10, 2020
|
12:01 am
Arthur
Bloom The most effective kind of propaganda is by omission. Walter Duranty didn't cook up
accounts from smiling Ukrainian farmers, he simply said there was no evidence for a famine,
much like the media tells us today that there is no evidence antifa has a role in the current
protests. It is much harder to do this today than it was back then -- there are photographs and
video that show they have been -- which is the proximate cause for greater media concern about
conspiracy theories and disinformation.
For all the hyperventilating over the admittedly creepy 2008 article about "cognitive
infiltration," by Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, it was a serious attempt to deal with the
problem of an informational center being lost in American public life, at a time when the
problem was not nearly as bad as it is today. It proposed a number of strategies to reduce the
credibility of conspiracy theorists, including seeding them with false information. Whether
such strategies have been employed, perhaps with QAnon, which has a remarkable ability to
absorb all other conspiracy theories that came before it, I leave to the reader's
speculation.
Books will one day be written about the many failures of the media during the Trump
presidency, but much of the Russiagate narrative-shaping was related to the broader problem of
decentralization and declining authority of establishment media. One of the more egregious
examples is the Washington Post's
report that relied upon a blacklist created by an anonymous group, PropOrNot, that found
more than 200 sites carried water for the Russians in some way, and not all on the right
either. In fact, if the Bush administration had commissioned a list of news sources that were
carrying water for Saddam Hussein in 2006, it would have looked almost the same as the
PropOrNot list, except here it was, recast as an effort to defend democratic integrity. On the
list was Naked Capitalism, Antiwar.com, and Truthdig.
This should have been a bigger scandal, very good evidence that the war on disinformation
was not that but a campaign against officially unapproved information. But virtually nobody
except Glenn Greenwald objected. There is some evidence that this style of blacklisting went
even further, into the architecture of search engines.
My reporting on Google search last year found that one of the "fringe domain" blacklists
included Robert Parry's Consortium News. In other words, if Google had been around in the
1980s, Parry's exposes on Iran-Contra would have been excluded from Google News results.
The criteria for inclusion on any of these lists are much more amorphous than a more
traditional one: taking money from a foreign power. As of this week, we now have
a figure for how much the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal
have taken from China Daily, a state-run newspaper, since 2016. It's $4.6 million, and $6
million, respectively. This is more than an order of magnitude greater than Russia is thought
to have spent on Facebook advertising prior to the 2016 election.
There are other specific Russiagate disgraces one would be remiss to overlook, like star
reporter Natasha Bertrand, who was hired at MSNBC after several appearances in which she
repeatedly defended the accuracy of the Steele Dossier, which itself was
likely tainted by Russian disinformation. The newspaper that published the Pentagon Papers
defended the outing of a source to the FBI. How David Ignatius, considered America's top
reporter on the intelligence community, can show his face in public after he was allegedly told
by James Clapper to "take the kill shot on Flynn," and then two days later doing just that, is
disturbing (Clapper's spokesman disputes this account, but Ignatius has not). The scoop, that
Flynn, the incoming national security advisor had spoken to the Russian ambassador, is in no
way suspicious, but for weeks was treated as if Flynn was making contact with his handler.
What Russiagate amounts to, as Matt Taibbi among others have written, is the use of federal
investigative resources to criminalize or persecute dissenters from the foreign policy line of
what we here at TAC call the Blob, in the same way that the PropOrNot list amounts to
an attempt to suppress unapproved sources of news.
Many of the same figures involved in prolonging the Russiagate hysteria were also big
cheerleaders for the Bush and Obama wars. Before Russiagate, there was the Pentagon military
analysts scandal, in which it was revealed that dozens of media commentators on military
affairs were doing so without disclosing their connections to the Pentagon or defense
contractors. It implicated Barry McCaffrey, Bill Clinton's drug war czar, who is now an MSNBC
contributor who helped to provide color for the narrative of General Flynn's decline,
suggesting
he was mentally ill after he had initially been supportive of him getting the job.
In a certain sense, Trump provides journalists who have disturbingly cozy relationships with
powerful people a way of looking like they are holding the powerful accountable, without
alienating any of their previous friends. Trump is in fact one of the weakest executives in
presidential history, partly because of the massive resistance to him in the federal workforce,
but also because his White House seems powerless to actually do anything about that. That
people actually think the dark cloud of fascism has descended upon the land when Trump can't
even figure out how to work those levers of power just shows how obsessed with symbolic matters
-- "representation," they call it -- our politics has become.
The subsequent failures of the American information landscape have only served to reinforce
this dynamic. Both the self-inflicted economic catastrophe of the coronavirus shutdowns, and
the recent civil unrest, will serve to concentrate wealth away from the hated red-state
bourgeoise and into the hands of the oligarchs in blue states, including Jeff Bezos, the owner
of the Washington Post . This bears repeating: COVID and the protests will lead to a
large transfer of wealth from a reliably Republican demographic -- small business owners -- to
one that is at best split, which is why you saw Jamie Dimon kneeling in front of a bank vault
this week.
Untangling the question of intent is difficult in the best of circumstances, and the same is
true here. The contrast between news networks ominously reporting on Florida beachgoers a month
ago now cheering on mass gatherings in large cities may not in fact be due to the fact that the
large consortiums that own the networks stand to benefit financially from the continued
shutdown of the country. They may sincerely believe, along with public health
officials , that balancing the risks of institutional racism and getting COVID-19 is worth
discussing in relation to protests, but balancing the same risks when it comes to going to
church or burying a family member is not. Or it may just be studied naivety, like the kind
exhibited a few weeks ago when the whole New York media scene rushed to the defense of the
New Yorker 's Jia Tolentino, who played the victim after people on social media
revealed that her family was involved in what certainly appears to be an exploitative
immigration scam.
The rise of the first-person essay and subjectivity in journalism may turn out to be a
perfectly congenial development for the powerful people in America; Tolentino is great at
writing about herself. For one thing, this is a lot cheaper than reporting; it probably isn't a
coincidence that this development has coincided with a huge decline in newsroom budgets. But at
the same time blaming this on economics feels like it misses the point, because there are many
people who are convinced this trend is good.
But the way it intersects with official corruption has me rather nervous. To give one
example, it seems clear that #MeToo degenerated after the Kavanaugh hearings and Biden's
nomination. And given the apparent loyalties of someone like David Ignatius, he isn't going to
be the one to unravel the intelligence connections involved in the great sexual violence story
of our generation, the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. So we are left with the Netflix version,
slotted right into the typical narrative, in which the Epstein story looks fundamentally the
same as most other stories of sexual coercion, involving a powerful man and less powerful
woman, only with an exceptionally powerful man. And yet there are so many indications it was
not typical.
So it is today with George Floyd as well. It seems like there are perfectly reasonable
questions to be asked about the acquaintance between him and Derek Chauvin, and the fact that
the rather shady bar they both worked at conveniently burned down. But by now most of the media
is now highly invested in not seeing anything other than a statistic, another incident
in a long history of police brutality, and the search for facts has been replaced by
narratives. This is a shame, because it is perfectly possible to think that police have a
history of poor treatment toward black people and there might be corruption involved
in the George Floyd case, which is something Ben Crump, the lawyer for Floyd's family,
seems
to suggest in his interview on Face the Nation this weekend.
Two incidents in the last week, the freakout among young New York Times staffers
over their publication of an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton that has now led to the resignation of
the editorial page editor, and the report by Cockburn that Andrew Sullivan has been barred from
writing about the protests by New York magazine, are a good indication that all of
this is going to get worse. As for the class of people who actually own these media properties,
they will probably find that building a padded room for woke staffers, in the form of whatever
HR and "safety"-related demands they're making, will suit their interests just fine. about
the author Arthur Bloom is managing editor of The American Conservative. He was previously
deputy editor of the Daily Caller and a columnist for the Catholic Herald. He holds masters
degrees in urban planning and American studies from the University of Kansas. His work has
appeared in The Washington Post, The Washington Times, The Spectator (UK), The Guardian,
Quillette, The American Spectator , Modern Age, and Tiny Mix Tapes.
The contemporary geographical West bears almost nothing of classical Western culture.
Another good example is that classical Greco-Roman beauty standards opposes almost all kinds
of body modification and mutilations, like tattoos, piercings, scarification, circumcision,
etc. Many of these, especially the first two, became predominant in the last 3 decades.
Very true. Tattoos, piercings and scarification were deemed the sign of a criminal or a
barbarian in the Greco-Roman world. They valued the athletic body as it was and saw no need
to disfigure it. That is why they had such a hard time accepting circumcision.
One of my favorite journalists at the WSJ is Holman Jenkins. In a WSJ article ( May 23 )
he has an article called "Media Cowardice and the Collusion Hoax." In this article he asks
"What happens when the press becomes an interest group whose interest isn't the truth?"
Here's my question: What happens when half a country strongly supports a press or an
educational system whose interest isn't the truth? What happens is that the country becomes
too severely fragmented to function as a country and no longer exists as a country since the
inner structure, the commonality, cohesion and trust, the life force of a society, has died.
The outer structure that people see then is just the shell of a country that once existed.
Like a once beautiful tree that has died leaving only the outer shell standing till a storm
knocks it down and scatters the remains.
When can we expect such a terrible storm? Probably November when an attempt is made to
have a presidential election for a country that no longer exists as a country. Many are
already quite aware of this. The closer we get the more widespread this awareness will be.
This does not bode well for our future.
"Challenging the 1619 Project"
Tipping Point with Liz Wheeler, ( 2 min. )
So we had two major pandemic exercises last year projecting almost exactly what did happen
with the corona virus. First was Crimson Contagion Jan thru Aug 2019
Then Event 201 the international war gaming of a global pandemic almost exactly like what
happened which took place only months before the real pandemic on October 2019
So depressing that nobody in the UK has the guts to ask questions about the Skripal affair.
Parliamentarians and msm are silent but there is always Rob Slane A
HREF="https://www.theblogmire.com/">here for one of the more exacting research efforts by
himself and his commenters. Its worth a detailed examination as he never bought the Govt
fairytale from day one and has the most forensic analysis available given the erasing of all
public data and cctv in Salisbury on the day and days that followed. Rob Slane lives in
Salisbury and was swept up in the Skripal story from his quiet little social/christian blog.
He is a legend.
Or Craig Murray of course but he would prefer to be known as a Scotland man not an
englander.
John Helmer at Dancing with Bears has also written some fine pieces on the Skripal's. His
latest piece brings light to the Wiltshire Police report that states
"On July 4 – that is four days after Sturgess and Rowley had been admitted to
hospital – the Wiltshire police published the conclusion from their investigation,
their roundup of witnesses, and from the hospital evidence that the drugs Sturgess and Rowley
had taken were Class A criminal and contaminated. Detective Sergeant Eirin Martin was
explicit. "We believe the two patients have fallen ill after using from a contaminated batch
of drugs, possibly heroin or crack cocaine." The evidence was so strong, Martin acknowledged
that publishing details of the crime was an "unusual step we are also asking anyone who may
have information about this batch of drugs we just need to know how these people came to fall
ill and where the drugs may have been bought from and who they may have been sold to."
No wonder the bottle of Novichok wasn't discovered during the first search of Rowley's
flat. MI6 hadn't planted it there until some time later.
Thank you and I forgot John Helmer. He is a legend on this and other matters of our times.
The Sturgess/Rowley story was pure D grade vaudeville. If there is one event that confirms
the ignorance of the englander power elite and its running dog media, it was the
Sturgess/Rowley fubar. LMAO at that one PLUS the utter BS about the 'novichok contaminated'
hotel room that the two 'Russian Lads' stayed in.
Now "Horrible Lisa" re-surfaced in MSNBC. Not surprising one bit. This is a deep state retirement package...
Notable quotes:
"... Barack Obama wanted to 'know everything' the FBI was 'doing' according to newly released text messages between FBI lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page ..."
Barack Obama wanted to 'know everything' the FBI was 'doing' according to newly released text messages between FBI lovers
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page ; reaction and analysis on 'The Five.'
Slime, slime and more slime. Obama headed up the whole thing. Zero integrity there.
The leaders of the Democratic Party, Barrak
Obama, Hillary Clinton, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazile, Chuck Schummer, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Shiff and his sisters father-in-law
George Soros.
Here is what this all boils down to. Hillary Clinton email to Donna Brazile, Oct., 17, 2016. "If that f*cking ba*tard
wins, we're all going to hang from nooses! You better fix this sh*t!"
Don't laugh derisively, as people do these days, but I've always admired the New York Times
. First draft of history. Talent everywhere. Best production values. Even with its ideological
spin, it can be scrupulous about facts. You can usually extract the truth with a decoder ring.
Its outsized influence over the rest of the press makes it essential. I've relied on it for
years. Even given everything, and I mean everything.
Until now. It's just too much. Too much unreality, manipulation, propaganda, and flat out
untruths that are immediately recognizable to anyone. I can't believe they think they can get
away with this with credibility intact. I'm not speaking of the many great reporters,
technicians, editors, production specialists, and the tens of thousands who make it all
possible. I'm speaking of a very small coterie of people who stand guard over the paper's
editorial mission of the moment and enforce it on the whole company, with no dissent
allowed.
Let's get right to the offending passage. It's not from the news or opinion section but the
official editorial section and hence the official voice of the paper. The paragraph from June
2, 2020, reads
as follows.
Healing the wounds ripped open in recent days and months will not be easy. The pandemic
has made Americans fearful of their neighbors, cut them off from their communities of faith,
shut their outlets for exercise and recreation and culture and learning. Worst of all, it has
separated Americans from their own livelihoods.
Can you imagine? The pandemic is the cause!
I would otherwise feel silly to have to point this out but for the utter absurdity of the
claim. The pandemic didn't do this. It caused a temporary and mostly media-fueled panic that
distracted officials from doing what they should have done, which is protect the vulnerable and
otherwise let society function and medical workers deal with disease.
Instead, the CDC and governors around the country, at the urging of bad computer-science
models uninformed by any experience in viruses, shut down schools, churches, events,
restaurants, gyms, theaters, sports, and further instructed people to stay in their homes,
enforced sometimes even by SWAT teams. Jewish funerals were broken up by the police.
It was brutal and egregious and it threw 40 million people out of work and bankrupted
countless businesses. Nothing this terrible was attempted even during the Black Death.
Maximum
economic damage; minimum health advantages . It's not even possible to find evidence that
the lockdowns saved lives at all .
But to hear the New York Times tell the story, it was not the lockdown but the pandemic that
did this. That's a level of ideological subterfuge that is almost impossible for a sane person
to conjure up, simply because it is so obviously unbelievable.
It's lockdown denialism.
Why? From February 2020 and following, the New York Times had a story and they are
continuing to stick to it. The story is that we are all going to die from this pandemic unless
government shuts down society. It was a drum this paper beat every day.
Consider what the top virus reporter Donald J. McNeil (B.A. Rhetoric, University of
California, Berkeley) wrote on
February 28, 2020, weeks before there was any talk of shutdowns in the U.S.:
There are two ways to fight epidemics: the medieval and the modern.
The modern way is to surrender to the power of the pathogens: Acknowledge that they are
unstoppable and to try to soften the blow with 20th-century inventions, including new
vaccines, antibiotics, hospital ventilators and thermal cameras searching for people with
fevers.
The medieval way, inherited from the era of the Black Death, is brutal: Close the borders,
quarantine the ships, pen terrified citizens up inside their poisoned cities.
For the first time in more than a century, the world has chosen to confront a new and
terrifying virus with the iron fist instead of the latex glove.
And yes, he recommends the medieval way. The article continues on to praise China's response
and Cuba's to AIDS and says that this approach is natural to Trump and should be done in the
United States. ( AIER
called him out on this alarming column on March 4, 20202.)
McNeil then went on to greater fame with a series of shocking podcasts for the NYT that put
a voice and even more panic to the failed modeling of Neil Ferguson of the Imperial College
London.
This first
appeared the day before his op-ed calling for global lockdown. The transcript
includes this:
I spend a lot of time thinking about whether I'm being too alarmist or whether I'm being
not alarmist enough. And this is alarmist, but I think right now, it's justified. This one
reminds me of what I have read about the 1918 Spanish influenza.
Reminder: 675,000 Americans died in that pandemic. There were only 103 million people living
in the U.S. at the time.
He continues:
I'm trying to bring a sense that if things don't change, a lot of us might die. If you
have 300 relatively close friends and acquaintances, six of them would die in a 2.5 percent
mortality situation.
That's an astonishing claim that seems to forecast 8.25 million Americans will die. So far
as I know, that is the most extreme claim made by anyone, four times as high as the Imperial
College model.
What should we do to prevent this?
You can't leave. You can't see your families. All the flights are canceled. All the trains
are canceled. All the highways are closed. You're going to stay in there. And you're locked
in with a deadly disease. We can do it.
So because this coronavirus "reminds" him of one he read about, he can say on the air that
four million people could soon die, and therefore life itself should be cancelled. Because a
reporter is "reminded" of something.
This is the same newspaper that in 1957 urged people to stay calm during the Asian flu and
trust medical providers – running all of one editorial on the topic. What a change! This
was an amazing podcast -- amazingly irresponsible.
McNeil was not finished yet. He was
at it again on March 12, 2020, demanding that we not just close big events and schools but
shut down everything and everyone "for months." He went back on the podcast twice more, then
started riding the media circuit, including
NPR . It was also the same. China did it right. We need to lock down or people you know, if
you are one of the lucky survivors, will die.
To say that the New York Times was invested in the scenario of "lock down or we die" is an
understatement. It was as invested in this narrative as it was in the Russia-collaboration
story or the Ukrainian-phone call impeachment, tales to which they dedicated hundreds of
stories and many dozens of reporters. The virus was the third pitch to achieve their
objective.
Once in, there was no turning back, even after it became obvious that for the vast numbers
of people this was hardly a disease at all, and that most of the deaths came from one city and
mostly from nursing homes that were forced by law to take in COVID-19 patients.
That the newspaper, a once venerable institution, has something to answer for is apparent.
But instead of accepting moral culpability for having created a panic to fuel the overthrow of
the American way of life, they turn on a dime to celebrate people who are not socially
distancing in the streets to protest police brutality.
To me, the protests on the streets were a welcome relief from the vicious lockdowns. To the
New York Times , it seems like the lockdowns never happened. Down the Orwellian memory
hole.
In this paper's consistent editorializing, nothing is the fault of the lockdowns.
Everything instead is the fault of Trump, who "tends to see only political opportunity in
public fear and anger, as in his customary manner of contributing heat rather than light to the
confrontations between protesters and authority."
True about Trump but let us remember that the McNeil's first pro-lockdown article praised
Trump as perfectly suited to bring about the lockdown, and the paper urged him to do just that,
while only three months later washing their hands of the whole thing, as if had nothing to do
with current sufferings much less the rage on the streets.
And the rapid turnaround of this paper on street protests was stunning to behold. A month
ago, people protesting lockdowns were written about as vicious disease spreaders who were
denying good science. In the blink of an eye, the protesters against police brutality (the same
police who enforced the lockdown) were transmogrified into bold embracers of First Amendment
rights who posed no threat to public health.
Not even the scary warnings about the coming "second wave" were enough to stop the paper
from throwing out all its concern over "targeted layered containment" and "social distancing"
in order to celebrate protests in the streets that they like.
And they ask themselves why people are incredulous toward mainstream media today.
The lockdowns wrecked the fundamentals of life in America. The New York Times today wants to
pretend they either didn't happen, happened only in a limited way, or were just minor public
health measures that worked beautifully to mitigate disease. And instead of having an editorial
meltdown over these absurdities, preposterous forecasts, and extreme panic mongering that
contributed to vast carnage, we seen an internal
revolt over the publishing of a Tom Cotton editorial, a dispute over politics not
facts.
The record is there: this paper went all in back in February to demand the most
authoritarian possible response to a virus about which we already knew enough back then to
observe that this was nothing like the Spanish flu of 1918. They pretended otherwise, probably
for ideological reasons, most likely.
It was not the pandemic that blew up our lives, commercial networks, and health systems. It
was the response to the virus that did that. The Times needs to learn that it cannot construct
a fake version of reality just to avoid responsibility for what they've done. Are we really
supposed to believe what they write now and in the future? This time, I hope, people will be
smart and learn to consider the source.
So another rabid neocon is hired by neocon MSM and instantly was interviewed by neocon Madcow, blaming Russia for the coup
d'état against Trump that Obama administration with her help launched. Nothing new, nothing interesting.
Notable quotes:
"... Page testified that even by May 2017, they did not find such evidence that "it still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing" to connect Trump and Russia. ..."
"... There was little reason to believe in this "insurance policy" given the absence of evidence. Yet, Page still viewed the effort led by Strzok as an indemnity in case of election. ..."
"... The Inspector General found that, soon after the first surveillance was ordered, FBI agents began to cast doubts on the veracity of the Steele document ..."
"... it was quickly established that no credible evidence existed to support the continuance of the investigation -- which Page called their "insurance policy." ..."
"... Page also left out her other emails including calling Trump foul names while praising Hillary Clinton and other opponents. Even if she were not involved in the ongoing controversy, her emails show her to be fervently opposed to both Trump and the Republicans. ..."
Lisa Page, the former FBI lawyer who resigned in the midst of the Russian investigation
scandal, has been hired a NBC and MSNBC as a legal analyst. The move continues a trend started
by CNN in hiring Trump critics, including officials terminated for misconduct, to offer legal
analysis on the Trump Administration.
We have previously discussed the use by CNN of figures like Andrew McCabe to give legal
analysis despite his being referred for possible criminal charges by the Inspector General for
repeatedly lying to federal investigators. The media appears intent on fulfilling the narrative
of President Trump that it is overly biased and hostile in its analysis. Indeed, it now appears
a marketing plan that has subsumed the journalistic mission.
Page appeared with Rachel Maddow and began her work as the new legal analyst by discussing
her own controversial work at the FBI. Page is still part of investigation by various
committees and the investigation being conducted by U.S Attorney John Durham.
I have
denounced President Trump for his repeated and often vicious references to Page's affair with
fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok . There is no excuse for such personal abuse. I also
do not view her emails as proof of her involvement in a deep-state conspiracy as opposed to
clearly inappropriate and partisan communications for someone involved in the investigation.
Indeed, Page did not appear a particularly significant figure in the investigation or even the
FBI as a whole. She was primarily dragged into the controversy due to her relationship with
Strzok.
However, Trump has legitimate reason to object (as he has) to this hiring as do those who
expect analysis from experts without a personal stake in the ongoing investigations. It has
long been an ethical rule in American journalism not to pay for interviews. Either NBC is
paying for exclusive rights to Page in interviews like the one on Maddow's show or it is hiring
an expert with a personal stake in these controversies to give legal analysis. Neither is a
good option for a network that represented the gold standard in journalism with figures like
John Chancellor, Edwin Newman, and Roger Mudd.
It is not that Page disagrees with the Administration on legal matters or these cases. It is
the fact that she is personally involved in the ongoing stories and has shown intense and at
times unhinged bias against Trump in communications with Strzok and others. She is the news
story, or at least a significant part of it.
Andrew A. Weissmann has also been retained as a legal analyst by NBC and MSNBC. While
Weissmann has been raised by Republicans as a lightening rod for his perceived partisan bias as
a member of the Mueller team, he does not have the type of personal conflict or interest in
these investigations. Weissmann is likely to be raised in the hearing over the next weeks into
the Flynn case in terms of prosecutorial decisions. (It is worth noting that Fox hired Trey
Gowdy at an analyst even though he would be commenting on matters that came before his
committee in these investigations.) In terms of balance, however, the appearance of both Page
and Weissmann giving analysis on the Administration's response to the protests is a bit
jarring for some .
Page was an unknown attorney in the FBI before she was forced into the public eye due to her
emails with Strzok. Her emails fueled the controversy over bias in the FBI. They were
undeniably biased and strident including the now famous reference to the FBI investigation as
"insurance" in case Trump was elected. In the email in August 2016, here's what Strzok
wrote:
I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office [Andrew McCabe
is the FBI deputy director and married to a Democratic Virginia State Senate candidate] for
that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an
insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40
What particularly concerns me is that Page has come up recently in new disclosures in the Flynn
case . In newly released document is an email from former FBI lawyer Lisa Page to former
FBI special agent Peter Strzok, who played the leadership role in targeting Flynn. In the
email, Page suggests that Flynn could be set up by making a passing reference to a federal law
that criminalizes lies to federal investigators. She suggested to Strzok that "it would be an
easy way to just casually slip that in." So this effort was not about protecting national
security or learning critical intelligence. As I have noted, the email reinforces other
evidence that it was about bagging Flynn for the case in the legal version of a canned trophy
hunt.
It appears that, on January 4, 2017, the FBI's Washington Field Office issued a "Closing
Communication" indicating that the bureau was terminating "CROSSFIRE RAZOR" -- the newly
disclosed codename for the investigation of Flynn. That is when Strzok intervened. The FBI had
investigated Flynn and various databases and determined that "no derogatory information was
identified in FBI holdings." Due to this conclusion, the Washington Field Office concluded that
Flynn "was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella
case." On that same day, however, fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok instructed the FBI case
manager handling CROSSFIRE RAZOR to keep the investigation open, telling him "Hey don't close
RAZOR." The FBI official replied, "Okay." Strzok then confirmed again, "Still open right? And
you're the case agent? Going to send you [REDACTED] for the file." The FBI official confirmed:
"I have not closed it Still open." Strzok responded "Rgr. I couldn't raise [REDACTED] earlier.
Pls keep it open for now."
Strzok also texted Page:
"Razor still open. :@ but serendipitously good, I guess. You want those chips and Oreos?"
Page replied "Phew. But yeah that's amazing that he is still open. Good, I guess."
Strzok replied "Yeah, our utter incompetence actually helps us. 20% of the time, I'm
guessing :)"
Page will be the focus of much of the upcoming inquiries both in Congress and the Justice
Department as will CNN's legal analyst Andrew McCabe.
In her Maddow segment, Page attempts to defuse the "insurance policy" email as all part of
her commitment to protecting the nation, not her repeatedly stated hatred for Trump. In what is
now a signature for MSNBC, Maddow did not ask a single probative question but actually helped
her frame the response. Even in echo journalistic circles, the echo between the two was
deafening.
Page explained"
"It's an analogy. First of all, it's not my text, so I'm sort of interpreting what I
believed he meant back three years ago, but we're using an analogy. We're talking about
whether or not we should take certain investigative steps or not based on the likelihood that
he's going to be president or not."
You have to keep in mind if President Trump doesn't become president, the
national-security risk, if there is somebody in his campaign associated with Russia,
plummets. You're not so worried about what Russia's doing vis-à-vis a member of his
campaign if he's not president because you're not going to have access to classified
information, you're not going to have access to sources and methods in our national-security
apparatus. So, the 'insurance policy' was an analogy. It's like an insurance policy when
you're 40. You don't expect to die when you're 40, yet you still have an insurance
policy."
Maddow then decided to better frame the spin:
"So, don't just hope that he's not going to be elected and therefore not press forward
with the investigation hoping, but rather press forward with the investigation just in case
he does get in there."
Page simply responds " Exactly ."
Well, not exactly.
Page is leaving out that, as new documents show, there never was credible evidence of any
Russian collusion. Recently, the Congress unsealed testimony from a long line of Obama
officials who denied ever seeing such evidence,
including some who publicly suggested that they had .
Indeed, Page testified that even by
May 2017, they did not find such evidence that "it still existed in the scope of possibility
that there would be literally nothing" to connect Trump and Russia.
There was little reason to
believe in this "insurance policy" given the absence of evidence. Yet, Page still viewed the
effort led by Strzok as an indemnity in case of election.
The Inspector General found that, soon after the first surveillance was ordered, FBI agents
began to cast doubts on the veracity of the Steele document and suggested it might be
disinformation from Russian intelligence. The IG said that, due to the relatively low standard
required for a FISA application, he could not say that the original application was invalid but
that it was quickly established that no credible evidence existed to support the continuance of
the investigation -- which Page called their "insurance policy."
Page also left out her other emails
including calling Trump foul names while praising Hillary Clinton and other opponents. Even if
she were not involved in the ongoing controversy, her emails show her to be fervently opposed
to both Trump and the Republicans.
Bias however has become the coin of the realm for some networks. Why have echo journalism
when you can have an analyst simply repeat her position directly? For viewers who become irate
at the appearance of opposing views (
as vividly demonstrated in the recent apology of the New York Times for publishing a
conservative opinion column ), having a vehemently biased and personally invested analyst
is reassuring. It is not like Page will suddenly blurt out a defense of Flynn or Trump or
others in the Administration.
With Page, NBC has crossed the Rubicon and left its objectivity scattered on the far
bank.
we_the_people, 11 minutes ago (Edited)
Nothing says professional journalism like hiring a dirty whore who was an active
participant in a coup to overthrow a duly elected President!
The level of insanity is truly amazing!
Heroism, 14 minutes ago
The MSM gets more Orwellian by the day, and today is like tomorrow.
More proof that corruption and deceit pay, big time. Surely, at some point viewers and voters
will say, "Enough!" and hit these purveyors of lies where it hurts--in the ratings and pocketbooks. Meanwhile,
the people will just willingly suffer..............
1) Newsweek has already proven to be significantly compromised, even more than most
MSM, as described by Caitlin Johnstone (via Consortium News):
Newsweek has long been a reliable guard dog and attack dog for the US-centralized
empire, with examples of stories that its editors did permit to go to print including
an article by an actual, current military intelligence officerexplaining why U.S.
prosecution of Julian Assange is a good thing, fawning puff pieces on the White
Helmets, and despicable smear jobs on Tulsi Gabbard.
The outlet will occasionally print oppositional-looking articles like this one by
Ian Wilkie questioning the establishment Syria narrative, but not without immediately
turning around and publishing an attack on Wilkie's piece by Eliot Higgins, a former
Atlantic Council Senior Fellow who is the cofounder of the NED-funded imperial
narrative management firm Bellingcat. Newsweek also recently published an article
attacking Tucker Carlson for publicizing the OPCW scandal, basing its criticisms on a
bogus Bellingcat article ...
Hollywood once gave us the Cold War thriller called "The Hunt for Red October ." And now the
U.S. Senate and its Republican committee chairmen in Washington have launched a different sort
of hunt made for the movies.
Armed with subpoenas, Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Ron Johnson, R-Wis., want to
interrogate a slew of Obama-era intelligence and law enforcement officials hoping to identify
who invented and sustained the bogus Russia collusion narrative that hampered Donald Trump's
early presidency.
And while Graham and Johnson aren't exactly Sean Connery and Alec Baldwin, they and their
GOP cohorts have a theory worthy of a Tom Clancy novel-turned-movie: The Russia collusion
investigation was really a plot by an outgoing administration to thwart the new president.
"What we had was a very quiet insurrection that took place," Sen. Marsha Blackburn, the
Tennessee Republican, told Just the News on Thursday as she described the theory of Senate
investigators. "And there were probably dozens of people at DOJ and FBI that knew what was
going on.
"But they hate Donald Trump so much that they were willing to work under the cloak of law
and try to use that to shield them so that they could take an action on their disgust," she
added. "They wanted to prohibit him from being president. And when he won, they wanted to
render him ineffective at doing his job."
For much of the last two years, the exact theory that congressional Republicans held about
the bungled, corrupt Russia probe -- where collusion between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin
was ultimately disproven and FBI misconduct was confirmed -- was always evolving.
But after explosive testimony this week from former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein,
who openly accused the FBI of keeping him in the dark about flaws, failures and exculpatory
evidence in the case, the GOP believes it may prove the Russia case was a conspiracy to use the
most powerful law enforcement and intelligence tools in America to harm Trump.
Two years of declassified memos are now in evidence that show:
The FBI was warned before it used Christopher Steele's dossier as evidence to target the
Trump campaign with a FISA warrant that the former British spy might be the target of Russian
disinformation, that he despised Trump and that he was being paid to help Hillary Clinton's
campaign. But agents proceeded anyway.
The bureau was told by the CIA that its primary target, Trump adviser Carter Page, wasn't
a Russian spy but rather a CIA asset. But it hid that evidence from the DOJ and courts, even
falsifying a document to keep the secret.
The FBI opened a case on Trump adviser George Papadopoulos on the suspicion he might
arrange Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton but quickly determined he didn't have the Russian
contacts to pull it off. But the case kept going.
The FBI intercepted conversations between its informants and Papadopoulos and Page
showing the two men made numerous statements of innocence, and kept that evidence from the
DOJ and the courts.
The FBI investigated Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn for five months and
concluded there was no derogatory evidence he committed a crime or posed an intelligence
threat and recommended closing the case. But higher-ups overruled the decision and proceeded
to interview Flynn.
The FBI and DOJ both knew by August 2017 there was no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion
but allowed another 18 months of investigation to persist without announcing the president
was innocent.
That is just a handful of the key evidentiary anchors of the storyline Republicans have
developed. Now they want to know who helped carry out each of these acts.
"There are millions of Americans pretty upset about this," Graham said this week. "There
are people on our side of the aisle who believe this investigation, Crossfire Hurricane, was
one of the most corrupt, biased criminal investigations in the history of the FBI. And we'd
like to see something done about it ."
Graham tried to take action to approve 50-plus subpoenas from the Senate Judiciary Committee
to witnesses on Thursday but was forced to delay a week.
Johnson, meanwhile, successfully secured about three dozen subpoenas to get documents and
interviews with key witnesses from his Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee.
Evidence is growing, Johnson said, that there was not a "peaceful and cooperative"
transition between the Obama and Trump administrations in 2017.
"The conduct we know that occurred during the transition should concern everyone and
absolutely warrants further investigation," he said.
With Rosenstein's testimony now behind them, the senators have some lofty targets for
interviews or testimony going forward, including fired FBI Director James Comey, his deputy
Andrew McCabe, ex-CIA Director John Brennan, and the former chiefs of staff for President
Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.
Blackburn said during an interview with the John Solomon Reports podcast that the goal of
the subpoenas and witnesses was simple: to identify and punish the cast of characters who
sustained a Russia collusion narrative that was never supported by the evidence.
"Somebody cooked up the plot," she explained.
"Somebody gave the go-ahead to order, to implement it. Somebody did the dirty work and
carried it out -- and probably a lot of somebodies. And what frustrates the American people
is that nobody has been held accountable.
"Nobody has been indicted. Nobody has been charged, and they're all getting major book deals
and are profiting by what is criminal activity, if you look at the statutes that are on the
book, and if you say we're going to abide by the rule of law and be a nation of laws."
For Blackburn, identifying and punishing those responsible is essential for two goals: to
deter anyone in the future from abusing the FBI and FISA process again and to ensure Americans
there isn't a two-tiered system of justice in America.
"I think when you Google [Russia collusion] in future years, you're going to see a
screenshot of this cast of characters that cooked this up, because it is the ultimate plot,"
Blackburn said.
MSNBC announced on Friday that it has hired former FBI lawyer Lisa Page as an NBC News and
MSNBC national security and legal analyst.
On Friday night, President Trump blasted MSNBC's latest hiring decision.
"You must be kidding??? This is a total disgrace!" Trump tweeted.
Page made her debut as an MSNBC analyst during "Deadline: White House" alongside former
Mueller probe prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who appears to have been rehired by the network
after they severed ties after it was announced he was hosting a Biden fundraiser, which was
ultimately canceled.
Both Page and Weissmann offered legal analysis on the ongoing feud between President Trump
and Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser over the presence of outside troops.
Page is best known for her publicized text exchanges with her lover, ex-FBI agent Peter
Strzok, which revealed extreme animosity towards Trump during the 2016 election and created the
perception that their political views fueled the Russia investigation.
The texts that sounded the alarm for GOP lawmakers was Strzok's reference to an "insurance
policy" that was discussed at Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe's office. Page denied that
meant the FBI had plotted to remove Trump if he won the election.
Last December, Page broke her silence and made her television debut on MSNBC's "The Rachel
Maddow Show," where she was asked about the "insurance policy" text.
"It's an analogy," Page explained. "First of all, it's not my text, so I'm sort of
interpreting what I believed he meant back three years ago, but we're using an analogy. We're
talking about whether or not we should take certain investigative steps or not based on the
likelihood that he's going to be president or not."
She continued, "You have to keep in mind ... if President Trump doesn't become president,
the national-security risk, if there is somebody in his campaign associated with Russia,
plummets. You're not so worried about what Russia's doing vis-à-vis a member of his
campaign if he's not president because you're not going to have access to classified
information, you're not going to have access to sources and methods in our national-security
apparatus. So, the 'insurance policy' was an anology. It's like an insurance policy when you're
40. You don't expect to die when you're 40, yet you still have an insurance policy."
MSNBC host Rachel Maddow chimed in, "So, don't just hope that he's not going to be elected
and therefore not press forward with the investigation hoping, but rather press forward with
the investigation just in case he does get in there."
many thoughtful observers on the right -- including Ross Douthat ,
Rod Dreher , and
Dan McCarthy -- have pointed out that the current protesting and rioting is likely to help
Donald Trump and the Republicans. That is, the ongoing violence, fomented by leftist elements,
including Black Lives Matter and Antifa, could boomerang against Joe Biden and his
Democrats.
However, the planted assumption here is that the vandals and looters want Joe Biden to win.
And that's not so obvious. Indeed, maybe the truth is just the reverse.
To be sure, the protesters and looters all hate Donald Trump. And yet actions speak louder
than words, and their actions on the street suggest a kind of anti-matter affection for the Bad
Orange Man. That is, each act of violence obscures the memory of George Floyd, who died at the
knee of a Minneapolis policeman, and raises the prospect of a national backlash against both
peaceful protestors and violent looters, offering a ray of hope for Trump.
Indeed, Douthat quotes Princeton political scientist Omar Wasow, whose research shows that
back in the 1960s, peaceful civil rights protests helped the Democrats, while violent
protests (also known as riots) hurt the Democrats. In Wasow's words, "proximity to
black-led nonviolent protests increased white Democratic vote-share whereas proximity to
black-led violent protests caused substantively important declines." And that's how Republican
Richard Nixon defeated Democrat Hubert Humphrey in 1968.
We might add that Humphrey was a lot like Biden. Both were gabby senators turned vice
presidents, regarded as reliable liberals, not as hard-edged leftists.
So now we're starting to see where Biden, a pillar of the smug liberal establishment -- he
once
told a group of donors that if he's elected, "nothing would fundamentally change" -- veers
away from the far-left ideologues amidst the mobs.
Let's let Andy Ngo –who has
shed blood , literally, while chronicling bullyboy leftists -- define the ideology of
Antifa and Black Lives Matter: "At its core, BLM is a revolutionary Marxist ideology. Alicia
Garza, Opal Tometi and Patrisse Cullors, BLM's founders, are self-identified Marxists who make
no secret of their worship of communist terrorists and fugitives, like Assata Shakur. They want
the abolition of law enforcement and capitalism. They want regime change and the end of the
rule of law. Antifa has partnered with Black Lives Matter, for now, to help accelerate the
breakdown of society."
We can observe that by "regime change," these revolutionary leftists don't mean replacing
Trump with Biden -- they mean replacing capitalism and the Constitution. In the meantime, if
one looks at a Twitter feed identified by Ngo as an Antifa hub, It's Going Down , one sees plenty of anti-Trump rhetoric,
along with general hard leftism, but nothing in support of Biden.
However, here's something interesting: The Biden campaign shows no small degree of
support for the street radicals. As Reuters
reported on May 30,
"At least 13 Biden campaign staff members posted on Twitter on
Friday and Saturday that they made donations to the Minnesota Freedom Fund, which opposes the
practice of cash bail, or making people pay to avoid pre-trial imprisonment. The group uses
donations to pay bail fees in Minneapolis."
We might observe that these 13 employees posted their pro-rioter sympathies on Twitter; in
other words, not only did they make no effort to hide their donations, but they also actively
bragged about them.
It could be argued, of course, that these are just 13 vanguard employees out of a campaign
staff that numbers in the hundreds, maybe even thousands. And yet as the Reuters piece adds,
Team Biden is not practicing political distancing from its in-house radicals: "Biden campaign
spokesman Andrew Bates said in a statement to Reuters that the former vice president opposes
the institution of cash bail as a 'modern day debtors prison.'"
When pressed by Reuters -- which is not exactly Fox News in its editorial stance -- the
official spox for Middle Class Joe was unwilling to say more: "The campaign declined to answer
questions on whether the donations were coordinated within the campaign, underscoring the
politically thorny nature of the sometimes violent protests."
So we can see: The Biden campaign is trying to maintain its equipoise between liberals and
mobs, even as the former is bleeding into the latter. Indeed, a look at Biden's Twitter feed
shows the same port-side balancing act. On May 30, for instance, he tweeted , "If we are complacent,
if we are silent, we are complicit in perpetuating these cycles of violence. None of us can
turn away. We all have an obligation to speak out."
There's enough ambiguity here, as well as in his other tweets, to leave everyone parsing,
and guessing, as to what, exactly, Biden is saying -- except, as he
said on June 2, that he opposes the use of chokeholds to restrain violent suspects, and
also opposes more equipment for the police. The only other thing we know for sure is that he
hasn't tweeted an iota of specific sympathy for the people other than George Floyd who have
died in the recent violence. One such is
Patrick Underwood , an African American employee of the Federal Protective Service; he was
shot and killed in Oakland, Calif. on May 29.
Yet while the Biden campaign attempts to keep its relationship with Antifa and its ilk
fuzzy, other Democrats have made themselves clear. For instance, in 2018, then-Congressman
Keith Ellison tweeted
out a photograph of himself holding a copy of a book, Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,
which the radical-chic types at The New Yorkerdescribed as
"A how-to for would-be activists, and a record of advice from anti-Fascist organizers past and
present." Ellison is now the attorney general for the state of Minnesota.
And on May 31, Ellison's son, Jeremiah, a Minneapolis city councilman, tweeted , "I hereby
declare, officially, my support for ANTIFA."
Still, if the Democrats can't quite quit Antifa, most are smart enough to recognize the
danger of being too closely associated with hooligans and radicals. Moreover, they need some
theory of the case they wish to make, which is that they loudly support the protests, even as
they mumble about the violence.
And Democrats have found their favored argument -- the one that conveniently takes them off
the hook. Indeed, it's an argument they increasingly deploy to explain everything bad that
happens: The Russians did it.
Thus on May 31, former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice said on CNN of the
tumult, "In my experience, this is right out of the Russian playbook."
We might allow that it's possible, even probable, that the Russian government has been
taking delight in this spate of violence in America. And it's similarly probable that the
governments of China, Iran, and Venezuela, too, have been pleased, to say nothing of varying
portions of the public in every country. And so sure, more than a few tweets and Facebook posts
have probably resulted -- after all, stories ripping the U.S. were right there, for instance,
on the front
page of China's Global Times .
Still, it's ridiculous to think that hundreds of thousands -- maybe millions -- of Americans
are taking their cues from a foreign power; we've got plenty of home-grown radicalism and
anger.
Yet even so, the Democrats have persisted in their Russia-dunnit narrative, because
it serves their political, and perhaps psychological, need -- the need to externalize criminal
behavior. In other words, don't blame us for the killings and lootings -- blame Moscow.
Okay, so back to Antifa and Black Lives Matter. The left wing of the Democratic Party --
including elements within the Biden campaign -- might like them, but there's no evidence that
they like Democrats back.
Indeed, if the violence keeps up, it will become obvious that the leftist radicals are
not trying to help Biden. To put it another way, the rads would become the objective
allies (a political science term connoting an ironic congruence of interest) of Trump.
To be sure, right now, Trump is running five or six points behind Biden in the
RealClearPolitics
polling average . And yet, just as Dreher, Douthat, and McCarthy suggest, if the violence
continues and Trump goes firm while Biden stays mushy, that could change.
Indeed, as we think of genuine radicalism, we would do well to look beyond the parochial
confines of American politics, Democrat vs. Republican. Instead, we might ponder the epic
panorama of leftist history, which offers radicals so much more inspiration than historically
centrist America.
For instance, we might look to Russia. But not to the Russia of Vladimir Putin , but
rather, to the Russia of Vladimir Lenin .
In the early 20th century, Lenin's Bolsheviks, awaiting their revolutionary moment, operated
according to a simple slogan: "The worse the better." That is, the enemy of Bolshevism was
incremental reform, or progress of any kind; the reds wanted conditions to get so bad as to
"justify" a communist revolution. And that's what Lenin and his comrades got in October 1917,
when they seized power in the midst of the calamities of World War One.
Yes, of course, the communists made conditions worse, not better, for ordinary Russians. And
yet things weren't worse for Lenin and his Bolsheviks -- they were now in power. So today,
that's the sort of dream that inspires Antifa radicals.
To be sure, an America dominated by Antifa and Black Lives Matter is a distant prospect. But
radicals figure that four more years of Trump in the White House will move the nation to even
higher levels of chaos -- and thus move them closer to power.
With all that in prospect for radicals -- that is, the worse, the better -- the
prospect of Joe Biden losing this year is a small price to pay. Actually, for them, it's no
price at all.
In the meantime, for America, there is no better. Only worse.
Looks like the third stage of the Purple revolution against Trump, with Russiagate and
Ukrainegate and two initial stages.
Notable quotes:
"... Things couldn't be going better for the Resistance if they had scripted it themselves. Actually, they did kind of script it themselves. Not the murder of poor George Floyd, of course. Racist police have been murdering Black people for as long as there have been racist police. No, the Resistance didn't manufacture racism. They just spent the majority of the last four years creating and promoting an official narrative which casts most Americans as "white supremacists" who literally elected Hitler president, and who want to turn the country into a racist dictatorship. ..."
"... According to this official narrative, which has been relentlessly disseminated by the corporate media, the neoliberal intelligentsia, the culture industry, and countless hysterical, Trump-hating loonies, the Russians put Donald Trump in office with those DNC emails they never hacked and some division-sowing Facebook ads that supposedly hypnotized Black Americans into refusing to come out and vote for Clinton. Putin purportedly ordered this personally, as part of his plot to "destroy democracy." ..."
"... The protesting and rioting that typically follows the murder of an unarmed Black person by the cops has mushroomed into " an international uprising " cheered on by the corporate media, corporations, and the liberal establishment, who don't normally tend to support such uprisings, but they've all had a sudden change of heart, or spiritual or political awakening, and are down for some serious property damage, and looting, and preventative self-defense, if that's what it takes to bring about justice, and to restore America to the peaceful, prosperous, non-white-supremacist paradise it was until the Russians put Donald Trump in office. ..."
"... America is still a racist country, but America is no more racist today than it was when Barack Obama was president. A lot of American police are brutal, but no more brutal than when Obama was president. America didn't radically change the day Donald Trump was sworn into office. All that has changed is the official narrative. And it will change back as soon as Trump is gone and the ruling classes have no further use for it. ..."
underground
bunker ." Opportunist social media pundits on both sides of the political spectrum are
whipping people up into white-eyed frenzies. Americans are at each other's throats, divided by
identity politics, consumed by rage, hatred, and fear.
Things couldn't be going better for the Resistance if they had scripted it themselves.
Actually, they did kind of script it themselves. Not the murder of poor George Floyd, of
course. Racist police have been murdering Black people for as long as there have been racist
police. No, the Resistance didn't manufacture racism. They just spent the majority of the last
four years creating and promoting an official narrative which casts most Americans as "white
supremacists" who literally elected Hitler president, and who want to turn the country into a
racist dictatorship.
According to this official narrative, which has been relentlessly disseminated by the
corporate media, the neoliberal intelligentsia, the culture industry, and countless hysterical,
Trump-hating loonies, the Russians put Donald Trump in office with those DNC emails they never
hacked and some division-sowing Facebook ads that supposedly hypnotized Black Americans into
refusing to come out and vote for Clinton. Putin purportedly ordered this personally, as part
of his plot to "destroy democracy." The plan was always for President Hitler to embolden
his white-supremacist followers into launching the "RaHoWa," or the "Boogaloo," after which
Trump would declare martial law, dissolve the legislature, and pronounce himself Führer.
Then they would start rounding up and murdering the Jews, and the Blacks, and Mexicans, and
other minorities, according to this twisted liberal fantasy.
I've been covering the roll-out and dissemination of this official narrative since 2016, and
have documented much of it in my essays
, so I won't reiterate all that here. Let's just say, I'm not exaggerating, much. After four
years of more or less constant conditioning, millions of Americans believe this fairy tale,
despite the fact that there is absolutely zero evidence whatsoever to support it. Which is not
exactly a mystery or anything. It would be rather surprising if they didn't believe it. We're
talking about the most formidable official propaganda machine in the history of official
propaganda machines.
And now the propaganda is paying off. The protesting and rioting that typically follows
the murder of an unarmed Black person by the cops has mushroomed into "
an international uprising " cheered on by the corporate media, corporations, and the
liberal establishment, who don't normally tend to support such uprisings, but they've all had a
sudden change of heart, or spiritual or political awakening, and are down for some serious
property damage, and looting, and preventative self-defense, if that's what it takes to bring
about justice, and to restore America to the peaceful, prosperous, non-white-supremacist
paradise it was until the Russians put Donald Trump in office.
In any event, the Resistance media have now dropped their breathless coverage of the
non-existent Corona-Holocaust to breathlessly cover the "revolution." The American police, who
just last week were national heroes for risking their lives to beat up, arrest, and generally
intimidate mask-less "lockdown violators" are now the fascist foot soldiers of the Trumpian
Reich. The Nike corporation produced
a commercial urging people to smash the windows of their Nike stores and steal their
sneakers. Liberal journalists took to Twitter, calling on rioters to "
burn that shit down! " until the rioters reached their gated community and started burning
down their local Starbucks. Hollywood celebrities are masking up and going full-black bloc, and
doing legal support . Chelsea Clinton is teaching children about David and the Racist
Goliath . John Cusack's bicycle was
attacked by the pigs . I haven't checked on Rob Reiner yet, but I assume he is assembling
Molotov cocktails in the basement of a Resistance safe house somewhere in Hollywood Hills.
Look, I'm not saying the neoliberal Resistance orchestrated or staged these riots, or
"denying the agency" of the folks in the streets. Whatever else is happening out there, a lot
of very angry Black people are taking their frustration out on the cops, and on anyone and
anything else that represents racism and injustice to them.
This happens in America from time to time. America is still a racist society. Most
African-Americans are descended from slaves. Legal racial discrimination was not abolished
until the 1960s, which isn't that long ago in historical terms. I was born in the segregated
American South, with the segregated schools, and all the rest of it. I don't remember it -- I
was born in 1961 -- but I do remember the years right after it. The South didn't magically
change overnight in July of 1964. Nor did the North's variety of racism, which, yes, is
subtler, but no less racist.
So I have no illusions about racism in America. But I'm not really talking about racism in
America. I'm talking about how racism in America has been cynically instrumentalized, not by
the Russians, but by the so-called Resistance, in order to delegitimize Trump and, more
importantly, everyone who voted for him, as a bunch of white supremacists and racists.
Fomenting racial division has been the Resistance's strategy from the beginning. A quote
attributed to Joseph Goebbels, "accuse the other side of that which you are guilty," is
particularly apropos in this case. From the moment Trump won the Republican nomination, the
corporate media and the rest of the Resistance have been telling us the man is literally
Hitler, and that his plan is to foment racial hatred among his "white supremacist base," and
eventually stage some "Reichstag" event, declare martial law and pronounce himself dictator.
They've been telling us this story over and over, on television, in the liberal press, on
social media, in books, movies, and everywhere else they could possibly tell it.
So, before you go out and join the "uprising," take a look at the headlines today, turn on
CNN or MSNBC, and think about that for just a minute. I don't mean to spoil the party, but
they've preparing you for this for the last four years.
Not you Black folks. I'm not talking to you. I wouldn't presume to tell you what to do. I'm
talking to white folks like myself, who are cheering on the rioting and looting, and are coming
out to "help" you with it, but who will be back home in their gated communities when the ashes
have cooled, and the corporate media are gone, and the cops return to "police" your
neighborhoods.
OK, and this is where I have to restate (for the benefit of my partisan readers) that I'm
not a fan of Donald Trump, and that I think he's a narcissistic ass clown, and a glorified con
man, and blah blah blah, because so many people have been so polarized by insane propaganda and
mass hysteria that they can't even read or think anymore, and so just scan whatever articles
they encounter to see whose "side" the author is on and then mindlessly celebrate or excoriate
it.
If you're doing that, let me help you out whichever side you're on, I'm not on it.
I realize that's extremely difficult for a lot of folks to comprehend these days, which is
part of the point I've been trying to make. I'll try again, as plainly as I can.
America is still a racist country, but America is no more racist today than it was when
Barack Obama was president. A lot of American police are brutal, but no more brutal than when
Obama was president. America didn't radically change the day Donald Trump was sworn into
office. All that has changed is the official narrative. And it will change back as soon as
Trump is gone and the ruling classes have no further use for it.
And that will be the end of the War on Populism , and we will
switch back to the War on Terror, or maybe the Brave New Pathologized Normal or
whatever Orwellian official narrative the folks at GloboCap have in store for us.
#
CJ Hopkins
June 1, 2020
Photo: Nike (George Floyd commercial)
In any event, the publication of the Mueller report has cleared things up for me. I get it now. The investigation was never about
Trump colluding with Russia. It was always about Trump obstructing the investigation of the collusion with Russia that the investigation
was not about. Mueller was never looking for collusion. It was not his job to look for collusion.
His job was to look for obstruction of his investigation of alleged obstruction of his investigation of non-collusion, which he
found, and detailed at length in his report, and which qualifies as an impeachable offense.
... ... ...
In other words, his investigation was launched in order to investigate the obstruction of his investigation. And, on those terms,
it was a huge success. The fact that it didn't prove "collusion" means nothing -- that's just a straw man argument that Trump and
his Russian handlers make. The goal all along was to prove that Trump obstructed an investigation of his obstruction of that investigation,
not that he was "colluding" with Putin, or any of the other paranoid nonsense that the corporate media were forced to report on,
once an investigation into his obstruction of the investigation was launched.
"... The Democrats are fielding as candidates a roster of middle-school clowns and unflavored tapioca. Are they secretly in Trump's pay? Like Clinton with her "Deplorables" suicide line? ..."
They're going to do it, I tell you: The whole touchy-feely do-gooding ratpack of Microaggression worriers, reparations freaks,
weird sexual curiosities, race hustlers, bat.-Antifa psychos, and egalitarian enstupidators of universities. They are going to elect
Trump. Again.
Washington, where I shortly will be for a bit, is crazy. It has not the slightest, wan, etiolated idea of what is going on in
America. The Democrats are fielding as candidates a roster of middle-school clowns and unflavored tapioca. Are they secretly in Trump's
pay? Like Clinton with her "Deplorables" suicide line?
2016 a Russia-Trump campaign collusion conspiracy was afoot and unfolding right before our eyes, we were told, as during his roll-out
foreign
policy speech at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., then candidate Trump said [ gasp! ]:
" Common sense says this cycle, this horrible cycle of hostility must end and ideally will end soon. Good for both countries.
Some say the Russians won't be reasonable. I intend to find out."
NPR and others had breathlessly
reported at the time, "Sergey Kislyak, then the Russian ambassador to the U.S., was sitting in the front row" [ more gasps! ].
This 'suspicious'
"coincidence or something more?" event and of course the infamous
Steele 'Dodgy Dossier' were
followed by over two more years of the following connect-the-dots mere tiny sampling of unrestrained theorizing and avalanche of
accusations...
2019, Wired: Trump Must Be
A Russian Agent... (where we were told...ahem: " It would be rather embarrassing ... if Robert Mueller were to declare that
the president isn't an agent of Russian intelligence." )
It's especially worth noting that a
July 2018 New York Times
op-ed argued that President Trump -- dubbed a "treasonous traitor" for meeting with Putin in Helsinki -- should "be directing
all resources at his disposal to punish Russia."
Fast-forward to a July 2019 NY Times Editorial Board piece entitled
"What's America's Winning Hand if Russia
Plays the China Card?" How dizzying fast all of the above has been wiped from America's collective memory! Or at least the Times
is engaged in hastily pushing it all down the memory hole Orwell-style in order to cover its own dastardly tracks which contributed
in no small measure to non-stop national Russiagate hype and hysteria, with this astounding line:
That's right, The Times' pundits have already pivoted to the new bogeyman while stating they agree with Trump
on Russian relations :
"Given its economic, military and technological trajectory, together with its authoritarian model, China, not Russia , represents
by far the greater challenge to American objectives over the long term . That means President Trump is correct to try to establish
a sounder relationship with Russia and peel it away from China ."
It's 2019, and we've now come full circle . This is The New York Times editorial board continuing their call for Trump to establish
"sounder" ties and "cooperation" with
Russia :
"Even during the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union often made progress in one facet of their relationship while
they remained in conflict over other aspects. The United States and Russia could expand their cooperation in space . They could
also continue to work closely in the Arctic And they could revive cooperation on arms control."
Could we imagine if a mere six months ago Trump himself had uttered these same words? Now the mainstream media apparently agrees
that peace is better than war with Russia.
With 'Russiagate' now effectively dead, the NY Times' new criticism appears to be that Trump-Kremlin relations are not close enough
, as Trump's "approach has been ham-handed " - the 'paper of record' now tells us.
Or imagine if Trump had called for peaceful existence with Russia almost four years ago? Oh wait...
" Common sense says this cycle, this horrible cycle of hostility must end and ideally will end soon. Good for both countries."
-- Then candidate Trump on
April 27, 2016
A way to capture this change was thinking in terms of the traditional task of journalists to
interview or consult a variety of sources to determine was is truth or true. The shift
gradually became one of now interviewing or consulting various sources and reporting those
opinions.
Old-school journalism was like being assigned the task of finding out what "1+1 =?" and the
task was to report the answer was "1."
Now the task would be to report that "Some say it is 1, some say it is 2, some say it is
3."
Neoliberal MSM just “got it wrong,” again … exactly like was the case
with those Iraqi WMDs ;-).
So many neocons and neolibs seem so disappointed to find out that the President is not a
Russian asset that it looks they’d secretly wish be ruled by Putin :-).
But in reality there well might be a credible "Trump copllition with the foreign power". Only
with a different foreign power. Looks like Trump traded American foreign policy for Zionist
money, not Russian money. That means that "the best-Congress-that-AIPAC-money-can-buy" will never
impeach him for that.
And BTW as long as Schiff remains the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee the witch
hunt is not over. So the leash remains strong.
Notable quotes:
"... it appears that hundreds of millions of Americans have, once again, been woefully bamboozled . Weird, how this just keeps on happening. At this point, Americans have to be the most frequently woefully bamboozled people in the entire history of woeful bamboozlement. ..."
"... That's right, as I'm sure you're aware by now, it turns out President Donald Trump, a pompous former reality TV star who can barely string three sentences together without totally losing his train of thought and barking like an elephant seal, is not, in fact, a secret agent conspiring with the Russian intelligence services to destroy the fabric of Western democracy. ..."
"... Paranoid collusion-obsessives will continue to obsess about redactions and cover-ups , but the long and short of the matter is, there will be no perp walks for any of the Trumps. No treason tribunals. No televised hangings. No detachment of Secret Service agents marching Hillary into the White House. ..."
So the Mueller report is finally in, and it appears that hundreds of millions of
Americans have, once again, been woefully bamboozled . Weird, how this just keeps on happening.
At this point, Americans have to be the most frequently woefully bamboozled people in the
entire history of woeful bamboozlement.
If you didn't know better, you'd think we were all a bunch of hopelessly credulous imbeciles
that you could con into believing almost anything, or that our brains had been bombarded with
so much propaganda from the time we were born that we couldn't really even think anymore.
That's right, as I'm sure you're aware by now, it turns out President Donald Trump, a
pompous former reality TV star who can barely string three sentences together without totally
losing his train of thought and barking like an elephant seal, is not, in fact, a secret agent
conspiring with the Russian intelligence services to destroy the fabric of Western
democracy.
After two long years of bug-eyed hysteria, Inspector Mueller came up with squat. Zip. Zero.
Nichts. Nada. Or, all right, he indicted a bunch of Russians that will never see the inside of
a courtroom, and a few of Trump's professional sleazebags for lying and assorted other
sleazebag activities (so I guess that was worth the $25 million of taxpayers' money that was
spent on this circus).
Notwithstanding those historic accomplishments, the entire Mueller investigation now appears
to have been another wild goose chase (like the "search" for those non-existent WMDs that we
invaded and destabilized the Middle East and murdered hundreds of thousands of people
pretending to conduct in 2003). Paranoid collusion-obsessives will continue to obsess about
redactions and
cover-ups , but the long and short of the matter is, there will be no perp walks for any of
the Trumps. No treason tribunals. No televised hangings. No detachment of Secret Service agents
marching Hillary into the White House.
The jig, as they say, is up.
But let's try to look on the bright side, shall we?
"... Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent political establishment for its complicity in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure to see it coming. ..."
"... Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into the camera and say, "I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ..."
" Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent political establishment for its complicity
in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure to see it coming.
Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into
the camera and say, "I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ."
As a peedupon all I can see is that the elite seem to be fighting amongst themselves or (IMO) providing cover for ongoing elite
power/control efforts. It might not be about private/public finance in a bigger picture but I can't see anything else that makes
sense
The Senate Should Focus On What The Flynn Transcripts Do Not Contain... Starting With A
Crime by Tyler
Durden Tue, 06/02/2020 - 22:45 Authored by Jonathan Turley,
Yesterday, the attorney hired by Judge Emmet Sullivan responded on his behalf to
defend his controversial orders in the case to invite third parties to argue the merits of the
motion to dismiss as well as raising his option to substitute his own criminal charge of
perjury against Flynn. The Justice Department responded with a 45-page filing to a
three-judge appeals court panel.
The attention will now focus on the appearance tomorrow of former Deputy Attorney General
Rod Rosenstein in the Senate. For me, the most pertinent question is why this investigation
continued past December and seemed to become to a search for a crime rather than the
investigation of any crime or collusion with Russia.
"Remember Ambassador, you're not talking to a diplomat, you're talking to a soldier."
When President Trump
's incoming national security adviser, Michael Flynn , said those words to then-Russian
Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, he also spoke to American intelligence agents listening in on the
call. For three years, congressional Democrats have assured us Flynn's calls to Kislyak were so
disturbing that they set off alarms in the closing days of the Obama administration.
They were right. The newly released transcripts of Flynn's calls are deeply disturbing --
not for their evidence of criminality or collusion but for the total absence of such evidence.
The transcripts, declassified Friday, strongly support new investigations by both the Justice
Department and by Congress, starting with next week's Senate testimony by former Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
It turns out Flynn's calls are not just predictable but even commendable at points. When the
Obama administration hit the Russians with sanctions just before leaving office, the incoming
Trump administration sought to avoid a major conflict at the very start of its term. Flynn
asked the Russian to focus on "common enemies" in order to seek cooperation in the Middle East.
The calls covered a variety of issues, including the sanctions.
What was not discussed was any quid pro quo or anything untoward or unlawful. Flynn stated
what was already known to be Trump policy in seeking a new path with Russia. Flynn did not
offer to remove sanctions but, rather, encouraged the Russians to respond in a reciprocal,
commensurate manner if they felt they had to respond.
The calls, and Flynn's identity, were leaked by as many as nine officials as the Obama
administration left office -- a serious federal crime, given their classified status . The most
chilling aspect of the transcripts, however, is the lack of anything chilling in the calls
themselves. Flynn is direct with Kislyak in trying to tone down the rhetoric and avoid
retaliatory moves. He told Kislyak, "l am a very practical guy, and it's about solutions. It's
about very practical solutions that we're -- that we need to come up with here." Flynn said he
understood the Russians might wish to retaliate for the Obama sanctions but encouraged them not
to escalate the conflict just as the Trump administration took office.
Kislyak later spoke with Flynn again and confirmed that Moscow agreed to tone down the
conflict in the practical approach laid out by Flynn. The media has focused on Flynn's later
denial of discussing sanctions; the transcripts confirm he did indeed discuss sanctions.
However, the Justice Department has not sought to dismiss criminal charges against him because
he told the truth but because his statements did not meet a key element of materiality for the
crime and were the result of troubling actions by high-ranking officials.
The real question is why the FBI continued to investigate Flynn in the absence of any crime
or evidence of collusion. In December 2016, investigators had found no evidence of any crime by
Flynn. They wanted to shut down the investigation; they were overruled by superiors, including
FBI special agent Peter Strzok, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Director James Comey. Strzok
told the investigators to keep the case alive, and McCabe is described as "cutting off" another
high-ranking official who questioned the basis for continuing to investigate Flynn. All three
officials were later fired, and all three were later found by career officials to have engaged
in serious misconduct as part of the Russia investigation.
Recently disclosed information revealed that Comey and President Obama discussed using the
Logan Act as a pretense for a criminal charge. The Logan Act criminalizes private negotiations
with foreign governments; it is widely viewed as unconstitutional and has never been used
successfully against any U.S. citizen since the earliest days of the Republic. Its use against
the incoming national security adviser would have been absurd. Yet, that unconstitutional crime
was the only crime Comey could come up with, long before there was a false statement by Flynn
regarding his calls.
Not until February 2017 did Comey circumvent long-standing protocols and order an interview
with Flynn. Comey later bragged that he "probably wouldn't have gotten away with it" in other
administrations, but he sent "a couple guys over" to question Flynn, who was settling into his
new office as national security adviser. We learned recently that Strzok discussed trying to
get Flynn to give false or misleading information in that interview, to enable a criminal
charge, and that FBI lawyer Lisa Page suggested agents "just casually slip" in a reference to
the criminal provision for lying and then get Flynn to slip up on the details.
Flynn did slip up. While investigators said they were not convinced he intentionally lied,
he gave a false statement. Later, special counsel Robert Mueller charged Flynn with that false
statement, to pressure him into cooperating; Flynn fought the case into virtual bankruptcy but
agreed to plead guilty when Mueller threatened to prosecute his son, too.
The newly released transcripts reveal the lack of a foundation for that charge. Courts have
held that the materiality requirement for such a charge requires that misstatements be linked
to the particular "subject of the investigation." The Justice Department found that the false
statement in February 2017 was not material "to any viable counterintelligence investigation --
or any investigation, for that matter -- initiated by the FBI." In other words, by that time,
these FBI officials had no crime under investigation but were, instead, looking for a crime.
The question is: Why?
So the transcripts confirm there never was a scintilla of criminal conduct or evidence of
collusion against Flynn before or during these calls. Indeed, there was no viable criminal
investigation to speak of when Comey sent "a couple guys over" to entrap Flynn; they already
had the transcripts and the knowledge that Flynn had done nothing wrong. Nevertheless, facing
the release of these transcripts, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)
bizarrely maintained that "Flynn posed a severe counterintelligence risk" because he could be
blackmailed over his false statement.
Putting aside the lack of prior evidence of criminality, Schiff ignores that there were
transcripts to prevent such blackmail. Indeed, in the interview, Flynn indicated he assumed
there was a transcript, and leaked media reports indicated that various officials were familiar
with the content of the calls. The key to blackmail would have been for the Russians to have
information that others did not have.
Ironically, in his calls with Kislyak, Flynn expressly sought a more frank, honest
relationship with Russia. He told Kislyak "we have to stop talking past each other on -- so
that means that we have to understand exactly what it is that we want to try to achieve, okay?"
That is a question that should now be directed at the FBI, to understand what it was trying to
achieve by continuing an investigation long after it ran out of crimes to investigate.
It would hardly surprise me if the regime change obsession has come home and now the US is
"enjoying" all of the democracy building color revolutions they love so much. No matter how
this end it will not end well for 99% of Americans
So one of key players of Russiagate gaslighting and Flynn entrapment trying the same dirty trick again. Nice...
Notable quotes:
"... "We have peaceful protesters focused on the very real pain and disparities that we're all wrestling with that have to be addressed, and then we have extremists who've come to try to hijack those protests and turn them into something very different. And they're probably also, I would bet based on my experience, I'm not reading the intelligence these days, but based on my experience this is right out of the Russian playbook as well." ..."
"... "I would not be surprised to learn that they have fomented some of these extremists on both sides using social media. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they are funding it in some way, shape, or form." ..."
President Barack Obama's former national security adviser Susan Rice suggested without evidence that the Russians could be behind
the violent demonstrations that have taken place across the U.S. following the death of George Floyd.
Speaking to CNN's Wolf Blitzer Sunday, Rice said:
"We have peaceful protesters focused on the very real pain and disparities that we're all wrestling with that have to be
addressed, and then we have extremists who've come to try to hijack those protests and turn them into something very different.
And they're probably also, I would bet based on my experience, I'm not reading the intelligence these days, but based on my experience
this is right out of the Russian playbook as well."
"I would not be surprised to learn that they have fomented some of these extremists on both sides using social media. I
wouldn't be surprised to learn that they are funding it in some way, shape, or form."
Rice admits she's not reading the intelligence anymore, so what makes her think the Russians are behind this?
She doesn't offer much more in the way of evidence for her assertion, other than that the Russians are the Democrats' always-present
bogeyman, ever ready from behind
their poorly translated social media posts to unleash mayhem upon the U.S.
Ever since the election of President Donald Trump, Democrats have blamed Russians for the outcome of the 2016 election.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller found evidence that Russian-linked accounts spent
a small amount of money placing social media ads for the purpose of influencing the 2016 election, but there's nothing to suggest
their efforts were successful. The Department of Justice abruptly dropped its prosecution of a Russian-based troll farm, days before
trial. Mueller also did not find evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia during the 2016 election.
Although the claims of Russian "collusion" in the 2016 election were eventually found to be nearly totally baseless, Rice's new
narrative, that Russians support 2020's post-Floyd rioting, appears to be even more fact-threadbare.
Rice's claim drew criticism from across the political spectrum.
Eoin Higgens, a senior editor at Common Dreams, tweeted "you cannot make
this sh– up. F -- - deranged" while former U.S. attorney Andrew McCarthy
tweeted "there she goes again."
There's a reason Rice's claim was not taken seriously -- besides the lack of evidence for the Russian meddling narrative that has
dominated the nation's political life since 2016, there's also the sheer ineptitude of the actual Russian trolling and ads themselves.
Just look at this ad the Russians funded from the 2016 election cycle for a taste of how convincing those Russians and their social
media campaigns can be:
I haven't seen condemnation across the political spectrum. There are a few hard-left progressives like Aaron Mate, Matt Taibbi,
and Glenn Greenwald of course, but they have always hated the RussiaGate conspiracy. I won't be holding my breath for any of the
#Resistance puppets castigate Rice. They can't, because #RussiaGate is foundational to their existence.
Y'all are really confusing me! During the civil rights marches, conservatives warned people that the "agitators" were Russian
tools. Now, you say that's crazy talk!.
Rice asserts that civic agitation is ". . .right out of the Russian playbook. . ." Let's presume she's had a peek into the
Russia playbook. Her statement can be falsified by the good fact checkers at this website!
Speaking for myself, I wouldn't be more surprised than Rice to learn that Russia is still in the outside agitator business.
Just a suggestion, of course. Someone as patriotic as Rice really should check it out.
The saddest thing is that she's been too lazy to come up even with the most jury-rigged conspiracy theory as to why Russians
would need it, despite the fact that emotional reaction-oriented rhetorical turds to... sculpture such a theory (albeit a very
debunkable one) are floating on the surface. A most deplorable intellectual sloth. What to expect from neolibs/neocons, though?
They're always like that. Say some folderol - and then go hiding in the kind Grandpa Bolton's venerable moustɑche.
I don't know which idea is more laughable - Black Americans are so lacking in agency that they aren't even responsible for their
own protests, or, the Russians are so diabolical that they can turn anyone and everyone into the Manchurian Candidate.
More likely, Susan Rice can't admit that her woke ideology has limitations. She needs a scapegoat so badly that she'll babble
any nonsense to accuse one. Hard to believe she was once the National Security Adviser.
I read on a libertarian oriented forum that the current protests are actually being done by the Chinese. Apparently, the Soviets
(Russians) instigated the riots in the late 60s.
Where are all the stars you ask" afterwards they will come out with concerts on TV, speeches big speeches that they real do care
you hear me, PC BS they will look tragic this time, all the makeup in the world won;t hide their deception, arrogance, utter idiocy
in White Towers.
Transcripts of under oath statements before the House Intelligence committee revealed neither Susan Rice nor other Obama administration
officials had any evidence of Russian meddling in 2016. Of course all proceeded with spreading baseless inuendo for years before
and afterwards.
So if not under oath anything Susan Rice alleges is simply not worth listening to.
Seems like so many presidents have been led into terrible foreign policy decisions by their Blob advisors...Obama by Susan Rice,
Samantha Power, and Hillary; Dubya by Cheney and Rumsfield; Carter by Zbiggy, Ford and Nixon (both who should have known better)
by Kissinger.
Susan Rice is more ignorant and has far lower intelligence than I ever suspected or she is playing politics and lying. The Russians
have no motive. The Russians have no hand to play. The Chinese who have bribed a long list of democratic politicians have a very
significant motive and a major hand to play in fomenting riots and race animosity...as a means to influence the November election
away from Trump to Biden.
Looks like regular consultation between Russians and incoming administration to me. Also it was lame duck President who unilaterally
decided to up his ante against Russians (criminally gaslighting the US public), expelled Russian diplomats to make the gaslighting
more plausible, and seized Russian diplomatic property in violation of international norms. It was Obama who unleashed
FBI dogs like Strzok and McCabe on Trump.
Russia later retaliated in a very modest way without seizing any US property, they just cut the level of the USA diplomatic
personnel in Russia to the level of Russian personnel in the USA.
Notable quotes:
"... To summarize--a total of eight different calls between Kislyak and Flynn were recorded between December 22, 2016 and January 19, 2017. Five of the eight calls were initiated by Ambassador Kislyak -- Mike Flynn only called Kislyak three times and two of those were in response to calls from Kislyak, who requested a call back or left a message. ..."
More Evidence of the Fraud Against General Michael Flynn by Larry C Johnson
I never ceased to be amazed at the dishonesty and laziness of the media when it comes to
reporting anything about Michael Flynn and the astonishing miscarriage of justice in bringing
charges against him. The documents declassified and released by the DNI last Friday exonerate
General Flynn and expose the FBI and the Mueller team as gargantuan liars. Even though Friday's
release of the declassified summaries and transcripts was overshadowed quickly by rioting in
Minnesota (you know, if it bleeds and burns it is the lede), the documents reveal General Flynn
as the consummate professional keen on serving his country and the Russian Ambassador as
disgusted by the petulance and arrogance of the Obama administration.
The declassified material released by newly installed Director for National Intelligence
actually consists of two different sets of documents--First, there are five summaries of
conversations for 22, 23, 29 (two on the 29th) December 2016 and 5 January. Second, there are
the full transcripts of the conversations for December 23, December 29, December 31 in 2016 and
January 12 and January 19, 2017.
To summarize--a total of eight different calls between Kislyak and Flynn were recorded
between December 22, 2016 and January 19, 2017. Five of the eight calls were initiated by
Ambassador Kislyak -- Mike Flynn only called Kislyak three times and two of those were in
response to calls from Kislyak, who requested a call back or left a message.
Here are the specifics of those calls.
December 22, 2016--This call apparently was made by Michael Flynn to the Russians,
responding to a request from President-elect Trump to ask Russia not to support the Egyptian UN
Security Council resolution condemning Israel. (Note--Flynn make calls to most members of the
UN Security Council).
December 23, 2016--Ambassador Kislyak calls Michael Flynn to report on his conversation with
President Putin regarding the previous day's request. Michael Flynn emphasizes to Kislyak that
the mutual goal is/should be stability in the Middle East. Flynn tells Kislyak, "We will not
achieve stability in the Middle East without working with each other against this radical
Islamist crowd." Kislyak remarks, "responding to your telephone call, and our conversations we
will try to help to postpone the vote and to allow for consultations."
December 29, 2016--Kislyak calls Flynn and leaves a simple message, "need to talk."
December 29, 2016--Michael Flynn returns Kislyak's phone call. First, Kislyak wants to
discuss the Middle East policy. The Russians want to convey to the President-elect that the
Russians will not be supporting the American colleagues at the Security Council. Flynn says it
is good. Second, the Russians are very interested with working with the President-elect's team
to help the peace process in Syria. Thirdly, the Kremlin would like to . . . have a first
conversation on January 21 rst between the presidents. Putin's idea is to congratulate Trump
and discuss issues. . . . Flynn tells Kislyak: Do not allow this administration to box us in
right now! . . . . depending on what actions the Obama Administrations takes over this current
issue of the cyber stuff, . . . they're gonna dismiss some number of Russians out of the
country, I understand all that . . . I know you have to have some sort of action, but to only
make it reciprocal; don't go any further than you have to because I don't want us to get into
something that have to escalate to tit-for-tat. . . . I really do not want us to get into the
situation where we everybody goes back and forth and everybody had to be a tough guy here. We
don't need that right now. We need cool heads to prevail. And we need to be very steady about
what we are going to do because we have absolutely a common threat in the Middle East.
December 31, 2016--Russian Ambassador Kislyak calls General Flynn. Kislyak tells Flynn, "And
I just wanted to tell you that we found that these actions [were] targeted not only against
Russia, but also against the president elect. . . . and with all our rights to respond we have
decided not to act now because, its because people are dissatisfied with the lost . . .
elections and, and its very deplorable. . . . Flynn responds, "we are not going to agree on
everything, you know that, but, but I think that we have a lot of things in common. A lot. And
we have to figure out how, how to achieve those things, . . .and be smart about it and keep the
temperature down globally, as well as not just here in the United States and also over in
Russia.
January 5, 2017--Lt. General Mike FLYNN phones Ambassador Sergey KISLYAK to express his
condolences on the death of GRU Director Igor SERGUN, who died unexpectedly today from unknown
causes.
January 12, 2017--Mike Flynn returns Kislyak's phone call and discusses possible conference
on Syria in Astana.
January 19, 2017--Kislyak leaves voicemail for Flynn, inquiring about scheduling of a phone
call between Putin and Trump after the inauguration.
"Before General Flynn's voce message turns on, there is an open line, barely audible
chat.
Someone asks Chernyshev, "Which agency are we talking about?" Chernyshev asks as to
confirm if he understands the question and responds in the same time: "Which Agency
hackers
did the hacking? Believe me, Americans did hacked this all."
The full exchange between General Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak throws much light on the
subsequent Sunday morning mis-speaking by the Vice-President Pence.
From the first telephone call, Flynn tells Kislyak that President-elect Trump will only be
inaugurated 3-weeks hence. Therefore Trump in late-December cannot formally make foreign
policy decisions immediately.
In a later exchange about Russia's proposed Astana Peace Conference to de-escalate ISIS
activity In Syria, Flynn responds that Russia has Trump's backing to begin preparations with
the Syrians, Turks et al. On his part, Flynn will begin pencilling-in who would be on a
future US delegation.
It goes without saying that Vice President-elect Pence, during this period had a full-time
job marshaling the Transition and may not have been in the loop on these tentative Russian
peace initiatives. When asked on a Sunday morning talk show, Pence could correctly say
President Trump had no "official communications" with the Kremlin. But to later trash &
demand Flynn's dismissal for "lying to him" about the informal phone calls was
inappropriate.
Pence could easily have told Americans that President-elect Trump was establishing
informal relations, through multiple phone calls, with world leaders and he, Pence, was not
party to all of them. No one in the fledgling Trump Administration was lying to him.
Hi Larry.why not tackle this knot from the Russian end.Russia has been fighting in Syria
since jisr al shugour massacre in the groves.There naval base on the med was threatened and
Gazprom stood to lose control of energy resources flowing out of the me too Europe.That has
now been achieved.Not only that but Wagner group are in Libyan with Russian air support.From
that point of view what was Flynn's role in this
I wonder sometimes whether the new administration, from Trump downwards, realised just
what they were up against after that unexpected election victory.
Yes, I think that evidence thus far revealed suggests that the sedition was far along, and
this even before Trump's victory - an insurance policy, if you will, and way beyond any
opposition research, as much of the "information", if not at root fabricated, was otherwise
illegally gathered.
And immediate that election victory, things went into overdrive as the seditionists'
panicked, doubling and tripling down on their illegal actions to frame a projected
impeachment narrative as their next tactic. I hesitate to call it their next strategy, as it
was too knee jerk to be characterized in that fashion.
So, no, I think that the new Trump administration had little idea of just how this
transition of administration was, counter to most prior precedents, planned to be
undermined with the full intent to invalidate the election of President Trump, and if
possible, to overturn it .
This was sedition on multiple levels, crimes deliberately embarked upon to destroy the
Constitution and the Republic by any means that these traitors deemed efficacious.
I believe Trump knew he was being spied on as Adm. Rogers informed him and thereafter he
moved his transition organization away from Trump Tower.
In any case why did Trump throw Flynn under the bus? In hindsight that was a huge mistake.
Another huge mistake in hindsight was not cleaning house at the DOJ, FBI and the intel
agencies early. That allowed Rosenstein and Wray to get Mueller going and created the pretext
of the investigation to bury all the incriminating evidence. Trump never declassified
anything himself which he could have and broke open the plot. He then gave Barr all
classification authority who sat on it for a year. Look how fast Ric Grenell declassified
stuff. There was no "sources & methods" the usual false justification.
It is unconscionable how severely Flynn was screwed over. Why is Wray still there? How
many of the plotter cohort still remain?
Looks like regular consultation between Russians and incoming administration to me. Also it was lame duck President who unilaterally
decided to up his ante against Russians (criminally gaslighting the US public), expelled Russian diplomats to make the gaslighting
more plausible, and seized Russian diplomatic property in violation of international norms. It was Obama who unleashed
FBI dogs like Strzok and McCabe on Trump.
Russia later retaliated in a very modest way without seizing any US property, they just cut the level of the USA diplomatic
personnel in Russia to the level of Russian personnel in the USA.
More Evidence of the Fraud Against General Michael Flynn by Larry C Johnson
I never ceased to be amazed at the dishonesty and laziness of the media when it comes to
reporting anything about Michael Flynn and the astonishing miscarriage of justice in bringing
charges against him. The documents declassified and released by the DNI last Friday exonerate
General Flynn and expose the FBI and the Mueller team as gargantuan liars. Even though Friday's
release of the declassified summaries and transcripts was overshadowed quickly by rioting in
Minnesota (you know, if it bleeds and burns it is the lede), the documents reveal General Flynn
as the consummate professional keen on serving his country and the Russian Ambassador as
disgusted by the petulance and arrogance of the Obama administration.
The declassified material released by newly installed Director for National Intelligence
actually consists of two different sets of documents--First, there are five summaries of
conversations for 22, 23, 29 (two on the 29th) December 2016 and 5 January. Second, there are
the full transcripts of the conversations for December 23, December 29, December 31 in 2016 and
January 12 and January 19, 2017.
To summarize--a total of eight different calls between Kislyak and Flynn were recorded
between December 22, 2016 and January 19, 2017. Five of the eight calls were initiated by
Ambassador Kislyak -- Mike Flynn only called Kislyak three times and two of those were in
response to calls from Kislyak, who requested a call back or left a message.
Here are the specifics of those calls.
December 22, 2016--This call apparently was made by Michael Flynn to the Russians,
responding to a request from President-elect Trump to ask Russia not to support the Egyptian UN
Security Council resolution condemning Israel. (Note--Flynn make calls to most members of the
UN Security Council).
December 23, 2016--Ambassador Kislyak calls Michael Flynn to report on his conversation with
President Putin regarding the previous day's request. Michael Flynn emphasizes to Kislyak that
the mutual goal is/should be stability in the Middle East. Flynn tells Kislyak, "We will not
achieve stability in the Middle East without working with each other against this radical
Islamist crowd." Kislyak remarks, "responding to your telephone call, and our conversations we
will try to help to postpone the vote and to allow for consultations."
December 29, 2016--Kislyak calls Flynn and leaves a simple message, "need to talk."
December 29, 2016--Michael Flynn returns Kislyak's phone call. First, Kislyak wants to
discuss the Middle East policy. The Russians want to convey to the President-elect that the
Russians will not be supporting the American colleagues at the Security Council. Flynn says it
is good. Second, the Russians are very interested with working with the President-elect's team
to help the peace process in Syria. Thirdly, the Kremlin would like to . . . have a first
conversation on January 21 rst between the presidents. Putin's idea is to congratulate Trump
and discuss issues. . . . Flynn tells Kislyak: Do not allow this administration to box us in
right now! . . . . depending on what actions the Obama Administrations takes over this current
issue of the cyber stuff, . . . they're gonna dismiss some number of Russians out of the
country, I understand all that . . . I know you have to have some sort of action, but to only
make it reciprocal; don't go any further than you have to because I don't want us to get into
something that have to escalate to tit-for-tat. . . . I really do not want us to get into the
situation where we everybody goes back and forth and everybody had to be a tough guy here. We
don't need that right now. We need cool heads to prevail. And we need to be very steady about
what we are going to do because we have absolutely a common threat in the Middle East.
December 31, 2016--Russian Ambassador Kislyak calls General Flynn. Kislyak tells Flynn, "And
I just wanted to tell you that we found that these actions [were] targeted not only against
Russia, but also against the president elect. . . . and with all our rights to respond we have
decided not to act now because, its because people are dissatisfied with the lost . . .
elections and, and its very deplorable. . . . Flynn responds, "we are not going to agree on
everything, you know that, but, but I think that we have a lot of things in common. A lot. And
we have to figure out how, how to achieve those things, . . .and be smart about it and keep the
temperature down globally, as well as not just here in the United States and also over in
Russia.
January 5, 2017--Lt. General Mike FLYNN phones Ambassador Sergey KISLYAK to express his
condolences on the death of GRU Director Igor SERGUN, who died unexpectedly today from unknown
causes.
January 12, 2017--Mike Flynn returns Kislyak's phone call and discusses possible conference
on Syria in Astana.
January 19, 2017--Kislyak leaves voicemail for Flynn, inquiring about scheduling of a phone
call between Putin and Trump after the inauguration.
"Before General Flynn's voce message turns on, there is an open line, barely audible
chat.
Someone asks Chernyshev, "Which agency are we talking about?" Chernyshev asks as to
confirm if he understands the question and responds in the same time: "Which Agency
hackers
did the hacking? Believe me, Americans did hacked this all."
The full exchange between General Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak throws much light on the
subsequent Sunday morning mis-speaking by the Vice-President Pence.
From the first telephone call, Flynn tells Kislyak that President-elect Trump will only be
inaugurated 3-weeks hence. Therefore Trump in late-December cannot formally make foreign
policy decisions immediately.
In a later exchange about Russia's proposed Astana Peace Conference to de-escalate ISIS
activity In Syria, Flynn responds that Russia has Trump's backing to begin preparations with
the Syrians, Turks et al. On his part, Flynn will begin pencilling-in who would be on a
future US delegation.
It goes without saying that Vice President-elect Pence, during this period had a full-time
job marshaling the Transition and may not have been in the loop on these tentative Russian
peace initiatives. When asked on a Sunday morning talk show, Pence could correctly say
President Trump had no "official communications" with the Kremlin. But to later trash &
demand Flynn's dismissal for "lying to him" about the informal phone calls was
inappropriate.
Pence could easily have told Americans that President-elect Trump was establishing
informal relations, through multiple phone calls, with world leaders and he, Pence, was not
party to all of them. No one in the fledgling Trump Administration was lying to him.
Hi Larry.why not tackle this knot from the Russian end.Russia has been fighting in Syria
since jisr al shugour massacre in the groves.There naval base on the med was threatened and
Gazprom stood to lose control of energy resources flowing out of the me too Europe.That has
now been achieved.Not only that but Wagner group are in Libyan with Russian air support.From
that point of view what was Flynn's role in this
I wonder sometimes whether the new administration, from Trump downwards, realised just
what they were up against after that unexpected election victory.
Yes, I think that evidence thus far revealed suggests that the sedition was far along, and
this even before Trump's victory - an insurance policy, if you will, and way beyond any
opposition research, as much of the "information", if not at root fabricated, was otherwise
illegally gathered.
And immediate that election victory, things went into overdrive as the seditionists'
panicked, doubling and tripling down on their illegal actions to frame a projected
impeachment narrative as their next tactic. I hesitate to call it their next strategy, as it
was too knee jerk to be characterized in that fashion.
So, no, I think that the new Trump administration had little idea of just how this
transition of administration was, counter to most prior precedents, planned to be
undermined with the full intent to invalidate the election of President Trump, and if
possible, to overturn it .
This was sedition on multiple levels, crimes deliberately embarked upon to destroy the
Constitution and the Republic by any means that these traitors deemed efficacious.
I believe Trump knew he was being spied on as Adm. Rogers informed him and thereafter he
moved his transition organization away from Trump Tower.
In any case why did Trump throw Flynn under the bus? In hindsight that was a huge mistake.
Another huge mistake in hindsight was not cleaning house at the DOJ, FBI and the intel
agencies early. That allowed Rosenstein and Wray to get Mueller going and created the pretext
of the investigation to bury all the incriminating evidence. Trump never declassified
anything himself which he could have and broke open the plot. He then gave Barr all
classification authority who sat on it for a year. Look how fast Ric Grenell declassified
stuff. There was no "sources & methods" the usual false justification.
It is unconscionable how severely Flynn was screwed over. Why is Wray still there? How
many of the plotter cohort still remain?
"... The United States today functions in a never-never land of fiction and fantasy when it comes to allegations of Russian meddling in its internal affairs. Logically speaking, most Americans should be insulted by the notion that their democratic institutions are so weak that a half-baked social media campaign could sway a national election (never minding the reality that former presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg spent more than $500 million on advertising , run by the most sophisticated media support team in the history of American politics, and couldn't get the electoral needle to move an inch). ..."
As American political leaders are confronted with the scope and scale of the unrest engendered by decades of failed policy, they're
turning to a time-tested scapegoat to deflect responsibility away from their shoulders – Russia. While American cities burn, its
politicians are desperately looking to assign responsibility for the chaos and anarchy that is unfolding. Among those casting an
accusatory finger is Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican from the State of Florida and the acting Chairman of the Senate Select Intelligence
Committee.
"Seeing VERY heavy social media activity of #protest & counter reactions from social media accounts linked to at least three
foreign adversaries," Rubio tweeted .
"They didn't create these divisions," Rubio noted, "but they are actively stoking & promoting violence & confrontation
from multiple angles."
Evelyn Farkas, a former Obama-era defense official and current candidate for Congress,
tweeted "I hope the @FBI is investigating
potential direct or indirect foreign interference in looting. Definitely not out of the question." While neither Rubio nor Farkas
named Russia in their tweets, they are both well-known for their Russia-baiting postings on social media, and there could be little
doubt as to whom they were pointing an accusatory finger at.
President Obama's former National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, however, left no doubt about where the source of this "foreign
influence" came from. In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Rice, discussing the violent protests sweeping America today,
declared "I would bet, based on my experience, I'm not reading the intelligence these days, but based on my experience this is
right out of the Russian playbook as well."
Rice, Rubio and Farkas are not alone. Typical of the anti-Russian hyperventilation taking place in US media regarding Russia's
alleged hidden hand in the ongoing riots is
an article published by CNN
, written by Donie O'Sullivan , a reporter who works
closely with CNN's investigative unit "tracking and identifying online disinformation campaigns targeting the American electorate."
While concluding that "the protests are real, and so are the protesters' concerns," and cautioning the reader to step
back and take a breath "before getting too caught up" in any discussion about Russian involvement, O'Sullivan asserts that
starting with the 2016 Presidential election "Russia backed (and is likely still backing) an elaborate, years-long covert misinformation
campaign" involving "a network of Facebook and Twitter pages designed to look like they were run by real American activists
and that were used to stoke tensions in American society."
But the pièce de résistance comes in the middle of the article. "Arguably Russia's biggest achievement," O'Sullivan states,
"was the paranoia it instilled in American society. We now regularly see Americans accuse people and groups on social media that
they do not agree with of being Russian trolls or bots. These accusations are often made with no evidence and can distract from and
undermine real Americans who are engaging in political speech."
Thanks to Russia, O'Sullivan asserts, Americans now have Russia on their mind even if Russia is not involved–which is, of course,
Russia's fault. But don't fret -- "It is possible that we will learn in the coming days, weeks, and months that some covert activity
has been going on–that some Facebook pages and Twitter accounts encouraging violent protests are indeed linked to Russia."
The United States today functions in a never-never land of fiction and fantasy when it comes to allegations of Russian meddling
in its internal affairs. Logically speaking, most Americans should be insulted by the notion that their democratic institutions are
so weak that a half-baked social media campaign could sway a national election (never minding the reality that former presidential
candidate
Michael Bloomberg spent more than $500 million on advertising , run by the most sophisticated media support team in the history
of American politics, and couldn't get the electoral needle to move an inch).
There is a truism that you cannot solve a problem without first properly defining it. In their effort to shift blame away from
their own failings by alleging "outside" (i.e., Russia) sources of interference in the ongoing social unrest ravaging American
cities, the politicians and leaders Americans look to for solutions are setting themselves up for failure, if for no other reason
that any solution which is predicated on unproven allegations of Russian meddling isn't solving the real problems facing American
society today.
Russia did not direct the murder of George Floyd at the hands of the Minneapolis Police. Nor did Russia direct and implement decades
of policing culture in the United States underpinned by racism, backed by a system of justice that sustained and magnified the same.
The social and legal inequities of American law enforcement have been a problem hiding in plain sight for decades, only to be ignored
by generations of American leaders who exploited the fear-based culture that fed on this system for their own political gain; Russia
had nothing whatsoever to do with this cancer that has metastasized throughout the width and breadth of the American body public.
It is the height of intellectual hypocrisy and moral cowardice for those whom America needs the most in this time of trouble to
stand up and take a hard, honest look at the diseased nature of the American law enforcement establishment today, and make the kind
of difficult but necessary decisions needed to reform it, to instead cast blame on the Russian bogeyman. The Russian blame game may
play well on media outlets that long ago surrendered to a political establishment desperate to retain power and influence regardless
of the cost. But, for the legion of Americans whose frustration with the inherent racism of American policing policies today, this
kind of simplistic deflection will not succeed. America's cities are on fire; manufacturing false narratives that place the blame
for this conflagration of Russia will not put them out.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT. Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer. He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing
the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf's staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter
@RealScottRitter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer.
He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf's staff during the Gulf War, and
from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter
I never ceased to be amazed at the dishonesty and laziness of
the media when it comes to reporting anything about Michael Flynn and the astonishing
miscarriage of justice in bringing charges against him. The documents declassified and released
by the DNI last Friday exonerate General Flynn and expose the FBI and the Mueller team as
gargantuan liars. Even though Friday's release of the declassified summaries and transcripts
was overshadowed quickly by rioting in Minnesota (you know, if it bleeds and burns it is the
lede), the documents reveal General Flynn as the consummate professional keen on serving his
country and the Russian Ambassador as disgusted by the petulance and arrogance of the Obama
administration.
The declassified
material released by newly installed Director for National Intelligence actually consists
of two different sets of documents--First, there are five summaries of conversations for 22,
23, 29 (two on the 29th) December 2016 and 5 January. Second, there are the full transcripts of
the conversations for December 23, December 29, December 31 in 2016 and January 12 and January
19, 2017.
To summarize--a total of eight different calls between Kislyak and Flynn were recorded
between December 22, 2016 and January 19, 2017. Five of the eight calls were initiated by
Ambassador Kislyak--Mike Flynn only called Kislyak three times and two of those were in
response to calls from Kislyak, who requested a call back or left a message.
Here are the specifics of those calls.
December 22, 2016--This call apparently was made by Michael Flynn to the Russians,
responding to a request from President-elect Trump to ask Russia to not support the Egyptian UN
Security Council resolution condemning Israel. (Note--Flynn made calls to most members of the
UN Security Council).
December 23, 2016--Ambassador Kislyak calls Michael Flynn to report on his conversation with
President Putin regarding the previous day's request. Michael Flynn emphasizes to Kislyak that
the mutual goal is/should be stability in the Middle East. Flynn tells Kislyak, "We will not
achieve stability in the Middle East without working with each other against this radical
Islamist crowd." Kislyak remarks, "responding to your telephone call, and our conversations we
will try to help to postpone the vote and to allow for consultations."
December 29, 2016--Kislyak calls Flynn and leaves a simple message, "need to talk."
December 29, 2016--Michael Flynn returns Kislyak's phone call.
First, Kislyak wants to discuss the Middle East policy. The Russians want to convey to the
President-elect that the Russians will not be supporting the American colleagues at the
Security Council. Flynn says it is good.
Second, the Russians are very interesting with working with the President-elect's team to
help the peace process in Syria.
Third, the Kremlin would like to . . . have a first conversation on January 21st between the
presidents. Putin's idea is to congratulate Trump and discuss issues. . . . Flynn tells
Kislyak: Do not allow this administration to box us in right now! . . . . depending on what
actions the Obama Administrations takes over this current issue of the cyber stuff, . . .
they're gonna dismiss some number of Russians out of the country, I understand all that . . . I
know you have to have some sort of action, but to only make it reciprocal; don't go any further
than you have to because I don't want us to get into something that have to escalate to
tit-for-tat. . . . I really do not want us to get into the situation where we everybody goes
back and forth and everybody had to be a tough guy here. We don't need that right now. We need
cool heads to prevail. And we need to be very steady about what we are going to do because we
have absolutely a common threat in the Middle East.
December 31, 2016--Russian Ambassador Kislyak calls General Flynn. Kislyak tells Flynn, "And
I just wanted to tell you that we found that these actions [were] targeted not only against
Russia, but also against the president elect. . . . and with all our rights to responds we have
decided not to act now because, its because the Obama people are dissatisfied that they lost
the elections and, and its very deplorable. . . . Flynn responded, "we are not going to agree
on everything, you know that, but I think that we have a lot of things in common. A lot. And we
have to figure out how to achieve those things, . . .and be smart about it and keep the
temperature down globally, as well as not just here in the United States and also over in
Russia.
January 5, 2017--Lt. General Mike FLYNN phones Ambassador Sergey KISLYAK to express his
condolences on the death of GRU Director Igor SERGUN, who died unexpectedly today from unknown
causes.
January 12, 2017--Mike Flynn returns Kislyak's phone call and discusses possible conference
on Syria in Astana, Kazakstan.
January 19, 2017--Kislyak leaves voicemail for Flynn, inquiring about scheduling of a phone
call between Putin and Trump after the inauguration.
Now, let us take a new look at the Mueller team's Statement of Offense . The Mueller team got
a key fact wrong. According to the Statement of Offense:
b. On or about December 28, 2016, the Russian Ambassador contacted FLYNN.
Nope. The date was 29 December 2016. Screwing up a date is not an end-of-the-world mistake,
but it is inexcusable nonetheless.
Let me remind you what Michael Flynn told FBI Agents Strzok and Pientka when they asked if
he "might have asked Kislyak not to escalate the situation, to keep the Russian response
reciprocal." Flynn said, according to the second draft of the FBI 302 recounting the
conversation, "NOT REALLY, I DON'T REMEMBER."
You can read for yourself Flynn's entire exchange with Kislyak. It covered a variety of
topics. It was not the only issue Flynn was dealing with as the incoming National Security
Advisor. He had lots of conversations, not only with Kislyak, but with other diplomats from
other countries. The fact that he did not precisely remember what he said to Kislyak should not
be surprising.
The real question is why did the FBI withhold the transcript of this conversation? They
could have said, "here is the transcript of your conversation with Ambassador Kislyak, is that
an accurate account?" But they did not. I defy any of you to recall with 100% accuracy a
conversation you had with someone almost a month earlier.
The most fascinating revelation from this transcripts is Ambassador Kislyak stating that
Russia was aware of the Obama Administration's efforts to portray normal diplomatic contacts
between Moscow and the Trump campaign as something nefarious and that Obama was targeting
Trump. Kislyak said:
"And I just wanted to tell you that we found that these actions [were] targeted not only
against Russia, but also against the president elect."
Kislyak and his bosses understood perfectly that the Obama team was attempting a silent coup
and were willing to risk conflict with Russia in order to sell that lie. This is beyond
outrageous on the part of Obama and his crew of white collared criminals. It is sedition. It is
treason.
No honest person can read these transcripts without acknowledging that Flynn spoke as a
diplomat intent on serving the interests of America. He was not engaged in treachery, as
alleged by the corrupt Judge Emmett Sullivan. In fact, Flynn held his tongue with regard to the
Obama crew. He could have trashed them and spoke ill of them. But he did not.
These transcripts show Flynn as a man of honor. A genuine professional. They also expose the
fraud perpetrated on the American public by an FBI and Special Prosecutor intent on smearing
Flynn as acting on behalf of the Russians. Michael Flynn did no such thing.
"Before General Flynn's voce message turns on, there is an open line, barely audible
chat.
Someone asks Chernyshev, "Which agency are we talking about?" Chernyshev asks as to
confirm if he understands the question and responds in the same time: "Which Agency
hackers
did the hacking? Believe me, Americans did hacked this all."
The full exchange between General Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak throws much light on the
subsequent Sunday morning mis-speaking by the Vice-President Pence.
From the first telephone call, Flynn tells Kislyak that President-elect Trump will only be
inaugurated 3-weeks hence. Therefore Trump in late-December cannot formally make foreign
policy decisions immediately.
In a later exchange about Russia's proposed Astana Peace Conference to de-escalate ISIS
activity In Syria, Flynn responds that Russia has Trump's backing to begin preparations with
the Syrians, Turks et al. On his part, Flynn will begin pencilling-in who would be on a
future US delegation.
It goes without saying that Vice President-elect Pence, during this period had a full-time
job marshaling the Transition and may not have been in the loop on these tentative Russian
peace initiatives. When asked on a Sunday morning talk show, Pence could correctly say
President Trump had no "official communications" with the Kremlin. But to later trash &
demand Flynn's dismissal for "lying to him" about the informal phone calls was
inappropriate.
Pence could easily have told Americans that President-elect Trump was establishing
informal relations, through multiple phone calls, with world leaders and he, Pence, was not
party to all of them. No one in the fledgling Trump Administration was lying to him.
Hi Larry.why not tackle this knot from the Russian end.Russia has been fighting in Syria
since jisr al shugour massacre in the groves.There naval base on the med was threatened and
Gazprom stood to lose control of energy resources flowing out of the me too Europe.That has
now been achieved.Not only that but Wagner group are in Libyan with Russian air support.From
that point of view what was Flynn's role in this
Wednesday, July 10, 2019Non-Agreement Capable, Or Agreement Incapable, Or...
Agreement-unworthy, or.... I didn't find many English-language report on Putin's last week
interview on this issue:
We knew this all along, didn't we? It is not just about personalities, however
repulsive in his narcissism and lack of statesmanship Obama was. It is systemic, no matter who
comes to power to the Oval Office--it will make no difference. No difference, whatsoever. What
is known as US power (political) elite has been on the downward spiral for some time and, in
some sense, the whole Epstein
affair with serious pedophilia charges, not to mention an unspeakable slap on the wrist in
which this well-connected pervert was let go ten years ago, is just one of many indications of
a complete moral and cognitive decomposition of this so called "elite" which continues to
provide one after another specimens of human depravity. Remarkably, as much as I always feel
nauseated when seeing GOPers, it is impossible to hide the fact that Epstein's clients in their
majority are mostly associated with putrid creatures from the so called "left", with Bill
Clinton featuring prominently in the company of this pervert.
There were some attempts to even conceive a possibility of somehow "progressives" and
"conservatives" getting together in their condemnation of this heinous crime (yeah, yeah, I
know, Presumption of Innocence).
Doesn't it sound wonderful, warm and fuzzy, or too good to be true? It sure does,
because, as much as most American elite "conservatives" are not really conservatives, what
passes as "progressive" in the United States is PRIMARILY based on sexual deviancy, including
implicit promotion of pedophilia by "intellectual class", and "environmental" agenda, period!
Everything else is secondary. Those who think that actual conservatism (not a caricature it is
known in the United States) has anything to discuss with the so called "progressives"--they
unwittingly support this very "progressive" cause which, in its very many manifestations, is a
realization of the worst kind of suppression of many millennia old natural, including
biological, order of things and, in the end, elimination of normality as such--a future even
Orwell would have had difficulty describing.
Of course, Pinkerton gets some flashes of common sense, when states that:
Most likely, a true solution will have "conservative" elements, as in social and cultural
norming, and "liberal" elements, as in higher taxes on city slickers coupled with conscious
economic development for the proletarians and for the heartland. Only with these economic and
governmental changes can we be sure that it's possible to have a nice life in Anytown, safely
far away from beguiling pleasuredomes.
Well, he puts it very crudely, but I see where he is at least trying to get it
from. I will add, until nation, as in American nation, recognizes itself as a nation, as people
who have common history, culture and mission, thus, inevitably producing this aforementioned
healthy social and cultural norming--no amount of wishful thinking or social-economic
doctrine-mongering will help. There is no United States without European-keen, white Christian,
heterosexual folk, both with acutely developed sense of both masculinity and femininity,
period. But this is precisely the state of the affairs which American "progressives" are
fighting against; this is the state of the affairs which they must destroy be that by
imposition of suffocating political correctness, the insanity of multi-gender and LGBT
totalitarianism, or by criminal opening of the borders to anyone, who, in the end, will vote
for the Democratic Party. You cannot negotiate with such people. In the end, WHO is going to
negotiate? A cowardly, utterly corrupt, current GOPers and geriatric remnants of Holy
Reaganites? Really? Ask how many of them are Mossad assets and are in the pockets of rich
Israeli-firsters and Gulfies?
True "Left" economics, which seeks more just distribution (not re-distribution) of wealth,
based on a fusion of economic models and types of property, cannot exist within cultural
liberal paradigm of "privileged" minorities, be them racial or sexual ones, aided by massive
grievance-generating machine--it is not going to last. Both economic and social normality can
exist ONLY within cohesive nation and that, due to activity on both nominal sides (in reality
it is the same) of American political spectrum, has been utterly destroyed. The mechanism of
this destruction is rather simple and it comes down, in the end, to the, pardon my French,
number of ass-holes populating unit-volume (density, that is) of political space in America. It
goes without saying that such a density in the US reached deadly toxic levels, and Russiagate
coup, Epstein's Affair, or the parade of POTUSes with the maturity levels of high school kids
are just numerous partial manifestations of what one can characterize as the end of the rope.
After all, who would be making any agreements with representatives of the system which is
rotting and decomposing?
Paul Craig Roberts penned today a good piece: The
Obituary for Western Civilization Can Now be Written . I have to disagree somewhat with
PCR's one assertion:
Europeans Are as Dumbshit as Americans
I would pause a little here. Yes and no. Here is Colonel Wilkerson who talks about
both wealth (starts roughly at 14:00) and about other very important strategic and operational
fact: overwhelming majority of weapons on hands today are among those who either support Trump
openly or simply had it with system in general.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/kZA2yIFkhKg/0.jpg
And here is the issue: my bets are on people with military backgrounds, who had first hand
experience with military organization (standard manuals, combat manuals et al) and have
operational and command experience in their conflict with American Social Justice Warriors (you
know--"progressives") and other openly terrorist "progressive" organizations such as Antifa. At
least ruined Portland started to do something
about it . Is there any real left left in the US? And I don't mean this a-hole Bernie
Sanders.
And here is my rephrasing of Tolstoy's conclusion to War and Peace: there are too many
ass-holes in American politics today , very many of them being so called "progressives"
. This number must be reduced by all legal means today, and if American ass-holes can
work together terrorizing majority of good, not ass-hole people, what's precluding those good
people to work together? Nothing, except for the rotting corpse of GOP which had audacity to
call itself "conservative". If not, all is lost and we do not want to live in the world which
will come. And the guns will start speaking. UPDATE : 07/11/19
Oh goody, do they read me or is it one of those moments when, in Lenin's description of
Revolutionary Situation, economic slogans transform into political ones? Evidently Catholic
Conservative Michael Warren speaks in unison with Lenin and me, with both me and Warren
certainly not being Marxists or "communists". Here is what Warren has to say today:
It is a very loaded statement. It is also not an incorrect one. It is also
relevant to what I preach for years, decades really, that history of the so called "communism"
in USSR was a conservative history--a transition from depravity and corruption of Russian
Imperial "elites" to what resulted in the mutated nationalism of sorts in late 1930s and led to
the defeat of Nazism, historically unprecedented restoration of the destroyed country and then
breaking out into space. But that is a separate story--in USSR, as it is the case in Russia
today, sexual perversion and deviancy are not looked at lightly. Nor are, in general, "liberal
values" which are precisely designed to end up with the legitimization of pedophilia--a long
held, and hidden, desire of Western
"elites" . Guess why such an obsession with, realistically, literary mediocrity of
Nabokov's Lolita by Western moneyed and "intellectual" class. Who in their own mind,
unless one is a forensic psychiatrist or detective, would be interested in such a topic, not to
mention writing a book on it, not to mention a variety of Hollywood and, in general, Western
cinematography artsy class making scores of Lolita movies? Each time I read Lolita, in
both Russian and English, I felt an urgent desire to take a shower after reading this
concoction. I guess, I am not "sophisticated" enough to recognize appeals of this type of
"art". As Warren notes:
Yes: those passions are legitimate. We should feel contempt for our leaders when we
discover that two presidents cavorted with Epstein, almost certainly aware that he preyed on
minors. We should feel disgust at the
mere possibility that Pope Francis rehabilitated Theodore McCarrick. And we should be
furious that these injustices haven't even come close to being properly redressed. This is
how revolutions are born. America is reaching the point where, 200 years ago, a couple French
peasants begin eyeing the Bastille. The question is, can conservatives channel that outrage
into serious reform before it's too late? Can we call out the fetid, decadent elites within our
own ranks ? Are we prepared to hold our own "faves" to account -- even Trump himself?
Alas, it's only a matter of time until we find out.
In this, I, essentially an atheist, and a conservative Catholic, are speaking in
the same voice.
Boy these Russians are geniuses of the highest order ...
First they put Donald Trump in power and now they're trying to tear the country apart under
him by supporting both black lives matter, and white supremacists at the same time.
I don't know how these stupid Journos can even imagine this stuff up out of their arses.
The sad irony is that these journalists will be the ones when future generations look back
who most contributed to the downfall of America ....
Anybody who uses the term "Russiagate" seriously and not to recognize the actual and
serious Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election in support of Trump is
not to be taken remotely seriously.
Russiagate is a valid and IMHO very useful political discourse term which has two
intersecting meanings:
1. Obamagate : Attempt of a certain political forces around Clintons and Obama
with the support of intelligence agencies to stage a "color revolution" against Trump,
using there full control of MSM as air superiority factor. With the main goal is the return
to "classic neoliberalism" (neoliberal globalization uber alles) mode
Which Trump rejected during his election campaign painting him as a threat to certain
powerful neoliberal forces which include but not limited to Silicon Valley moguls (note bad
relations of Trump and Bezos), some part of Wall street financial oligarchy, and most MSMs
honchos.
2. Neo-McCarthyism campaign unleashed by Obama administration with the goal to
whitewash Hillary fiasco and to preserve the current leadership of the Democratic
Party.
That led to complete deterioration of relations between the USA and Russia and increase
of chances of military conflict between two. Add to this consistent attempts of Trump to
make China an enemy and politicize the process of economic disengagement between the two
countries and you understand the level of danger. .
When a senior Russian official implicitly calls the USA a rogue state and Trump
administration -- gangsters on international arena, that a very bad sign. See
But then again, it may well be so that the current Republican administration will in
effect become a line in history in which a considerable number of useful international
instruments were abrogated and that America exited them in the anticipation that this
approach would serve U.S. interests better. Having said that, I will never say or never
suggest that it was for us -- at least in the mid-2010s -- better with the previous
administration.
It was under the previous Obama administration that endless rounds of sanctions were
imposed upon Russia. That was continued under Trump. The pretext for that policy is
totally rejected by Russia as an invalid and illegal one. The previous administration,
weeks before it departed, stole Russian property that was protected by diplomatic
immunity, and we are still deprived of this property by the Trump administration. We have
sent 350 diplomatic notes to both the Obama and the Trump administrations demanding the
return of this property, only to see an endless series of rejections. It is one of the
most vivid and obvious examples of where we are in our relationship.
There is no such thing as "which administration is better for Russia in the U.S.?"
Both are bad, and this is our conclusion after more than a decade of talking to
Washington on different topics.
Heilbrunn: Given the dire situation you portray, do you believe that America has
become a rogue state?
Ryabkov: I wouldn't say so, that's not our conclusion. But the U.S. is clearly an
entity that stands for itself, one that creates uncertainty for the world. America is a
source of trouble for many international actors. They are trying to find ways to protect
and defend themselves from this malign and malicious policy of America that many of the
people around the world believe should come to an end, hopefully in the near future.
What I can't understand is this stupid jingoism, kind of "cult of death" among the US
neocons, who personally are utter chickenhawks, but still from their comfortable offices
write dangerous warmongering nonsense. Without understanding possible longer term
consequences.
Of course, MIC money does not smell, but some enthusiasts in blogs do it even without
proper remuneration
Another is the political assassination of Gen. Flynn. There was indeed a coordinated
conspiracy to find a scapegoat to prevent the shifting from a pro-China/anti-Russia policy to
a pro-Russia/China-as-actual-competitor policy under a DJT presidency.
If you think none of the above carry any weight and you could play a game of shuttlecock
with them not caring which is brought forth, then you might think along Jackrabbit's lines
that the DJT-phenomenon is complete bullshit.
I would argue that the line that DJT is some working-class hero is probably bullshit, but
when it comes to two warring factions of elites fighting over the direction of America, the
struggle right now is very real.
"... What is happening now is the exact same thing as Hong Kong. In any given instance of mass revolt, you have two warring factions, usually funded at the top by diametrically opposed elites. ..."
"... In Hong Kong, it is pro-western, old-guard/money versus Chinese new-guard. ..."
"... Look at the degree of organization (or lack thereof) which was able to politically assassinate Gen. Flynn! You had the dem establishment and billionaires like the Clintons, Obama-faction sycophants all the way up to the top. ..."
You are completely wrong, of course. What is happening now is the exact same thing as Hong Kong. In any given instance of mass revolt, you have two warring factions, usually funded at the top by diametrically opposed elites.
In Hong Kong, it is pro-western, old-guard/money versus Chinese new-guard. In America, we have the old-guard/money represented currently by the DJT-phenomenon, meaning Anti-globalist nationalists, and,
on the other side, you have new-money internationalists and neolibs represented by billionaires, big-tech, the democratic party
and garden-variety globalists.
Look at the degree of organization (or lack thereof) which was able to politically assassinate Gen. Flynn! You had the dem
establishment and billionaires like the Clintons, Obama-faction sycophants all the way up to the top.
You think that this event is entirely grassroots? Give me a f*cking break, vk. You are such a blatantly obvious Chinese shill, no doubt probably employed by globalist entities,
that the fact you are unable to employ an effective and probable analysis on these current "protests" reaffirm to me exactly what
you are and what you stand for.
You could also have the same oligarchs funding both sides in a divide and conquer strategy. This is a common strategy that
has been used in Turkey among others in the runup to the 1980 coup. It was also used by the US and Israel in their funding of
both sides in the Iran/Iraq war in the 80s.
In the former it was used to ramp up violence to justify a military coup. That is very probable here, except that martial law
might be the objective. Similar to the Iran/Iraq, the stoking of violence between liberals and conservatives may simply be to
wear them out for when the economy truly tanks to justify in the minds of the sheeple a greater oppression of demonstrations in
future.
US is becoming like Israel even more. Considering same people rule both countries, and same people train cops in both of them,
is it surprising 99%-ers in US are becoming treated like Palestinians?
Margot Cleveland ( @ProfMJCleveland ) "What Flynn didn't say is treason, but Obama saying
he'll have more flexibility after the election is diplomacy. "
Scenario: Obama wanted a hot Russians confrontation incident to land on the Resolute Desk
the same day Obama moved out and Trump moved in. But the Russians did not take Obama's bait
after expelling the Russians for" election interference"..
Why not - something is up - snoop on Flynn to find out - is Trump cutting a side deal with
Putin, and/or violating the Logan Act - gotcha either way, So Obama thinks. Which was never
his strong suit.
So Flynn is gone and who benefits? The Israelis got their capitol and the word 'occupied'
decoupled from territories, which they didn't need Flynn for, and the common enemy policy
against ISIS and Astana/Syria peace plan are both dead.
The Biden campaign has quietly canceled a fundraiser headlined by
Andrew Weissman - former special counsel Robert Mueller's 'attack dog' lawyer who
hand-picked the so-called '13 angry Democrats.'
Weissman, who attended Hillary Clinton's election night party in 2016, donated to Obama and
the DNC, yet somehow conducted an unbiased investigation that turned up snake-eyes, was set to
do a June 2 "fireside chat" with Biden , according to the
WSJ , which notes that the fundraiser was pulled right after it was posted late last week -
shortly after the Trump campaign began to latch onto it.
Yes, there's more value in keeping the lie going that the mueller special counsel hasn't
already been established beyond any doubt as a fraudulent and deeply unethical partisan
takedown scheme against Trump https://t.co/5wuFYpgggr https://t.co/mxaHomTaQO
Weissman - known as the "architect" of the case against former Trump campaign chairman Paul
Manafort - notably reached out to a
Ukrainian oligarch for dirt on Trump and his team days after FBI agent Peter Strzok texted
"There's no big there there" regarding the Trump investigation in exchange for 'resolving the
Firtash case' in Chicago, in which he was charged in 2014 with corruption and bribery linked to
a US aerospace deal.
According to investigative journalist John Solomon, Firtash turned down Weissman's offer
because he didn't have credible information or evidence against Trump , Manafort, or anyone
else.
I haven't written anything about Putin in awhile, and his teleconference about Russia's "labour
market situation" provides an excellent opportunity. What you'll read illustrates the
acutely dramatic difference in policy between Russia and the Outlaw US Empire when it comes
to supporting its populous:
"Once again, preserving the jobs and incomes of Russian families has been one of our top
priorities since day one of our efforts to counter the epidemic. This, of course, is a fair
approach and a fair principle, because people should always be our priority ." [My
Emphasis]
To be fair, Trump and Congress do favor some of the people--those at and associated with
Wall Street--and what we've seen is those people are certainly Trump and Congress's priority,
but not so much anyone else. Contrast that with Russia's policy:
"We have established a key, basic criterion for supporting businesses. From the outset, we
have organised our work exactly this way: preserving the workforce and salaries is a
priority . We offered incentives whereby companies and entrepreneurs who take care of
their employees and strive to retain them, can count on greater support from the state. By
that, I also mean direct subsidies to pay salaries at small- and medium-sized businesses in
the affected industries in an amount equivalent to one minimum wage per employee in April and
May, as well as easy-term loans with a 2 percent interest rate. These loans will be repaid by
the state, as agreed, if staffing at a given company remains at the current level." [My
Emphasis]
The above isn't the total policy, of course. Also note the tone of Putin's remarks, which
have actually remained very consistent over his tenure as Russia's leader:
"We need to analyse and look deep into the problems of every person that asks for
help , especially elderly people and pre-pensioners. This also applies to graduates of
universities, colleges and academies that are finishing their studies and starting to
work.
"It is necessary to look for suitable jobs in cooperation with companies, organisations
and employers. These things must not be left to luck. It is necessary to offer snap courses,
as well as education and retraining programmes for those who have lost their jobs." [My
Emphasis]
By comparison, what do we see from UK, EU and Outlaw US Empire? Pretty much the
opposite--unless you're in the top 10% who won't risk losing one cent--it's a Free Market
where you're free to sink to your doom. Putin in contrast agreed to extend unemployment to
October 1 and prior to that time will reexamine the state of the labour market to determine
if that deadline needs to be extended again--policy that's the polar opposite of that within
the Outlaw US Empire. What's somewhat astonishing is the Outlaw US Empire has about 130
million of its people unemployed while Russia's entire population is about 145 million but
doesn't have a parasite that demands being continually fed massive amounts of money--about $8
Trillion for the first third of 2020.
Funding
The Center for Public Integrity has received contributions from a number of left-leaning
foundation funders including the Ford Foundation, Omidyar Network Fund, Foundation to Promote
Open Society, Knight Foundation, and MacArthur Foundation.[3] The foundation has stated that
it no longer accepts corporate gifts, but it takes money from the private foundations of many
of the richest Americans including actor Leonardo DiCaprio.
Seems to be the parent of the UK government's Integrity Initiative boondoggle
US Attorney for West Texas John Bash has been asked by AG Bill Bar to review the Obama
administration's 'unmasking' practices from before and after the 2016 presidential election,
according
Fox News , citing the DOJ.
Meanwhile, DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec told Fox News '
"Hannity" on Wednesday that US Attorney John Durham is also looking into the "unmasking," but
that Bash has been assigned to dig deeper .
"Unmasking inherently isn't wrong, but certainly, the frequency, the motivation and the
reasoning behind unmasking can be problematic, and when you're looking at unmasking as part of
a broader investigation-- like John Durham's investigation-- looking specifically at who was
unmasking whom, can add a lot to our understanding about motivation and big picture events,"
said Kupec.
Unmasking is a tool frequently used during the course of intelligence work and occurs
after U.S. citizens' conversations are incidentally picked up in conversations with foreign
officials who are being monitored by the intelligence community. The U.S. citizens'
identities are supposed to be protected if their participation is incidental and no
wrongdoing is suspected. However, officials can determine the U.S. citizens' names through a
process that is supposed to safeguard their rights . In the typical process, when officials
are requesting the unmasking of an American, they do not necessarily know the identity of the
person in advance.
Republicans became highly suspicious of the number of unmasking requests made by the Obama
administration concerning Flynn, and have questioned whether other Trump associates were
singled out. -
Fox News
In short, Bash - a trusted operator within the Trump administration - will dig even deeper
into the Obama administration's use of unmasking against its political opponents.
Looks like Strzok and Page played larger role in Obamagate/Russiagate then it was assumed
initially
Notable quotes:
"... Just 17 days before President Trump took office in January 2017, then-FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok texted bureau lawyer Lisa Page, his mistress, to express concern about sharing sensitive Russia probe evidence with the departing Obama White House. ..."
"... Strzok related Priestap's concerns about the potential the evidence would be politically weaponized if outgoing Director of National Intelligence James Clapper shared the intercept cuts with the White House and President Obama, a well-known Flynn critic. ..."
"... "He, like us, is concerned with over sharing," Strzok texted Page on Jan. 3, 2017, relating his conversation with Priestap. ..."
"... The investigators are trying to determine whether Obama's well-known disdain for Flynn, a career military intelligence officer, influenced the decision by the FBI leadership to reject its own agent's recommendation to shut down a probe of Flynn in January 2017 and instead pursue an interview where agents might catch him in a lie. ..."
"... "The evidence connecting President Obama to the Flynn operation is getting stronger," one investigator with direct knowledge told me. ..."
"... Former Whitewater Independent Counsel Robert Ray said Friday that the Flynn matter was at the very least a "political scandal of the highest order" and could involve criminal charges if evidence emerges that officials lied or withheld documents to cover up what happened. ..."
"... "I imagine there are people who are in the know who may well have knowingly withheld information from the court and from defense counsel in connection with the Michael Flynn prosecution," Ray told Fox News . ..."
"... April 2014: Flynn is forced out as the chief of DIA by Obama after clashing with the administration over the Syrian civil war, the rise of ISIS, and other policies. The Obama administration blames his management style for the departure. ..."
"... Jan. 3, 2017: Strzok and Page engage in the text messages about Obama's daily briefing and the concerns about giving the Flynn intercept cuts to the White House. ..."
"... Jan. 4, 2017: Lead agent in Flynn Crossfire Razor probe prepares closing memo recommending the case be shut down for lack of derogatory evidence. Strzok texts agent asking him to stop the closing memo because the "7th floor" leadership of the FBI is now involved. ..."
"... Jan. 5, 2017: Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates attends Russia briefing with Obama at the White House and is stunned to learn Obama already knows about the Flynn-Kislyak intercept . Then-FBI Director James Comey claims Clapper told the president, but Clapper has denied telling Obama. ..."
"... Investigators are trying to determine whether Obama asked for the Flynn intercept or it was offered to him and by whom. They also want to know how many times Comey and Obama talked about Flynn in December 2016 and January 2017. ..."
"... "We need to determine what motivated the FBI on Jan. 4, 2017 to overrule its own agent who believed Flynn was innocent and the probe should be closed," one investigator said. ..."
"... Obama weaponized everything he could, ..."
"... The idea that Obama was the center of anything is misdirection. The 'deep state,' as much as I loathe the term, is nothing but State clerks bent by their sense of self importance, venality in the adherence to 'rules,' and motivated by either their greed or their indignation that their status position is merely relative. ..."
"... The Flynn persecution is just the tip of the iceberg of corruption, illegal surveillance, perjury, money laundering, skimming and sedition. ..."
"... One can only imagine all the times Obama weaponized the intelligence agencies against his political opponents that will never be exposed ..."
"... John and Sarah Carter have knocked it out of the park since the Obama attempted coup started. ..."
"... In Watergate, the underlying crime was "Nixon spied on the Democrats". Everything else was just a question of who did what, and how much. ..."
"... How come there's never any mention of "London Collusion", as if UK interference in U.S. politics and society is quite alright -- even when it's highly detrimental? ..."
"... Brennan went over and met with MI-6 right about the time that Trump announced his candidacy. I think the whole Russia-Collusion thing was their idea and they put Brennan on to it. Set it all up for him, complete with a diagram so he wouldn't **** it up. That's what MI-6 does. ..."
"... MI-6, like Christopher Steele, hated Trump because they BADLY want World Government. Have been sabotaging Brexit for years. ..."
"... It's easier for me to imagine Obama as puppet than a ringleader. He always seemed to be a fake, manufactured sort of person. As if he was focus-group-tested and approved. ..."
Agents fretted sharing Flynn intel with departing Obama White House would become fodder for
'partisan axes to grind.'
Just 17 days before President Trump took office in January 2017, then-FBI
counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok texted bureau lawyer Lisa Page, his mistress, to express
concern about sharing sensitive Russia probe evidence with the departing Obama White House.
Strzok had just engaged in a conversation with his boss, then-FBI Assistant Director William
Priestap, about evidence from the investigation of incoming National Security Adviser Michael
Flynn, codenamed Crossfire Razor, or "CR" for short.
The evidence in question were so-called "tech cuts" from intercepted conversations between
Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, according to the texts and interviews with
officials familiar with the conversations.
Strzok related Priestap's concerns about the potential the evidence would be politically
weaponized if outgoing Director of National Intelligence James Clapper shared the intercept
cuts with the White House and President Obama, a well-known Flynn critic.
"He, like us, is concerned with over sharing," Strzok texted Page on Jan. 3, 2017,
relating his conversation with Priestap.
"Doesn't want Clapper giving CR cuts to WH. All political, just shows our hand and
potentially makes enemies."
Page seemed less concerned, knowing that the FBI was set in three days to release its
initial assessment of Russian interference in the U.S. election.
"Yeah, but keep in mind we were going to put that in the doc on Friday, with potentially
larger distribution than just the DNI," Page texted back.
Strzok responded, "The question is should we, particularly to the entirety of the lame
duck usic [U.S Intelligence Community] with partisan axes to grind."
That same day Strzok and Page also discussed in text messages a drama involving one of the
Presidential Daily Briefings for Obama.
"Did you follow the drama of the PDB last week?" Strzok asked.
"Yup. Don't know how it ended though," Page responded.
"They didn't include any of it, and Bill [Priestap] didn't want to dissent," Strzok
added.
"Wow, Bill should make sure [Deputy Director] Andy [McCabe] knows about that since he was
consulted numerous times about whether to include the reporting," Page suggested.
You can see the text messages recovered from Strzok's phone here.
The text messages, which were never released to the public by the FBI but were provided to
this reporter in September 2018, have taken on much more significance to both federal and
congressional investigators in recent weeks as the Justice Department has requested that
Flynn's conviction be thrown out and his charges of lying to the FBI about Kislyak
dismissed.
U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen of Missouri (special prosecutor for DOJ), the FBI inspection
division, three Senate committees and House Republicans are all investigating the handling of
Flynn's case and whether any crimes were committed or political influence exerted.
The investigators are trying to determine whether Obama's well-known disdain for Flynn, a
career military intelligence officer, influenced the decision by the FBI leadership to reject
its own agent's recommendation to shut down a probe of Flynn in January 2017 and instead pursue
an interview where agents might catch him in a lie.
They also want to know whether the conversation about the PDB involved Flynn and "reporting"
the FBI had gathered by early January 2017 showing the incoming national security adviser was
neither a counterintelligence nor a criminal threat.
"The evidence connecting President Obama to the Flynn operation is getting stronger," one
investigator with direct knowledge told me.
"The bureau knew it did not have evidence to justify that Flynn was either a criminal or
counterintelligence threat and should have shut the case down. But the perception that Obama
and his team would not be happy with that outcome may have driven the FBI to keep the probe
open without justification and to pivot to an interview that left some agents worried
involved entrapment or a perjury trap."
The investigator said more interviews will need to be done to determine exactly what role
Obama's perception of Flynn played in the FBI's decision making.
Recently declassified evidence show a total of 39 outgoing Obama administration officials
sought to unmask Flynn's name in intelligence interviews between Election Day 2016 and
Inauguration Day 2017, signaling a keen interest in Flynn's overseas calls.
Former Whitewater Independent Counsel Robert Ray said Friday that the Flynn matter was at
the very least a "political scandal of the highest order" and could involve criminal charges if
evidence emerges that officials lied or withheld documents to cover up what happened.
"I imagine there are people who are in the know who may well have knowingly withheld
information from the court and from defense counsel in connection with the Michael Flynn
prosecution,"
Ray told Fox News .
"If it turns out that that can be proved, then there are going to be referrals and
potential false statements, and/or perjury prosecutions to hold those, particularly those in
positions of authority, accountable," he added.
Investigators have created the following timeline of key events through documents produced
piecemeal by the FBI over two years:
April 2014: Flynn is forced out as the chief of DIA by Obama after clashing with the
administration over the Syrian civil war, the rise of ISIS, and other policies. The Obama
administration blames his management style for the departure.
July 31, 2016:
FBI opens Crossfire Hurricane probe into possible ties between Trump campaign and Russia,
focused on Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos. Flynn is not an initial target of that
probe.
Aug. 15, 2016: Strzok and Page engage in their infamous text exchange about having an
insurance policy just in case Trump should be elected. "I want to believe the path you threw
out for consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm
afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die
before you're 40," one text reads.
Aug. 16, 2016: FBI opens a sub-case under the Crossfire Hurricane umbrella codenamed
Crossfire Razor focused on whether Flynn was wittingly or unwittingly engaged in
inappropriate Russian contact.
Aug. 17, 2016: FBI and DNI provide Trump and Flynn first briefing after winning the
nomination, including on Russia. FBI slips in an agent posing as an assistant for the
briefing to secretly get a read on Flynn for the new investigation, according to the
Justice
Department inspector general report on Russia case. "SSA 1 told us that the briefing
provided him 'the opportunity to gain assessment and possibly some level of familiarity with
[Flynn]. So, should we get to the point where we need to do a subject interview ... would
have that to fall back on,'" the IG report said.
Sept, 2, 2016: While preparing a talking points memo for Obama ahead of a conversation
with Russian leader Vladimir Putin involving Russian election interference, Page texts
Strzok that Obama wants to be read-in on everything the FBI is doing on the Russia
collusion case. "POTUS wants to know everything we're doing," Page texted.
Nov. 10, 2016: Two days after Trump won the election, the president-elect meets with
Obama at the White House and the outgoing president encourages the
incoming president not to hire Flynn as an adviser.
Jan. 3, 2017: Strzok and Page engage in the text messages about Obama's daily briefing
and the concerns about giving the Flynn intercept cuts to the White House.
Jan. 4, 2017:
Lead agent in Flynn Crossfire Razor probe prepares closing memo recommending the case be
shut down for lack of derogatory evidence. Strzok texts agent asking him to stop the closing
memo because the "7th floor" leadership of the FBI is now involved.
Jan. 5–23, 2017: FBI prepares to conduct an interview of Flynn. The discussions
lead Priestap, the assistant director, to openly question in his
handwritten notes whether the bureau was "playing games" and trying to get Flynn to lie
so "we can prosecute him or get him fired."
Jan. 24, 2017: FBI conducts interview with Flynn.
Investigators are trying to determine whether Obama asked for the Flynn intercept or it was
offered to him and by whom. They also want to know how many times Comey and Obama talked about
Flynn in December 2016 and January 2017.
"We need to determine what motivated the FBI on Jan. 4, 2017 to overrule its own agent who
believed Flynn was innocent and the probe should be closed," one investigator said.
arrowrod , 26 minutes ago
Grenell comes in for a month, releases a **** load of "secret poop", then is replaced.
President Trump should fire the head of the FBI and replace with Grenell. I know, too
easy.
"Expletive deleted", (I'm looking for new cuss words) the FBI and DOJ appear to be a bunch
of stumble bum hacks, yet continue to get away with murder.
Schiff, lied and lied, but had immunity, because anything said on the house floor is safe
from prosecution. Yet, GOP congress critters didn't go on the house floor and read the
transcript from the testimony of the various liars.
"Rebellion to tyranny is obedience to God."-ThomasJefferson , 3 hours ago
Obama weaponized everything he could, including race, gender, religion, truth, law
enforcement, judiciary, news industry, intelligence community, international allies and
foes.
The most corrupt administration in the history of the republic. The abuse of power is mind
numbing.
Only one way to rectify the damage the Obama administration has done to the USA is to
systematically undo every single thing they touched.
Decimus Lunius Luvenalis , 3 hours ago
The idea that Obama was the center of anything is misdirection. The 'deep state,' as much
as I loathe the term, is nothing but State clerks bent by their sense of self importance,
venality in the adherence to 'rules,' and motivated by either their greed or their
indignation that their status position is merely relative.
Soloamber , 3 hours ago
The motive was to get Flynn fired and lay the ground work to impeach Trump . The problem is Flynn actually did nothing wrong but he was targeted , framed , and
blackmailed into claiming he lied over nothing illegal .
They destroyed his reputation , they financially ruined him and once they did that the sleazy prosecutors ran like rabbits . The judge is so in the bag , he bullied Flynn with implied threats about treason . The Judge is going to get absolutely fragged . Delay delay delay but the jig is up .
DOJ says case dropped and the Judge wants to play prosecutor . The Judge should be investigated along with the other criminals who framed Flynn . Who is the judge tied to ? Gee I wonder .
Nature_Boy_Wooooo , 4 hours ago
"As long as I'm alive the Republican party won't let anything happen to you."
"Thanks John McCain!......now let's set the trap."
"Let's do it Barry."
THORAX , 4 hours ago
The Flynn persecution is just the tip of the iceberg of corruption, illegal surveillance,
perjury, money laundering, skimming and sedition.
subgen , 4 hours ago
One can only imagine all the times Obama weaponized the intelligence agencies against his
political opponents that will never be exposed
sborovay07 , 5 hours ago
John and Sarah Carter have knocked it out of the park since the Obama attempted coup
started. CNN should give their fake Pulitzers too the two reporters who told the truth. It
been like the tree that falls in the forest. However, once the arrests start more people will
see the tree that fell. These treasonists
need to pay for their crimes Bigly.
Omni Consumer Product , 4 hours ago
There's too much spookology here for a jury - much less the public - to decipher.
You need a smoking gun, like a tape of Obama saying "I want General Flynn assassinated
because Orange Man Bad".
In Watergate, the underlying crime was "Nixon spied on the Democrats". Everything else was
just a question of who did what, and how much.
That's what is need here to swell the mass of public opinion. Of course, leftwing true
believers of "the Resistance" will never accept it, but that is what is needed to convince
the significant minority of more centrist Americans who haven't made a final decision
yet.
Lux , 5 hours ago
How come there's never any mention of "London Collusion", as if UK interference in U.S.
politics and society is quite alright -- even when it's highly detrimental?
fackbankz , 5 hours ago
The Crown took us over in 1913. We're just the muscle.
Lord Raglan , 5 hours ago
Brennan went over and met with MI-6 right about the time that Trump announced his
candidacy. I think the whole Russia-Collusion thing was their idea and they put Brennan on to
it. Set it all up for him, complete with a diagram so he wouldn't **** it up. That's what
MI-6 does.
MI-6, like Christopher Steele, hated Trump because they BADLY want World Government. Have
been sabotaging Brexit for years.
Brennan's just not smart or creative enough to have figured out the Hoax on his own. He's
certainly corrupt enough.
flashmansbroker , 4 hours ago
More likely, the Brits were asked to do a favor.
Steele Hammorhands , 5 hours ago
It's easier for me to imagine Obama as puppet than a ringleader. He always seemed to be a
fake, manufactured sort of person. As if he was focus-group-tested and approved.
Side Note: Does anyone remember when Obama referred to himself as "the first US president
from Kenya" and then laughed about it?
I'm afraid it won't matter how thorough the alternative media debunking of Russiagate
becomes – as long as mainstream media sticks to the story, the neoliberal majority will
too, because it is like catnip to them, absolving responsibility for the defeat, casting
Clinton as the victim of an evil foreign despot, and delegitimizing Trump. Truth is tossed to
the wind by this freight train of powerful interests.
I have little hope Barr and Durham will indict anyone high level.
Ray twice mentioned something about Sanders getting hosed again in the 2020 primary. I
thought it seemed weird how suddenly the primary was declared "over." If there is evidence of
DNC shenanigans in 2020, that would be a very interesting and timely topic.
On June 12, Assange announces Wikileaks will soon be releasing "emails pertinent to
Hillary". On June 14th, Crowdstrike announces: someone, probably the Russians, has hacked the
DNC and taken a Trump opposition research document; the very next day, G2.0 makes his first
public appearance and posts the DNC's Trump oppo research document, with "Russian
fingerprints" intentionally implanted in its metadata. (We now know that he had actually
acquired this from PODESTA's emails, where it appears as an attachment – oops!)
Moreover, G2.0 announces that he was the source of the "emails pertinent to Hillary" –
DNC emails – that Assange was planning to release.
This strongly suggests that the G2.0 persona was working in collusion with Crowdstrike to
perpetrate the hoax that the GRU had hacked the DNC to provide their emails to Wikileaks.
Consistent with this, multiple cyberanalyses point to G2.0 working at various points In the
Eastern, Central, and Western US time zones. (A mere coincidence that the DNC is in the
eastern zone, and that Crowdstrike has offices in the central and western zones?)
If Crowdstrike honestly believed that the DNC had been hacked by the GRU, would there have
been any need for them to perpetrate this fraud?
It is therefore reasonable to suspect, as Ray McGovern has long postulated, that
Crowdstrike may have FAKED a GRU hack, to slander Russia and Assange, while distracting
attention from the content of the released emails.
As far as we know, the only "evidence" that Crowdstrike has for GRU being the perpetrator
of the alleged hack is the presence of "Fancy Bear" malware on the DNC server. But as
cyberanalysts Jeffrey Carr and George Eliason have pointed out, this software is also
possessed by Ukrainian hackers working in concert with Russian traitors and the Atlantic
Council – with which the founders of Crowdstrike are allied.
Here's a key question: When Assange announced the impending release of "emails pertinent
to Hillary" on June 12, how did Crowdstrike and G2.0 immediately know he was referring to DNC
emails? Many people – I, for example – suspected he was referring to her deleted
Secretary of State emails.
Here's a reasonable hypothesis – Our intelligence agencies were monitoring all
communications with Wikileaks. If so, they could have picked up the communications between SR
and Wikileaks that Sy Hersh's FBI source described. They then alerted the DNC that their
emails were about to leaked to Wikileaks. The DNC then contacted Crowdstrike, which arranged
for a "Fancy Bear hack" of the DNC servers. Notably, cyberanalysts have determined that about
2/3 of the Fancy Bear malware found on the DNC servers had been compiled AFTER the date that
Crowdstrike was brought in to "roust the hackers".
Of course, this elaborate hoax would have come to grief if the actual leaker had come
forward. Which might have had something to do with the subsequent "botched robbery" in which
SR was slain.
DNC staffer Seth Rich was murdered on July 10, 2016, amid contoversy over who provided DNC
emails to Wikileaks and over a pending lawsuit concerning voter suppression during the 2016
primaries. Wikileaks offered a $20,000 reward for information about his murder, leading some
to believe he was their source for the DNC emails. He was reported to have been a potential
witness in the voter suppression lawsuit filed the day after his death.
The notion of "intractable conflict" is intresting.
Notable quotes:
"... Donald Trump may have exploited the mistrust many conservatives have of mainstream journalism, but this wasn't invented by Trump. Professional journalists are among the least self-aware people around. I remember being at a big national journalism conference back in the 2000s, drinking at the bar with the handful of conservatives in the room, all of us telling stories about the total blindness and bigotry we've seen. I'll tell you, if you have been a minority in a professional space, as conservatives (especially religious conservatives) are in professional journalism, you learn first-hand that there is truth in the oft-heard claim that diversity is important in newsrooms, because it has to do with the kinds of stories we tell. You also learn, though, that most people in journalism see "diversity" as going only one way. ..."
"... Researchers have a name for the kind of divide America is currently experiencing. They call this an "intractable conflict," as social psychologist Peter T. Coleman describes in his book The Five Percent , and it's very similar to the kind of wicked feuds that emerge in about one out of every 20 conflicts worldwide. In this dynamic, people's encounters with the other tribe (political, religious, ethnic, racial or otherwise) become more and more charged. And the brain behaves differently in charged interactions. It's impossible to feel curious, for example, while also feeling threatened. ..."
"... In this hypervigilant state, we feel an involuntary need to defend our side and attack the other. That anxiety renders us immune to new information. In other words: no amount of investigative reporting or leaked documents will change our mind, no matter what. ..."
"... Intractable conflicts feed upon themselves. The more we try to stop the conflict, the worse it gets. These feuds "seem to have a power of their own that is inexplicable and total, driving people and groups to act in ways that go against their best interests and sow the seeds of their ruin," Coleman writes. "We often think we understand these conflicts and can choose how to react to them, that we have options. We are usually mistaken, however. ..."
"... There are people who still trust the media? I'm not trolling here. If you still trust the media, why? ..."
If people believe that the media are not playing it straight, trying to be fair, I would
direct them to
this statement on "diversity, equity, and inclusion" by the Pulitzer Center ,
which administers the Pulitzer Prizes [ UPDATE:
I was wrong; the Pulitzer Center does not administer the Pulitzer Prizes -- Columbia University
does. I apologize for the error -- RD]. This is a big deal. It represents the abdication of
professional journalism standards, and the adoption of those of a left-wing propagandist.
Excerpt:
This is what it sounds like when progressive ideologues in journalism use jargon to talk
themselves into embracing left-wing propaganda strategies as a virtue. I remind you that the
Pulitzer Prize committee this year awarded the
Pulitzer Prize in Commentary to Nikole Hannah-Jones for her role in The 1619 Projec t, the
big New York Times attempt to rewrite the history of the American founding to make it
ideologically useful in advancing progressive identity politics.
I remember around 2004, having a conversation with a fellow conservative journalist, about
how frustrating it was to deal with young conservatives who contacted us wanting advice about
going into journalism as a career. Believe me, if you are a conservative working in the
mainstream media, you dearly want to encourage as many conservatives as you can to join the
profession, to help correct its many biases. The problem with those aspiring young people, my
conservative colleague and I agreed, is that so few of them actually wanted to learn the craft
of journalism. They wanted to become journalists as a form of political activism. This is
exactly the wrong reason to go into journalism, we thought. So many of the problems of American
journalism stem from crusading reporters being more interested in advancing progressive
narratives than in telling the complicated truth about life. But at least the liberals,
whatever their faults, usually respected the craft enough to learn how to do it well.
Now? I could not in good conscience advise young conservatives to go into journalism, at
least not of the mainstream kind. I don't believe the culture of newsrooms today is reformable.
I could be wrong! I haven't worked in a newsroom for eleven years. But I read and listen to the
media all the time, and the kind of biases I routinely saw have gotten worse. Now you have the
Pulitzer Center openly abandoning fairness in favor of "expand[ing] and democratiz[ing] our
narratives" -- Orwellian prog-speak that tells you exactly the kinds of stories they are
committing to tell, and the kinds that they will not tell. Some people are more diverse than
others, you know.
There is a kind of conservative who thinks that if they just keep pointing out to newsroom
leaders the deep inherent biases in their coverage, that the institutions will reform. Does
anybody believe that now? Donald Trump may have exploited the mistrust many conservatives
have of mainstream journalism, but this wasn't invented by Trump. Professional journalists are
among the least self-aware people around. I remember being at a big national journalism
conference back in the 2000s, drinking at the bar with the handful of conservatives in the
room, all of us telling stories about the total blindness and bigotry we've seen. I'll tell
you, if you have been a minority in a professional space, as conservatives (especially
religious conservatives) are in professional journalism, you learn first-hand that there is
truth in the oft-heard claim that diversity is important in newsrooms, because it has to do
with the kinds of stories we tell. You also learn, though, that most people in journalism see
"diversity" as going only one way.
Here's a 2019 piece I discovered recently by Amanda Ripley, about how journalism can tell
stories better. You might think it's a thumb-sucker of a piece, but it's actually good,
even for non-journalists. She writes about how the standard model of conflict-driven journalism
actually does not offer an accurate picture of society's divisions. Ripley ended up
interviewing people who are involved in professional conflict-resolution, and tries to apply
the lessons she learns to the journalism craft. Excerpts:
I'm embarrassed to admit this, but I've been a journalist for over 20 years, writing books
and articles for Time, the Atlantic, the Wall Street Journal and all
kinds of places , and I did not know these lessons. After spending more than 50 hours
in training for various forms of dispute resolution, I realized that I've overestimated my
ability to quickly understand what drives people to do what they do. I have overvalued
reasoning in myself and others and undervalued pride, fear and the need to belong. I've been
operating like an economist, in other words -- an economist from the 1960s.
For decades, economists assumed that human beings were reasonable actors, operating in a
rational world. When people made mistakes in free markets, rational behavior would, it was
assumed, generally prevail. Then, in the 1970s, psychologists like Daniel Kahneman began to
challenge those assumptions. Their experiments showed that humans are subject to all manner
of biases and illusions.
More:
Researchers have a name for the kind of divide America is currently experiencing. They
call this an "intractable conflict," as social psychologist Peter T. Coleman describes in his
book The Five Percent , and it's very similar to the kind of wicked feuds that emerge
in about one out of every 20 conflicts worldwide. In this dynamic, people's encounters with
the other tribe (political, religious, ethnic, racial or otherwise) become more and more
charged. And the brain behaves differently in charged interactions. It's impossible to feel
curious, for example, while also feeling threatened.
In this hypervigilant state, we feel an involuntary need to defend our side and attack
the other. That anxiety renders us immune to new information. In other words: no amount of
investigative reporting or leaked documents will change our mind, no matter what.
Intractable conflicts feed upon themselves. The more we try to stop the conflict, the
worse it gets. These feuds "seem to have a power of their own that is inexplicable and total,
driving people and groups to act in ways that go against their best interests and sow the
seeds of their ruin," Coleman writes. "We often think we understand these conflicts and can
choose how to react to them, that we have options. We are usually mistaken, however.
"
Once we get drawn in, the conflict takes control. Complexity collapses, and the
us-versus-them narrative sucks the oxygen from the room. "Over time, people grow increasingly
certain of the obvious rightness of their views and increasingly baffled by what seems like
unreasonable, malicious, extreme or crazy beliefs and actions of others," according to
training literature from Resetting the Table , an organization that
helps people talk across profound differences in the Middle East and the U.S.
Ripley concludes:
The lesson for journalists (or anyone) working amidst intractable conflict: complicate the
narrative. First, complexity leads to a fuller, more accurate story. Secondly, it boosts the
odds that your work will matter -- particularly if it is about a polarizing issue. When
people encounter complexity, they become more curious and less closed off to new information.
They listen, in other words.
There are many ways to complicate the narrative, as described in detail under the six
strategies below. But the main idea is to feature nuance, contradiction and ambiguity
wherever you can find it. This does not mean calling advocates for both sides and quoting
both; that is simplicity, and it usually backfires in the midst of conflict. "Just providing
the other side will only move people further away," Coleman says. Nor does it mean creating a
moral equivalence between neo-Nazis and their opponents. That is just simplicity in a cheap
suit. Complicating the narrative means finding and including the details that don't fit the
narrative -- on purpose.
The idea is to revive complexity in a time of false simplicity. "The problem with
stereotypes is not that they are untrue but that they are incomplete," novelist Chimamanda
Ngozi Adichie says in her mesmerizing TED Talk "A Single Story." "[I]t's impossible to engage
properly with a place or a person without engaging with all of the stories of that place and
that person."
But there is also a very practical reason Rogan can say whatever he thinks: He is an
individual and not an organization. Eric Weinstein ,
another podcaster and a friend of Rogan, told me, "It's the same reason that a contractor can
wear a MAGA hat on a job and an employee inside Facebook headquarters cannot: There is no HR
department at 'The Joe Rogan Experience'."
"When you have something that can't get canceled, you can be free," said Rogan.
The ability to be free of censorship is perhaps the thing Rogan prizes most -- and he's
very concerned about censorship, especially inside the tech companies that control the most
powerful forms of mass communication the world has ever seen.
I'm not a podcast listener, except when I'm driving (very little of that in the past three
months), but the few times I've listened to Rogan makes it easy to get why he's got such a
massive audience. He brings real curiosity to his interviews with guests. You never really know
what he's going to ask, but you know that for all his many quirks (e.g., he's a pothead), Rogan
is a real person who has genuine curiosity in the people to whom he speaks. Weiss writes:
His whole ethos -- curious; not particularly ideological; biased toward things that work;
baffled by the state of both parties -- is where so many Americans are right now. And that's
his power. He's a mirror, when so many publications are broken glass, capable of reflecting
only a shard.
Amen to that. Joe Rogan is one of the most popular and influential media figures in America,
but he could never be hired at an American newspaper. Seriously, the little Robespierres in the
cubicles would raise hell, and the lily-livered managers (like college presidents) would
capitulate. Alas for journalism. Rogan is interesting because he's interested in the world as
he finds it, not as a screen onto which to project his ideological convictions.
There was a time when American journalism felt like that. It's mostly why I became
interested in doing it for a living. If a young person was genuinely interested in journalism
for the right reasons, the ascent of Joe Rogan offers hope. We don't need every journalist to
be Joe Rogan. We need people who have been trained in the craft of investigative reporting, for
example, and professional standards. But we need investigative reporters, and features writers,
and national staffers, and everyone else in a standard newsroom, who can be more like Joe
Rogan, approaching the world with curiosity, not an agenda, a chip on their shoulder, and
fraudulent rationalizations for why the propagandistic approach they take to their work is
actually morally and professionally correct. These are educated liberals talking to educated
urban liberals about Things Educated Urban Liberals Believe. Who cares?
The Pulitzer Center is not the future of journalism. Thank God. The pothead podcaster's
success probably is. That's good news. Look:
In my 7 years & 400,000 miles spent in lower income neighborhoods, talking to
countless people, nobody ever mentioned the NYTimes, WP, or CNN, beyond a few unflattering
remarks. Everyone mentioned Radio, YouTube, & Instagram personalities. And Joe Rogan
https://t.co/RmwsjksfmK
I'm glad you included a Chris Arnade tweet. Arnade's book DIGNITY is great for exactly this
reason: he doesn't go in with an Agenda or a Story in mind -- he just wants to talk to
people, understand a bit about their lives, and record what they have to say and a little
bit of their story.
Until reading Arnade's book, I didn't realize how much virtually all mainstream media
reporting on downtrodden Americans is Agenda-driven. A professional reporter goes in
thinking: What's the Problem here, and what's the Solution? What's the Narrative? (e.g.
"opioids," "homelessness," "federal programs") and they craft their reporting around the
Narrative. But it seems like Arnade's not necessarily committed to a particular Agenda,
other than learning a little bit about people and making a little bit of a connection.
Rogan has an uncanny ability to get his guests talk about really complex subjects in a
clear way. Part of it is no time limit, he has the freedom to allow an answer to his
question to run for as long as needed.
This also belies the “no attention span” narrative about (especially) young
people. I get my clues about specific Rogan episodes from the MMA crowd, skewing young for
obvious reasons, and they have no problem listening to long stretches of complex
information about subjects that interest them. There was an episode when Rogan interviewed
Pavel Tsatsouline about intricacies of endurance training, for example. Riveting
conversation using words like “mitochondria” and such. Credit to Pavel of
course, but Rogan was the one steering the conversation.
Turns out maybe there’s a correlation between “reduced attention span”
and “crappy talking points-regurgitating journalism devoid of original thinking and
basic competency”.
You are sort of right, but Donald Trump has been a huge financial benefit to the mainstream
news business, which gives them a huge financial incentive as well as views/clicks
incentive to continue doing what they are doing. There is certainly a huge liberal bias in
the MSN, but that is not the reason they suck so bad at their job. They could pursue the
truth and nuance while still having a leftward bias (they also have a pro business and pro
war bias), but they don't. Instead they provide drama, outrage, and fear mongering with a
liberal bias. This has been going on for my entire life. In the 90s as a teenager I was
appalled by the vapidity and over dramatization I saw every day on the nightly news. It
hasn't gotten better. There is still good journalism going on, sometimes with a liberal
bias and sometimes with a conservative bias, but it is not generating the views and clicks
that news about the "End of Civilization!" does. Joe Rogan can do whatever he wants because
he already has a built in audience. Journalists that actually worry about their jobs and
their incomes have to make sure they have enough twitter followers and that they are
generating the clicks/views they need.
Donald Trump and the Mainstream Media have become two forms of the same memetic parasite,
the
Toxoplasma of Rage .
To wit:
Toxoplasma is a neat little parasite that is implicated in a couple of human diseases
including schizophrenia. Its life cycle goes like this: it starts in a cat. The cat poops
it out. The poop and the toxoplasma get in the water supply, where they are consumed by
some other animal, often a rat. The toxoplasma morphs into a rat-compatible form and
starts reproducing. Once it has strength in numbers, it hijacks the rat’s brain,
convincing the rat to hang out conspicuously in areas where cats can eat it. After a cat
eats the rat, the toxoplasma morphs back into its cat compatible form and reproduces some
more. Finally, it gets pooped back out by the cat, completing the cycle.
What would it mean for a meme to have a life cycle as complicated as toxoplasma?
Consider the war on terror. They say that every time the United States bombs Pakistan
or Afghanistan or somewhere, all we’re doing is radicalizing the young people there
and making more terrorists. Those terrorists then go on to kill Americans, which makes
Americans get very angry and call for more bombing of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Taken as a meme, it’s a single parasite with two hosts and two forms. In an
Afghan host, it appears in a form called ‘jihad’, and hijacks its host into
killing himself in order to spread it to its second, American host. In the American host
it morphs in a form called ‘the war on terror’, and it hijacks the Americans
into giving their own lives (and tax dollars) to spread it back to its Afghan host in the
form of bombs.
From the human point of view, jihad and the War on Terror are opposing forces. From
the memetic point of view, they’re as complementary as caterpillars and
butterflies. Instead of judging, we just note that somehow we accidentally created a
replicator, and replicators are going to replicate until something makes them stop.
I thought the point was to move away from simplistic models. You've followed the rejected
model perfectly, a simplistic (and doubtful) model which blames the out-group while
granting heroic satus to the in-group.
This history of jihad shows that any excuse will do. Including no excuse. The bombs we drop
in retaliation may help, they may not, but either way, that's a short-term effect.
Long-term, they don't need that excuse. Heck, they still list the loss of Andalusia as a
grievance against the West.
Because they are pretty damn good at what they do, every thing you know about China,
Korea, Japan, Mexico, Europe, Africa and the rest of the world, you learned from the media.
Fox, MSNBC & CNN are but a tiny fraction of the media, they and local news are also the
media outlets who spend most of their time dumbing things down for their US audience and
producing programming for the least amount of money possible. (BTW CNN International does a
far better job than CNN).
The NYT, WSJ, BBC, CBC, WP, NPR and various other news outlets do a pretty good job of
letting you know what the world outside your little corner of the world looks like. If you
want to travel to country you've never visited before you can go to your local library and
get country X for dummies and you'll know the basics (currency, language, historic
monuments, cities to visit, local food specialties,etc...)
If you know what the GDP per capita of Japan or China is, thank the media. If you know
approximately how many people have died from the corona virus, thank the media. If you know
how many Iraqis died during our last invasion of Iraq, thank the media.
Centrist libs in my experience trust the media, except when it criticizes centrist liberal
politicians. I am not joking.
The reason is that it reflects their worldview. The NYT, for instance, is pretty clearly
written for upper middle class moderate liberals. Rod will choke at the “
moderate”, but I am not talking about sexual or racial politics. You can be as woke
as you want on that and be opposed to single payer health care.
If you express skepticism about the media with centrist libs, they say you are like
Trump or that it is an example of horseshoe theory, where the far right and far left are
the same. You are showing that you are irrational.
Speaking from experience.
Generally agree, there's a lot of good stuff to chew on here.
- It's interesting to see a decline in trust "on both sides" with "our favorite media"
(declining trust among Democrats in the New York Times and MSNBC, declining trust among
Republicans in Fox News and WSJ). It would be interesting to hear from "both sides" why
they trust "their side media" less. (i.e., I'm not interested in hearing from Republicans
why trust in the NYT is declining, we already know what they think, I'm interested in
hearing from Democrats why they think trust in NYT is declining among Democrats, and if
their reason is the same as the reason that Republicans give, or something else - like do
Democrats say that the NYT is too liberal because of things like the 1619 Project, or not
liberal enough because they haven't done enough other things like the 1619 Project?)
- I think Joe Rogan does point to a future business model in an era of declining trust in
institutions - on many fronts, super-influencers are going to be competing with
institution-backed credentialed experts and professionals. As long and the influencers can
maintain their credibility and following, coupled with a feasible business model and low
barriers to entry (it will probably be easier to break into journalism as an amateur than,
say, becoming an amateur brain surgeon). But there are many possibilities besides
journalism.
- I think the "curiosity" makes a great journalist. As a long-term reader of this blog,
I've actually been wondering if you've ever considered interviewing a Woke activist or
LGBTQ activist out of a curiosity of what motivates such a person, what do they say they
believe and want, and to see if you can find anything that complicates your narrative of
"Woke/LGBT Totalitarianism"? I know you quote the words and deeds of such activists all the
time, but have you recently (or ever) had an hour-long interview with one of these people
with the intent of finding non-intuitive things that add complexity to the story (per
Ripley)? I would find that approach very interesting (out of my own curiosity, of course)
do Democrats say that the NYT is too liberal because of things like the 1619 Project, or
not liberal enough because they haven't done enough other things like the 1619
Project?)
The problem is not that the 1619 Project is too liberal, it's that the project is too
dishonest. Everyone has a limit for what level of partisan hackery they can put up with
even if they are teammates.
As far as the print media goes, money plays a big role in its decline. Thirty years
in-depth analyses and lengthy detailed features could be found in any big city newspaper.
Today, there's none of that-- because the newspapers can't afford it. I once could spend a
pleasant Sunday afternoon with the local Sunday edition, and then with the New York Times.
It takes me about twenty minutes max to go through the Sunday paper now-- maybe ten more if
I count the comics and the coupons. And I haven't bought a copy of the NYT in many years.
With Democrats and the NYT, you will find very different reasons.
People on the far left never trusted the NYT in the first place. The centrist libs
don’t like it because they think the NYT is or was too quick to write critical
stories about Clinton or other Democrats — I have seen that complaint.
"I'm interested in hearing from Democrats why they think trust in NYT is declining among
Democrats, and if their reason is the same as the reason that Republicans give, or
something else - like do Democrats say that the NYT is too liberal because of things like
the 1619 Project, or not liberal enough because they haven't done enough other things like
the1619 Project?)"
I'm a long-time subscriber to the Times, and one of the things I did immediately after
Trump's inauguration was subscribe to the Wall Street Journal for six months. I wanted to
have a fuller picture of what was going on than the one I'd get from reading the Times
alone. More recently, I've found myself skimming over the NYT op-eds, not bothering to
click the headlines (with one or two exceptions, Ross Douhat being one of them, Nicholas
Kristof being another). I despise Trump and think he's unfit for office, but is it really
possible that Trump has never implemented one good policy as president? Has his presidency
been a total and unmitigated disaster from Day One? My heart and the Times say yes, but the
facts and some of my conservative friends say no, not entirely. (Until COVID--but that's
another story.) So I read the Times, but I already know the slant nearly every story and
op-ed will take. (And I'm no longer surprised when the Times publishes an editorial about
the military and white supremacy over the Memorial Day weekend.)
I was troubled by the 1619 Project because it struck me as deeply flawed in its
premises, and I say this as someone who believes that America has yet to fully reckon with
its legacy of slavery and that without slave labor the U.S. would have never become the
economic force that it's historically been. I say this--brace yourselves--as someone who
would like to see reparations made (I just have no idea how it can be done). But when
Nikole Hannah-Jones was awarded the Pulitzer, I felt my blood pressure go up a little.
Because that Pulitzer settled it and certified it--the 1619 Project is good history. It
will be taught in schools. And that makes me and my bleeding little heart feel kind of
crazy.
My point--and I do have one--is, no, I don't trust the Times as much as I used to
because I think it has an agenda beyond reporting the news with as little bias as possible.
I find some comfort in knowing that I'm not the only Democrat who feels that way.
I understand the Republican decline in trust in the media, but the Democratic decline (even
though modest) is striking. It makes me wonder what factors are driving it?
I mean, have you watched the news? Have they done anything this century to make you think
they are not just hysterical buffoons? I say this as someone with a strong leftwing bias.
A lot of us who identify with the Democratic Party are socialists who do so out of
convenience (so we can vote for Democratic Socialist candidates and promote our views
within the party.).
To a lot of us, the mainstream liberal media is a fundamentally hostile institution. A
lot of this is because it is dedicated towards preserving the establishment and established
norms we need to break down. Their relentless promotion of the foreign policy establishment
is a good example of this.
Another problem is the capitalist basis of these publications, meaning the news is often
aggressively selling either a product, or the ideology of capitalism itself through its
coverage, working to separate the working classes through identity politics, and burying
anything that might lead to looking too closely at class based issues in America.
Just as the liberal news media isn’t publishing their articles with you
conservatives in mind as their audience, is socialists are very much not their audience
either.
The press used to be liberal, as in, plain old liberals. But today, they are leftists, and
leftists and liberals used to be very different categories of politics. You could talk to
liberals ...liberals were just, "Hey, let's use government to make the world a better
place."
And the conservatives would say, "OK, but we really need to watch out that we don't make
things worse despite good intentions." Liberals could be arrogant, but not even in the same
class as leftists today. Liberals did still some real damage (Vietnam, housing projects,
affirmative action, 70s crime), but there was also some good (environmentalism, OSHA, labor
standards).
You can't talk to leftists. To a leftist, plain old liberalism was considered
reactionary. They didn't distinguish much between Pat Moynihan and Ayn Rand.
So the Pulitzer Center's statement of principles is pure critical theory, that is, wacko
leftism.
And it's a shame ... because leftists despite their great passion for justice literally
have no idea what they are doing, except damage in every possible way, and in no way
pursuing actual justice. There is no end game except destruction of this polity and its
replacement by something with far less freedom.
This is just painfully confused. Conservatives who talk about the different factions on the
left make about as much sense as the typical liberal talking about different factions on
the right.
If you followed the fights online between Sanders supporters ( leftists by any rational
definition) and supporters of other Democrats, you would see more of the extreme wokeness
on the mainstream Democratic side being used to demonize the Sanders movement for caring
about class. Rogan endorsed Sanders— which side would you expect the “
woke” element to have been on there? Sanders went to a conservative religious college
and spoke ( I forgot which one).
Mainstream liberals are often the ones most ferocious in their denunciation of any Trump
voter— leftists are more likely to think that some working class Trump voters could
be won over and might have legitimate grievances.
My media consumption habits have changed quite a bit. Never watch "news" anymore, except
the local weather occasionally. I check in with Rogan on occasion because he has
interesting guests, and often asks the kinds of questions I've been thinking about. But
mostly I'm watching longer form podcasts, or reading history. I'm on the final book of the
Teddy Roosevelt trilogy, and about to start Tom Holland's "Dominion." Anyway, Rod, I think
you should give the bald look a go. Maybe coincide the change with the promo of your new
book? Huh, whaddya think?
With the rise of Trump, the legacy media stopped even trying to pretend to be objective.
That is not to say that certain of Trump's obsessions are justified. Moreover, the
obvious bias merely gives Trump ammunition, even as it underscores the decline of the
legacy media into impotence.
MSM will double down on their hysterical lying propaganda because that's all these
Neo-Marxist useful idiots know how to do. Their half-dozen fat cat overlords that control
90% of the news flow in the US will be just fine, though, in their collusion with the DNC.
It's all of a piece, you know. A pox on them, I say.
The last three pieces that you have posted are truly a home run! You are really becoming
a sage. Thank you for all three of them.
When I read the piece on Trump's Tweets I remember that I was thinking the other day on
your interest on him originally, was for the goal of appointing conservative Judges on the
SCOTUS and ultimately how misguided and how ultimately undemocratic this approach is.
The undemocratic quibble comes from the numbers' game we end up being caught on.
Presently the US is categorized as a Constitutional Representative Republic, with a certain
sandbox where rules are set (very efficiently set up by FPTP and especially by the
electoral college where un-elected people vote on the US CEO) and decisions are made based
on how educated and informed citizens cast their votes. Any educated and informed and
intelligent person in this world knows in her/his bones that presently the US is an
Oligarchic run Empire, that has been excoriated and exposed many a times quite convincingly
here at TAC. Several of the present postings by other TAC staff indicate this.
As such, the fool's game of putting conservative judges on SCOTUS will not further your
interests. Same as Pulitzer Prize's mandate, the SCOTUS mandate is to maintain deep
divisions within the American Electorate such that matters than truly are important are
never, ever even considered, never mind addressed.
Thus, you are misguided to rely on SCOTUS for helping and use a legalistic approach on
people. We all know that the Law can be an ass and that one cannot legislate morals.
But there is no replacement for pieces like the last three pieces that you have posted,
very thoughtful but introspective in a sense, because you also put yourself under scrutiny
(Gorgias: know thyself), but there is also a genuine honesty and conviction on the actual
values you are defending. You continue on this righteous path, and at the end of your line
we'll be able to get a final and true measure of your success. The measure of success will
be in how many people at large you convinced to embrace your values (hope that pro-choice
will still be more popular). The more the merrier and full of praise the eulogies for you
should be. But that will still be only half the battle if your beloved country will remain
a Corrupt Demagogic Oligarchic Republic (
https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/on... where you have One Dollar, One Vote.
Something is not right here. We are told that Joe Rogan has carved out a pretty big niche
for himself because there's no Human Resources department involved, because he is not
utterly controlled and managed by our society and its shibboleth enforcers. And yet we are
pointed towards this article about better journalism that recommends this:
Once we get drawn in, the conflict takes control. Complexity collapses, and the
us-versus-them narrative sucks the oxygen from the room. “Over time, people grow
increasingly certain of the obvious rightness of their views and increasingly baffled by
what seems like unreasonable, malicious, extreme or crazy beliefs and actions of
others,” according to training literature from Resetting the Table, an
organization that helps people talk across profound differences in the Middle East and the
U.S.
Look at that! "Training literature" (just LOL at the use of the word "literature" here,
a dead giveaway that one is dealing with soulless managerial technocrats when this word is
used for workplace and social hygiene manuals) produced by an "organization" that does
conflict resolution. The solution to journalism's problem is apparently more Human
Resources -- we don't have enough!
This is something like the mentality that says we'll have a real class revolution by
reading and hiring socialist Ivy League graduates whose big-city rent is subsidized by
Mommy and Daddy who are corporate lawyers or high-ups at Boeing. Or like the mentality that
if the Republicans just appoint one more Harvard or Yale Law grad with an impeccable ruling
class bio to the Supreme Court, the sacred-to-the-regime rights to abortion and gay
marriage will be overturned. The very structure of the "solution" involves empowering the
people who are the most dedicated to or even structurally created (in a social sense, so to
speak) by the problem.
The idea is to revive complexity in a time of false simplicity. “The problem
with stereotypes is not that they are untrue but that they are incomplete,” novelist
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie says in her mesmerizing TED Talk “A Single Story.”
“[I]t’s impossible to engage properly with a place or a person without engaging
with all of the stories of that place and that person.”
This strikes me as banal mush, utterly predictable, something I've heard a million times
before. We are all Unique. We have so many Stories. It seems to me the issue is not "we're
not telling enough stories, we're not including enough details" but "are the
stories/details any good?" The idea that we need more detail, we need Complexity -- sounds
like an academic, and we all know academics are AWFUL storytellers! Simplicity Bad,
Complexity Good -- no, this isn't quite right, or at least not enough. It's the opposite of
being discerning, or discriminating. Just as the religion of the era is Non-Discrimination,
so do we see this idea that we "need to engage with all of the stories of that place and
that person," we supposedly need More Voices, we need this kind of leveling mush, this sort
of Primordial Ooze. It is a sort of paradox that Camille Paglia is very, very good on --
when you add more and more "complexity" you might just end up with a bland, dull, empty,
shapeless mass of nothing, like much academese. Whereas art is about Drawing the Line,
sculpture is about cutting away everything that isn't the subject. Perhaps Rogan is just
good at cutting through the b.s. to reveal something actually interesting about the people
he interviews?
I don't listen to podcasts, and it's just not the medium for me, but it sounds like
Rogan is somebody who won (at least for now?) the endless battle with the managers and the
Human Resources types, somebody who did it "his way." A very few people do, most of course
don't. I suppose this is probably a perpetual problem/conflict that never goes away,
although I think some periods must be better and some worse. Deindustrialization,
decadence, affluenza, scientism, globalization, nepotism, and feminism--no doubt others
things, too!-- have probably all helped to make the Current Era a particularly over-managed
and conformist period (with corresponding irritated reactions to that managerialism).
And will the end result be an even smaller set of bubbles within which people will stay
lest they hear/see something which goes against their bias? Will we descend to a Hobbsean
"war of all against all"? Because that is what happens when every faction has a complete
world of their own, complete with their own facts, shibboleths, and genealogies.
Perhaps the reason we don't find any alien civilizations broadcasting from Out There is
because their societies already discovered the Internet and Social Media and dissolved into
the thing we seem to be headed toward -- maggots disputing possession of a corpse.
Because distrust of the institutions which hold society together, and disdain for
continuity and stability will assuredly "inherit the wind".
These mantras of progressivism have no comfortable home in our institutions — yet,
settled in is the infection of the latter by the former — which thus acts like the
most aggressive form of an incurable cancer. An aerial view of this forest might better
encapsulate the horror of its individual trees alight, together.
The major legacy papers and networks simply no longer report, and people know it. They're
advocates for one side, plain and simple. They report the things that support their
previously held convictions. People see this and recognize it, and are simply not as dumb
as editors think. I used up open up a dozen newspapers and magazines a day, and I literally
have not looked at Washington Post, NYT, Atlantic, NPR, CNN, etc. in years now unless
someone sends me something. I work in and around politics, so I compare headlines with what
actually is going on, and have been a media skeptic for some time, but it's very telling to
me when my wife, who doesn't really follow any of this stuff tells me the other day, "I
simply don't believe anything I read in these headlines any more." And how could you?
Everything is about how they can make Trump look bad. They are truly obsessed. They write
headlines about things that are genuinely debatable, if now unknowable, as if they're fact.
And they all repeat the same bogus statistics and examples. I think a lot of these
publications are just irreparably broken, and maybe even dead and just don't know it yet.
Obama ears protrude above this whole revaval of McCarthysim. he should end like the senator
McCarthy -- disgraced. And the damage caused by RussiaGate was already done and is
irrevocable.
CrowdStrike – the forensic investigation firm hired by the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) to inspect its computer servers in 2016 – admitted to Congressional
investigators as early as 2017 that it had no direct evidence of Russian hacking, recently
declassified documents show.
CrowdStrike's president Shawn Henry testified, "There's not evidence that [documents and
emails] were actually exfiltrated [from the DNC servers]. There's circumstantial evidence but
no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated." This was a crucial revelation because the
thousand ships of Russiagate launched upon the positive assertion that CrowdStrike had
definitely proven a Russian hack. This sworn admission has been hidden from the public for over
two years, and subsequent commentary has focused on that singular outrage.
The next deductive step, though, leads to an equally crucial point: Circumstantial evidence
of Russian hacking is itself flimsy and collapses when not propped up by a claim of conclusive
forensic testing.
THE COVER UP.
On March 19, 2016, Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta, surrendered his emails
to an unknown entity in a "spear phishing" scam. This has been called a "hack," but it was not.
Instead, it is was the sort of flim-flam hustle that happens to gullible dupes on the
internet.
The content of the emails was beyond embarrassing. They
showed election fraud and coordination with the media against the candidacy of Bernie
Sanders. The DNC and the Clinton campaign needed a cover story.
There already existed in Washington brooding suspicion that Vladimir Putin was working to
influence elections in the West. The DNC and the Clinton campaign set out to retrofit that
supposition to explain the emails.
On January 16, 2016, a silk-stocking Washington D.C. think tank, The Atlantic Council
(remember that name), had issued a
dispatch under the banner headline: "US Intelligence Agencies to Investigate Russia's
Infiltration of European Political Parties."
The lede was concise: "American intelligence agencies are to conduct a major investigation
into how the Kremlin is infiltrating political parties in Europe, it can be revealed."
There followed a series of pull quotes from an article that appeared in the The Telegraph ,
including that "James Clapper, the US Director of National Intelligence" was investigating
whether right wing political movements in Europe were sourced in "Russian meddling."
The dispatch spoke of "A dossier" that revealed "Russian influence operations" in Europe.
This was the first time trippy words like "Russian meddling" and "dossier" would appear
together in the American lexicon.
Most importantly, the piece revealed the Obama administration was spying on conservative
European political parties. This means, almost necessarily under the Five
Eyes Agreement , foreign agents were returning the favor and spying on the Trump
campaign.
Blaming Russia would be a handy way to deal with the Podesta emails. The problem was the
technologically impossibility of identifying the perpetrator in a phishing scheme. The only way
to associate Putin with the emails was circumstantially. The DNC retained CrowdStrike to
provide assistance.
On June 12, 2016, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
announced : "We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton . . . We have emails
pending publication."
Two days later, CrowdStrike fed the Washington Post a
story , headlined, "Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on
Trump."
The improbable tale was that the Russians had hacked the DNC computer servers and got away
with some opposition research on Trump. The article quoted CrowdStrike's chief technology
officer and co-founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, who also happens to be a senior fellow at the
Atlantic Council.
The next day, a new blog – Guccifer 2.0 – appeared on the
internet and announced:
Worldwide known cyber security company CrowdStrike announced that the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) servers had been hacked by "sophisticated" hacker groups.
I'm very pleased the company appreciated my skills so highly))) But in fact, it was easy,
very easy.
Guccifer may have been the first one who penetrated Hillary Clinton's and other Democrats'
mail servers. But he certainly wasn't the last. No wonder any other hacker could easily get
access to the DNC's servers.
Shame on CrowdStrike: Do you think I've been in the DNC's networks for almost a year and
saved only 2 documents? Do you really believe it?
Here are just a few docs from many thousands I extracted when hacking into DNC's
network.
Guccifer 2.0 posted hundreds of pages of Trump opposition research allegedly hacked from the
DNC and emailed copies to Gawker and The Smoking Gun . In raw form, the opposition research was
one of the documents obtained in the Podesta emails, with a notable difference: It was widely
reported the document now contained "
Russian fingerprints ."
The document had been cut and pasted into a separate Russian Word template that yielded
an abundance of Russian "error "messages . In the
document's metadata was the name of the Russian secret police founder, Felix Dzerzhinsky,
written in the Russian language. The three-parenthesis formulation from the original post ")))"
is the Russian version of a smiley face used
commonly on social media. In addition, the blog's author deliberately used a Russian
VPN service visible in its emails even though there would have been many options to hide
national affiliation.
CrowdStrike would later test the computers and declare this to be the work of sophisticated
Russian spies. Alperovitch described it as, " skilled operational tradecraft ."
There is nothing skilled, though, in ham-handedly disclosing a Russian identity on the
internet when trying to hide it. The more reasonable inference is that this was a set-up. It
certainly looks like Guccifer 2.0 suddenly appeared in coordination with the Washington Post 's
article that appeared the previous day.
THE FRAME UP.
Knowing as we now do that CrowdStrike never corroborated a hack by forensic analysis, the
reasonable inference is that somebody was trying to frame Russia. Most likely, the entities
that spent three years falsely leading the world to believe that direct evidence of a hack
existed – CrowdStrike and the DNC – were the ones involved in the frame-up.
Lending weight to this theory: at the same moment CrowdStrike was raising a false Russian
flag, a different entity, Fusion GPS – also paid by the DNC – was inventing a
phony dossier that ridiculously connected Trump to Russia.
Somehow, the ruse worked.
Rather than report the content of the incriminating emails, the watchdog press instead
reported CrowdStrike's bad explanation: that Putin-did-it.
Incredibly, Trump was placed on the defensive for email leaks that showed his opponent
fixing the primaries. His campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, was forced to resign because a
fake ledger suddenly appeared out of Ukraine connecting him to Russia.
Trump protested by stating the obvious: the federal government has "no idea" who was behind
the hacks. The FBI and CIA called him a liar, issuing a "
Joint Statement " that cited Guccifer 2.0, suggesting 17 intelligence agencies agree that
it was the Russians.
Hillary Clinton took advantage of this "intelligence assessment" in the October debate to
portray Trump as Putin's stooge"
"We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that
these espionage attacks, these cyber-attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin.
And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing,"
said Clinton.
The media's fact checkers
excoriated Trump for lying. This was the ultimate campaign dirty trick: a joint operation
by the intelligence agencies and the media against a political candidate. It has since been
learned that the "17 intelligence agencies" claptrap was always
false . Those responsible for the exaggeration were James Clapper, James Comey and John
Brennan.
Somehow, Trump won anyway.
Those who assert that it is a "conspiracy theory" to say that CrowdStrike would fabricate
the results of computer forensic testing to create a false Russian flag should know that it was
caught doing exactly that around the time it was inspecting the DNC computers.
On Dec. 22, 2016, CrowdStrike caused an international stir when it claimed to have uncovered
evidence that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery computer app to help pro-Russian
separatists. Voice of America later determined the claim
was false , and CrowdStrike retracted its finding. Ukraine's Ministry of Defense was forced
to eat crow and admit that the hacking never happened. If you wanted a computer testing firm to
fabricate a Russian hack for political reasons in 2016, CrowdStrike was who you went out and
hired.
Perhaps most insidiously, the Obama administration played the phony Russian interference
card during the transition to try to end Trump's presidency before it started. As I
wrote in December 2017:
Michael Flynn was indicted for a conversation he had with the Russian ambassador on
December 28, 2016, seven weeks after the election.
That was the day after the outgoing president expelled 35 Russian diplomats -- including
gardeners and chauffeurs -- for interfering in the election. Yes, that really happened.
The Obama administration had wiretapped Flynn's conversation with the ambassador, hoping
to find him saying something they could use to support their wild story about collusion.
The outrage, for some reason, is not that an outgoing administration was using wiretaps to
listen in on a successor's transition. It is that Flynn might have signaled to the Russians
that the Trump administration would have a different approach to foreign policy.
How dare Trump presume to tell an armed nuclear state to stand down because everyone in
Washington was in a state of psychological denial that he was elected?
Let's establish one thing early here: It is okay for an incoming administration to
communicate its foreign policy preferences during a transition even if they differ from the
lame duck administration .
.If anything, Flynn was too reserved in his conversation with the Russian ambassador. He
should have said, "President-elect Trump believes this Russian collusion thing is a fantasy
and these sanctions will be lifted on his first day in office."
That would have been perfectly legal. It also happens to be what FBI Director Comey and
the rest were hoping Flynn would do. They wanted to get a Trump official on tape making an
accommodation to the Russians.
The accommodation would then be cited to suggest a quid pro quo that proved the
nonexistent collusion. Instead, Flynn was uncharacteristically noncommittal in his
conversation with the ambassador. Drat!
They did have a transcript of what he said, though. This is where the tin-pot dictator
behavior of Comey is fully displayed. He invited Flynn to be interviewed by the FBI,
supposedly about Russian collusion to steal the election.
If you're Flynn, you say, "Sure, I want to tell you 15 different ways that there was no
collusion and when do you want to meet."
What Flynn did not know was that the purpose of the interview had nothing to do with the
election. It would be a test pitting Flynn's memory against the transcript.
Think about that for a moment. Comey did not need to ask Flynn what was said in the
conversation with the ambassador -- he had a transcript. The only reason to ask Flynn about
it was to cross him up.
That is the politicization of the FBI. It is everything Trump supporters rail against when
they implore him to drain the swamp. The inescapable conclusion is that the FBI set a trap
for the incoming national security advisor to affect the foreign policy of the newly elected
president.
Flynn made the mistake of not being altogether clear about what he had discussed with the
ambassador. In his defense, he did not believe he was sitting there to tell the FBI how the
Trump administration was dealing with Russia going forward. The conversation was supposed to
be about the election.
He certainly did not think the FBI would unmask his comments in a FISA wiretap and compare
them to his answers. That would be illegal.
Exhibit 5 to the DOJ's recent Motion to Dismiss the Flynn indictment confirms the Obama
administration's bad faith in listening in on his conversation with the ambassador. The
plotters admit , essentially,
that they looked at the transcript to see whether Flynn said anything that caused Russia to
stand-down. Had General Flynn promised to lift the sanctions, the Obama administration would
have claimed it was the pro quo that went with the quid of Putin's interference.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/KeSHRR5bMr0
After Trump's inauguration, the FBI and Justice Department launched a special counsel
investigation that accepted, as a given, CrowdStrike's dubious conclusion that Russia had
interfered in the election. The only remaining question was whether Trump himself colluded in
the interference. There followed a two-year inquiry that did massive political damage to Trump
and the movement that put him in office.
Tucker Carlson rightly made Trey Gowdy squirm recently for Republican acquiescence in the shoddy
underpinnings of the Russia hoax. It was not only Gowdy, though. Establishment
politicians and
pundits have been all too willing for years to wallow in fabricated
Russian intrigue , at the expense of the Trump presidency.
This perfectly illustrates Republican perfidy: Gifted with undeserved victory in a
generational realignment that they were dragged to kicking and screaming, they proceed to
question its source and validity. Because if Trump was a product of KGB- esque intrigue, then
Hillary was a victim of meddling. Trump was a hapless beneficiary. The deplorables were not
only racist losers, they were also Putin's unwitting stooges.
As I first noted
in December 2016, the Washington establishment deliberately set out to fan Russian anxiety to
conduct war against the Trump administration. Perhaps it is time to admit that those of us
chided as " crazies
" who doubted Russian interference – including Trump
himself – were right all along.
In the after-action assessment of what went wrong, it should be noted that non-insiders are
the ones who have called this from the beginning, in places like
here ,
here ,
here , here
, and here . That
is partly what the president means when he Tweets support for his " keyboard warriors ." As
Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany pointed out on Friday, the
White House press corps has completely missed the story.
Thank you to all of my great Keyboard Warriors. You are better, and far more brilliant,
than anyone on Madison Avenue (Ad Agencies). There is nobody like you!
-- Donald J. Trump
(@realDonaldTrump) May 15,
2020
This scandal is huge, much bigger than Watergate, and compromising in its resolution is
destructive. If Republicans continue to stupidly concede phony
Russian intrigue , the plotters
will say they were justified to investigate it.
The recent CrowdStrike testimony drop ended any chance at middle ground. This was a rank
political operation and indicting a few FBI agents is not going to resolve anything.
CrowdStrike's circumstantial evidence that launched this probe is ridiculous. We'll soon
know if the Durham investigation has the will to defy powerful insiders of both parties and say
so.
As I pointed out in my 29 above about the front page noting the names and occupations of
1,000 of the 100,000 that have needlessly died due to Trump's Treasonous Do Nothing COVID-19
Policy, today
RT reports about a Memorial Day op/ed that disses the Military: "Why Does the U.S.
Military Celebrate White Supremacy?"
That made the Pentagon's Spin Master angry, puff out his chest to fume and moan.
There's not much to the RT report, but I can't recall any similar display done
before by the NY Times . IMO, something's happened within the Top Office and it seems
to be aimed at Trump.
Of course, I'd never have known about any such happening if it hadn't been for the
reporting by RT & Global Times .
Fantastic interview. all Obama gang should be prosecuted for their attempt of coup
d'état. Farkas behaviors looks like standard operating procecure for the neocon scum
That an effective but dirty trick on the part of this neocon prostitute Evelyn Farkas :
"Putin want me to lose, send me some money"
Farkas is running primarily for the same reason that Andy mccabes wife ran - so she can
pick up her payment from the dnc in the form of campaign contributions. It's money
laundering
Boom 12:03 Yes Saagar, that's what I
was hollering! This is far more insidious. There was NO ONE in power that believed birtherism
whereas the entire National Security apparatus pushed this bogus coup on the President. The
NSA, CIA, FBI, and media were all complicit. Do not let Krystal get away with a false
equivalence. She is bullshitting. Chuck Schumer even threatened Trump on national television
saying that the intelligence agencies have six ways til Sunday to take you down.
I wish Farcas had spent a bit more time talking on MSNBC , I'm sure she would have coughed
up more material. I would also like to see her texts and phone calls received after that a
appearance, I'm sure some Obama people were pulling their hair out as she was spilling the
whole scenario and called her immediately after.
Russiagate was built on the willingness of a lot of people to believe the worst about
Trump. That's it. Which honestly says more about the narrow-mindedness of Trump haters than
it does about Trump himself. Whatever Trump is or isn't, and I'm no Trump supporter though I
never got seduced into hating him, the one truth to come out of this is that his haters don't
care about evidence, or the rule of law, or even common sense.
If Russian interference was as de-stabilizing to our democracy as these people would have
led us to believe, then, how de-stabilizing would carelessly weaponizing it potentially be?
These people have no place in government or any form of public discourse. They are a
malignancy.
But now let's take a look at Schiff's sins and see how they compare. Back in 2017, he was
the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee and therefore the man Democrats
counted on to lead the charge that Trump had colluded with the Kremlin in order to steal the
election. He did so with gusto. Quoting from a dossier prepared by ex-British MI6 agent
Christopher Steele, he regaled a March
2017 committee hearing with tales of how Russia bribed Trump adviser Carter Page by offering
him a hefty slice of a Russian natural-gas company known as Rosneft and of how Russian agents
boosted Trump's political fortunes by hacking Hillary Clinton's emails and passing them on to
WikiLeaks . Conceivably, such acts could have been purely coincidental, Schiff
acknowledged.
"But it is also possible," he went on, "maybe more than possible, that they are not
coincidental, not disconnected, and not unrelated, and that the Russians used the same
techniques to corrupt U.S. persons that they have employed in Europe and elsewhere. We simply
don't know, not yet, and we owe it to the country to find out."
Hours later, he
assured MSNBC that the evidence of collusion was "more than circumstantial." Nine months
after that, he informed CNN's Jake Tapper that the case was
no longer in doubt: "The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help, the Russians gave
help, and the president made full use of that help." In February 2018, he
told reporters: "There is certainly an abundance of non-public information that we've
gathered in the investigation. And I think some of that non-public evidence is evidence on the
issue of collusion and some on the issue of obstruction."
The press lapped it up .
But now, thanks to the May 7 release of 57 transcripts of secret testimony
– transcripts, by the way, that Schiff bottled up for months – we have a better
idea of what such "non-public information" amounts to.
The answer: nothing.
A parade of high-level witnesses told the intelligence committee that either they didn't
know about collusion or lacked evidence even to venture an opinion. Not one offered the
contrary view that collusion was true.
"I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was
plotting [or] conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election," testified
ex-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch told
the committee that no one in the FBI or CIA had informed her that collusion had taken place.
Sally Yates, acting attorney general during the Obama-Trump transition, was similarly
noncommittal. So were Obama speechwriter Ben Rhodes and former acting FBI Director Andrew
McCabe. David Kramer, a prominent neocon who helped spread word of the Steele dossier in top
intelligence circles, was downright apologetic: "I'm not in a position to really say one way
or the other, sir. I'm sorry."
But rather than admit that the investigation had turned up nothing, Schiff lied that it had
– not once but repeatedly.
Let that sink in for a moment. Collusion dominated the headlines from the moment Buzzfeed
published the Steele dossier on Jan. 10, 2017, to the release of the Muller report on Apr. 18,
2019. That's more than two years, a period in which newspapers and TV were filled with Russia,
Russia, Russia and little else. Thanks to the uproar, acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein secretly discussed using the Twenty-fifth Amendment to
force Trump out of office, while an endless parade of newscasters and commentators assured
viewers that the president's days were numbered because " the walls are closing in ."
Schiff's only response was to egg it on to greater and greater heights. Even when Special
Prosecutor Robert Mueller issued his no-collusion verdict – "the investigation did not
establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian
government in its election interference activities," his report said – Schiff insisted
that there was still "ample evidence of collusion in plain sight."
"I use that word very carefully," he said, "because I also distinguish time and time again
between collusion, that is acts of corruption that may or may not be criminal, and proof of a
criminal conspiracy. And that is a distinction that Bob Mueller made within the first few
pages of his report. In fact, every act that I've pointed to as evidence of collusion has now
been borne out by the report. "
So Trump colluded with the Kremlin, but in a non-criminal way? Even if Mueller got Schiff in
a headlock and screamed in his ear, "No collusion, no collusion," the committee chairman would
presumably reply: "See? He said it – collusion."
The man is an unscrupulous liar, in other words, someone who will say anything to gain
attention and fatten his war chest, which is why contributions
flowing to his re-election campaign have risen from under $1 million a year to $10.5 million
since the Russia furor began. The man talks endlessly about the Constitution, patriotism, his
father's heroic service in the military, and so on. But the only thing Adam Schiff really cares
about is himself.
Trump's sins are manifold. But with unerring accuracy, Schiff managed to zero in on the one
sin that didn't take place. Considering that the $391 million was destined for ultra-right
military units whose members sport
neo-Nazi regalia and SS symbols as they battle pro-Russian separatists in the eastern
Ukraine, Schiff's crimes are just as bad, if not worse. Ladies and gentlemen, we give you the
next candidate for impeachment, the congressman from Hollywood – Adam Schiff!
False flag operation by CIA or CrowdStrike as CIA constructor: CIA ears protrude above Gussifer 2.0 hat.
Notable quotes:
"... Guccifer 2.0 fabricated evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC (using files that were really Podesta attachments) . ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0’s Russian breadcrumbs mostly came from deliberate processes & needless editing of documents . ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0’s Russian communications signals came from the persona choosing to use a proxy server in Moscow and choosing to use a Russian VPN service as end-points (and they used an email service that forwards the sender’s IP address, which made identifying that signal a relatively trivial task.) ..."
"... A considerable volume of evidence pointed at Guccifer 2.0’s activities being in American timezones (twice as many types of indicators were found pointing at Guccifer 2.0’s activities being in American timezones than anywhere else). ..."
"... The American timezones were incidental to other activities (eg. blogging , social media , emailing a journalist , archiving files , etc) and some of these were recorded independently by service providers. ..."
"... A couple of pieces of evidence with Russian indicators present had accompanying locale indicators that contradicted this which suggested the devices used hadn’t been properly set up for use in Russia (or Romania) but may have been suitable for other countries (including America) . ..."
"... On the same day that Guccifer 2.0 was plastering Russian breadcrumbs on documents through a deliberate process, choosing to use Russian-themed end-points and fabricating evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC, the operation attributed itself to WikiLeaks. ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0 chose to use insecure communications to ask WikiLeaks to confirm receipt of “DNC emails” on July 6, 2016. Confirmation of this was not provided at that time but WikiLeaks did confirm receipt of a “1gb or so” archive on July 18, 2016. ..."
"... The alleged GRU officer we are told was part of an operation to deflect from Russian culpability suggested that Assange “may be connected with Russians”. ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0 fabricated evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC, covered itself (and its files) in what were essentially a collection of “Made In Russia” labels through deliberate processes and decisions made by the persona, and, then, it attributed itself to WikiLeaks with a claim that was contradicted by subsequent communications between both parties. ..."
"... While we are expected to accept that Guccifer 2.0’s efforts between July 6 and July 18 were a sincere effort to get leaks to WikiLeaks, considering everything we now know about the persona, it seems fair to question whether Guccifer 2.0’s intentions towards WikiLeaks may have instead been malicious. ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0 was always John Brennan 1.0 ..."
"... Was Guccifer II part of the Stefan Halper organization that lured Papadopoulos and maliciously maligned others? ..."
"... I believe Guccifer 2.0 was created by the CIA to falsely pin blame on the Russians for info that Seth Rich gave to WikiLeaks. Read for yourself: http://g-2.space/ ..."
Why would an alleged GRU officer - supposedly part of an operation to deflect Russian culpability - suggest that
Assange “may be connected with Russians?”
In December, I reported on digital forensics evidence
relating to Guccifer 2.0 and highlighted several key points about the mysterious persona that Special Counsel Robert Mueller
claims was a front for Russian intelligence to leak Democratic Party emails to WikiLeaks:
A considerable volume of evidence pointed at
Guccifer 2.0’s activities being in American timezones (twice as many types of indicators were found pointing at Guccifer
2.0’s activities being in American timezones than anywhere else).
A couple of pieces of evidence with Russian indicators present had accompanying
locale indicators that contradicted this which suggested the devices used hadn’t been properly set up for use in Russia (or
Romania) but may have been suitable for other countries (including America).
On the same day that Guccifer 2.0 was plastering Russian breadcrumbs on documents through a deliberate process, choosing to
use Russian-themed end-points and fabricating evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC, the operation attributed itself to WikiLeaks.
This article questions what Guccifer 2.0’s intentions were in relation to WikiLeaks in the context of what has been
discovered by independent researchers during the past three years.
Timing
On June 12, 2016, in an interview
with ITV’s Robert Peston, Julian Assange confirmed that WikiLeaks had emails relating to Hillary Clinton that the
organization intended to publish. This announcement was prior to any reported contact with Guccifer 2.0 (or with DCLeaks).
On June 14, 2016, an article was published
in The Washington Post citing statements from two CrowdStrike executives alleging that Russian intelligence hacked
the DNC and stole opposition research on Trump. It was apparent that the statements had been made in the 48 hours prior to
publication as they referenced claims of kicking hackers off the DNC network on the weekend just passed (June 11-12, 2016).
On that same date, June 14, DCLeaks contacted WikiLeaks via Twitter DM and for some reason suggested that both parties
coordinate their releases of leaks. (It doesn’t appear that WikiLeaks responded until September 2016).
[CrowdStrike President Shawn Henry testified under
oath behind closed doors on Dec. 5, 2017 to the U.S. House intelligence committee that his company had no evidence that Russian
actors removed anything from the DNC servers. This testimony was only released earlier
this month.]
By stating that WikiLeaks would “publish them soon” the Guccifer 2.0 operation implied that it had received
confirmation of intent to publish.
However, the earliest recorded communication between Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks didn’t occur until a week later (June
22, 2016) when WikiLeaks reached out to Guccifer 2.0 and suggested that the persona send any new material to them
rather than doing what it was doing:
[Excerpt from Special Counsel Mueller’s report. Note: “stolen from the DNC” is an editorial insert by the special
counsel.]
If WikiLeaks had already received material and confirmed intent to publish prior to this direct message, why would
they then suggest what they did when they did? WikiLeaks says it had no prior contact with Guccifer 2.0 despite what
Guccifer 2.0 had claimed.
Here is the full conversation on that date (according to the application):
@WikiLeaks: Do you have secure communications?
@WikiLeaks: Send any new material here for us to review and it will have a much higher impact than what
you are doing. No other media will release the full material.
@GUCCIFER_2: what can u suggest for a secure connection? Soft, keys, etc? I’m ready to cooperate with
you, but I need to know what’s in your archive 80gb? Are there only HRC emails? Or some other docs? Are there any DNC docs?
If it’s not secret when you are going to release it?
@WikiLeaks: You can send us a message in a .txt file here [link redacted]
@GUCCIFER_2: do you have GPG?
Why would Guccifer 2.0 need to know what material WikiLeaks already had? Certainly, if it were anything Guccifer 2.0
had sent (or the GRU had sent) he wouldn’t have had reason to inquire.
The more complete DM details provided here also suggest that both parties had not yet established secure communications.
Further communications were reported to have taken place on June 24, 2016:
@GUCCIFER_2: How can we chat? Do u have jabber or something like that?
@WikiLeaks: Yes, we have everything. We’ve been busy celebrating Brexit. You can also email an encrypted
message to [email protected]. They key is here.
and June 27, 2016:
@GUCCIFER_2: Hi, i’ve just sent you an email with a text message encrypted and an open key.
@WikiLeaks: Thanks.
@GUCCIFER_2: waiting for ur response. I send u some interesting piece.
Guccifer 2.0 said he needed to know what was in the 88GB ‘insurance’ archive that WikiLeaks had posted on June 16,
2016 and it’s clear that, at this stage, secure communications had not been established between both parties (which would
seem to rule out the possibility of encrypted communications prior to June 15, 2016, making Guccifer 2.0’s initial claims about WikiLeaks even
more doubtful).
There was no evidence of WikiLeaks mentioning this to Guccifer 2.0 nor any reason for why WikiLeaks couldn’t
just send a DM to DCLeaks themselves if they had wanted to.
(It should also be noted that this Twitter DM activity between DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 is alleged by Mueller to be
communications between officers within the same unit of the GRU, who, for some unknown reason, decided to use Twitter DMs to
relay such information rather than just communicate face to face or securely via their own local network.)
Guccifer 2.0 lied about DCLeaks being a sub-project of WikiLeaks and then, over two months later, was seen trying to
encourage DCLeaks to communicate with WikiLeaks by relaying an alleged request from WikiLeaks that there is no
record of WikiLeaks ever making (and which WikiLeaks could have done themselves, directly, if they had wanted
to).
@GUCCIFER_2: hi there, check up r email, waiting for reply.
This was followed up on July 6, 2016 with the following conversation:
@GUCCIFER_2: have you received my parcel?
@WikiLeaks: Not unless it was very recent. [we haven’ t checked in 24h].
@GUCCIFER_2: I sent it yesterday, an archive of about 1 gb. via [website link]. and check your email.
@WikiLeaks: Wil[l] check, thanks.
@GUCCIFER_2: let me know the results.
@WikiLeaks: Please don’t make anything you send to us public. It’s a lot of work to go through it and the
impact is severely reduced if we are not the first to publish.
@GUCCIFER_2: agreed. How much time will it take?
@WikiLeaks: likely sometime today.
@GUCCIFER_2: will u announce a publication? and what about 3 docs sent u earlier?
@WikiLeaks: I don’t believe we received them. Nothing on ‘Brexit’ for example.
@GUCCIFER_2: wow. have you checked ur mail?
@WikiLeaks: At least not as of 4 days ago . . . . For security reasons mail cannot be checked for some
hours.
@GUCCIFER_2: fuck, sent 4 docs on brexit on jun 29, an archive in gpg ur submission form is too fucking
slow, spent the whole day uploading 1 gb.
@WikiLeaks: We can arrange servers 100x as fast. The speed restrictions are to anonymise the path. Just
ask for custom fast upload point in an email.
@GUCCIFER_2: will u be able to check ur email?
@WikiLeaks: We’re best with very large data sets. e.g. 200gb. these prove themselves since they’re too
big to fake.
@GUCCIFER_2: or shall I send brexit docs via submission once again?
@WikiLeaks: to be safe, send via [web link]
@GUCCIFER_2: can u confirm u received dnc emails?
@WikiLeaks: for security reasons we can’ t confirm what we’ve received here. e.g., in case your account
has been taken over by us intelligence and is probing to see what we have.
@GUCCIFER_2: then send me an encrypted email.
@WikiLeaks: we can do that. but the security people are in another time zone so it will need to wait some
hours.
@WikiLeaks: what do you think about the FBl’ s failure to charge? To our mind the clinton foundation
investigation has always been the more serious. we would be very interested in all the emails/docs from there. She set up
quite a lot of front companies. e.g in sweden.
@GUCCIFER_2: ok, i’ll be waiting for confirmation. as for investigation, they have everything settled, or
else I don’t know how to explain that they found a hundred classified docs but fail to charge her.
@WikiLeaks: She’s too powerful to charge at least without something stronger. s far as we know, the
investigation into the clinton foundation remains open e hear the FBI are unhappy with Loretta Lynch over meeting Bill,
because he’s a target in that investigation.
@GUCCIFER_2: do you have any info about marcel lazar? There’ve been a lot of rumors of late.
@WikiLeaks: the death? [A] fake story.
@WikiLeaks: His 2013 screen shots of Max Blumenthal’s inbox prove that Hillary secretly deleted at least
one email about Libya that was meant to be handed over to Congress. So we were very interested in his co-operation with the
FBI.
@GUCCIFER_2: some dirty games behind the scenes believe Can you send me an email now?
@WikiLeaks: No; we have not been able to activate the people who handle it. Still trying.
@GUCCIFER_2: what about tor submission? [W]ill u receive a doc now?
@WikiLeaks: We will get everything sent on [weblink].” [A]s long as you see \”upload succseful\” at the
end. [I]f you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC is
approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after.
@GUCCIFER_2: ok. I see.
@WikiLeaks: [W]e think the public interest is greatest now and in early october.
@GUCCIFER_2: do u think a lot of people will attend bernie fans rally in philly? Will it affect the dnc
anyhow?
@WikiLeaks: bernie is trying to make his own faction leading up to the DNC. [S]o he can push for
concessions (positions/policies) or, at the outside, if hillary has a stroke, is arrested etc, he can take over the
nomination. [T]he question is this: can bemies supporters+staff keep their coherency until then (and after). [O]r will they
dis[s]olve into hillary’ s camp? [P]resently many of them are looking to damage hilary [sic] inorder [sic] to increase their
unity and bargaining power at the DNC. Doubt one rally is going to be that significant in the bigger scheme. [I]t seems many
of them will vote for hillary just to prevent trump from winning.
@GUCCIFER_2: sent brexit docs successfully.
@WikiLeaks: :))).
@WikiLeaks: we think trump has only about a 25% chance of winning against hillary so conflict between
bernie and hillary is interesting.
@GUCCIFER_2: so it is.
@WikiLeaks: also, it’ s important to consider what type of president hillary might be. If bernie and
trump retain their groups past 2016 in significant number, then they are a restraining force on hillary.
[Note: This was over a week after the Brexit referendum had taken place, so this will not have had any impact on the
results of that. It also doesn’t appear that WikiLeaks released any Brexit content around this time.]
On July 14, 2016, Guccifer 2.0 sent an email to WikiLeaks, this was covered in the Mueller report:
It should be noted that while the attachment sent was encrypted, the email wasn’t and both the email contents and name of the
file were readable.
The persona then opted, once again, for insecure communications via Twitter DMs:
@GUCCIFER_2: ping. Check ur email. sent u a link to a big archive and a pass.
@WikiLeaks: great, thanks; can’t check until tomorrow though.
On July 17, 2016, the persona contacted WikiLeaks again:
@GUCCIFER_2: what bout now?
On July 18, 2016, WikiLeaks responded and more was discussed:
@WikiLeaks: have the 1 Gb or so archive.
@GUCCIFER_2: have u managed to extract the files?
@WikiLeaks: yes. turkey coup has delayed us a couple of days. [O]therwise all ready[.]
@GUCCIFER_2: so when r u about to make a release?
@WikiLeaks: this week. [D]o you have any bigger datasets? [D]id you get our fast transfer details?
@GUCCIFER_2: i’ll check it. did u send it via email?
@WikiLeaks: yes.
@GUCCIFER_2: to [web link]. [I] got nothing.
@WikiLeaks: check your other mail? this was over a week ago.
@GUCCIFER_2:oh, that one, yeah, [I] got it.
@WikiLeaks: great. [D]id it work?
@GUCCIFER_2:[I] haven’ t tried yet.
@WikiLeaks: Oh. We arranged that server just for that purpose. Nothing bigger?
@GUCCIFER_2: let’s move step by step, u have released nothing of what [I] sent u yet.
@WikiLeaks: How about you transfer it all to us encrypted. [T]hen when you are happy, you give us the
decrypt key. [T]his way we can move much faster. (A]lso it is protective for you if we already have everything because then
there is no point in trying to shut you up.
@GUCCIFER_2: ok, i’ll ponder it
Again, we see a reference to the file being approximately one gigabyte in size.
Guccifer 2.0’s “so when r u about to make a release?” seems to be a question about his files. However, it could have been
inferred as generally relating to what WikiLeaks had or even material relating to the “Turkey Coup” that WikiLeaks had
mentioned in the previous sentence and that were published by the following day (July 19, 2016).
The way this is reported in the Mueller report, though, prevented this potential ambiguity being known (by not citing the
exact question that Guccifer 2.0 had asked and the context immediately preceding it.
Four days later, WikiLeaks published the DNC emails.
Later that same day, Guccifer 2.0 tweeted: “@wikileaks published #DNCHack docs I’d
given them!!!”.
Guccifer 2.0 chose to use insecure communications to ask WikiLeaks to confirm receipt of “DNC emails” on July 6, 2016.
Confirmation of this was not provided at that time but WikiLeaks did confirm receipt of a “1gb or so” archive on July 18,
2016.
Guccifer 2.0’s emails to WikiLeaks were also sent insecurely.
We cannot be certain that WikiLeaks statement about making a release was in relation to Guccifer 2.0’s material and
there is even a possibility that this could have been in reference to the Erdogan leaks published by WikiLeaks on July
19, 2016.
Ulterior Motives?
While the above seems troubling there are a few points worth considering:
Guccifer 2.0’s initial claim about sending WikiLeaks material(and
that they would publish it soon) appears to have been made without justification and seems to be contradicted by
subsequent communications from WikiLeaks.
If the archive was “about 1GB” (as Guccifer 2.0 describes it) then it would be too small to have been all of the
DNC’s emails (as these, compressed, came to 1.8GB-2GB depending on compression method used, which, regardless, would be
“about 2GB” not “about 1GB”). If we assume that these were DNC emails, where did the rest of them come from?
Assange has maintained
that WikiLeaks didn’t publish the material that Guccifer 2.0 had sent to them. Of course, Assange could just be
lying about that but there are some other possibilities to consider. If true, there is always a possibility that Guccifer 2.0
could have sent them material they had already received from another source or other emails from the DNC that they didn’t
release (Guccifer 2.0 had access to a lot of content relating to the DNC and Democratic party and the persona also offered
emails of Democratic staffers to Emma Best, a self-described journalist, activist and ex-hacker, the month after WikiLeaks published
the DNC emails, which, logically, must have been different emails to still have any value at that point in time).
On July 6, 2016, the same day that Guccifer 2.0 was trying to get WikiLeaks to confirm receipt of DNC emails (and
on which Guccifer 2.0 agreed not to publish material he had sent them), the persona posted a series of files to his blog
that were exclusively DNC email attachments.
It doesn’t appear any further communications were reported between the parties following the July 18, 2016 communications
despite Guccifer 2.0 tweeting on August 12, 2016: “I’ll send the major trove of the
#DCCC materials and emails to #wikileaks keep following…” and, apparently, stating
this to The Hill too.
As there are no further communications reported beyond this point it’s fair to question whether getting confirmation of
receipt of the archive was the primary objective for Guccifer 2.0 here.
Even though WikiLeaks offered Guccifer 2.0 a fast server for large uploads, the persona later suggested he needed
to find a resource for publishing a large amount of data.
Despite later claiming he would send (or had sent) DCCC content to WikiLeaks,WikiLeaks never
published such content and there doesn’t appear to be any record of any attempt to send this material to WikiLeaks.
Considering all of this and the fact Guccifer 2.0 effectively covered itself in “Made In Russia” labels (by plastering
files in Russian metadata and choosing to use a
Russian VPN service and a proxy in Moscow for
it’s activities) on the same day it first attributed itself to WikiLeaks, it’s fair to suspect that Guccifer 2.0 had
malicious intent towards WikiLeaks from the outset.
If this was the case, Guccifer 2.0 may have known about the DNC emails by June 30, 2016 as this is when the persona first
started publishing attachments from those emails.
Seth Rich Mentioned By Both Parties
WikiLeaks Offers Reward
On August 9, 2016, WikiLeaks tweeted:
ANNOUNCE: WikiLeaks has decided to issue a US$20k reward for information
leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich.
In an interview with Nieuwsuur that was posted the same day, Julian
Assange explained that the reward was for a DNC staffer who he said had been “shot in the back, murdered”. When the interviewer
suggested it was a robbery Assange disputed it and stated that there were no findings.
When the interviewer asked if Seth Rich was a source, Assange stated, “We don’t comment on who our sources are”.
When pressed to explain WikiLeaks actions, Assange stated that the reward was being offered because WikiLeaks‘
sources were concerned by the incident. He also stated that WikiLeaks were investigating.
Speculation and theories about Seth Rich being a source for WikiLeaks soon propagated to several sites and across
social media.
On that same day, in a DM conversation with the actress Robbin Young, Guccifer 2.0 claimed that Seth was his source (despite
previously claiming he obtained his material by hacking the DNC).
Why did Guccifer 2.0 feel the need to attribute itself to Seth at this time?
[Note: I am not advocating for any theory and am simply reporting on Guccifer 2.0’s effort to attribute itself to Seth
Rich following the propagation of Rich-WikiLeaks association theories online.]
Special Counsel Claims
In Spring, 2019, Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who was named to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. general
election, delivered his final report.
It claimed:
Guccifer 2.0 contradicted his own hacking claims to allege that Seth Rich was his source and did so on the same day that
Julian Assange was due to be interviewed by Fox News (in relation to Seth Rich).
No communications between Guccifer 2.0 and Seth Rich have ever been reported.
Suggesting Assange Connected To Russians
In the same conversation Guccifer 2.0 had with Robbin Young where Rich’s name is mentioned (on August 25, 2016), the
persona also provided a very interesting response to Young mentioning “Julian” (in reference to Julian Assange):
The alleged GRU officer we are told was part of an operation to deflect from Russian culpability suggested that
Assange “may be connected with Russians”.
Guccifer 2.0’s Mentions of WikiLeaks and Assange
Guccifer 2.0 mentioned WikiLeaks or associated himself with their output on several occasions:
July 22nd, 2016: claimed credit when WikiLeaks published the DNC leaks.
August 12, 2016: It was reported in The Hill that Guccifer 2.0 had released material to the publication. They
reported: “The documents released to The Hill are only the first section of a much larger cache. The bulk, the hacker
said, will be released on WikiLeaks.”
August 12, 2016: Tweeted that he would “send the major trove of the #DCCC materials
and emails to #wikileaks“.
September 15, 2016: telling DCLeaks that WikiLeaks wanted to get in contact with them.
October 4, 2016: Congratulating WikiLeaks on their 10th anniversary via
its blog. Also states: “Julian, you are really cool! Stay safe and sound!”. (This was the same day on which Guccifer
2.0 published his “Clinton Foundation” files that were clearly
not from the Clinton Foundation.)
October 17, 2016: via Twitter, stating “i’m here and ready for new releases.
already changed my location thanks @wikileaks for a good job!”
Guccifer 2.0 also made some statements in response to WikiLeaks or Assange being mentioned:
June 17, 2016: in response to The Smoking Gun asking if Assange would publish the same material it was
publishing, Guccifer 2.0 stated: “I gave WikiLeaks the
greater part of the files, but saved some for myself,”
August 22, 2016: in response to Raphael Satter suggesting that Guccifer 2.0 send leaks to WikiLeaks,the
persona stated: “I gave wikileaks a greater part of docs”.
August 25, 2016: in response to Julian Assange’s name being mentioned in a conversation with Robbin Young, Guccifer
2.0 stated: “he may be connected with Russians”.
October 18, 2016: a BBC reported asked Guccifer 2.0 if he was upset that WikiLeaks had “stole his thunder” and “do
you still support Assange?”. Guccifer 2.0 responded: “i’m
glad, together we’ll make America great again.”.
Guccifer 2.0 fabricated evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC, covered itself (and its files) in what were essentially
a collection of “Made In Russia” labels through deliberate processes and decisions made by the persona, and, then, it attributed
itself to WikiLeaks with a claim that was contradicted by subsequent communications between both parties.
Guccifer 2.0 then went on to lie about WikiLeaks, contradicted its own hacking claims to attribute itself to Seth Rich
and even alleged that Julian Assange “may be connected with Russians”.
While we are expected to accept that Guccifer 2.0’s efforts between July 6 and July 18 were a sincere effort to get
leaks to WikiLeaks, considering everything we now know about the persona, it seems fair to question whether Guccifer
2.0’s intentions towards WikiLeaks may have instead been malicious.
xxx 2 minutes ago (Edited)
Everything involving the Russian hoax was set up by the Deep States around the world.
Implicate, discredit and destroy all those like Rich, Assange, Flynn and those who knew the
truth. Kill the messenger....literally.
xxx 10 minutes ago
here's what really happened:
an American hacker breached Podesta's gmail on March 13 2016 and then uploaded it to
Wikileaks via Tor sometime between April and May.
the NSA and CIA have hacked into Wikileaks' Tor file server to watch for new leaks to stay
ahead of them to prepare. they saw Podesta's emails leaked and launched a counter infowar
operation.
Brennan's CIA created the Guccifer 2.0 persona, with phony Russian metadata artifacts,
using digital forgery techniques seen in Vault7. Crowdstrike was already on the premises of
DNC since 2015, with their overly expensive security scanner watching the DNC network.
Crowdstrike had access to any DNC files they wanted. CIA, FBI and Crowdstrike colluded to
create a fake leak of DNC docs through their Guccifer 2.0 cutout. they didn't leak any docs
of high importance, which is why we never saw any smoking guns from DNC leaks or DCLeaks.
you have to remember, the whole point of this CIAFBINSA operation has nothing to do with
Hillary or Trump or influencing the election. the point was to fabricate criminal evidence to
use against Assange to finally arrest him and extradite him as well as smear Wikileaks ahead
of the looming leak of Podesta's emails.
if CIAFBINSA can frame Assange and Wikileaks as being criminal hackers and/or Russian
assets ahead of the Podesta leaks, then they can craft a narrative for the MSM to ignore or
distrust most of the Podesta emails. and that is exactly what happened, such as when Chris
Cuomo said on CNN that it was illegal for you to read Wikileaks, but not CNN, so you should
let CNN tell you what to think about Wikileaks instead of looking at evidence yourself.
this explains why Guccifer 2.0 was so sloppy leaving a trail of Twitter DMs to incriminate
himself and Assange along with him.
if this CIAFBINSA entrapment/frame operation ever leaks, it will guarantee the freedom of
Assange.
xxx 11 minutes ago
According to Wikipedia, "Guccifer" is Marcel Lazar Lehel, a Rumanian born in 1972, but
"Guccifer 2.0" is someone else entirely.
Is that so?
xxx 20 minutes ago (Edited)
The guy from Cyrptome always asserted Assange was some type of deep state puppet, that he
was connected somehow. This wouldn't be news to me and its probably why he was scared as
hell. The guy is as good as dead, like S. Hussein. Seth Rich was just a puppet that got
caught in the wrong game. He was expendable obviously too because well he had a big mouth, he
was expendable from the beginning. Somebody mapped this whole **** out, thats for sure.
xxx 28 minutes ago
I am sick and tired of these Deep State and CIA-linked operations trying to put a wrench
in the prosecution of people who were engaged in a coup d'etat.
xxx 29 minutes ago
********
xxx 33 minutes ago
At this point what difference does it make? We are all convinced since 2016. It is not
going to convince the TDS cases roaming the wilderness.
No arrests, no subpoenas, no warrants, no barging in at 3 am, no perp walks, no tv
glare...
Pres. Trump is playing a very risky game. Arrest now, or regret later. And you won't have
much time to regret.
The swamp is dark, smelly and deep,
And it has grudges to keep.
xxx 37 minutes ago
Meanwhile- Guccifer 1.0 is still?
- In prison?
- Released?
- 48 month sentence in 2016. Obv no good behavior.
Nice article. Brennan is the dolt he appears.
xxx 41 minutes ago
+1,000 on the investigative work and analyzing it.
Sadly, none of the guilty are in jail. Instead. Assange sits there rotting away.
xxx 44 minutes ago
Why would an alleged GRU officer - supposedly part of an operation to deflect Russian
culpability - suggest that Assange "may be connected with Russians?"
Because the AXIS powers of the CIA, Brit secret police and Israeli secret police pay for
the campaign to tie Assange to the Russians...
A lot of interest in this story about Psycho Joe Scarborough. So a young marathon runner
just happened to faint in his office, hit her head on his desk, & die? I would think
there is a lot more to this story than that? An affair? What about the so-called
investigator? Read story!
xxx 45 minutes ago
Why make it harder than it is? Guccifer II = Crowdstrike
xxx 51 minutes ago
Guccifer 2.0 was always John Brennan 1.0
xxx 58 minutes ago (Edited)
Was Guccifer II part of the Stefan Halper organization that lured Papadopoulos and
maliciously maligned others?
xxx 1 hour ago
"His name was Seth Rich." The unofficial motto of ZeroHedge...
xxx 1 hour ago
James Guccifer Clapper.
xxx 1 hour ago
Mossad. And their subsidiary CIA.
xxx 1 hour ago
Crowd Strike CEO'S admission under oath that they had no evidence the DNC was hacked by
the Russians should make the Russian Hoax predicate abundantly clear.
Justice for Seth Rich!
xxx 1 hour ago
Any influence Assange had on the election was so small that it wouldn't move the needle
either way. The real influence and election tampering in the US has always come from the
scores of lobbyists and their massive donations that fund the candidates election runs
coupled with the wildly inaccurate and agenda driven collusive effort by the MSM. Anyone
pointing fingers at the Russians is beyond blind to the unparalleled influence and power
these entities have on swaying American minds.
xxx 1 hour ago
ObamaGate.
xxx 1 hour ago (Edited)
Uugh ONCE AGAIN... 4chan already proved guccifer 2.0 was a larp, and the files were not
"hacked", they were leaked by Seth Rich. The metadata from the guccifer files is different
from the metadata that came from the seth rich files. The dumb fuckers thought they were
smart by modifying the author name of the files to make it look like it came from a russian
source. They were so ******* inept, they must have forgot (or not have known) to modify the
unique 16 digit hex key assigned to the author of the files when they were created..... The
ones that seth rich copied had the system administrators name (Warren Flood) as the author
and the 16 digit hex key from both file sources were the same - the one assigned to warren
flood.
Really sloppy larp!!!
xxx 1 hour ago
This link has all the detail to show Guccifer 2.0 was not Russia. I believe Guccifer 2.0
was created by the CIA to falsely pin blame on the Russians for info that Seth Rich gave to
WikiLeaks. Read for yourself: http://g-2.space/
xxx 1 hour ago
This is what people are. Now the species has more power than it can control and that it
knows what to do with.
What do you think the result will be?
As for these games of Secret - it's more game than anything truly significant. The
significant exists in the bunkers, with the mobile units, in the submarines. Et. al.
But this is a game in which some of the players die - or wish they were dead.
xxx 1 hour ago
And.....?
Public figures and political parties warrant public scrutiny. And didn't his expose in
their own words expose the democrats, the mass media, the bureaucracy to the corrupt frauds
that they are?
xxx 1 hour ago
Other than the fact that they didn't steal the emails (unless you believe whistleblowers
are thief's, one mans source is another mans thief, it's all about who's ox is being gored
and you love "leaks" don't you? As long as they work in your favor. Stop with the piety.
xxx 15 minutes ago
That's not the story at all. Did you just read this article?
The democrats were super duper corrupt (before all of this).
They fucked around to ice Bernie out of the primary.
A young staffer Seth Rich knew it and didn't like it. He made the decision to leak the
info to the most reputable org for leaks in the world Wikileaks.
IF the DNC had been playing fair, Seth Rich wouldn't have felt the need to leak.
So, the democrats did it to themselves.
And then they created Russiagate to cover it all up.
And murdered a young brave man ... as we know.
xxx 1 hour ago
Assange, another problem Trump failed to fix.
xxx 1 hour ago
Sounds like it came from the same source as the Trump dossier ... MI5.
While Flynn is a questionable figure with his Iran warmongering and the former tenure as a
Turkey lobbyist, it is important to understand that in Kislyak call he mainly played the role
of Israel lobbyist. This important fact was carefully swiped under the carpet by FBI
honchos.
Only the second and less important part of the call (the request to Russia to postpone the
reaction after the Obama expulsion of diplomats) was related to Russia. Not sure it was
necessary: Russia probably understood that this was a provocation and would wait for the dust
to settle in any case. Revenge is a dish that is better served cold. Later Russia used this
as a pretext to equalize the number of US diplomats in Russia with the number of Russian
diplomat in the USA which was a knockdown for any color revolution plans in this country:
people with the knowledge of the country and connections to its neoliberal fifth column were
sent packing.
But Russian neoliberal compradors were decimated earlier after EuroMaydan in Kiev, so this
was actually a service to the USA allowing to save the USA same money (as Trump
acknowledged)
Also strange how former chief of DIA fell victim of such a crude trap administered by a
second, if nor third rate person -- Strzok. Looks like he was already on the hook and, as
such, defenseless for his Turkey lobbing efforts. Which makes Comey-McCabe attempt to entrap
him look like a shooing fish in the tank.
Note to managerial class neoliberals (PMC). Your Russiagate stance is to be expected and
has nothing to do with virtue.
it was the urban and suburban PMC that gets its news from the establishment press --
the New York Times, Washington Post and NPR, that believed and supported the story.
"... With the entirety of Russigate finally collapsing under the enormous weight and stench of its own BS, the picture that is beginning
to emerge for me is one of an insider deep-state psy-op designed to cover for the crimes committed by the DNC, the Clinton Foundation
and the 2016 Hillary campaign; kill for the foreseeable future any progressive threat to the neo-liberal world order; and take down
a president that the bipartisan DC and corporate media elite fear and loathe. And why do they fear him? Because he is free to call them
out on certain aspects of their criminality and corruption, and has. ..."
"... Hubris, cynicism and a basic belief in the stupidity of the US public all seem to have played a part in all this, enabled by
a corporate media with a profit motive and a business model that depends on duping the masses. ..."
"... Anyone who still believes in democracy in the USA has his head in the sand (or someplace a lot smellier). ..."
"... The corruption in the USA is wide and deep and trump is NOT draining the swamp. ..."
"... A further point: the Mueller report insinuates that G2.0 had transferred the DNC emails to Wikileaks as of July 18th, and Wikileaks
then published them on July 22nd. This is absurd for two reasons: There is no way in hell that Wikileaks could have processed the entire
volume of those emails and attachments to insure their complete authenticity in 4 days. ..."
"... Indeed, when Crowdstrike's Shawn Henry had been chief of counterintelligence under Robert Mueller, he had tried to set Assange
up by sending Wikileaks fraudulent material; fortunately, Wikileaks was too careful to take the bait. ..."
Fascinating, important and ultimately deeply disturbing. This is why I come to Consortium News.
With the entirety of Russigate finally collapsing under the enormous weight and stench of its own BS, the picture that
is beginning to emerge for me is one of an insider deep-state psy-op designed to cover for the crimes committed by the DNC, the
Clinton Foundation and the 2016 Hillary campaign; kill for the foreseeable future any progressive threat to the neo-liberal world
order; and take down a president that the bipartisan DC and corporate media elite fear and loathe. And why do they fear him? Because
he is free to call them out on certain aspects of their criminality and corruption, and has.
Hubris, cynicism and a basic belief in the stupidity of the US public all seem to have played a part in all this, enabled
by a corporate media with a profit motive and a business model that depends on duping the masses.
Anonymous , May 22, 2020 at 12:01
These convos alone look like a script kiddie on IRC doing their low functioning version of sock puppetry. Didn't know anyone
at all fell for that
Ash , May 22, 2020 at 17:21
Because smooth liars in expensive suits told them it was true in their authoritative TV voices? Sadly they don't even really
need to try hard anymore, as people will evidently believe anything they're told.
Bob Herrschaft , May 22, 2020 at 12:00
The article goes a long way toward congealing evidence that Guccifer 2.0 was a shill meant to implicate Wikileaks in a Russian
hack. The insinuation about Assange's Russian connection was over the top if Guccifer 2.0 was supposed to be a GRU agent and the
mention of Seth Rich only contradicts his claims.
OlyaPola , May 22, 2020 at 10:40
Spectacles are popular.Although less popular, the framing and derivations of plausible belief are of more significance; hence
the cloak of plausible denial over under-garments of plausible belief, in facilitation of revolutions of immersion in spectacles
facilitating spectacles' popularity.
Some promoters of spectacles believe that the benefits of spectacles accrue solely to themselves, and when expectations appear
to vary from outcomes, they resort to one-trick-ponyness illuminated by peering in the mirror.
Skip Scott , May 22, 2020 at 08:35
This is a great article. I think the most obvious conclusion is that Guccifer 2.0 was a creation to smear wikileaks and distract
from the CONTENT of the DNC emails. The MSM spent the next 3 years obsessed by RussiaGate, and spent virtually no effort on the
DNC and Hillary's collusion in subverting the Sander's campaign, among other crimes.
I think back to how many of my friends were obsessed with Rachel Madcow during this period, and how she and the rest of the
MSM served the Empire with their propaganda campaign. Meanwhile, Julian is still in Belmarsh as the head of a "non-state hostile
intelligence service," the Hillary camp still runs the DNC and successfully sabotaged Bernie yet again (along with Tulsi), and
the public gets to choose between corporate sponsored warmonger from column A or B in 2020.
Anyone who still believes in democracy in the USA has his head in the sand (or someplace a lot smellier).
Guy , May 22, 2020 at 12:19
Totally agree .The corruption in the USA is wide and deep and trump is NOT draining the swamp.
I take it the mentioned time zones are consistent with Langley.
treeinanotherlife , May 22, 2020 at 00:34
"Are there only HRC emails? Or some other docs? Are there any DNC docs?"
G2 is fishing to see if Wiki has DNC docs. Does not say "any DNC docs I sent you". And like most at time thought Assange's
"related to hillary" phrase likely (hopefully for some) meant Hillary's missing private server emails. For certain G2 is not an
FBI agent>s/he knows difference between HRC and DNC emails.
A further point: the Mueller report insinuates that G2.0 had transferred the DNC emails to Wikileaks as of July 18th, and Wikileaks
then published them on July 22nd. This is absurd for two reasons: There is no way in hell that Wikileaks could have processed
the entire volume of those emails and attachments to insure their complete authenticity in 4 days.
Indeed, it is reasonable to expect that Wikileaks had been processing those emails since at least June 12, when Assange announced
their impending publication. (I recall waiting expectantly for a number of weeks as Wikileaks processed the Podesta emails.) Wikileaks
was well aware that, if a single one of the DNC emails they released had been proved to have been fraudulent, their reputation
would have been toast. Indeed, when Crowdstrike's Shawn Henry had been chief of counterintelligence under Robert Mueller,
he had tried to set Assange up by sending Wikileaks fraudulent material; fortunately, Wikileaks was too careful to take the bait.
Secondly, it is inconceivable that a journalist as careful as Julian would, on June 12th, have announced the impending publication
of documents he hadn't even seen yet. And of course there is no record of G2.0 having had any contact with Wikileaks prior to
that date.
It is a great pleasure to see "Adam Carter"'s work at long last appear in such a distinguished venue as Consortium News. It
does credit to them both.
Skip Edwards , May 22, 2020 at 12:33
How can we expect justice when there is no justification for what is being done by the US and British governments to Julian
Assange!
Have they nothing better to do than peddle their Russophobia?
Wouldn't it be more useful to allocate $ 250,000 to save someone's lives, @StateDept ? Instead
of "Exposing Russian Health Disinformation"
➡️ https://t.co/Hv3CydUgBX
The concept of managerial class liberals (PMC - abbrevation which probably means "project management class" ??? ) as the
core of Clinton wing of the Democrtic Party is an interesting one.
Notable quotes:
"... At the height of the Russiagate hysteria, as charges were flying that the 'attack' was worse than Pearl Harbor and 9/11 rolled into one, the class that had filled military recruiting stations following these earlier events was notably quiet. The faction that believed the charges, managerial class liberals (PMC), still substantially believes them despite none of the evidence put forward to support them holding up under examination. ..."
"... The Iraq War and the Great Recession created political divisions that are unlikely to be resolved without a redistribution of political and economic power downward. ..."
"... By the time the Great Recession struck in 2007, the U.S. war against Iraq was widely understood to be a strategic and military blunder, murderous almost beyond comprehension, and based on lies from American officials. ..."
"... Prior to this -- in the early 1990s, the New Democrats had made a strategic decision to tie their lot to the 'new economy' of Wall Street. Recruiting suburban Republicans into the Democratic Party was old news by Bill Clinton's second term. The PMC was made the ideological core of the Party. This helps explain the substantial overlap between the 'liberal hawks' who would some years later support George W. Bush's war against Iraq and the Russiagate truthers who were tied through class interests to its orthodoxies. ..."
"... While Democrat versus Republican or left versus right are most often used to distinguish Russiagate proponents and believers from skeptics, it was the urban and suburban PMC that gets its news from the establishment press -- the New York Times, Washington Post and NPR, that believed and supported the story. As it happens, the PMC and rich are the demographic that these news sources serve . Class connotes substantively different lived experience. The Russiagate true believers have benefitted from official connections and the skeptics and large majority of those disinterested in Russiagate haven't. ..."
"... As one who spent years using scientific methods to conduct empirical research, 1) it is as easy to lie with evidence as without it and 2) every source for the Russiagate charges that I followed tied back to the DNC, the CIA or its NGO affiliates like the Atlantic Council. These are political actors, not disinterested parties. The method of reporting is to state charges in the headline, and then to correctly state that official sources claim that the headline charges are true in the body of the article. This leaves the impression that evidence supports the headline charges with no actual evidence having been presented. Deference to authority isn't evidence. ..."
"... As I laid out in 2018 here , the role of the CIA in oil and gas geopolitics ties the motives for demonizing Russia to U.S. machinations in Ukraine and to weapons production and distribution as the business of U.S. based corporations. Further back, while the George W. Bush administration's war against Iraq was a strategic, military, moral and humanitarian disaster, oligarchs and corporate executives made personal fortunes from it. This 'model' of the modern state acting on behalf of business interests ties all the way back to the alleged pre-capitalism of mercantilism. ..."
"... The PMC is the service class of this state-capitalism, with corporate lawyers, tech workers, Wall Street traders and middle managers whose livelihoods and identities are tied to their class position through these jobs. ..."
"... This difference in lived experience explains why the PMC saw the Wall Street bailouts as both necessary and effective, while much of the rest of the country didn't. Wall Street is the functional core of the PMC economy through the process of financialization. ..."
"... The tendency to vote rises with family income. The well to do elected Donald Trump, as they do every president. As the machinations to make Joe Biden the Democrat's candidate in 2020 suggest, the poor can vote for their choice to represent the interests of the rich, but not their own ..."
"... Russiagate was and is defense of a class realm, of the power of the rich and the PMC to do as they please without the political chatter of the 'little people' or the populist pretensions of Donald Trump. ..."
"... While it seems evident now that Trump was never more than a minor inconvenience in the CIA's plans for murder, mayhem, and world domination, this wasn't evident at the outset of his tenure in the White House. John Brennan and James Clapper have demonstrated over long careers that the well-behaved fascism of corporate political control, for profit militarism, targeted and occasionally brutal repression of the 'little people' and democracy in name only, are fine with them. ..."
"... That none of the Russiagate charges turned out to have merit has had no determinable political impact to date. Its central protagonists knew they were telling lies (links above) all along. Not considered by the Russiagate acolytes is that those telling lies weren't lying to the marginally literate 'fascists' who should in elite theory have been the easiest to fool. Those people don't spend their days reading the New York Times and listening to NPR. They were lying to the educated elite. And lest this elite imagine that it was in on the lies -- they quite conspicuously believed every word of them. ..."
A thought experiment with a purpose is to ask: if a group of former Directors of the CIA, NSA and FBI put forward a story about
a malevolent foreign power acting against the U.S. without providing evidence that their story is true, who would believe them? While
this wasn't precisely the setup for Russiagate, all of the former Directors came forward as former Directors of intelligence agencies,
not as private citizens. And the information they presented was compiled as opposition research for a political campaign. It might
have (did) provided a basis for further inquiry, but it wasn't evidence as it was presented.
Oddly, ironically even, the part of the population that in earlier history would have taken former government officials at their
word and been ready to fight, kill, or die to right this alleged wrong, was
circumspect
in the case of Russiagate. At the height of the Russiagate hysteria, as charges were flying that the 'attack' was worse than Pearl
Harbor and 9/11 rolled into one, the class that had filled military recruiting stations following these earlier events was notably
quiet. The faction that believed the charges, managerial class liberals (PMC), still substantially believes them despite none of
the evidence put forward to support them holding up under examination.
This seeming role reversal of managerial class liberals being whipped into a nationalistic fervor while the rest of the country
looked away was a long time coming. Trump loathing explains why liberals want Donald Trump gone from office, but not the nationalistic
fervor or the studied disinterest of the rest of the country in the 'attack' by a foreign power. The receptivity, or lack thereof,
of these political factions (classes) to official proclamations is the result of lived history. The Iraq War and the Great Recession
created political divisions that are unlikely to be resolved without a redistribution of political and economic power downward.
Graph: As was much reported at the time, the Great Recession was orders of magnitude more economically destructive than prior
post-WWII recessions. Both the severity and persistence of unemployment were far outside of the post-War experience. At the time
of the 2016 election, long-term unemployment had still not returned to pre-recession levels. Its levels and impact were differentiated
by class, with employment amongst the PMC, composed largely of liberal Democrats, quickly returning to pre-recession levels. while
working class employment permanently disappeared or was turned into gig jobs. Source: St. Louis Federal Reserve.
Up through the U.S. war against Iraq, working class men joined the military and fought American wars while the rich and professional
classes got educational deferments or a doctor's note claiming one or another exemption-worthy malady to do the hard work of 'changing
the system from within.' Even with the class-blind farce of a 'volunteer' military, there came a time around 2006 when the intersection
of official lies and body bags accumulated to the point where a righteous rebellion against official power took hold amongst the
'lesser' classes. Barack Obama won election in 2008 based in part on his carefully worded rejection of wars of choice.
By the time the Great Recession struck in 2007, the U.S. war against Iraq was widely understood to be a strategic and military
blunder, murderous almost beyond comprehension, and based on lies from American officials. And it was far from being resolved. For
structural reasons including three-plus decades of planned deindustrialization, the systematic weakening of labor's power and the
social safety net, and the partitioning of the economy into financialized and not financialized sectors, the bailouts of Wall Street
produced different outcomes by class, with the PMC seeing its fortunes quickly restored while the working class was left to languish.
Prior to this -- in the early 1990s, the New Democrats had made a strategic decision to tie their lot to the 'new economy' of
Wall Street. Recruiting suburban Republicans into the Democratic Party was old news by Bill Clinton's second term. The PMC was made
the ideological core of the Party. This helps explain the substantial overlap between the 'liberal hawks' who would some years later
support George W. Bush's war against Iraq and the Russiagate truthers who were tied through class interests to its orthodoxies.
To tie this together, the Americans who died, were permanently disabled or who lost family members and friends in the U.S. war
against Iraq, also found themselves on the wrong side of the class war that began in the 1980s with deindustrialization. By the time
of the Great Recession, working class labor was forced to contend with long-term unemployment (graph above) or with the perpetual
insecurity of the gig economy. Contrariwise, those whose class position meant that they had 'better things to do' than to volunteer
to serve in Iraq had their fortunes quickly restored in the Great Recession through government bailouts.
While Democrat versus Republican or left versus right are most often used to distinguish Russiagate proponents and believers from
skeptics, it was the urban and suburban PMC that gets its news from the establishment press -- the New York Times, Washington Post
and NPR, that believed and supported the story. As it happens, the PMC and rich are the demographic that
these news
sources serve . Class connotes substantively different lived experience. The Russiagate true believers have benefitted from official
connections and the skeptics and large majority of those disinterested in Russiagate haven't.
Referred to, but not yet addressed, is the complete failure of the Russiagate evidence to match the DNC / establishment press
/ national security state storylines. From
collusion between the Russian government and Donald Trump to
emails leaked to, and then published by, Wikileaks to the Russian
troll farm and its ties to the GRU (Russian intelligence), none of these theories have been supported by the evidence offered.
And most of the political actors who spent years promoting them knew
they weren't true before Donald Trump even took office.
As one who spent years using scientific methods to conduct empirical research, 1) it is as easy to lie with evidence as without
it and 2) every source for the Russiagate charges that I followed tied back to the DNC, the CIA or its NGO affiliates like the Atlantic
Council. These are political actors, not disinterested parties. The method of reporting is to state charges in the headline, and
then to correctly state that official sources claim that the headline charges are true in the body of the article. This leaves the
impression that evidence supports the headline charges with no actual evidence having been presented. Deference to authority isn't
evidence.
This kind of journalism isn't just poor reporting. It is either naively trusting of official sources or it is intended to deceive.
Given how little follow-up has been done on the serial failures of the evidence, the most probable answer is that it is straight-up
propaganda. But the conception of propaganda that the facts support requires something like a unified state interest, as well as
an explanation of how and why the establishment press serves as a permanent conduit for official disinformation. Given that an elected
President was the target of the Russiagate campaign, the unified state interest theory doesn't work.
More broadly, the neoliberal project seems to have been modeled on the Marxist / Leninist conception of the state as existing
to promote the interests of prominent capitalists. Beginning around the time of Bill Clinton's election to the presidency, the privatization
of government services led to the creation of a
public-private amalgam
composed of PMC workers who perform state functions like domestic spying for the CIA and the NSA. Russiagate certainly appears from
its motives, sources, 'facts' and constituency, to have been carried out by functionaries in this public-private amalgam who saw
it as their right to reverse the outcome of the 2016 election.
As I laid out in 2018 here , the
role of the CIA in oil and gas geopolitics ties the motives for demonizing Russia to U.S. machinations in Ukraine and to weapons
production and distribution as the business of U.S. based corporations. Further back, while the George W. Bush administration's war
against Iraq was a strategic, military, moral and humanitarian disaster, oligarchs and corporate executives
made personal fortunes from it. This 'model'
of the modern state acting on behalf of business interests ties all the way back to the alleged
pre-capitalism of
mercantilism.
The PMC is the service class of this state-capitalism, with corporate lawyers, tech workers, Wall Street traders and middle managers
whose livelihoods and identities are tied to their class position through these jobs. Through the social partitions of class, they
are free to have self-flattering politics that have no bearing on how their lives are lived. Identity politics like 'ending racism'
have no bearing on who their co-workers are, who their neighbors are or who their children attend school with. Class determines these.
This largely explains why beliefs, rather than acts, are the currency of this politics. Class is invisible for those who never encounter,
or more precisely see, the economic and social consequences of capitalism on different classes.
This difference in lived experience explains why the PMC saw the Wall Street bailouts as both necessary and effective, while much
of the rest of the country didn't. Wall Street is the functional core of the PMC economy through the process of financialization.
That the vast majority of the country works and lives far from this functional core makes it the center of the PMC economy, not of
the broader economy. And the bailouts 'worked' in the sense that they quickly restored PMC jobs and bonuses. That they topped off
four decades of declining fortunes for working class workers (graph above) was hidden behind economic aggregates.
The endless reading of the political tea leaves over Donald Trump's electoral victory, over whether it was a dispossessed working
class or Republican plutocrats that brought him to victory, is the analytical equivalent of the debate over the economic impact of
the bailouts. Rich people vote, poor people don't (graph below). Electoral politics is a struggle that takes place amongst the rich
and the PMC. The visceral disdain the PMC has shown for the 'little people' throughout Russiagate is the product of four decades
of class warfare launched from above, not the start of it.
Graph: The tendency to vote rises with family income. The well to do elected Donald Trump, as they do every president. As the
machinations to make Joe Biden the Democrat's candidate in 2020 suggest, the poor can vote for their choice to represent the interests
of the rich, but not their own. This gives credence to Thomas Ferguson's 'investment theory' of politics. The rich vote to protect
their investment in political outcomes. Source: econofact.org.
Russiagate was and is defense of a class realm, of the power of the rich and the PMC to do as they please without the political
chatter of the 'little people' or the populist pretensions of Donald Trump.
While it seems evident now that Trump was never more
than a minor inconvenience in the CIA's plans for murder, mayhem, and world domination, this wasn't evident at the outset of his
tenure in the White House. John Brennan and James Clapper have demonstrated over long careers that the well-behaved fascism of corporate
political control, for profit militarism, targeted and occasionally brutal repression of the 'little people' and democracy in name
only, are fine with them.
What they and the PMC do object to is any notion of democracy that doesn't leave them in control of everything that it allegedly
exists to determine. If elected leaders believe they have a legitimate reason for taking military action, why do they resort to using
political and psychological coercion (like Russiagate) rather than taking their case to the people? If other, much poorer, countries
can run free and fair elections, why can't the U.S.? And why are corporate representatives allowed to craft public policies when
their interests diverge from the public's?
That none of the Russiagate charges turned out to have merit has had no determinable political impact to date. Its central protagonists
knew they were telling lies (links above) all along. Not considered by the Russiagate acolytes is that those telling lies weren't
lying to the marginally literate 'fascists' who should in elite theory have been the easiest to fool. Those people don't spend their
days reading the New York Times and listening to NPR. They were lying to the educated elite. And lest this elite imagine that it
was in on the lies -- they quite conspicuously believed every word of them.
That Brennan, Clapper and company are everything that liberals claim to hate about Donald Trump -- tacky talk show hosts who spout
whatever bullshit comes to mind if they think it will close the deal, suggests that Trump himself would be a #Resistance hero if
he had run as a Democrat. Otherwise, bright lights on the left can't seem to get past the notion that the establishment press
always reports bullshit when doing so is politically convenient. Reporting what power says rather than what it does is to be
a mouthpiece for power. That is what the establishment press does, and that is why it is considered the 'legitimate' source.
As befits this moment in history, there are no generally applicable lessons to be drawn from Russiagate. Its central protagonists
have already moved on to the 'restoring integrity to the White House' grift. By making the election a choice between getting ass
cancer or shingles, Biden or Trump -- you decide which is which, the nation has reached a zenith of sorts.
This type of moment produced
punk rock in an earlier age. Again, as befits the age, we now have the moment without the punk rock. As the existential philosophers
had it, despair is our friend. At least that's what Putin tells me.
"... Enter the Buk system, with the 9K37 SA-11 missile. It's got the range, it's got the altitude, the Russians have it in active service. Oooo problem. It's got the range, but only if it was fired from inside Ukraine. ..."
"... Anyway, back to the Buk system. And not a moment before time, either – I just re-read that sanctimonious stab above, again; " having armed the militants without due thought as to the consequences " What, exactly, is the ridiculous nature of the accusation being presented here? That the Russians gave an anti-aircraft system to the 'militants' without considering they might use it to shoot down an aircraft? How did they not see that coming? The Ukrainian Army shot down a civilian airliner in October of 2001 , and lied about it for as long as it could – interestingly, it took place during joint Ukrainian-Russian air defense exercises on the Crimean peninsula, and Russia tried hard to avoid assigning blame to Ukraine, while at least one Israeli television station claimed the Russians had shot down their own aircraft. This disaster and subsequent lying did not prevent the USA from giving the Javelin missile to Ukraine – did it not occur to them that they might use it to shoot tanks? No due thought to the consequences, obviously. ..."
"... The Buk air-defense system normally consists of at least 4 TELAR launchers , each with 4 missiles on the launch rails, a self-propelled acquisition radar designated by NATO nomenclature as Snow Drift (the radar on the nose of the TELAR unit itself is designated Fire Dome), and a self-propelled command post, for a minimum of 6 vehicles. Also usually part of the system is a mobile crane, to reload the launchers. If you were going to supply an air-defense system to militant rebels, why wouldn't you give them the whole system? In a pinch, you might be able to get away without the command post vehicle, although it is the station that collates all the input from the sensors and makes the decision to assign targets for acquisition, tracking and engagement. If you didn't give them the crane vehicle, and perhaps a logistics truck with some reloads, they would be limited to the missiles that came already mounted – once those were fired, they'd have to abandon the system, because they couldn't reload it. Seems a little wasteful, don't you think? ..."
"... I'm going a little further with my inexpert opinion, to say that the Buk system was selected as the 'murder weapon', because it provides a limited autonomous capability. To be clear, the Fire Dome radar on the nose of the TELAR does have a limited search capability, and once the radar is locked on to a target, the TELAR vehicle is completely autonomous. The purpose of the surveillance radar is to detect the target from far beyond the Fire Dome's range, assign it to a TELAR and thereby direct it to the elevation and bearing of the target so that the TELAR's radar knows exactly where to look, and continue to update its position until the TELAR to which it was assigned has locked on to the target. ..."
"... The Fire Dome radar mounted on the TELAR can search a 120-degree sector in 4 seconds, at an elevation of 6 to 7 degrees. Its search function is maximized for defense against ground attack aircraft, and a single launcher is not looking at 240 degrees of potential air threat axis during each sweep. It is not looking high enough to see an airliner at 30,000 ft+. More importantly for a system which was not designed to shoot down helpless airliners, it leaves two-thirds of a circle unobserved all the time it is searching for a target. And the Russians provided this to the 'militants' for air defense? They should be shot. ..."
"... There is no telling what kind of ordnance might be found in the wreckage itself, as the Ukrainian Army continued to shell the site for days after the crash; doubtless various artillery shells could be found at the crash site, as well, but it would be quite a leap of faith to suggest a Boeing 777 was shot down by artillery. What you would not find is pieces of the SAM that shot it down. ..."
"... Nor is that by any means all. The Dutch investigation which concluded with the preliminary report implied that nothing of any investigative value was found on the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) or the Flight Data Recorder (FDR). Nothing to indicate what might have happened to the aircraft – just that it was flying along, and suddenly it wasn't. How likely is that? No transcript was provided, and I guess that would be expected if there was no information at all. Funny how often that happens with Malaysian airliners; they really need to look at their quality control. Oh; except they don't build the aircraft. Boeing does. I could see there not being any information after the plane began to break up, because both the CVR and the FDR are in the tail , and that broke off before the fuselage hit. But the microphones are in the ceiling of the cockpit and in the microphone and earpiece of the pilots' headsets, which they wear at all times while in flight. The last audio claimed to have been recorded was a course alteration sent by Ukrainian ATC. ..."
"... According to the Malaysian government, there was an early plan by NATO for a military operation involving some 9000 troops to 'secure the crash site', which was forestalled by a covert Malaysian operation which recovered the 'black boxes' and blocked the plan. I have to say that given the many, many other unorthodox and bizarre happenings in the conduct of what was supposed to be a transparent and impartial international investigation, it's getting so nothing much is unbelievable. The Malaysian Prime Minister went on record as believing that the western powers had already concluded that Russia was responsible, and were mostly just going through the motions of investigating. ..."
"... The telephone recordings presented by the SBU as demonstrating Russian culpability were analyzed by OG IT Forensic Services, a Malaysian firm specializing in forensic analysis of audio, video and digital materials for court proceedings, which concluded the recordings were cut, edited and fabricated . Yet they are relied upon as important evidence of guilt by the Dutch and the JIT. ..."
>Uncle Volodya says, "We become slaves the moment we hand the keys to the definition of reality entirely over to someone else,
whether it is a business, an economic theory, a political party, the White House, Newsworld or CNN."
"The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous.
In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans
until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan."
– Adolf Hitler
We're going to do something just a bit different today; the event I want to talk about is current – in the future, actually –
but the reference which is the subject of the discussion is almost a year old. and the event it discusses is coming up to its sixth
anniversary. The past event was the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH-17 over Ukraine, the future event is the trial in
absentia of persons accused by the west of having perpetrated that disaster, and the reference is this piece, by Mark Galeotti,
for the Moscow Times:
"Russia's Roadmap
Out of the MH17 Crisis" .
You all know Mr. Galeotti, I'm sure. Here's his bio, for Amazon:
"Professor Mark Galeotti is a senior researcher at UMV, the Institute of International Relations Prague, and coordinator of
its Centre for European Security. Formerly, he was Professor of Global Affairs at New York University and head of History at Keele
University. Educated at Cambridge University and the LSE, he is a specialist in modern Russian politics and security and transnational
organized crime. And he writes other things for fun, too "
Yes, yes, he certainly does, as you will see. But this bio is extremely modest, albeit he most likely wrote it himself. Mr. Galeotti
also authored an excellent blog, In Moscow's Shadows , which was once a go-to reference for crime and legal issues in Russia,
a subject in which he seems very well-informed. The blog is still active, although he seems mostly to use it now to advertise podcasts
and sell books. That's understandable – it's evident from the blur of titles appended to his name that he's a very busy man. Always
has been, really; either as a student or an educator. He also speaks with confidence on the details of military affairs and equipment
despite never having been in the military or studied engineering; his education has pretty much all been in history, law or political
science.
I know what you will say – many of the greatest reference works on pivotal battles, overall military campaigns and affairs were
written by those who had no personal military experience themselves. Mr. Galeotti studied under Dominic Lieven, whose
"Russia Against Napoleon"
was perhaps the greatest work of military history, rich with detail and insight, that I have ever read. It won him the Wolfson
prize for History for 2010, a well-deserved honour. Yet so far as I could make out, Mr. Lieven never served a day in uniform, and
if you handed him an AK-47 and said "Here; field-strip this", your likely response would be a blank look. He most certainly was not
a witness to the subject military campaign. No; his epic work on Napoleon's invasion of Russia was informed by research, reading
the accounts of others who were there at the time, poring over reams of old documents and matching references to get the best picture
we have been afforded to date of Napoleon's ignominious defeat through a combination of imperial overreach, a poor grasp of logistics
and, most of all, resistance by an adversary who refused to be drawn into playing to Napoleon's strength – the decisive, crushing
battle in which the enemy could not retreat, and in which Napoleon would commit all the reserves and crush his enemy to dust.
So it is perfectly possible for an inquisitive mind with no military experience to put together an excellent reference on military
happenings which already took place, even if the owner of that mind was not present for the actual event. Given human nature and
the capabilities afforded by modern military equipment, it is even possible to forecast future military events with a fair degree
of accuracy, going merely by political ambitions and enabling factors, without any personal military experience. After all, the decision-makers
who give the orders that send their military forces into battle are often not military men themselves.
Returning for a moment to Mr. Galeotti, it is quite believable that an author with no military background could compose such works
as "Armies of the Russian-Ukrainian War" , although there is no serious evidence that Russia is a part of such a conflict
in any real military strength. You could write such a book entirely from media references and documentation, which in this case would
come almost entirely from the side which claims it is under constant attack by the other – Ukraine. Likewise "Kulikovo 1380;
the Battle that Made Russia" . None of us were around in 1380, so we all have to go by historical references, and whoever collects
them all into a book first is likely to be regarded as an expert.
No, it's more when we get into how stuff works that I have an issue with it. Like " Spetsnaz: Russia's Special Forces
". Or " The Modern Russian Army ". I'm kind of skeptical about how someone could claim to know the actual internal workings
of either organization simply from reading about them in popular references, considering that more than half the material on Russia
written in English in western references is rubbish heavily influenced by politics and policy. We would not have to look very far
to find examples in which ridiculous overconfidence by one side that it had the other side's number resulted in a horrible surprise.
In fact, we would not have to look very far to find an example of this particular author confidently averring to know something inside-out,
only to find that version
of reality could not be sustained . And I would no more turn to a Senior Non-Resident Fellow at the Institute of International
Relations Prague for expert analysis of the "Combat Vehicles of Russia's Special Forces" than I would ask a house painter
to cut my hair. Unless I see some recollections of a college-age Galeotti tinkering with drivetrains and differentials until the
sun went down from a pure love of mechanics, I am going to go ahead and assume that he knows what the vast majority of us knows about
military vehicles – he could pick one out of a lineup which included a melon, a goat and an Armored Personnel Carrier, and if it
had a flat tire he could probably fix it given time and the essential equipment.
Just before we move on, the future event: the MH-17 'trial' has been
postponed
until June 8th , to give defense attorneys more time to prepare after the amazingly fortuitous capture of a 'key witness' in
Eastern Ukraine. I'm not going to elaborate here on what a kicking-the-can-down-the-road crock this is; we'll pick that up later.
The whole MH-17 'investigation' has been such a ridiculous exercise in funneling the pursuit to a single inescapable conclusion –
that Russia shot it down – irrespective of how many points have to be bent to fit the curve that no matter how it comes out, it will
stand as perhaps the greatest example of absurd western self-justification ever recorded.
There are a couple of ways of solving a mystery crime. One is to collect evidence, and follow where it takes you. Another is to
decide who you want to have been responsible, and then construct a sequence of events in which they might have done it. To do that,
especially in this case, we will have to throw out a few assumptions, such as all that stuff about means, motive and opportunity.
In the absence of a believable scenario, that is. Let's look at what we have, and what we need, and see how we get from there to
here.
First, we need for Ukraine not to have been responsible. That's going to be awkward, because it looks as if the aircraft was shot
down by a missile, but the missile had to have come from inside Ukraine, because the aircraft was too far from the nearest point
in Russia at the moment it was stricken for the missile to have come from there. But we need Russia to have been responsible, and
not Ukraine. Therefore we need a sequence of events in which a Russian missile launcher capable of shooting down an airliner at cruising
altitude was inside Ukraine, in a position from which it could have taken the shot.
You know what? We are going to have to look at means, motive and opportunity, just for a second. My purpose in doing
so is to illustrate just how improbable the western narrative is, starting from square one. The coup in Ukraine – and anyone who
believes it was a 'grass-roots revolution' might as well stop reading right here, because we are going to just get further apart
in our impressions of events – followed by the triumphant promise from the revolutionaries to repeal Yanukovych's language laws and
make Ukrainian the law of the land touched off the return of Crimea to its ancestral home in the Russian Federation. Crimea was about
65% ethnic Russian by population at the time, and only about 15% Ukrainian, and Crimea had made several attempts to break free of
Ukraine before that yet for some reason the west refused steadfastly to accept the results of a referendum which voted in favour
of Crimea becoming a part of the Russian Federation, as if it were more believable that a huge ethnic-Russian majority preferred
to learn Ukrainian and be governed by Kiev.
Be that as it may, Washington reacted very angrily; much more so than Europe, considering the distance between the United States
and Ukraine versus its proximity to Europe. Perhaps that is owed simply to Washington's assumption that every corner of the world
looks to it for leadership, and that it must have a position ready on any given situation, regardless how distant. So Washington
insisted there must be sanctions against Russia, for stealing Crimea from its rightful owner, Ukraine. We're not really going to
get into struggles for freedom and the right to self-determination right now, except to state that the USA considers nothing more
important in some cases, while in others it is completely irrelevant. Washington demanded sanctions but
much of Europe was reluctant .
"It is notoriously difficult to secure EU agreement on sanctions anywhere because they require unanimity from the 28 member
states. There were wide differences over the numbers of Russians and Crimeans to be punished, with countries such as Greece, Cyprus,
Bulgaria and Spain reluctant to penalise Moscow for fear of closing down channels of dialogue. The 21 named were on an original list
that ran to about 120 people Expanding the numbers on the sanctions list is almost certain to be discussed at the EU summit on Thursday
and Friday. Some EU states are torn about taking punitive measures against Russia for fear of undoing years of patient attempts to
establish closer ties with Moscow as well as increase trade. The EU has already suspended talks with Russia on an economic pact and
a visa agreement The German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said any measure must leave "ways and possibilities open to
prevent a further escalation that could lead to the division of Europe" .
The original list of those to be sanctioned was 120 people. The haggling reduced that to 21. Only 7 of those were Russians. Putin
was not included. That was pretty plainly not the United Front That Speaks With One Voice that Washington had envisioned, and the
notion that Europe would buy into sanctions that might really do some damage to Russia, albeit there would be economic costs to Europe
as well, was a dim prospect.
Gosh – you know what we need? An atrocity which can be quickly tied to Russia, and which will so appall the EU member states that
resistance to far-reaching sanctions will collapse. That's called 'motive'. It's just not a motive for Russia. Having just gone far
out on a limb and taken back Crimea, to the obvious and vocal fury of the United States, it is a bit of a stretch that Russia was
looking for what else it could do that would stir up the world against it.
Means, now. That presents its own dilemma. Because Russia could have shot down an airliner from its own territory. Just not with
the weapon chosen. The S-400 could have done it; it has the range, easily. But if you were setting up a scenario in which something
happened that you wanted to blame on Russia, but they didn't really do it, you must have the weapon to do it yourself, or access
to it. By any reasonable construct, Ukraine must be a suspect as well – there was a hot war going on in Ukraine, Ukraine controlled
both the airspace and the aircraft that was lost, and the aircraft was lost over Ukrainian territory. But Ukraine doesn't have the
S-400. You could use a variety of western systems, but it would quickly be established that the plane was shot down with a weapon
that Russia does not have. In order for the narrative to be believable, Russia must have the weapon – but if it wasn't Russia, then
whoever did it must have the weapon, too.
Enter the Buk system, with the 9K37 SA-11 missile. It's got the range, it's got the altitude, the Russians have it in active service.
Oooo problem. It's got the range, but only if it was fired from inside Ukraine.
Which brings us back to Mr. Galeotti, an expert in Russian combat systems; enough of an expert to write books on them, anyway.
And he plainly believes it was an SA-11 missile fired from a single Buk TELAR (Transporter/Erector/Launcher and Radar) which brought
down the Boeing; he says that's what the evidence demonstrates, although by this time (2019) most of the world has backed away from
saying Putin showed up with no shirt on to close the firing switch personally (cue the instant British-press screaming headlines
before the dust had even settled, "PUTIN'S MISSILE!!!" "PUTIN KILLED MY SON!!!"). Now the story is that the disgraceful deed was
done by 'Ukrainian anti-government militants', using a weapon supplied by Russia.
"In this context, a full reversal of policy seems near-enough impossible. The evidence suggests that while the fateful missile
was fired by Ukrainian anti-government militants, it was supplied by the Russian 53rd Air Defense Brigade under orders from Moscow
and in a process managed by Russian military intelligence.
To admit this would not only be to acknowledge a share in the unlawful killing of 298 innocents, but also an unpicking of
the whole Kremlin narrative over the Donbass. It would mean admitting to having been an active participant in this bloody compound
of civil war and foreign intervention, to having armed the militants without due thought as to the consequences, and to having lied
to the world and the Russian people for half a decade."
We don't really have the scope in this piece to broaden the discussion to Russia's probable actual involvement. Suffice it to
say that despite non-stop allegations by Poroshenko throughout his presidency of entire battalions of active-service Russian Army
soldiers inside Ukraine, zero evidence has ever been provided of any such presence, although there have been
some clumsy attempts to fabricate
it . To argue that the Russian Army has been trying to overrun Ukraine for six years now, but has been unable to do so because
of the combat prowess of the Ukrainian Army is to imply a belief in leprechauns. This is only my own inexpert opinion, but it seems
likely to me the complete extent of Russia's involvement, militarily, is the minimum which prevents Eastern Ukraine from being overrun
by the Ukrainian military, and including the rebel areas' own far-from-inconsequential military forces. I'm always ready to entertain
competing theories, though; be sure to bring your evidence. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian Constitution prohibits using the country's military
forces against its own citizens. The logic of 'Have cake, and eat it" cannot apply here – either the Ukrainian state is in direct
and obvious violation of its own constitution or the people of the breakaway regions are not Ukrainian citizens.
Anyway, back to the Buk system. And not a moment before time, either – I just re-read that
sanctimonious stab above, again; " having armed the militants without due thought as to the consequences " What, exactly,
is the ridiculous nature of the accusation being presented here? That the Russians gave an anti-aircraft system to the 'militants'
without considering they might use it to shoot down an aircraft? How did they not see that coming? The Ukrainian Army
shot down a civilian airliner in October of 2001
, and lied about it for as long as it could – interestingly, it took place during joint Ukrainian-Russian air defense exercises
on the Crimean peninsula, and Russia tried hard to avoid assigning blame to Ukraine, while at least one Israeli television station
claimed the Russians had shot down their own aircraft. This disaster and subsequent lying did not prevent the USA from giving the
Javelin missile to Ukraine – did it not occur to them that they might use it to shoot tanks? No due thought to the consequences,
obviously.
The Buk air-defense system normally consists of at least
4 TELAR launchers , each with 4 missiles on the launch rails, a self-propelled acquisition radar designated by NATO nomenclature
as Snow Drift (the radar on the nose of the TELAR unit itself is designated Fire Dome), and a self-propelled command post, for a
minimum of 6 vehicles. Also usually part of the system is a mobile crane, to reload the launchers. If you were going to supply an
air-defense system to militant rebels, why wouldn't you give them the whole system? In a pinch, you might be able to get away without
the command post vehicle, although it is the station that collates all the input from the sensors and makes the decision to assign
targets for acquisition, tracking and engagement. If you didn't give them the crane vehicle, and perhaps a logistics truck with some
reloads, they would be limited to the missiles that came already mounted – once those were fired, they'd have to abandon the system,
because they couldn't reload it. Seems a little wasteful, don't you think?
What about the acquisition radar? Because acquiring targets is all about scanning capability and situational awareness. We're
going to assume for a moment that you don't use an air defense system exclusively to hunt for airliners, but that you want to defend
yourself against ground-attack aircraft like the Sukhoi SU-25. Because, when you think about it, who is more likely to be trying
to kill you ? A Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777, or an SU-25? The latter is not quite as fast as an airliner at its cruising
height of 30,000 ft+, but it is very agile and will be nearly down in the treetops if it is attacking you. You need to be able to
search all around, all the time.
That's where the acquisition radar comes in. A centimetric waveband search radar, the
Snow Drift (called the 9S18M1 by
its designer) has 360-degree coverage and from 0 to 40 degrees of height in a 6-second sweep in anti-aircraft mode, with a 160 km
detection range, obviously dependent on target altitude. An airliner, being a large target not attempting to evade detection, and
at a high altitude, would quite possibly be detected at the maximum range of which the system is capable. But then the operators
would certainly know it was an airliner. And the narrative says whoever shot it down probably did so by accident.
Maybe if it was his first day on the job. Let's talk for a minute about air-defense deconfliction. It would be nice if your Command
parked you somewhere that there was nothing around you but enemies. Well, not as nice as parking you across the street from a pulled-pork
barbecue joint with strippers and cold beer, but from a defense standpoint, it'd be nice to know that anything you detected, you
could shoot. Know something? It's never like that. Your own aircraft are flying around as if they didn't even know you are dangerous,
and as everyone now knows, civilian airliners continue their transport enterprises irrespective of war except in rare instances in
which high-flying aircraft have been shot down by long-range missiles. That rarely happens. Why? Because an aircraft flying a steady
course, at 30,000 ft+ and not descending, is no threat to you on the ground. From that altitude it can't even see you in the ground
clutter, and it'd be quite a bombardier that could hit a target the size of a two-car garage with a bomb dropped from 30,000 ft while
flying at 400 knots.
And unless you are an idiot, you know it is an airliner. When you are deployed into the field in an air-defense role, you know
where the commercial airlanes are that are going to be active. You know what a commercial-aviation profile looks like – aircraft
at 30,000 ft+ altitude, flying at ≥400 knots on a steady course, squawking Mode 3 and Charlie = airliner. Might as well take a moment
here to talk about
IFF ; Identification
Friend or Foe. This is a coded pulse signal transmitted by all commercial aircraft whenever they are in flight unless their equipment
is non-functional, and you are not allowed to take off with it in that state. Mode C provides the aircraft's altitude, taken automatically
from its barometric altimeter. All modern air search radars have IFF capability, and a dashed line just below the raw video of the
air track can be interrogated with a light-pen to provide the readout. You already know how high the plane is if you have a solid
radar track, but Mode C provides a confirmation.
Military aircraft have IFF transponders, too; in fact, most of the modes are reserved for military use. But military aircraft
often turn off their IFF equipment, because it provides a giveaway who and where they are. In Ukraine, which uses mostly Soviet military
aircraft, both sides are capable of reading each other's IFF, so all the more reason not to transmit. Foreign nations typically cannot
read each other's IFF except for the modes which are for both military and civilian use, other than those nations who are allies.
Anyway, the point I wanted to make is that the Snow Drift acquisition radar has IFF, and if it detected an airliner-like target at
160 km., the operator would have that much more time to interrogate it and determine it was an airliner. Just to reiterate, the western
narrative holds that the destruction of the airliner was a mistake.
I'm going a little further with my inexpert opinion, to say that the Buk system was selected as the 'murder weapon', because it
provides a limited autonomous capability. To be clear, the Fire Dome radar on the nose of the TELAR does have a limited search capability,
and once the radar is locked on to a target, the TELAR vehicle is completely autonomous. The purpose of the surveillance radar is
to detect the target from far beyond the Fire Dome's range, assign it to a TELAR and thereby direct it to the elevation and bearing
of the target so that the TELAR's radar knows exactly where to look, and continue to update its position until the TELAR to which
it was assigned has locked on to the target.
That autonomous capability is probably what made it attractive to those building the scenario; consider. A complete Buk system
of 6, maybe 7 vehicles could hardly get all the way inside Ukraine to the firing position without being noticed and perhaps recorded.
But perhaps a single TELAR could do it. The aircraft could be shot down by an SA-11 missile and blamed on Russia – Ukraine has access
to plenty of SA-11's. But it is a weapon in the Russian active-service inventory. Further, Galeotti's commitment to the allegation
that the single TELAR was provided by Russia's 53rd Air Defense Brigade tells us he supports the crackpot narrative offered by Bellingcat,
the loopy citizen-journalist website headed by failed financial clerk Eliot Higgins. Bellingcat claims the Buk TELAR was trucked
into Ukraine on the back of a flatbed, took the shot that slew MH-17, and was immediately withdrawn back to Russia.
Ummm .how was that an accident? The Russians gave the Ukrainian militants a single launcher with no crane or reload missiles,
so it was limited to a maximum of four shots. Its ability to defend itself from ground attack was almost nil, since the design purpose
of mounting a Fire Dome radar
on each TELAR is not to make the launcher units autonomous; it is to permit concurrent engagements by several launchers, all
coordinated by the acquisition radar and command post. Without a radar of its own on the launcher, the firing unit would have to
wait until each engagement was completed before it could switch to a new target, but with a fire-control guidance radar on each TELAR,
multiple targets can be assigned to multiple launchers, while the search radar limits itself to acquisition and target assignment.
The Fire Dome radar mounted on the TELAR can search a 120-degree sector in 4 seconds, at an elevation of 6 to 7 degrees. Its search
function is maximized for defense against ground attack aircraft, and a single launcher is not looking at 240 degrees of potential
air threat axis during each sweep. It is not looking high enough to see an airliner at 30,000 ft+. More importantly for a system
which was not designed to shoot down helpless airliners, it leaves two-thirds of a circle unobserved all the time it is searching
for a target. And the Russians provided this to the 'militants' for air defense? They should be shot.
A single TELAR with no reloads and no acquisition radar would have to be looking directly at the target when it was activated
in order to even see it; it takes 15 seconds for the launcher to swing into line and elevation even when that information is transmitted
to it from the acquisition radar. It takes 4 seconds for a scan to be completed when there is a whole two-thirds of a circle that
it is not even looking at, and you have to manually force it to search above 7 degrees because it is not designed to shoot down airliners.
All this time, the target is crossing the acquisition scope at 400 knots+. Fire Dome has integrated IFF, so if it did by some miracle
pick up an airliner in its search, the operator would know from transmitted IFF that he was looking at an airliner. A single TELAR
with no reload capability sent on an air-defense mission would have its ass ripped in half by ground-attack aircraft that it never
saw – if the autonomous capability is so good, why don't the Ukrainians use them as a single unit? Think of how much air-defense
coverage they could provide! Do you see the Ukrainian air-defense units employing the Buk that way? Never. Not once. Four TELARS,
acquisition radar vehicle, command vehicle, just the way the system was designed to operate.
Just because it has a limited capability to function in a given capacity should not suggest you would employ it that way. You
can use a hockey stick to turn off the bedroom light, and you won't even have to get out of bed. Would you do that? I hope not.
A one-third effective capacity in the air defense role together with the covert delivery and immediate withdrawal suggests that
the Russians provided the 'militants' with a single TELAR for the express purpose of shooting down a defenseless airliner. Except
nobody is saying that. It was a mistake. Well, except for Head of the Security Service of Ukraine Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, who claimed
"Terrorists and militants have planned a cynical terrorist attack on a civilian aircraft Aeroflot AFL-2074 Moscow-Larnaka that was
flying at that time above the territory of Ukraine." He further claimed that this was motivated by a desire to 'justify an invasion'.
I'm pretty sure if any western authority could prove anything even close to that, we would not have had to wait 6 years for a trial.
Which brings us to the covert delivery and extraction. As part of his personal investigation, Max van der Werff drove the route
Bellingcat claimed was the extraction route by which the single TELAR, on its flatbed, was returned to Russia. He verified that there
is a highway overpass on the route which is too low for a load that tall to pass underneath. When he pointed this out to Higgins,
he was told there is a bypass spur which goes around it, which would allow the flatbed to regain the road beyond without having gone
through the overpass. Max drew his attention to the concrete barriers which blocked that road at the top of the hill, and which locals
claimed had been in place long before the destruction of MH-17. And that was the end of that conversation. I cannot say enough about
the quality of Max's work and his diligent, patient dissection
of the evidence . His diagrams of the entry and egress routes as provided by Bellingcat illustrate how little sense they make.
It was imperative the guilty Russians get the fuck out of Dodge with the greatest possible dispatch so they drove 100 kilometers
out of their way? Don't even terrorist murderers have GPS now?
Similarly, the simpleminded flailing of the Ukrainian investigators suggests they do not even have much of a grasp of how Surface-To-Air
missiles work. In excited posts like this one , the
BBC discloses that an exhaust vent from the tail section of a 'Buk missile' (the missile is actually the SA-11, while Buk is the
entire system) was found in the wreckage of the crashed plane, while
this one
even shows terminally-stunned head prosecutor Fred Westerbeke standing next to what is allegedly part of the rocket body of an
SA-11, including legible inventory markings, also 'found at the crash scene'.
Do tell.
Let me review for you how an SA-11 missile shoots down an aircraft. Does it pierce it like a harpoon, blow up in a thunderous
explosion, and ride the doomed aircraft down to the crash site? It certainly does not. The missile blasts out of the launcher and
flies to the target via semiactive homing, which means it has an onboard seeker that updates the missile trajectory, while the radar
on the launcher also communicates with it and the missile and the target are brought together in intercept. When the proximity fuse
of the missile – this is the important part – senses that the missile's warhead is close to the target, the internal explosive detonates,
and a shower of prefragmented shrapnel pierces the area of the plane near where the missile detonated, usually the front, because
the missile is constantly adjusting to make sure it stays with the target until intercept.
MH-17 traveled on, mostly intact, for miles before it crashed into the ground; the crash site was some 13 miles from where the
plane was hit. The missile self-destructed miles away from the crash site, and the only parts of it which accompanied the plane to
its impact point were the shrapnel bits of the exploded warhead. The body of the missile, together with the exhaust vent, fell back
to the ground somewhere quite close to where the plane was hit, not where it fell. Once the missile's fuel is exhausted, either because
it ran out or because it was consumed in the explosion triggered by the proximity fuse, the missile parts do not fly around in formation,
seeking out the wreckage and coming gently to rest in it where they can later be found by investigators. I don't know how many times
I have to say this, because this is certainly not the first, but there would not be any missile parts in the wreckage of MH-17
because the missile would have blown up in front of the plane without ever touching it. The missile does not hit the plane.
The pieces of the warhead do. But reality has to take a back seat to making out an airtight case.
There is no telling what kind of ordnance might be found in the wreckage itself, as the Ukrainian Army
continued to shell the site
for days after the crash; doubtless various artillery shells could be found at the crash site, as well, but it would be quite
a leap of faith to suggest a Boeing 777 was shot down by artillery. What you would not find is pieces of the SAM that shot it down.
Several witnesses claimed to have seen an SU-25 near the plane before it exploded. They quite possibly did – the Ukrainian Air
Force was observed to be using civilian airliners as cover to allow them to get close to Eastern-Ukrainian villages which might be
protected by hand-held launchers known as MANPADS (for Man-Portable Air Defense System), reasoning the defenders would not shoot
if they were afraid they might hit a civil aircraft. Once they were close enough to the village or other target to make an attack
run, they would then return to the vicinity of the airliner for protection while withdrawing; the rebel side complained about this
illegal and immoral practice a month before the destruction of MH-17. But there is no evidence I am aware of linking the destruction
of MH-17 to an attack by aircraft.
It may no longer be possible to look at the shooting-down of the Malaysian Boeing objectively; the event has become a partisan
rush to judgment which was rendered immediately, after which an investigation began which plainly had as its goal proving the accusations
already made. Means and motive clearly favour the accusers rather than the accused, and opportunity is mostly irrelevant as a consideration.
Ukraine obviously had to be a suspect – the destruction of the aircraft occurred over Ukraine while Ukraine was in control of it
and the airspace in which it traveled. Yet Ukraine was allowed to lead the investigation, and to gather and safeguard evidence, while
the owner of the aircraft – Malaysia – was excluded until the investigation had been in progress for four months. Russia was not
allowed any part in it save to yield whatever evidence the investigators demanded, while all its theories were widely mocked. Demonstrations
set up by Almaz-Antey, the designers and builders of the SA-11, were unattended by any investigating nation – small wonder they do
not have Clue One how the missile works, and believe they are going to find big chunks of it in the wreckage, perhaps with Putin's
passport stuck to one of them. If any of these conditions prevailed in an investigation which favoured Russia, NATO would scream
as if it were being run over with spiked wheels – if the Boeing had been shot down over Russia, who thinks Russia would have been
heading the investigation, and custodian of the evidence?
Nor is that by any means all. The Dutch investigation which concluded with the preliminary report
implied that nothing of any investigative value was found on the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) or the Flight Data Recorder (FDR).
Nothing to indicate what might have happened to the aircraft – just that it was flying along, and suddenly it wasn't. How likely
is that? No transcript was provided, and I guess that would be expected if there was no information at all. Funny how often that
happens with Malaysian airliners; they really need to look at their quality control. Oh; except they don't build the aircraft. Boeing
does. I could see there not being any information after the plane began to break up, because
both the CVR and the FDR are in the
tail , and that broke off before the fuselage hit. But the microphones are in the ceiling of the cockpit and in the microphone
and earpiece of the pilots' headsets, which they wear at all times while in flight. The last audio claimed to have been recorded
was a course alteration sent by Ukrainian ATC.
According to the Malaysian government, there was an early plan by NATO for a military operation involving some 9000 troops to
'secure the crash site', which was
forestalled by a covert Malaysian operation which recovered the 'black boxes' and blocked the plan. I have to say that given
the many, many other unorthodox and bizarre happenings in the conduct of what was supposed to be a transparent and impartial international
investigation, it's getting so nothing much is unbelievable. The Malaysian Prime Minister went on record as believing that the western
powers had already concluded that Russia was responsible, and were mostly just going through the motions of investigating.
The telephone recordings presented by the SBU as demonstrating Russian culpability were analyzed by OG IT Forensic Services, a
Malaysian firm specializing in forensic analysis of audio, video and digital materials for court proceedings, which
concluded the recordings were cut, edited and fabricated . Yet they are relied upon as important evidence of guilt by the Dutch
and the JIT.
The conduct of the investigation has been all the way across town from transparent, and in fact seems to represent a clique of
cronies getting their heads together to attempt nailing down a consistent narrative, which is in the judgment of forensic professionals
based upon clumsy fabrications. The investigators plainly have no understanding of how the weapons systems involved perform, or they
would not claim confidently to have discovered pieces of the very missile that destroyed the plane in the wreckage of it. But rather
than take an objective look at how this flailing is perceived, they continue to rely on momentum and the appearance of getting things
done while being scrupulously impartial, all the while that more mountains of evidence are collected, which they cannot disclose
to the public, although it is all right to let the prime suspect keep it safe under wraps.
Make of that what you will.
" Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about. Thus the
production of bullshit is stimulated whenever a person's obligations or opportunities to speak about some topic exceed his knowledge
of the facts that are relevant to that topic. "
"... This was Bellingcrap's bread-and-butter function, to use satellite photos and make them say whatever Bellingcrap had been tasked to say they were, relying on the fact that mainstream media organisations rarely employ people expert in interpreting satellite imagery, before people outside the MSM environment started voicing suspicions about how the "evidence" for the official MH17 narrative was being worked and whipped into shape to fit that narrative. ..."
" The point is that we often tend to believe satellite photography shows what its
presenters say it shows because we do not have the skill to interpret it ourselves "
This was Bellingcrap's bread-and-butter function, to use satellite photos and make them
say whatever Bellingcrap had been tasked to say they were, relying on the fact that
mainstream media organisations rarely employ people expert in interpreting satellite imagery,
before people outside the MSM environment started voicing suspicions about how the "evidence"
for the official MH17 narrative was being worked and whipped into shape to fit that
narrative.
It's my understanding that there is a company in Colorado, called Digital something or
other, that supplies a huge amount of satellite imagery to the US government and other big
clients.
@Realist Quite right. I should have written that sentence differently in that by "like
Brennan," I meant an individual allowed to rise by obtaining compromising information on
everyone, most especially his intelligence colleagues.
Our system abhors such an arrogation of power or at least it used to. Not to put too fine
a point on it but that's what happens when you construct a surveillance state and then turn
it over to filth like Brennan.
This really isn't very complicated. It's utterly untenable in our great republic to have
the former CIA Director shouting every other day that the duly elected POTUS is treasonous
and much be removed from office by any means necessary.
It's impossible to overstate how serious this situation is when those who are needed on
the side of our republic and legitimate constitutional authority are distracting with squeaks
about Michael Ledeen's daughter no less.
I'm not laying this all at Brennan's door. Like Beria, his presence at the pinnacle of
power was more symptom than cause. He's no evil genius which, when you think about it, makes
the continued craven obedience to him by Democrats, RINO Republicans, Allied Media and, yes,
most who were in the IC, that much more pathetic.
A US judge
dismissed a defamation lawsuit by One America News Network against MSNBC over Rachel Maddow's
claims that OAN was "literally" Russian propaganda, ruling that her segment was merely "an
opinion" and "exaggeration." OAN sued the liberal talk show host and MSNBC for defamation,
demanding over $10 million in damages, back in September 2019. The lawsuit was based on the
July 22 episode of The Rachel Maddow Show, where Maddow launched a scathing broadside against
the conservative television network, labeling it "the most obsequiously pro-Trump right
wing news outlet in America" and "really literally paid Russian propaganda."
In the segment, Maddow cited a story by The Daily Beast's Kevin Poulsen about OAN's Kristian
Rouz, who has previously contributed to Sputnik as a freelance author. Toeing the general US
mainstream line on the Russian media, be it Sputnik or RT, Poulsen branded the Russian news
agency "the Kremlin's official propaganda outlet" and said Rouz was once on its
"payroll." Shortly after MSNBC's star talent peddled the claim, OAN rejected the
allegations as "utterly and completely false. " The outlet, which is owned by the
Herring Networks, a small California-based family company, said that it "has never been
paid or received a penny from Russia or the Russian government," with its only funding
coming from the Herring family.
In their bid to win the case, Maddow herself, MSNBC, Comcast Corporation and NBCUniversal
Media did not address the accusation itself - namely, that her claim about OAN was false - but
opted to invoke the First Amendment, insisting that the rant should be protected as free
speech.
Siding
with Maddow, the California district court defined Maddow's show as a mix of "news and
opinions," concluding that the manner in which the progressive host blurted out the
accusations "makes it more likely that a reasonable viewer would not conclude that the
contested statement implies an assertion of objective fact." h
The court said that while Maddow "truthfully" related the story by the Daily Beast,
the statement about OAN being funded by the Kremlin was her "opinion" and
"exaggeration" of the said article.
While the legal trick helped Maddow to get off the hook without ever trying to defend her
initial statement, conservative commentators on social media wasted no time in pointing out
that dodging a payout to OAN literally meant admitting that Maddow was not, in fact, news.
Maddow won a lawsuit brought against her because the Judge found her show was "opinion," that is, her show isn't one that
shares actual facts with viewers.https://t.co/T1bgdSfc0P — Essential Cernovich (@Cernovich) May 22, 2020Q
Just like Alex Jones’ defense in his divorce and custody proceedings: “I’m an entertainer”
Biden’s binder full of women (@Wallflowerface) May 22, 2020Q
So if she makes any statement(s) on air about being factual, then don’t we have an excellent appeal? — Mortimer Cinder
Block (@LeonardPGoldst1) May 22, 2020Q
A second Senate panel, the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator Lindsey Graham of South
Carolina, is working on a similar timetable, with plans to issue a report before the November 3
presidential vote. It began Thursday to discuss subpoenas of former top Obama administration
and national security officials, with a vote set for June 4 to give Graham broad subpoena
power.
Graham has suggested he will call, among others, former FBI Director James Comey, his former
deputy Andrew McCabe, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA
Director John Brennan, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former White House Chief of
Staff Denis McDonough. At least initially, Graham has downplayed calls by Trump for issuing
subpoenas to Obama and Biden.
The initial focus of the Judiciary Committee will be the case of retired General Michael
Flynn, who resigned in February 2017 as Trump's national security adviser and later pled guilty
to lying to the FBI about his contacts with then-Russian Ambassador to the US Sergey
Kislyak.
Over the past month, the Flynn case has become the war cry of Trump and his ultra-right
backers at Breitbart News, Fox News and among congressional Republicans. They claim that Flynn
was the victim of a "perjury trap" set up by Comey at the instigation of Obama and Biden to
disrupt the incoming Trump administration.
Attorney General William Barr intervened to quash the sentencing of Flynn on perjury
charges, taking the unprecedented action of dropping prosecution on charges to which Flynn had
twice pled guilty before a federal judge. That judge, Emmett Sullivan, is now considering
whether to allow the dropping of the charges and has asked for outside groups to file
friend-of-the-court pleadings on the question.
The Senate investigations accelerated after a Tuesday meeting between Trump and leading
Senate Republicans, at which he demanded they "get tough" against the Democrats by issuing
subpoenas and holding televised hearings during the summer.
On the same day, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell abandoned his previous reluctance to
hold such hearings, declaring that the Obama administration had used "the awesome power of the
federal government to pry into their political rivals."
"An American citizen's campaign for the American presidency was treated like a hostile
foreign power by our own law enforcement," he said, "in part because a Democrat-led executive
branch manipulated documents, hid contrary evidence, and made a DNC-funded dossier a launchpad
for an investigation."
... ... ...
The fall election campaign sparked an internal conflict within the FBI
between pro-Trump and pro-Clinton factions. On October 7, the "intelligence community" issued a
warning that Russia was seeking to intervene in the election on behalf of Trump. Then, on
October 29, Comey released his notorious letter to Congress announcing the reopening of the
FBI's investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary
of state. This unprecedented action, in violation of Justice Department rules against
interfering with an election, arguably tipped the outcome to Trump, given his narrow margins in
industrial states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
After Trump's surprise election victory, the attention of the intelligence agencies and the
Obama administration shifted to Flynn, Trump's top foreign policy aide and his choice to become
White House national security adviser. Obama warned Trump against naming Flynn, who had been
fired in 2014 as part of an internal conflict within the intelligence establishment, with
Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan pressing for his dismissal.
On December 29, 2016, Obama imposed stiff diplomatic sanctions on the Russian government,
expelling a large number of its representatives in the United States on the spurious grounds
that he was "retaliating" for Russian interference in the US presidential election. In fact,
there has never been any evidence that Russian actions consisted of anything more than
purchasing a few Facebook ads, for less than $100,000, trivial in comparison to the $5 billion
expended by the campaigns for Trump and Clinton.
Immediately after Obama's announcement of sanctions, Flynn called the Russian ambassador to
the United States, Kislyak, to urge the Putin government not to respond in kind, assuring him
that the incoming Trump administration would review the matter afresh. Such contacts are
routine during any transition between outgoing and incoming US administrations, but Flynn
apparently considered the content of the discussions to be politically embarrassing and lied
about them when interviewed by FBI agents.
On January 5, 2017, Obama and his closest aides were briefed by the intelligence agencies on
the anti-Russia investigation, on the eve of a similar briefing delivered to President-elect
Trump in New York City. It appears that Obama was less enthusiastic about the targeting of
Flynn than the security chiefs, including Clapper and Comey, and Flynn continued to receive
full briefings from the outgoing national security adviser, Susan Rice.
On January 12, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, a regular conduit for the
intelligence agencies, made public the December 29 Flynn-Kislyak phone call, touching off the
chain of events that led to Flynn's firing a month later. It is perhaps ironic, in view of the
current "Obamagate" campaign, that Ignatius voiced the then-common view in the "intelligence
community" that Obama was dragging his feet on the anti-Russia campaign. His column was
headlined, "Why Did Obama Dawdle on Russian Hacking?"
These apparently tactical differences led Comey to send FBI agents to the White House on
January 24, 2017 to interview Flynn about his conversations with Kislyak without notifying the
Department of Justice, in violation of the usual protocol, because Acting Attorney General
Sally Yates reportedly shared Obama's concern that too direct an attack on Flynn and Trump
might backfire.
Besides the various Senate investigations, the Department of Justice is conducting its own
review of the origins of the Russia investigation, which led ultimately to the appointment of
special counsel Robert Mueller. This review, headed by US Attorney John Durham, is expected to
include testimony under oath from the same set of former Obama aides who are to be subpoenaed
by the Senate.
"... One could write a long history of FBI abuses and failures, from Latin America to Martin Luther King to Japanese internment. But just consider a handful of their more recent cases. ..."
"... But it was 9/11 that really sealed the FBI's ignominious track record. The lavishly funded agency charged with preventing terrorism somehow missed the attacks, despite their awareness of numerous Saudi nationals taking flying lessons around the country. Immediately after 9/11, the nation was gripped by the anthrax scare, and once again the FBI's inability to solve the case caused them to try to railroad an innocent man, Stephen Hatfill . ..."
"... With 9/11, the FBI also began targeting troubled Americans by handing them bomb materials, arresting them, and then holding a press conference to tell the country that they had prevented a major terrorist attack -- a fake attack that they themselves had planned. ..."
"... 9/11 also opened the floodgates to domestic surveillance and all the FISA abuses that most recently led to the prosecution of Michael Flynn. I am no fan of Flynn and his hawkish anti-Islamic views, but the way he was framed and then prosecuted really does shock the conscience. ..."
"... For the FBI, merely catching bad guys is too mundane. As one can tell from the sanctimonious James Comey, the culture at the Bureau holds grander aspirations. Comey's book is titled A Higher Loyalty , as if the FBI reports only to the Almighty. ..."
"... While the nation's elite colleges and tech companies are crawling with Chinese spies who are literally stealing our best ideas, the chief of the FBI's Counterintelligence Section, Peter Strzok, spent his days trying to frame junior aides in the Trump campaign. ..."
"... Some conservatives have called for FBI Director Christopher Wray to be fired. This would accomplish nothing, as the problem is not one man but an entire culture. ..."
"... One of the most amusing yet disturbing tends of the Trump era has been the increasingly strong embrace of the "intelligence community" (how I hate that term) by left liberals. ..."
"... It's tempting to wonder how many of them have even heard of COINTELPRO, but I suspect that most of them would be just fine if the FBI intervened to disrupt and destabilize the Marxist left in the unlikely event that it seemed to be gaining a significant political foothold. Can't have any nasty class politics disrupting their bourgeois identitarian parlor game! ..."
"... J. Edgar Hoover wrecked a lot of the good the FBI could have been right from the beginning, there needs to be a major cultural change over there and they need to be put back on track so that they serve us instead of themselves. ..."
"... Making sure crooks like Hoover and showboats like Comey never get put in charge would be a good start. ..."
"... Remember in "Three Days of the Condor," when Robert Redford reacts scornfully to Cliff Robertson's use of the term "community"? ..."
"... Collaboratus: Basically, working together. BULL, the individual IC Agencies can't work together internally, much less across agency boundaries. ..."
"... Virtus: a specific virtue in Ancient Rome. It carried connotations of valor, manliness, excellence, courage, character, and worth, perceived as masculine strengths. Again, BULL. The Feminazis and lgbtqxyz crowd have, pretty much snipped any balls and put them in a jar. Yes, gay pride is big in the IC. ..."
"... Fides: was the goddess of trust and bona fides in Roman paganism. She was one of the original virtues to be considered an actual religious divinity. Fides is everything that is required for "honour and credibility, from fidelity in marriage, to contractual arrangements, and the obligation soldiers owed to Rome". With respect to the IC, that last bears repeating" "Obligations Soldiers Owed To Rome." In the IC (Rome), Leadership and Management (LM) have no obligations to the 'soldiers'; so, of course, the soldiers respond in kind. ..."
"... Real underline issue is FBI has been politicized. Rather than be neutral and independent, top FBI leaders have aligned with politicians. While nominate FBI officials, presidents also select their own than someone is independent. ..."
"... Absolutely nothing new or rare was done to Flynn. The FBI used perfectly standard dirty tricks on him. ..."
"... It isn't just the FBI that uses dirty tactics. most police departments also use dirty tactics. ..."
"... As I see it the agency that needs to be broken up is the CIA. What they do is shameful and not American. They are and have always been heavily involved in other countries internal affairs. They are an evil organization. ..."
"... Absolutely phenomenal that an entire essay abusing the FBI could be written without once mentioning the man who actually made the Federal Bureau of Investigation into what it is (whatever that might be). But J Edgar Hoover is still sufficiently iconic a figure to many Conservatives that it would be counterproductive to assault him. Better someone like Comey. ..."
"... I did not know the FBI had the power to go back in time, otherwise how did they get Flynn to lie to VP Pence on Jan 14 when they didn't interview him until 1/24? Amazing how powerful they are! ..."
Its constant abuses, of which Michael Flynn is only the latest, show what a failed
Progressive Era institution it really is. Fittingly, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was founded by a grandnephew of
Napoleon Bonaparte, Attorney General Charles J. Bonaparte, during the Progressive Era.
Bonaparte was a Harvard-educated crusader. As the FBI's official history states, "Many
progressives, including (Teddy) Roosevelt, believed that the federal government's guiding hand
was necessary to foster justice in an industrial society."
Progressives viewed the Constitution as a malleable document, a take-it-or-leave-it kind of
thing. The FBI inherited that mindset of civil liberties being optional. In their early years,
with the passage of the Espionage and Sedition Acts during World War I, the FBI came into its
own by launching a massive domestic surveillance campaign and prosecuting war dissenters.
Thousands of Americans were arrested, prosecuted, and jailed simply for voicing opposition.
One could write a long history of FBI abuses and failures, from Latin America to Martin
Luther King to Japanese internment. But just consider a handful of their more recent cases. The
FBI needlessly killed women and children at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Anyone who has lived anywhere
near Boston knows of the Bureau's staggering corruption during gangster Whitey Bulger's reign
of terror. The abuses in Boston were so terrific that radio host Howie Carr declared that the
FBI initials really stood for "Famous But Incompetent." And then there's Richard Jewell, the
hero security guard who was almost railroaded by zealous FBI agents looking for a scalp after
they failed to solve the Atlanta terrorist bombing.
But it was 9/11 that really sealed the FBI's ignominious track record. The lavishly funded
agency charged with preventing terrorism somehow missed the attacks, despite their
awareness of numerous Saudi nationals taking flying lessons around the country. Immediately
after 9/11, the nation was gripped by the anthrax scare, and once again the FBI's inability to
solve the case caused them to try to railroad an innocent man, Stephen Hatfill .
With 9/11, the FBI also began targeting
troubled Americans by handing them bomb materials, arresting them, and then holding a press
conference to tell the country that they had prevented a major terrorist attack -- a fake
attack that they themselves had planned.
9/11 also opened the floodgates to domestic surveillance and all the FISA abuses that most
recently led to the prosecution of Michael Flynn. I am no fan of Flynn and his hawkish
anti-Islamic views, but the way he was framed and then prosecuted really does shock the
conscience. After Jewell, Hatfill, Flynn, and so many others, it's time to ask whether the
culture of the FBI has become similar to that of Stalin's secret police, i.e. "show me the man
and I'll show you the crime."
I am no anti-law enforcement libertarian. In a previous career, I had the privilege to work
with agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and they were some of the bravest
people I have ever met. And while the DEA can be overly aggressive (just ask anyone who has
been subjected to federal asset forfeiture), it is inconceivable that its agents would plot a
coup d'état against the president of the United States. The DEA sees their job as
catching drug criminals; they stay in their lane.
For the FBI, merely catching bad guys is too mundane. As one can tell from the sanctimonious
James Comey, the culture at the Bureau holds grander aspirations. Comey's book is titled A
Higher Loyalty , as if the FBI reports only to the Almighty.
They see themselves as
progressive guardians of the American Way, intervening whenever and wherever they see democracy
in danger. No healthy republic should have a national police force with this kind of culture.
There are no doubt many brave and patriotic FBI agents, but there is also no doubt they have
been very badly led.
This savior complex led them to aggressively pursue the Russiagate hoax. Their chasing of
ghosts should make it clear that the FBI does not stay in their lane. While the nation's elite
colleges and tech companies are crawling with Chinese spies who are literally stealing our best
ideas, the chief of the FBI's Counterintelligence Section, Peter Strzok, spent his days trying
to frame junior aides in the Trump campaign.
Some conservatives have
called for FBI Director Christopher Wray to be fired. This would accomplish nothing, as the
problem is not one man but an entire culture. One possible solution is to break up the FBI into
four or five agencies, with one responsible for counterintelligence, one for counterterrorism,
one for complex white-collar crime, one for cybercrimes, and so on. Smaller agencies with more
distinctive missions would not see themselves as national saviors and could be held accountable
for their effectiveness at very specific jobs. It would also allow federal agents to develop
genuine expertise rather than, as the FBI regularly does, shifting agents constantly from
terrorism cases to the war on drugs to cybercrime to whatever the political class's latest
crime du jour might be.
Such a reform would not end every abuse of federal law enforcement, and all these agencies
would need to be kept on a short leash for the sake of civil liberties. It would, however,
diminish the ostentatious pretension of the current FBI that they are the existential guardians
of the republic. In a republic, the people and their elected leaders are the protectors of
their liberties. No one else.
One of the most amusing yet disturbing tends of the Trump era has been the increasingly
strong embrace of the "intelligence community" (how I hate that term) by left liberals.
It's hard to believe it was only a decade ago when they were (correctly) deriding these
exact same people for their manifold failures relating to the War on Terror, but then again
left liberals at that time had not yet abandoned the pretense that they were something
other than a PMC social club.
It's tempting to wonder how many of them have even heard of COINTELPRO, but I suspect that most of them would be just fine if the FBI intervened to
disrupt and destabilize the Marxist left in the unlikely event that it seemed to be gaining
a significant political foothold. Can't have any nasty class politics disrupting their
bourgeois identitarian parlor game!
It's not the left liberals, it's the centrists and the neocons fleeing the Republican Party
like rats. The left never liked the FBI, never trusted them, with good reason.
J. Edgar
Hoover wrecked a lot of the good the FBI could have been right from the beginning, there
needs to be a major cultural change over there and they need to be put back on track so
that they serve us instead of themselves.
Making sure crooks like Hoover and showboats like
Comey never get put in charge would be a good start.
Or put another way... One of the most amusing yet disturbing tends of the Trump era has
been the increasingly strong disdain of the "intelligence community" (how I hate that term)
by far right conservatives.
Let's just be honest with ourselves - we really don't want intelligence, or science, or
oversight, unless it supports our team.
1. Collaboratus: Basically, working together. BULL, the individual IC Agencies can't
work together internally, much less across agency boundaries. This goes to guys like Mike
Flynn (former director of DIA), his predecessors and successors, and their peers across the
Intel(?) Community (that one kills me, too); the IC. Not to 'slight' anyone, but middle
management is no better, and probably, worse; everyone has to protect their own 'little
rice bowl' ya know.
2. Virtus: a specific virtue in Ancient Rome. It carried connotations of valor,
manliness, excellence, courage, character, and worth, perceived as masculine strengths.
Again, BULL. The Feminazis and lgbtqxyz crowd have, pretty much snipped any balls and put
them in a jar. Yes, gay pride is big in the IC.
3. Fides: was the goddess of trust and bona fides in Roman paganism. She was one of the
original virtues to be considered an actual religious divinity. Fides is everything that is
required for "honour and credibility, from fidelity in marriage, to contractual
arrangements, and the obligation soldiers owed to Rome". With respect to the IC, that last
bears repeating" "Obligations Soldiers Owed To Rome." In the IC (Rome), Leadership and
Management (LM) have no obligations to the 'soldiers'; so, of course, the soldiers respond
in kind.
The ICs are dog eat dog; LM are looking out for themselves...Period. Actually doing 'the
job' is pretty far down the TODO List. The vast majority of people in the 'trenches' are
just trying to get through the day; like LM, doing the 'right thing' is no longer the first
thought.
To make matters worse (if possible), MANY of those people in the trenches have
almost no clue WTF they are doing. This is because management involuntarily reassigns
people (SURPRISE!) to jobs for which they were not hired, have no qualifications, and,
often, no interest in becoming qualified. Of course, they hang on hoping that 'black swan'
will land and make everything right again.
We've had two major incidents (at least), in the last 20 years (9/11 and the Kung Flu)
that are specific failures of the IC (IMO). The IC failed (fails?) because Collaboratus,
Virtus, and Fides are just some words on a plaque; not goals for which to strive; lip
service is a poor substitute.
Yeah, these yahoos are overdue for a good house cleaning as well.
Real underline issue is FBI has been politicized.
Rather than be neutral and independent, top FBI leaders have aligned with politicians.
While nominate FBI officials, presidents also select their own than someone is
independent.
In order their men can do their "works", they also increased their authorities. Supposedly, FBI directors, once confirmed, will not change with president. In reality,
we saw presidents to replace old ones with their own.
It is not break up or whatever "reform". As long as presidents (regardless whom) can
choose their own, how can you expect FBI does its jobs stated by laws?
It is amazing how far people will let their political hatreds take them. The
FBI is actually more important for the services it provides police forces around America
than it is for solving federal crimes.
The FBI have been using dirty practices on people
for decades. Literally hundreds of people who are not criminals have written about this -
several of them are former agents who left in good standing.
They practice some of them
right out in the open, like leaking information about arrests to the press so that the
press get to film their arrests - sometimes timing arrests to hit local primetime new. It
even has a name - the prime time perp walk. Whether these people are convicted or not,
those images follow them for the rest of their lives. Or announcing that a person is "a
person of interest" to force cooperation, because they know that people hear "suspect" when
they hear such announcements. They will then offer to announce that the person is no longer
a person of interest in exchange for cooperation. It didn't deserve to be disbanded them.
Absolutely nothing new or rare was done to Flynn. The FBI used perfectly standard
dirty tricks on him. But since he was a minion of Donald Trump, the FBI should have
known that he was untouchable. That is their real wrongdoing here. But they didn't realize
it, so they should be disbanded. It is just like some progressives call for the disbandment
of ICE because it arrests illegal aliens.
This ignoramus reminds me of others of his kind who call for the disbandbandment of the
UN because they don't like the behavior of its General Council, its human rights or the
peace keeping agencies, completely oblivious of the critical services the dozens of
non-political UN agencies provide to all countries, especially to very small or under
developed ones. They call for the destruction of WHO because it kowtows to China no matter
that a number of countries in the world would have access to zero advanced health services
without it, and others who are less dependent, but find its services critical in
maintaining healthy populations. They find it politically objectionable so get rid of it! I
really hate how progressives throw around the words "entitled" and "privilege", but some
people do behave that way.
You can't go without the police though and a lot of what goes there can be reformed. Stop
treating them like an movie version of the military. Teach them to calm a situation instead
of shooting first, and realize you can treat them like an important part of society without
making them above the law.
As I see it the agency that needs to be broken up is the CIA. What they do is shameful and
not American. They are and have always been heavily involved in other countries internal
affairs. They are an evil organization.
If conservatives are coming around to the idea that police corruption is a real thing, that
would be great. Somehow, I tend to doubt that it extends much beyond a way to protect white
collar and political corruption. I hope this is a turning point. The investigations into
Clinton emails didn't seem to warrant a mention here. Oh well.
That whole email situation was worthless. Not to say whether there was or was not an issue
but the investigation was nothing worthwhile and only resulted in complicating an already
messy election. Whether you believe there was a crime or not there there was nothing good
handled by that investigation.
Personally I'm more content with the Mueller investigation. Not the way everyone
panicked over it on both sides but what Mueller actually did himself: came in, researched
the situation, found out that while a good few people acted messy Trump himself wasn't
doing more than Twitter talk (yes it's technically "not enough evidence to prosecute", but
that is how we phrase "not guilty" technically: you prove guilt not innocence), stated that
Trump keeps messing himself up (aka "why did you ask your staff to claim one reason for a
firing then tell a different story on national TV idiot")..
Then ran for the hills as everyone screamed "impeach/witchhunt".
Though don't get me wrong: I'm not going to get on the way of any attempt to dismantle
the FBI or any of those other systems. It's something I really wish "small government"
actually meant.
And lets not forget that Russia warned the FBI about the Tsarnaev brothers. The FBI did a
perfunctory investigation and dismissed the threat. They probably thought they were a
couple of poor Chechen boys persecuted by those evil Russians.
Absolutely phenomenal that an entire essay abusing the FBI could be written without once
mentioning the man who actually made the Federal Bureau of Investigation into what
it is (whatever that might be). But J Edgar Hoover is still sufficiently iconic a
figure to many Conservatives that it would be counterproductive to assault him. Better
someone like Comey.
But, this is part of a pattern of Trump and his loyal followers (no Conservatives they)
assault on the Institutions. The FBI is insufficiently tamed by Billy Barr, so it must go.
(Part of the deep state swamp. /s).
Actually, there are very sound reasons for keeping the FBI, and even more for reforming
it. But since it was engaged in checking out Trump's minion, Flynn, it is bad, very bad,
incredibly bad, and must go. OTOH, if Comey had bent the knee to Trump, the FBI would be
the most tremendous force for good the country has ever seen.
But this essay must be seen as part of the background of attempted legitimization for
whatever Trump tweetstormed today. Perhaps the critics are right, and "conservatism is
dead". If so, it would be the proper thing to give it a decent burial and go on.
Because there is nothing about Donald John Trump which is the least Conservative, and it
is sickening to see people I once presumed to be "principled" line up at the altar of
Trumpism. You know he will not be satisfied until the country is renamed The United States
of Trump.
Now, all you Trumpublicans and Trumpservatives go downvote because I decline to abandon
Conservatism for Trumpworship,
I did not know the FBI had the power to go back in time, otherwise how did they get Flynn
to lie to VP Pence on Jan 14 when they didn't interview him until 1/24? Amazing how
powerful they are!
FBI Director Christopher Wray announced Friday that he has ordered the bureau to conduct an
internal review of its handling of the probe into former national security adviser
Michael Flynn , which has led to his years long battle in federal court.
It's like the fox guarding the hen house.
Wray's decision to investigate also comes late. The bureau's probe only comes after numerous
revelations that former senior FBI officials and agents involved in Flynn's case allegedly
engaged in misconduct to target the three star general, who became
President Donald Trump's most trusted campaign advisor.
Despite all these revelations, Wray has promised that the bureau will examine whether any
employees engaged in misconduct during the court of the investigation and "evaluate whether any
improvements in FBI policies and procedures need to be made." Based on what we know, how can we
trust an unbiased investigation from the very bureau that targeted Flynn.
Let me put it to you this way, over the past year Wray has failed to cooperate with
congressional investigations. In fact, many Republican lawmakers have called him out publicly
on the lack of cooperation saying, he cares more about protecting the bureaucracy than exposing
and resolving the culture of corruption within the bureau.
Wray's Friday announcement, is in my opinion, a ruse to get lawmakers off his back.
How can we trust that Wray's internal investigation will expose what actually happened in
the case of Flynn, or any of the other Trump campaign officials that were targeted by the
former Obama administration's intelligence and law enforcement apparatus.
It's Wray's FBI that continues to battle all the Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act
requests regarding the investigation into Flynn, along with any requests that would expose
information on the Russia hoax investigation. One in particular, is the request to obtain all
the text messages and emails sent and received by former Deputy Director
Andrew McCabe.
The FBI defended itself in its Friday announcement saying that in addition to its own
internal review, it has already cooperated with other inquiries assigned by Attorney General
William Barr. But still Wray has not approved subpoena's for employees and others that
lawmakers want to interview behind closed doors in Congress.
The recent documented discoveries by the Department of Justice make it all the more
imperative that an outside review of the FBI's handling of Flynn's case is required. Those
documents, which shed light on the actions by the bureau against Flynn, led to the DOJ's
decision to drop all charges against him. It was, after all, DOJ Attorney Jeffery Jensen who
discovered the FBI documents regarding Flynn that have aided his defense attorney Sidney Powell
in getting the truth out to they American people.
Powell, like me, doesn't believe an internal review is appropriate.
"Wow? And how is he going to investigate himself," she questioned in a Tweet. "And how could
anyone trust it? FBI Director Wray opens internal review into how bureau handled Michael Flynn
case."
--
Sidney Powell 🇺🇸⭐⭐⭐ (@SidneyPowell1) May
22, 2020
Last week, this reporter published the growing divide between Congressional Republicans on
the House Judiciary Committee and Wray. The lawmakers have accused Wray of failing to respond
to numerous requests to speak with FBI Special Agent Joe Pientka, who along with former FBI
Special Agent Peter Strzok, conducted the now infamous White House interview with Flynn on Jan.
24, 2017.
Further, the lawmakers have also requested to speak with the FBI's former head of the
Counterintelligence Division ,
Bill Priestap, whose unsealed handwritten notes revealed the possible 'nefarious'
motivations behind the FBI's investigation of Flynn.
"Michael Flynn was wronged by the FBI," said a senior Republican official last week, with
direct knowledge of the Flynn investigation.
"Sadly
Director Wray has shown little interest in getting to the bottom of what actually
happened with the Flynn case. Wray's lackadaisical attitude is an embarrassment to the rank
and file agents at the bureau, whose names have been dragged through the mud time and time
again throughout the Russia-gate investigation. Wray needs to wake up and work with Congress.
If he doesn't maybe it's time for him to go. "
Powell argued that Flynn had pleaded guilty because his former Special Counsel Robert
Mueller, along with his prosecutors, threatened to target his son. Those prosecutors also
coerced Flynn, whose finances were depleted by his previous defense team. Mueller's team got
Flynn to plead guilty to lying to the FBI about a phone conversation he had with the former
Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition period. However, the
agents who interviewed him did not believe he was lying.
Currently the DOJ's request to dismiss the case is now pending before federal Judge Emmet
Sullivan. Sullivan has failed to grant the DOJ's request to dismiss the case and because of
that Powell has filed a writ of mandamus to the U.S. D.C. Court of Appeals seeking the
immediate removal of Sullivan, or to dismiss the prosecution as requested by the DOJ.
In the weeks before the 2016
presidential election, the most powerful former leaders of the Central Intelligence Agency did everything they could to elect
Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump. President Obama’s former acting CIA chief Michael Morrell published a
full-throated endorsement of Clinton in the New York Times and claimed “Putin ha[s] recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting
agent of the Russian Federation,” while George W. Bush’s post-9/11 CIA and NSA Chief, Gen. Michael Hayden, writing in
the Washington Post, refrained from endorsing Clinton outright but echoed Morrell by accusing Trump of being a “useful fool,
some naif, manipulated by Moscow” and sounding “a little bit the conspiratorial Marxist.” Meanwhile, the intelligence community
under James Clapper and John Brennan fed
morsels to both the Obama DOJ and the US media to suggest a Trump/Russia conspiracy and fuel what became the Russiagate
investigation.
In his extraordinary election-advocating Op-Ed, Gen. Hayden, Bush/Cheney’s CIA Chief, candidly explained the reasons for the
CIA’s antipathy for Trump: namely, the GOP candidate’s stated opposition to allowing CIA regime change efforts in Syria to
expand as well as his opposition to arming Ukrainians with lethal weapons to fight Russia (supposedly “pro-Putin” positions
which, we are now all supposed
to forget, Obamalargely
shared).
As has been true since President Harry Truman’s creation of the CIA after World War II, interfering in other countries and
dictating or changing their governments — through campaigns of mass murder, military coups, arming guerrilla groups, the
abolition of democracy, systemic disinformation, and the imposition of savage despots — is regarded as a divine right, inherent
to American exceptionalism. Anyone who questions that or, worse, opposes it and seeks to impede it (as the CIA perceived Trump
was) is of suspect loyalties at best.
The CIA’s antipathy toward Trump continued after his election victory. The agency became the primary
vector for anonymous, illegal leaks designed to depict Trump as a Kremlin agent and/or blackmail victim. It worked to ensure
the leak of the Steele dossier that clouded at least the first two years of Trump’s presidency. It drove the scam Russiagate
conspiracy theories. And before Trump was even inaugurated, open warfare erupted between the president-elect and the agency to
the point where Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer explicitly warned Trump on the Rachel Maddow Show that he was
risking full-on subversion of his presidency by the agency:
Democrats, early in Trump’s presidency, saw clearly that the CIA had become one of Trump’s most devoted enemies, and thus began
viewing them as a valuable ally. Leading out-of-power Democratic foreign policy elites from the Obama administration and Clinton
campaign joined forces not only with Bush/Cheney neocons but also former CIA officials to create new foreign
policy advocacy groups designed to malign and undermine Trump and promote hawkish confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.
Meanwhile, other ex-CIA and Homeland Security officials, such as John Brennan and James Clapper, became beloved liberal
celebrities by being hired
by MSNBC and CNN to deliver liberal-pleasing anti-Trump messaging that, on a virtually daily basis, masqueraded
as news.
Oliver Stone's "The Untold History of the US" opened up my eyes to how shameful our
history really is. The American Empire is no better then Great Britain, the very power this
country was supposed to rise above.
When a system is fully controlled by the big corporation/money every action and move must
serve it's master. Some are directly related to their immediate interest and some to prevent
any future challenge to it.
"...At CBS, we had been contacted by the CIA, as a matter of fact, by the time I became
the head of the news and public affairs division in 1954 shifts had been established ... I
was told about them and asked if I'd carry on with them...." -- Sid Mickelson, CBS News
President 1954-61, describing Operation Mockingbird
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, by John Perkins, was a NYTimes best-seller about the
methods CIA use to dominate countries in Latin America and in Asia. John Perkins never was
interviewed by Us Media.
FBI was converted into free floating secret police free to investigate anybody.
Notable quotes:
"... Well, there is the infamous Strzok-Page SMS where Page states that the WH wants to know everything. This occurred MONTHS before January 4, 2017. ..."
"... Mike Flynn was eyeballs deep in conflicts of interest between his business and his national security role. ..."
"... part of the call was to ask Russia to veto a vote which should also be drilled into as they had not taken office yet and actively undermined a sitting government ..."
"... The FBI asked about the call because they wanted to leak it without revealing they had intercepted the communications of a incoming National Security Advisor. The call might have been perfectly normal and legal but given the Russia hysteria of the time it was perfectly usable as a smear. ..."
"... So they went in and ambushed Flynn without a lawyer to either get him on the record and leak it or better yet lie about it. Flynn didn't know how depraved the Obama administration had become and didn't imagine they had unmasked him and also couldn't believe they would dare entrap him like some criminal by asking him about a call they already had intercepted. That was his mistake. ..."
"... Obama is an armed terrorist at the behest of the CIA for a proxy war in Libya (North Africa) and Syria ..."
03: 45 - Well, there is the infamous Strzok-Page SMS where Page states that the WH wants
to know everything. This occurred MONTHS before January 4, 2017.
Glenn Greenwald is always delivering a well-thought and well-researched view on so many
important issues in this world. I may not share the same view on every issue with GG, but I
make a reasonable effort to find his insights at every opportunity. He is an absolute
pleasure to listen to, because he speaks with such clarity of thought and is clearly an
exceptional lawyer. It may well be too much to ask for...but journalism could use 100 more
Glenn Greenwald's.
Rising is really drinking the kool aid on this one. So many facts
about this case are being cherry picked to find a conspiracy. Mike Flynn was eyeballs deep in
conflicts of interest between his business and his national security role.
Let's also not
forget, he was fired by Trump because he lied to Mike Pence, not because the deep state
railroaded him in some way.
Completely agree that this was criminal and should be explored fully but be objective and
I heard about the story that part of the call was to ask Russia to veto a vote which should
also be drilled into as they had not taken office yet and actively undermined a sitting
government
The FBI asked about the call
because they wanted to leak it without revealing they had intercepted the communications of a
incoming National Security Advisor. The call might have been perfectly normal and legal but
given the Russia hysteria of the time it was perfectly usable as a smear.
So they went in and
ambushed Flynn without a lawyer to either get him on the record and leak it or better yet lie
about it. Flynn didn't know how depraved the Obama administration had become and didn't
imagine they had unmasked him and also couldn't believe they would dare entrap him like some
criminal by asking him about a call they already had intercepted. That was his mistake.
"... Democrats, early in Trump's presidency, saw clearly that the CIA had become one of Trump's most devoted enemies, and thus began viewing them as a valuable ally. Leading out-of-power Democratic foreign policy elites from the Obama administration and Clinton campaign joined forces not only with Bush/Cheney neocons but also former CIA officials to create new foreign policy advocacy groups designed to malign and undermine Trump and promote hawkish confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia. Meanwhile, other ex-CIA and Homeland Security officials, such as John Brennan and James Clapper, became beloved liberal celebrities by being hired by MSNBC and CNN to deliver liberal-pleasing anti-Trump messaging that, on a virtually daily basis, masqueraded as news . ..."
In his extraordinary election-advocating op-ed, Hayden, Bush/Cheney's CIA chief, candidly
explained the reasons for the CIA's antipathy for Trump: namely, the GOP candidate's stated
opposition to allowing CIA regime change efforts in Syria to expand as well as his opposition
to arming Ukrainians with lethal weapons to fight Russia (supposedly "pro-Putin" positions
which, we are now all
supposed to forget,
Obama largely
shared ). As has been true since President Harry Truman's creation of the CIA after World
War II, interfering in other countries and dictating or changing their governments -- through
campaigns of mass murder, military coups, arming guerrilla groups, the abolition of democracy,
systemic disinformation, and the imposition of savage despots -- is regarded as a divine right,
inherent to American exceptionalism. Anyone who questions that or, worse, opposes it and seeks
to impede it (as the CIA perceived Trump was) is of suspect loyalties at best.
The CIA's antipathy toward Trump continued after his election victory. The agency became the
primary vector for anonymous illegal leaks designed to depict Trump as a Kremlin agent
and/or blackmail victim. It worked to ensure the leak of the Steele dossier that clouded at
least the first two years of Trump's presidency. It drove the scam Russiagate conspiracy
theories. And before Trump was even inaugurated, open warfare erupted between the
president-elect and the agency to the point where Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck
Schumer explicitly warned Trump on the Rachel Maddow Show that he was risking full-on
subversion of his presidency by the agency:
This turned out to be one of the most prescient and important (and creepy) statements of
the Trump presidency: from Chuck Schumer to Rachel Maddow - in early January, 2017, before
Trump was even inaugurated: pic.twitter.com/TUaYkksILG
Democrats, early in Trump's presidency, saw clearly that the CIA had become one of
Trump's most devoted enemies, and thus began viewing them as a valuable ally. Leading
out-of-power Democratic foreign policy elites from the Obama administration and Clinton
campaign joined forces not only with Bush/Cheney neocons but also former CIA officials to
create new
foreign policy advocacy groups designed to malign and undermine Trump and promote hawkish
confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia. Meanwhile, other ex-CIA and Homeland Security
officials, such as John Brennan and James Clapper, became beloved liberal celebrities by being
hired by MSNBC and CNN to deliver liberal-pleasing anti-Trump messaging that, on a
virtually daily basis, masqueraded as news .
The all-consuming Russiagate narrative that dominated the first three years of Trump's
presidency further served to elevate the CIA as a noble and admirable institution while
whitewashing its grotesque history. Liberal conventional wisdom held that Russian Facebook ads,
Twitter bots and the hacking and release of authentic, incriminating
DNC emails was some sort of unprecedented, off-the-charts, out-of-the-ordinary
crime-of-the-century attack, with several leading Democrats (including Hillary Clinton)
actually
comparing it to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor . The level of historical ignorance and/or jingostic
American exceptionalism necessary to believe this is impossible to describe. Compared to what
the CIA has done to dozens of other countries since the end of World War II, and what it
continues to do , watching Americans cast Russian interference in the 2016 election through
online bots and email hacking (even if one believes every claim made about it) as some sort of
unique and unprecedented crime against democracy is staggering. Set against what the CIA has
done and continues to do to "interfere" in the domestic affairs of other countries --
including Russia -- the 2016
election was, at most, par for the course for international affairs and, more accurately, a
trivial and ordinary act in the context of CIA interference. This propaganda was sustainable
because the recent history and the current function of the CIA has largely been
suppressed. Thankfully, a just-released book by journalist Vincent Bevins -- who
spent years as a foreign correspondent covering two countries still marred by brutal
CIA interference: Brazil for the Los Angeles Times and Indonesia for the Washington Post --
provides one of the best, most informative and most illuminating histories yet of this agency
and the way it has shaped the actual, rather than the propagandistic, U.S. role in the
world.
Entitled "The Jakarta Method: Washington's Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program
that Shaped Our World," the book primarily documents the indescribably horrific campaigns of
mass murder and genocide the CIA sponsored in Indonesia as an instrument for destroying a
nonaligned movement of nations who would be loyal to neither Washington nor Moscow. Critically,
Bevins documents how the chilling success of that morally grotesque campaign led to its being
barely discussed in U.S. discourse, but then also serving as the foundation and model for
clandestine CIA interference campaigns in multiple other countries from Guatemala, Chile, and
Brazil to the Philippines, Vietnam, and Central America: the Jakarta Method.
Our newest episode of SYSTEM UPDATE, which debuts today at 2:00 p.m. on The Intercept's YouTube channel , is
devoted to a discussion of why this history is so vital: not just for understanding the current
international political order but also for distinguishing between fact and fiction in our
contemporary political discourse. In addition to my own observations on this topic, I speak to
Bevins about his book, about what the CIA really is and how it has shaped the world we still
inhabit, and why a genuine understanding of both international and domestic politics is
impossible without a clear grasp on this story.
This, as did the Greenwald
YouTube the other day, puts together a coherent Flynn narrative. Here is a snippet: "Compare
Flynn's treatment to McCabe's. Flynn was humiliated and bankrupted for allegedly lying to Pence
and FBI agents over a phone call that advanced U.S. interests.
Meanwhile, the Justice
Department inspector general found in 2018 that McCabe "knowingly provided false information"
in three separate interviews during an investigation into self-serving leaks published by the
Wall Street Journal about an aborted investigation into the Clinton Foundation in 2016.
That
report also found that McCabe admonished more junior FBI agents for the leaks that he himself
had authorized. Today, McCabe is a contributor at CNN. His opinions are still taken seriously
at places like the esteemed Lawfare website. He remains in the good graces of the Trump
resistance." \
This doesn't look good for the Obama Alumni Association (which, horridly,
is a real thing ).
In the weeks leading up to the 2016 election, the FBI offered to pay former British spy
Christopher Steele "significantly" for collecting intelligence on Michael Flynn, according to
the
Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross.
The FBI's proposal - made during an October 3, 2016 meeting in an unidentified European
city, and virtually ignored by the press - has taken on new significance in light of recent
documents exposing how the Obama administration targeted Flynn before and after president
Trump's upset victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016.
The inspector general's report, released on Dec. 9, 2019, said that FBI agents offered to
pay Steele "significantly" to collect intelligence from three separate "buckets" that the
bureau was pursuing as part of Crossfire Hurricane , its counterintelligence probe of four
Trump campaign associates.
One bucket was "Additional intelligence/reporting on specific, named individuals (such as
[Carter Page] or [Flynn]) involved in facilitating the Trump campaign-Russian relationship,"
the IG report stated.
FBI agents also sought contact with "any individuals or sub sources" who Steele could
provide to "serve as cooperating witnesses to assist in identifying persons involved in the
Trump campaign-Russian relationship."
Steele at the time had provided the FBI with reports he compiled alleging that members of
the Trump campaign had conspired with the Kremlin to influence the 2016 election. -
Daily Caller
Of note, Steele was promoting a discredited rumor that Flynn had an extramarital affair with
Svetlana Lokhova, a Russian-British academic who studied at the University of Cambridge. This
rumor was amplified by the Wall Street Journal and The Guardian in March, 2017.
According to the Inspector General's report, the FBI gave Steele a "general overview" of
their Crossfire Hurricane probe - including their efforts to surveil Trump campaign aides
George Papadopoulos and Carter Page, along with Paul Manafort and Flynn. In fact - some FBI
agents questioned whether the lead agent told Steel too much about the operation , according to
the IG report.
In recent weeks, the release of two documents raise questions about potential links between
the FBI's request of Steele and the Lokhova rumor .
One of the documents is a transcript of longtime John McCain associate David Kramer's
interview with the House Intelligence Committee. Kramer testified on Dec. 17, 2017,
that Steele
told him in December 2016 that he suspected that Flynn had an extramarital affair with a
Russian woman .
"There was one thing he mentioned to me that is not included here, and that is he believed
that Mr. Flynn had an extramarital affair with a Russian woman in the U.K .," Kramer told
lawmakers.
Kramer said that Steele conveyed that Flynn's alleged mistress was a "Russian woman" who
"may have been a dual citizen."
An FBI
memo dated Jan. 4, 2017, contained another allegation regarding Flynn and a mysterious
Russian woman.
The memo, which was provided to Flynn's lawyers on April 30, said that an FBI confidential
human source (CHS) told the bureau that they were present at an event that Flynn attended
while he was still working in the U.S. intelligence community . -
Daily Caller
Lokhova and Flynn have denied the rumors - with Lokhova's husband telling the Daily Caller
News Foundation that he picked his wife up after the Cambridge dinner where an FBI informant
said they 'left together in a cab.'
Meanwhile, a DIA official who was at the Cambridge event with Flynn also told the WSJ in
March 2017 that there was nothing inappropriate going on between Flynn and Lokhova.
"History," they say, "is written by the winners." But if you want to get at the fundamental
flaw, remove the last three words and you have it: "History is written."
Events cannot be
written, they can only be lived.
Just as a sun in a picture cannot give heat or light. The
problem is that those who live history seldom speak of it, it's much too traumatic for them.
And those who speak voluminously of it most likely did not live it.
kenny gordon ,
Nice comment, Howard.
When my Father [Royal Artillery] was told to stop fighting against my
Father-in-Law [Waffen SS], he was sent off to fight against MOSSAD in Palestine he witnessed
the brutal treatment handed out to the "indigenous people" and was very reluctant to talk
about his experience.. "By way of deception thou shalt do war"..!
Here is the bottomline in a nutshell--Susan Rice has been caught red handed trying to
construct a lie about what Barack Obama knew and did not know with respect to General Michael
Flynn. She claimed to be present when Barack Obama discussed the Michael Flynn intercept but,
according to Sally Yates, who was interviewed by the FBI, only Yates, Jim Comey and Barack
Obama were present. This new revelation--made possible by the declassification of the Susan
Rice email written in the last moments of the Obama Administration--actually bolsters Michael
Flynn's contention that he was the victim of a political hit job designed to take out Donald
Trump.
With every new revelation about what President Trump calls "Obamagate," you see the curtain
being torn down and revealing the corrupt players who were running America and attacking our
Republic.
Former CIA Officer and counter-terrorism expert Kevin Shipp, who wrote a book about the Deep
State called "From the Company of Shadows," says any hint that POTUS is a tool of the Deep
State is preposterous.
Shipp explains, "That is absolutely ridiculous..."
" Donald Trump has confronted the Shadow Government and Deep State more than any other
president in history, and that includes JFK. JFK did, of course, confront the Deep State and
we saw what happened there.
There has been no other president that has had the guts to expose the Shadow Government
and Deep State like Donald Trump has. What has the Deep State done? They have gone after him
with a vengeance. Why would the Deep State attack their own with attacks to try to destroy
him and his family if he wasn't threatening to expose the Deep State? No, he's not a Deep
State president. He's not perfect. We all know that. There are members of his cabinet that we
are concerned about with connections to some of the central banks. We all know that, but
Donald Trump is not Deep State. He is splitting the Deep State wide open.
Look what DNI Rick Grenell just presented to the President. He authorized for release of
names of all the unmaskers. Trump is exposing the Deep State, and, personally, I am proud of
him because I have been waiting for this for 20 years for a president to come out and expose
these things ."
On the virus crisis, Shipp says it's turned into a political weapon for the Left. Shipp
contends, "They (Democrats) want to delay any solution to the Coronavirus until the election so
they can keep the economy ruined and point the finger at Donald Trump..."
" That's one of the things they want to do. They also want mail-in ballots because that is
one of the easiest ways to engage in election fraud. There is a report that just came out
that people are getting mail-in ballots that already have the Democrat party checked on the
box when they open it up, and they are not Democrats.
You better believe they are going to try to engage in voter fraud using mail-in ballots.
There is no doubt about it because they are going to lose badly, and they know it. So, they
have to do that. You bet."
The Democrats in the House are going to try, once again, to impeach President Trump for
Russian collision. Recently released documents show it was a proven total hoax that they made
up, and, yet, the Dems are going to try this again before the 2020 election. What's going on?
Shipp says,
" This is the last gasp of Democrat Congressional tyrants trying one last time to remove
this elected President. It's laughable...
What this is, is desperation on the part of Pelosi and Schumer. This is desperation on
their part knowing that the whole thing was disproven and shot down by the evidence. If Trump
gets elected a second time, you will see investigations into Congress, Senate, Obamagate and
China. These people are desperate to keep that stuff from coming out.
You think President Trump is exposing them now? You wait until he gets elected a second
time. That's why they are so terrified, and they are trying everything they can to keep him
from being elected."
Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com as he goes One-on-One with CIA whistleblower Kevin
Shipp.
During the US presidential election campaign, American media developed yet another
perception of Russia as reflected in the narrative of Trump's collusion with the Kremlin.
1 Having originated in liberal media and building on the previous perceptions of
neo-Soviet autocracy and foreign threat, the new perception of Russia was that of the enemy
that won the war against the United States. By electing the Kremlin's favored candidate,
America was defeated by Russia. As a CNN columnist wrote, "The Russians really are here,
infiltrating every corner of the country, with the single goal of disrupting the American way
of life." 2 The two assumptions behind the new media narrative were that Putin was an
enemy and that Trump was compromised by Putin. The inevitable conclusion was that Trump could
not be a patriot and potentially was a traitor prepared to act against US interests.
The new narrative was assisted by the fact that Trump presented a radically different
perspective on Russia than Clinton and the US establishment. The American political class had
been in agreement that Russia displayed an aggressive foreign policy seeking to destroy the
US-centered international order. Influential politicians, both Republicans and Democrats,
commonly referred to Russian president Putin as an extremely dangerous KGB spy with no soul.
Instead, Trump saw Russia's international interests as not fundamentally different from
America's. He advocated that the United States to find a way to align its policies and
priorities in defeating terrorism in the Middle East -- a goal that Russia shared -- with the
Kremlin's. Trump promised to form new alliances to "unite the civilized world against Radical
Islamic Terrorism" and to eradicate it "completely from the face of the Earth." 3 He hinted that he was prepared to revisit the thorny issues of Western
sanctions against (p.83) the Russian economy and the recognition of Crimea as a part of Russia.
Trump never commented on Russia's political system but expressed his admiration for Putin's
leadership and high level of domestic support. 4
Capitalizing on the difference between Trump's views and those of the Democratic Party
nominee, Hillary Clinton, the liberal media referred to Trump as the Kremlin-compromised
candidate. Commentators and columnists with the New York Times , such as Paul Krugman,
referred to Trump as the "Siberian" candidate. 5 Commentators and pundits, including those with academic and political
credentials, developed the theory that the United States was under attack. The former
ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, wrote in the Washington Post that Russia had
attacked "our sovereignty" and continued to "watch us do nothing" because of the partisan
divide. He compared the Kremlin's actions with Pearl Harbor or 9/11 and warned that Russia was
likely to perform repeat assaults in 2018 and 2020. 6 The historian Timothy Snyder went further, comparing the election of Trump to
a loss of war, which Snyder said was the basic aim of the enemy. Writing in the New York
Daily News , he asserted, "We no longer need to wonder what it would be like to lose a war
on our own territory. We just lost one to Russia, and the consequence was the election of
Donald Trump." 7
The election of Trump prompted the liberal media to discuss Russia-related fears. The
leading theory was that Trump would now compromise America's interests and rule the country on
behalf of Putin. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times called for actions against Russia
and praised "patriotic" Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham for being tough on
Trump. 8 MSNBC host Rachel Maddow asked whether Trump was actually under Putin's
control. Citing Trump's views and his associates' travel to Moscow, she told viewers, "We are
also starting to see (p.84) what may be signs of continuing [Russian] influence in our country,
not just during the campaign but during the administration -- basically, signs of what could be
a continuing operation." 9 Another New York Times columnist, Nicholas Kristof, published a column
titled "There's a Smell of Treason in the Air," arguing that the FBI's investigation of the
Trump presidential campaign's collusion "with a foreign power so as to win an election" was an
investigation of whether such collusion "would amount to treason." 10 Responding to Trump's statement that his phone was tapped during the election
campaign, the Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum tweeted that "Trump's insane
'GCHQ tapped my phone' theory came from . . . Moscow." McFaul and many others then endorsed and
retweeted the message. 11
To many within the US media, Trump's lack of interest in promoting global institutions and
his publicly expressed doubts that the Kremlin was behind cyberattacks on the Democratic
National Committee (DNC) served to exacerbate the problem. Several intelligence leaks to the
press and investigations by Congress and the FBI contributed to the image of a president who
was not motivated by US interests. The US intelligence report on Russia's alleged hacking of
the US electoral system released on January 8, 2017, served to consolidate the image of Russia
as an enemy. Leaks to the press have continued throughout Trump's presidency. Someone in the
administration informed the press that Trump called Putin to congratulate him on his victory in
elections on March 18, 2018, despite Trump's advisers' warning against making such a call.
12
In the meantime, investigations of Trump's alleged "collusion" with Russia were failing to
produce substantive evidence. Facts that some associates of Trump sought to meet or met with
members of Russia's government did not lead to evidence of sustained contacts or collaboration.
It was not proven that the Kremlin's "black dossier" on Trump compiled by British intelligence
officer (p.85) Christopher Steele and leaked to CNN was truthful. Russian activity on American
social networks such as Facebook and Twitter was not found to be conclusive in determining
outcomes of the elections. 13 In February 2018, a year after launching investigation, Special Counsel
Robert Mueller indicted thirteen Russian nationals for allegedly interfering in the US 2016
presidential elections, yet their connection to Putin or Trump was not established. On March
12, 2018, Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr stated that he had not yet seen
any evidence of collusion. 14 Representative Mike Conaway, the Republican leading the Russia investigation,
announced the end of the committee's probe of Russian meddling in the election. 15
Trump was also not acting toward Russia in the way the US media expected. His views largely
reflected those of the military and national security establishment and disappointed some of
his supporters. 16 The US National Security Strategy and new Defense Strategy presented Russia
as a leading security threat, alongside China, Iran, and North Korea. The president made it
clear that he wanted to engage in tough bargaining with Russia by insisting on American terms.
17 Instead of improving ties with Russia, let alone acting on behalf of the
Kremlin, Trump contributed to new crises in bilateral relations that had to do with the two
sides' principally different perceptions. While the Kremlin expected Washington to normalize
relations, the United States assumed Russia's weakness and expected it to comply with
Washington's priorities regarding the Middle East, Ukraine, and Afghanistan and nuclear and
cyber issues. 18 Trump also authorized the largest expulsion of Russian diplomats in US
history and ordered several missile strikes against Assad's Russia-supported positions in
Syria, each time provoking a crisis in relations with Moscow. Even Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson, whom Rachel Maddow suspected of being appointed on Putin's advice to "weaken" the
State Department and "bleed out" (p.86) the FBI, 19 was replaced by John Bolton. The latter's foreign policy reputation was that
of a hawk, including on Russia. 20
Responding to these developments, the media focused on fears of being attacked by the
Kremlin and on Trump not doing enough to protect the country. These fears went beyond the
alleged cyber interference in the US presidential elections and included infiltration of
American media and social networks and attacks on congressional elections and the country's
most sensitive infrastructure, such as electric grids, water-processing plants, banking
networks, and transportation facilities. In order to prevent such developments, media
commentators and editorial writers recommended additional pressures on the Kremlin and
counteroffensive operations. 21 One commentator recommended, as the best defense from Russia's plans to
interfere with another election in the United States, launching a cyberattack on Russia's own
presidential elections in March 2018, to "disrupt the stability of Vladimir Putin's regime."
22 A New York Times editorial summarized the mood by challenging
President Trump to confront Russia further: "If Mr. Trump isn't Mr. Putin's lackey, it's past
time for him to prove it." 23 The burden of proof was now on Trump's shoulders. Opposition to the
"Collusion" Narrative
In contrast to highly critical views of Russia in the dominant media, conservative,
libertarian, and progressive sources offered different assessments. Initially, opposition to
the collusion narrative came from the alternative media, yet gradually -- in response to scant
evidence of Trump's collusion -- it incorporated voices within the mainstream.
The conservative media did not support the view that Russia "stole" elections and presented
Trump as a patriot who wanted to make America great rather than develop "cozy" relationships
with (p.87) the Kremlin. Writing in the American Interest , Walter Russell Mead argued
that Trump aimed to demonstrate the United States' superiority by capitalizing on its military
and technological advantages. He did not sound like a Russian mole. Challenging the liberal
media, the author called for "an intellectually solvent and emotionally stable press" and wrote
that "if President Trump really is a Putin pawn, his foreign policy will start looking much
more like Barack Obama's." 24 Instead of viewing Trump as compromised by the Kremlin, sources such
Breitbart and Fox News attributed the blame to the deep state, "the complex of
bureaucrats, technocrats, and plutocrats," including the intelligence agencies, that seeks to
"derail, or at least to de-legitimize, the Trump presidency" by engaging in accusations and
smear campaigns. 25
Echoing Trump's own views, some conservatives expressed their admiration for Putin as a
dynamic leader superior to Obama. In particular, they praised Putin for his ability to defend
Russia's "traditional values" and great-power status. 26 Neoconservative and paleoconservative publications like the National
Review , the Weekly Standard, Human Events Online , and others critiqued Obama's
"feckless foreign policy," characterized by "fruitless accommodationism," contrasting it with
Putin's skilled and calculative geopolitical "game of chess." 27 A Washington Post / ABC News poll revealed that among Republicans, 75%
approved of Trump's approach on Russia relative; 40% of all respondents approved. 28 This did not mean that conservatives and Republicans were "infiltrated" by
the Kremlin. Mutual Russian and American conservative influences were limited and
nonstructured. 29 The approval of Putin as a leader by American conservatives meant that they
shared a certain commonality of ideas and were equally critical of liberal media and
globalization. 30
Progressive and libertarian media also did not support the narrative of collusion. Gary
Leupp at CounterPunch found the (p.88) narrative to be serving the purpose of reviving
and even intensifying "Cold War-era Russophobia," with Russia being an "adversary" "only in
that it opposes the expansion of NATO, especially to include Ukraine and Georgia." 31 Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com questioned the narrative by pointing to
Russia's bellicose rhetoric in response to Trump's actions. 32 Glenn Greenwald and Zaid Jilani at Intercept reminded readers that,
overall, Trump proved to be far more confrontational toward Russia than Obama, thereby
endangering America. 33 In particular Trump severed diplomatic ties with Russia, armed Ukraine,
appointed anti-Russia hawks, such as ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, National
Security Advisor John Bolton, and Secretary of State Michal Pompeo to key foreign policy
positions, antagonized Russia's Iranian allies, and imposed tough sanctions against Russian
business with ties to the Kremlin. 34
The dominant liberal media ignored opposing perspectives or presented them as compromised by
Russia. For instance, in amplifying the view that Putin "stole" the elections, the
Washington Post sought to discredit alternative sources of news and commentaries as
infiltrated by the Kremlin's propaganda. On November 24, 2016, the newspaper published an
interview with the executive director of a new website, PropOrNot, who preferred to remain
anonymous, and claimed that the Russian government circulated pro-Trump articles before the
election. Without providing evidence on explaining its methodology, the group identified more
than two hundred websites that published or echoed Russian propaganda, including WikiLeaks and
the Drudge Report , left-wing websites such as CounterPunch, Truthout, Black Agenda
Report, Truthdig , and Naked Capitalism , as well as libertarian venues such as
Antiwar.com and the Ron Paul Institute. 35 Another mainstream liberal outlet, CNN, warned the American people to be
vigilant against the Kremlin's alleged efforts to spread propaganda: "Enormous numbers of
(p.89) Americans are not only failing to fight back, they are also unwitting collaborators --
reading, retweeting, sharing and reacting to Russian propaganda and provocations every day."
36
However, voices of dissent were now heard even in the mainstream media. Masha Gessen of the
New Yorker said that Trump's tweet about Robert Mueller's indictments and Moscow's
"laughing its ass off" was "unusually (perhaps accidentally) accurate." 37 She pointed out that Russians of all ideological convictions "are remarkably
united in finding the American obsession with Russian meddling to be ridiculous." 38 The editor of the influential Politico , Blake Hounshell, confessed
that he was a Russiagate skeptic because even though "Trump was all too happy to collude with
Putin," Mueller's team never found a "smoking gun." 39 In reviewing the book on Russia's role in the 2016 election Russian
Roulette , veteran New York Times reporter Steven Lee Myers noted that the Kremlin's
meddling "simply exploited the vulgarity already plaguing American political campaigns" and
that the veracity of many accusations remained unclear. 40Explaining Russophobia
The high-intensity Russophobia within the American media, overblown even by the standards of
previous threat narratives, could no longer be explained by differences in national values or
by bilateral tensions. The new fear of Russia also reflected domestic political polarization
and growing national unease over America's identity and future direction.
The narrative of collusion in the media was symptomatic of America's declining confidence in
its own values. Until the intervention in Iraq in 2004, optimism and a sense of confidence
prevailed in American social attitudes, having survived even the terrorist attack on the United
States on September 11, 2001. The (p.90) country's economy was growing and its position in the
world was not challenged. However, the disastrous war in Iraq, the global financial crisis of
2008, and Russia's intervention in Georgia in August 2008 changed that. US leadership could no
longer inspire the same respect, and a growing number of countries viewed it as a threat to
world peace. 41 Internally, the United States was increasingly divided. Following
presidential elections in November 2016, 77% of Americans perceived their country as "greatly
divided on the most important values." 42 The value divide had been expressed in partisanship and political
polarization long before the 2016 presidential elections. 43 The Russia issue deepened this divide. According to a poll taken in October
2017, 63% of Democrats, but just 38% of Republicans, viewed "Russia's power and influence" as a
major threat to the well-being of the United States. 44
During the US 2016 presidential elections, Russia emerged as a convenient way to accentuate
differences between Democratic and Republican candidates, which in previous elections were
never as pronounced or defining. The new elections deepened the partisan divide because of
extreme differences between the two main candidates, particularly on Russia. Donald Trump
positioned himself as a radical populist promising to transform US foreign policy and "drain
the swamp" in Washington. His position on Russia seemed unusual because, by election time, the
Kremlin had challenged the United States' position in the world by annexing Crimea, supporting
Ukrainian separatism, and possibly hacking the DNC site.
The Russian issue assisted Clinton in stressing her differences from Trump. Soon after it
became known that DNC servers were hacked, she embraced the view that Russia was behind the
cyberattacks. She accused Russia of "trying to wreak havoc" in the United States and threatened
retaliation. 45 In his turn, Trump used Russia to challenge Clinton's commitment to national
security (p.91) and ability to serve as commander in chief. In particular, he drew public
attention to the FBI investigation into Clinton's use of a private server for professional
correspondence, and even noted sarcastically that the Russians should find thirty thousand
missing emails belonging to her. The latter was interpreted by many in liberal media and
political circles as a sign of Trump's being unpatriotic. 46 Clinton capitalized on this interpretation. She referred to the issue of
hacking as the most important one throughout the campaign and challenged Trump to agree with
assessments of intelligence agencies that cyberattacks were ordered by the Kremlin. She
questioned Trump's commitments to US national security and accused him of being a "puppet" for
President Putin. 47 Following Trump's victory, Clinton told donors that her loss should be partly
attributed to Putin and the election hacks directed by him. 48
Clinton's arguments fitted with the overall narrative embraced by the mainstream media since
roughly 2005 characterizing Russia as abusive and aggressive. Clinton viewed Russia as an
oppressive autocratic power that was aggressive abroad to compensate for domestic weaknesses.
Previously, in her book Hard Choices , then-secretary of state Clinton described Putin
as "thin-skinned and autocratic, resenting criticism and eventually cracking down on dissent
and debate." 49 This view was shared by President Obama, who publicly referred to Russia as a
"regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors not out of strength but out
of weakness." 50 During the election's campaign, Clinton argued that the United States should
challenge Russia by imposing a no-fly zone in Syria with the objective of removing Assad from
power, strengthening sanctions against the Russian economy, and providing lethal weapons to
Ukraine in order to contain the potential threat of Russia's military invasion.
Following the elections, the partisan divide deepened, with liberal establishment attacking
the "unpatriotic" Trump. Having (p.92) lost the election, Clinton partly attributed Trump's
victory to the role of Russia and advocated an investigation into Trump's ties to Russia. In
February 2017 the Clinton-influenced Center for American Progress brought on a former State
Department official to run a new Moscow Project. 51 As acknowledged by the New Yorker , members of the Clinton inner
circle believed that the Obama administration deliberately downplayed DNC hacking by the
Kremlin. "We understand the bind they were in," one of Clinton's senior advisers said. "But
what if Barack Obama had gone to the Oval Office, or the East Room of the White House, and
said, 'I'm speaking to you tonight to inform you that the United States is under attack . . .'
A large majority of Americans would have sat up and taken notice . . . it is bewildering -- it
is baffling -- it is hard to make sense of why this was not a five-alarm fire in the White
House." 52
In addition to Clinton, many other members of the Washington establishment, including some
Republicans, spread the narrative of Russia "attacking" America. Republican politicians who
viewed Clinton's defeat and the hacking attacks in military terms included those of chairman of
the Senate Armed Services Committee John McCain, who stated, "When you attack a country, it's
an act of war," 53 and former vice president Dick Cheney, who called Russia's alleged
interference in the US election "a very serious effort made by Mr. Putin" that "in some
quarters that would be considered an act of war." 54 A number of Democrats also engaged in the rhetoric of war, likening the
Russian "attack," as Senator Ben Cardin did, to a "political Pearl Harbor." 55
Rumors and leaks, possibly by members of US intelligence agencies, 56 and activities of liberal groups that sought to discredit Trump contributed
to the Russophobia. In addition to the DNC hacking accusations, many fears of Russia in the
media were based on the assumption that contacts, let alone cooperation with the (p.93)
Kremlin, was unpatriotic and implied potentially "compromising" behavior: praise of Putin as a
leader, possible business dealings with Russian "oligarchs," and meetings with Russian
officials such Ambassador Sergei Kislyak. 57
There were therefore two sides to the Russia story in the US liberal media -- rational and
emotional. The rational side had to do with calculations by Clinton-affiliated circles and
anti-Russian groups pooling their resources to undermine Trump and his plans to improve
relations with Russia. Among others, these resources included dominance within the liberal
media and leaks by the intelligence community. The emotional side was revealed by the liberal
elites' values and ability to promote fears of Russia within the US political class and the
general public. Popular emotions of fear and frustration with Russia already existed in the
public space due to the old Cold War memories, as well as disturbing post–Cold War
developments that included wars in Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine. In part because of these
memories, factions such as those associated with Clinton were successful in evoking in the
public liberal mind what historian Richard Hofstadter called the "paranoid style" or "the sense
of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy." 58 Mobilized by liberal media to pressure Trump, these emotions became an
independent factor in the political struggle inside Washington. The public display of fear and
frustration with Russia and Trump could only be sustained by a constant supply of new
"suspicious" developments and intense discussion by the media.
Obama & his band of corrupt, lying, manipulating, seditious, malevolent, lawless
criminals, who are still running loose, back in the WH ... Above the law_ Perkins Coie Law
Firm, Fusion GPS (Glenn Simpson) Christopher Steele, Stefan Harper, Josef Mifsud, Alexander
Downer, Alexandra Chalupa, Robert Mueller, Andrew Weismann, Andrew McCabe, James Baker, Peter
Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce & Nellie Ohr, Joe Pientka, ... Obama, Biden, Crooked Hillary,
Wingman Eric Holder, Tarmac Loretta Lynch, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Valerie
Jarrett, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, Sally Yates, section data-role="main"
data-tracking-area="main"
It was all A LIE ( as in SLANDER) all made up by Obama...I hope Flynn sues that POS for
everything his owns section data-role="main" data-tracking-area="main"
Attack the guy who asks the questions. I understand. It's hard to believe they were this
dishonest to begin with. Covering it up after the fact with lame emails is so Nixonian. But
then again, Rice has a history of lying about history. Remember the Sunday propaganda parade
she ran regarding the Benghazi coverup. Squirrels do not give birth to eagles as they say.
You are what your history says you are.
You lying coward. They all spoke under oath at the Schiff clown show. So did Comey, Clapper
and Brennan. They all said no collusion under oath . Flynn a decorated general was destroyed
by career bureaucrats that only serve themselves. Obama encouraged it at the least. Directed
it at its worst. Shameful. section data-role="main" data-tracking-area="main"
Yes you are sorry. Defending a coup by a bunch of unelected burecrats over politics. Get a
better candidate and win an election. Maybe do a little party analysts on how you lost middle
America that's what I am talking about. Partisan hacks like yourself are as introspective as
a dung beatle. You do what you do in sh!t created by others and don't question why.
It is not. Forces behind Russiagate are intact and still have the same agenda. CrowdStrike
was just a tool. As long as Full Spectrum Dominance dourine is alive, Russiagate will flourish in
one form or another
Notable quotes:
"... The need for a scapegoat to blame for Hillary Clinton's snatching defeat out of the jaws victory also played a role; as did the need for the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think-Tank complex (MICIMATT) to keep front and center in the minds of Americans the alleged multifaceted threat coming from an "aggressive" Russia. (Recall that John McCain called the, now disproven , "Russian hacking" of the DNC emails an "act of war.") ..."
"... Though the corporate media is trying to bury it, the Russiagate narrative has in the past few weeks finally collapsed with the revelation that CrowdStrike had no evidence Russia took anything from the DNC servers and that the FBI set a perjury trap for Gen. Michael Flynn. There was already the previous government finding that there was no collusion between Trump and Russia and the indictment of a Russian troll farm that supposedly was destroying American democracy with $100,000 in Facebook ads was dropped after the St. Petersburg defendants sought discovery. ..."
"... Given the diffident attitude the Security State plotters adopted regarding hiding their tracks, Durham's challenge, with subpoena power, is not as formidable as were he, for example, investigating a Mafia family. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the corporate media have all been singing from the same sheet since Trump had the audacity a week ago to coin yet another "-gate" -- this time "Obamagate." Leading the apoplectic reaction in corporate media, Saturday's Washington Post offered a pot-calling-the-kettle-black pronouncement by its editorial board entitled "The absurd cynicism of 'Obamagate"? ..."
"... So if we dug in and found large payments from George Soros or Mrs Clinton to these 'journalists', what crime could they be accused of? No crimes, I don't think. ..."
"... There never was anything to Russiagate. It was always just politics. I knew that from the beginning. There was, however, a lot of something to the torture scandal. Obama said "We are not going to look back." And now Gina Haspel, one of the chief torturers, partly responsible for destroying the torture tapes, despite a court order to preserve them, is now head of the CIA. ..."
"... Drain the Swamp my ***. He's started by firing all the IG's? Trump "looking back," not forward. He could start by investigating Gina Haspel. ..."
"... For example, Foglesong argued that "a vital factor in the revival of the crusade in the 1970s was the need to expunge doubts about American virtue instilled by the Vietnam War, revelations about CIA covert actions, and the Watergate scandal." ..."
"... By tracing American representations of Russia over the last 130 years, Foglesong illuminated three of the strongest notions that have informed American attitudes toward Russia: (1) a messianic faith that America could inspire sweeping overnight transformation from autocracy to democracy; (2) a notion that despite historic differences, Russia and America are very much akin, so that Russia, more than any other country, is America's "dark double;" (3) an extreme antipathy to "evil" leaders who Americans blame for thwarting what they believe to be the natural triumph of the American mission. These expectations and emotions continue to effect how American journalists and politicians write and talk about Russia. "My hope," Foglesong concluded, "is that by seeing how these attitudes have distorted American views of Russia for more than a century, we may begin to be able to escape their grip." ..."
Seldom mentioned among the motives behind the persistent drumming on alleged Russian
interference was an over-arching need to help the Security State hide their tracks.
The need for a scapegoat to blame for Hillary Clinton's snatching defeat out of the jaws
victory also played a role; as did the need for the
Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think-Tank complex (MICIMATT) to
keep front and center in the minds of Americans the alleged multifaceted threat coming from an
"aggressive" Russia. (Recall that John McCain called the, now
disproven , "Russian hacking" of the DNC emails an "act of war.")
But that was then. This is now.
Though the corporate media is trying to bury it, the Russiagate narrative has in the past
few weeks finally
collapsed with the revelation that CrowdStrike had no
evidence Russia took anything from the DNC servers and that the FBI set
a perjury trap for Gen. Michael Flynn. There was already the previous government finding that
there was no collusion between Trump and Russia and the indictment of a Russian troll farm that
supposedly was destroying American democracy with $100,000 in Facebook ads was dropped after
the St. Petersburg defendants sought discovery.
All that's left is to discover how this all happened.
Attorney General William Barr, and U.S. Attorney John Durham, whom Barr commissioned to
investigate this whole sordid mess seem intent on getting to the bottom of it. The possibility
that Trump will not chicken out this time, and rather will challenge the Security State looms
large since he felt personally under attack.
Writing on the Wall
Given the diffident attitude the Security State plotters adopted regarding hiding their
tracks, Durham's challenge, with subpoena power, is not as formidable as were he, for example,
investigating a Mafia family.
Plus, former NSA Director Adm. Michael S. Rogers reportedly is cooperating. The
handwriting is on the wall. It remains to be seen what kind of role in the scandal Barack
Obama may have played.
But former directors James Comey, James Clapper, and John Brennan, captains of Obama's
Security State, can take little solace from Barr's remarks Monday to a reporter who asked about
Trump's recent claims that top officials of the Obama administration, including the former
president had committed crimes. Barr replied:
"As to President Obama and Vice President Biden, whatever their level of involvement,
based on the information I have today, I don't expect Mr. Durham's work will lead to a
criminal investigation of either man. Our concerns over potential criminality is focused on
others."
In a more ominous vein, Barr gratuitously added that law enforcement and intelligence
officials were involved in "a false and utterly baseless Russian collusion narrative against
the president. It was a grave injustice, and it was unprecedented in American history."
Meanwhile, the corporate media have all been singing from the same sheet since Trump had the
audacity a week ago to coin yet another "-gate" -- this time "Obamagate." Leading the
apoplectic reaction in corporate media, Saturday's Washington Post
offered a pot-calling-the-kettle-black pronouncement by its editorial board entitled "The
absurd cynicism of 'Obamagate"?
The outrage voiced by the Post called to mind disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok's indignant
response to criticism of the FBI by candidate Trump, in a Oct. 20, 2016 text exchange with FBI
attorney Lisa Page:
Strzok: I am riled up. Trump is a f***ing idiot, is unable to provide a coherent
answer.
Strzok -- I CAN'T PULL AWAY, WHAT THE F**K HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY
Page -- I don't know. But we'll get it back. We're America. We rock.
Strzok -- Donald just said "bad hombres"
Strzok -- Trump just said what the FBI did is disgraceful.
Less vitriolic, but incisive commentary came from widely respected author and lawyer Glenn
Greenwald on May 14, four days after Trump coined "Obamagate": ( See "System Update with Glenn
Greenwald -- The Sham Prosecution of Michael Flynn").
For a shorter, equally instructive video of Greenwald on the broader issue of Russia-gate,
see this clip from a March 2019 Democracy Now! -sponsored debate he had with David Cay Johnston
titled, "As Mueller Finds No Collusion, Did Press Overhype Russiagate? Glenn Greenwald vs.
David Cay Johnston":
(The entire
debate is worth listening to). I found one of the comments below the Democracy Now! video
as big as a bummer as the commentator did:
"I think this is one of the most depressing parts about the whole situation. In their
dogmatic pushing for this false narrative, the Russiagaters might have guaranteed Trump a
second term. They have done more damage to our democracy than Russia ever has done and will
do ." (From "Clamity2007")
In any case, Johnston, undaunted by his embarrassment at the hands of Greenwald, is still at
it, and so is the avuncular Frank Rich -- both of them some 20 years older than Greenwald and
set in their evidence-impoverished, media-indoctrinated ways.
... ... ...
Uncle Frank, 40 seconds ago
So if we dug in and found large payments from George Soros or Mrs Clinton to these
'journalists', what crime could they be accused of? No crimes, I don't think.
But when journalists are revealed to be issuing paid-for propaganda/lies mixed with their
own internal opinions, and their publisher allows it to be presented as if it were reporting
rather than opinion, said writers, editors, and publishers are relegated to obscurity and
derision.
Their work will never be taken seriously again by anyone who wasn't already
brain-washed.
They don't get that, I guess.
QABubba, 47 minutes ago (Edited)
There never was anything to Russiagate. It was always just politics. I knew that from the
beginning. There was, however, a lot of something to the torture scandal. Obama said "We are not
going to look back." And now Gina Haspel, one of the chief torturers, partly responsible for
destroying the torture tapes, despite a court order to preserve them, is now head of the
CIA.
General Flynn was so involved with Turkey he should have been registered as a foreign
agent.
And as I have said before, the real crime was laundering Russian Mafia/Heroin money
through Deutsche Bank into New York real estate. It is curious that Turkey is also a huge
transport spot for heroin into the
EU. And France and other EU nations have a migrant population that lives off the drug
trade.
Drain the Swamp my ***. He's started by firing all the IG's? Trump "looking back," not forward. He could start by investigating Gina Haspel.
The MSM disinformation campaign with consistent common talking points is not difficult to
see with a little discernment. The bigger question is has this happened organically or is there a larger agency
manipulating the public discourse?
"By 1905," Foglesong stated, "this fundamental reorientation of American views of Russia
had set up a historical pattern in which missionary zeal and messianic euphoria would be
followed by disenchantment and embittered denunciation of Russia's evil and oppressive
rulers." The first cycle, according to Foglesong, culminated in 1905, when the October
Manifesto, perceived initially by Americans as a transformation to democracy, gave way to a
violent socialist revolt. Foglesong observed similar cycles of euphoria to despair during the
collapse of the tsarist government in 1917, during the partial religious revival of World War
II, and during the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s
Crucial to Foglesong's analysis was how these cycles coincided with a contemporaneous need
to deflect attention away from America's own blemishes and enhance America's claim to its
global mission.
For example, Foglesong argued that "a vital factor in the revival of the crusade in the
1970s was the need to expunge doubts about American virtue instilled by the Vietnam War,
revelations about CIA covert actions, and the Watergate scandal."
By tracing American representations of Russia over the last 130 years, Foglesong
illuminated three of the strongest notions that have informed American attitudes toward
Russia: (1) a messianic faith that America could inspire sweeping overnight transformation
from autocracy to democracy; (2) a notion that despite historic differences, Russia and
America are very much akin, so that Russia, more than any other country, is America's "dark
double;" (3) an extreme antipathy to "evil" leaders who Americans blame for thwarting what
they believe to be the natural triumph of the American mission. These expectations and
emotions continue to effect how American journalists and politicians write and talk about
Russia. "My hope," Foglesong concluded, "is that by seeing how these attitudes have distorted
American views of Russia for more than a century, we may begin to be able to escape their
grip."
Moribundus, 3 hours ago
America's imperialism rules: Never to admit a fault or wrong; never to accept blame;
concentrate on one enemy at a time; blame that enemy for everything that goes wrong; take
advantage of every opportunity to raise a political whirlwind.
Kidbuck, 5 hours ago
Trump hasn't engaged in a fight in his life. He's a sissy at heart wants to negotiate. He
can't even do that right. He's caved on nearly every campaign promise he made. The only thing
his administration fights for is their salary and their retirement. Hillary still waddles
free and farts in his general direction.
ChaoKrungThep, 4 hours ago
Trump the Mafia punk, like his dad, and draft dodger like his German grand dad. Barr, old
CIA asset from the Clinton-Mena coke smuggling op. This crappy crew is running their masters'
game in front of the redneck rabble who are dumber than their mutts.
Save_America1st, 9 hours ago
Geez...how far behind can most of these assholes be after all these years????
For one...there was no "Russia-gate". It was all a hoax from the beginning, and anyone
with a few functioning brain cells knew that from the start.
And as of about 3 years ago we have all known this as "Obamagate" for the most part...we
all knew the corruption of the hoax totally led up to O-Scumbag.
And now as of the recent disclosures it is a total fact.
Haven't most of you been watching Dan Bongino for over 2 years now and haven't you read
his books? Haven't you been reading Sarah Carter and John Soloman among others for nearly 3
years now???
Surely, you haven't been just sitting around sucking leftist media **** for over 3 years,
right???????? I'm sure you haven't.
So why is this article even necessary on ZeroHedge?????
We already knew and have known the truth since before even the 2016 election. Drop it.
Posa, 9 hours ago
So funny. The 85 Year old "American century' is palpably disintegrating before our very
eyes. In particular the Deep State permanent bureaucracy is completely untethered and facing
what seems to be a Great Reckoning in the form of Barr- Durham. Cognitve Derangement prevails
in the press and spills overto the body politic. The country teeters a slo-mo Civil War.
Meanwhile, The dollar is disintegrating and we seem to face an economic abyss, the Terminal
Depression. Real "last Days of Rome" stuff.
BaNNeD oN THe RuN, 5 hours ago (Edited)
The Israeli dual citizens like Adelson and Mercer bought the Presidency.
Mossad was the organization handling the mole Seth Rich.
Blaming Russia also worked for those 2 groups because it deflected attention away from
(((them))).
Ray McGovern, being ex-intel, must know this to be true.
LetThemEatRand, 11 hours ago
Russiagate. The supposed target of said coup d'etat just Presided over the largest bailout
of banks ever by a factor of five or more. Trump supporters are asleep for the bailout, Trump
haters are asleep for the bailout. Let's fight about transgender bathrooms and Russiagate,
shall we?
Was it Crowdstrike that had shown her the forensics data? This McCarthyist dog just keeps lying and keeps digging. The Obama administration
was as shameless as they were crooked.
"They all sound like kids that got caught raiding the cookie jar making up wild tales of innocence with cookie crumbs all over their
faces."
Notable quotes:
"... Opening your eyes wider while speaking doesn't make you look more intense, credible, and believable... ..."
"... (((They))) are taught from birth to "lie to, cheat, rob, enslave, and kill, with impunity" all Americans they call "Goyim, a mindless herd of cattle, sub-human animals." ..."
"... Ah Evelyn, Evelyn! You're just an exposed resistance tool HRC campaign hack doubling downer unemployed TDS afflicted congress woman wannabe who has no shame no principals and no alibi. Lots of love and kisses to Bezos/WaPo for letting them share your pain with us. Here at the disinfo clearinghouse you couldn't get elected dog catcher. ..."
...Meanwhile, Poor Evelyn's campaign staff has become " emotionally exhausted " after her Facebook, Twitter and Instagram accounts
have been "overwhelmed with a stream of vile, vulgar and sometimes violent messages" in response to the plethora of conservative
outlets which have called her out for Russia malarkey.
There is evidence that Russian actors are contributing to these attacks. The same day that right-wing pundits began pumping
accusations, newly created Russian Twitter accounts picked them up.
Within a day, Russian "
disinformation clearinghouses " posted versions of the story . Many of the Twitter accounts boosting attacks have posted in
unison, a sign of inauthentic social media behavior.
She closes by defiantly claiming "I wasn't silenced in 2017, and I won't be silenced now."
No Evelyn, nobody is silencing you. You're being called out for your role in the perhaps the largest, most divisive hoax in US
history - which was based on faulty intelligence that includes CrowdStrike admitting they had
no proof of that Russia exfiltrated DNC emails, and Christopher Steele's absurd dossier based on his 'Russian sources.'
MrAToZ, 1 minute ago
What's with the bug eyes on these crooks?
Kurpak, 27 seconds ago
Opening your eyes wider while speaking doesn't make you look more intense, credible, and believable...
It makes you look ******* insane.
iAmerican10, 8 minutes ago (Edited)
(((They))) are taught from birth to "lie to, cheat, rob, enslave, and kill, with impunity" all Americans they call "Goyim, a mindless
herd of cattle, sub-human animals."
... ... ...
otschelnik, 35 minutes ago
Ah Evelyn, Evelyn! You're just an exposed resistance tool HRC campaign hack doubling downer unemployed TDS afflicted congress woman wannabe who
has no shame no principals and no alibi. Lots of love and kisses to Bezos/WaPo for letting them share your pain with us.
Here at the disinfo clearinghouse you couldn't get elected dog catcher.
But if the Russians were coming, really, wouldn't most Americans rush to Putin's
assistance? And wouldn't that make America a vastly better place?
Not unique either! The Russians did that in the X Century when, as tradition and legend
has it, they invited the Varangians (Vikings) to come to rule over them because the
squabbling parties (presumably the local variety of Reps and Dems) made the place (Kiev-Rus)
ungovernable. About time they (the Russians) return the favour!
The crux of Russiagate is that it's a political scandal masquerading as a criminal one.
The interminable scandal has been back in the news this past week thanks to the Trump
Department of Justice's decision to drop charges against Michael Flynn. Flynn was once briefly
Trump's national security advisor before being fired and then charged with lying to the FBI
over a phone conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential
transition. Last Thursday , the House Intelligence Committee finally released
fifty-seven transcripts of closed-door interviews it conducted with various key players in
the saga over 2017 and 2018, covering Flynn's call with Kislyak and other matters.
Since the news dropped, every effort has been made to turn Flynn's absolution into the
latest Trump outrage. Barack Obama himself weighed in, charging in a
leaked phone call with supporters that "there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone
who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free," and that the "rule of law is at
risk."
Four years into this chaotic and reactionary presidency, there are more than enough
legitimate Trump scandals to go around. But as with many things Russiagate, both the Flynn case
and the release of the transcripts reflect far more poorly on the Obama administration,
American's hallowed national security institutions, and the anti-Trump "Resistance."
Understanding why requires going all the way back to 2016 and the beginnings of the Flynn
case. Flynn was a former intelligence official pushed out of the Obama administration over,
among other things, his
management style . Years later, he became a
characteristically weird Trump guy: a heterodox foreign policy thinker who combined
occasional opposition to endless war with conspiratorial Islamophobia, and became nationally
known for flirting with the
"alt-right" and chanting "Lock her up!" at the 2016 RNC.
Flynn's loyalty to Trump was rewarded that year when he was announced as the
president-elect's national security advisor. At the same time, Flynn had, like many in Trump's
orbit, been investigated by the FBI over whether he was Kremlin agent, and only further raised
hackles after it was
leaked that he had spoken to Kislyak the same day that Obama ordered
sanctions and expelled thirty-five Russian embassy officials as retaliation for Russia's
interference in that year's election.
Flynn was, at first,
pushed out by Trump when it turned out he had caused Vice President Mike Pence to
unwittingly lie about the contact. He was then later charged by Robert Mueller and his team in
the course of the "collusion" probe with lying to the FBI (not, as Obama claimed, perjury),
which at the time was cause
for much speculation
: it was the umpteenth "beginning of the end" of Trump's presidency but ultimately produced no
new revelations about a Trump-Russia conspiracy. Now, he's been allowed to skip a maximum of
five years in jail and walk away "scot-free," as Obama put it.
But through it all and since, details have trickled out that have made the entire saga far
less clear-cut than those most invested in the "collusion" narrative would have the public
believe. For one, despite all the innuendo around Flynn's Russian contacts and his sitting next
to Putin at a dinner, investigators found nothing unseemly when looking into Flynn and had
all but closed their
investigation into him when the news about the Kislyak call broke.
Secondly, the charge Flynn was ultimately slapped with, lying to the FBI, now looks more
like a case of entrapment. Recently released
notes written by Bill Priestep
, former FBI counterintelligence director, prior to interviewing Flynn about the Kislyak call
suggest the Bureau was looking at the option to "get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get
him fired." In the notes, Priestep wrote that "I believe we should rethink this," that simply
showing Flynn evidence so he could admit wrongdoing wasn't "going easy on him" and was routine
FBI practice, and that "if we're seen as playing games, WH [White House] will be furious," so
they should "protect our institution by not playing games."
What's more,
contemporaneous notes show that the investigators themselves weren't sure Flynn had
intentionally lied to them, and that Comey himself had said so in a March 2017 briefing, before
claiming he had never said anything of the sort after being fired by Trump.
There were further improprieties in the investigation. Flynn has claimed, with some
evidence , that the FBI pressured him to sit down for the interview without a lawyer.
Additionally, two years ago, Comey himself
admitted that he had violated protocol by sending investigators to interview Flynn without
going through the White House counsel, calling it "something I probably wouldn't have done or
maybe gotten away with in a more organized administration."
Things get worse when one goes through the
Mueller team's interview notes for then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates and Mary
McCord, another DoJ official and both Obama appointees. To the surprise of Yates -- who
insisted the White House needed to be informed Flynn had misled them, given it put him in a
potentially compromising position -- Comey repeatedly refused to notify the White House, and
the FBI's reasons for not doing so "morphed" over the course of discussion. Yates and her team
were then "flabbergasted," "dumbfounded," and "hit the roof" when they learned Comey had sent
agents to interview Flynn without informing her, believing it should have been coordinated with
the DoJ.
After this, Mueller's prosecutors coerced Flynn into pleading guilty by
bankrupting him and
threatening to go after his son , not unlike the
treatment visited upon government whistleblowers under the Obama administration. Through it
all, there was the fact that Flynn had never actually committed any underlying crime by talking
to Kislyak -- not to mention the fact that Mueller himself debunked the entire Russiagate
conspiracy theory -- making his false statements to the FBI technically criminal, but
irrelevant.
The backdrop to all of this is the FBI's staggering misconduct in spying on the Trump
campaign in 2016. As last year's report from the DoJ inspector general
revealed , the Bureau repeatedly misrepresented or left out evidence, and even used
outright false claims to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on former Trump campaign aide Carter
Page, a businessman and sometime-CIA asset with ties to Russia who advocated for
business-minded co-operation between the two countries.
In light of all of this, Russiagate looks less like a righteous crusade for truth and
justice and more like the typical
shenanigans for which the FBI and US government have long been known: prosecutorial
overreach, entrapment, and the criminalization of foreign policy dissent. Trump's grotesqueries
have has made it impossible for many liberals to acknowledge this fact. But the fact that the
FBI's misconduct was aimed at a right-wing government this time should be no reason for
Democrats to dismiss the magnitude of the scandal.
In fact, the Intelligence Committee transcripts reveal the extent to which it was
ideological opposition to, or simply political disagreement with, the incoming administration
over foreign policy that drove suspicion of a Trump-Russia conspiracy.
"Maybe I'm
Biased"
Despite the insistence of anti-Trump media, "collusion" was never crime. Even former Obama
officials alarmed by Trump's apparent closeness to the Kremlin acknowledged as such behind
closed doors.
"Collusion is a word that's been used out in the public to refer to this investigation,"
McCord
told the intelligence committee. "It's, of course, not a crime itself."
But you didn't need the testimony of Democratic officials to know this. If "colluding" with
a foreign power to win an election was a crime, then it was one both Hillary Clinton and Mitt
Romney were guilty of in 2016 and 2012, respectively.
To defeat Trump in 2016, the Democratic Party teamed up with the Ukrainian government, which
viewed a Clinton presidency -- with its
controversial preference for sending
weapons to Ukraine to fight Russia -- as most favorable to its interests. Though widely reported
at the time , Ukraine's 2016 election meddling was retrospectively transformed into a
made-up conspiracy theory when it became inconvenient to the Russiagate narrative.
Meanwhile, the
open support for Romney from a sitting Israel prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, just
eight years ago, though controversial
at the time , has similarly disappeared down a memory hole. That's not even to get into
George W. Bush's closeness to a Saudi
official heavily
complicit in the September 11 terrorist attacks.
When all was said and done, Trump's run-in with the Kremlin hasn't come close to the level
of intimacy and co-ordination with a foreign government seen in any of these examples.
No, Trump and his team's real crime was that they crossed the Washington foreign policy
consensus and violated government norms, all in the service of attempting to improve relations
with the wrong foreign government -- in this case, one deemed an official adversary. See
this
exchange between Rep. Francis Rooney (R-FL) and former Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper, one of the former spy chiefs who has repeatedly claimed Trump was in the
Kremlin's thrall on cable news (emphasis mine):
ROONEY: I mean, I guess the point is on the question is, is at what time is collusion
collusion, and at what time is it just people that may have an affiliation with the campaign
meeting or talking with, whether it be the Russian ambassador on somebody that's of Russian
origin, and when should that be taken as something that rises to the level of an Intelligence
Community concern?
CLAPPER: That's a great question, and I asked -- I really can't answer it other than the
sort of visceral reaction to why all these meetings with the Russians . They are what I
consider are an existential threat to this country, a country that is not interested in
furthering our interests, certainly on cooperating with us. Maybe I'm biased. You know, I'm a
Cold War warrior and all that , but -- so that was of concern to me.
At another point, Clapper -- who had earlier said that election interference is "almost
genetic with" Russians, and that the 2016 interference had "viscerally affected me like nothing
I've even experienced since I got in the intel business in 1963" -- recalled briefing the
president-elect about the Kremlin's interference:
I would say it was a professional exchange. He got off on wouldn't it be great if we could
get along with the Russians? I said, yeah, sure, if we found some convergence of our
interests. But I'm in the 'trust but verify' camp when it comes to Russia. I mean, maybe I've
just been around too long.
Or as Clapper put it at another point: "I have a very jaundiced view of dealing with the
Russians."
Such thinking pervaded the mindset of other Obama officials. See Obama speechwriter and
foreign policy advisor Ben Rhodes'
reaction to the now-infamous Trump Tower meeting (emphasis mine):
l was absolutely shocked. I can tell you I worked on a presidential campaign in 2007-2008.
I was one of the principal foreign policy staffers on that campaign. I would have no reason
to ever meet with any Russians . The notion of, you know, David Plouffe, David Axelrod, and
Valerie Jarrett meeting with the Russian Government would have been literally unthinkable in
the context of our campaign. And the leadership of a campaign's time is their most precious
commodity, and the fact that they felt it a worthy investment of time to sit down with
representatives of the Russian government was absolutely astonishing to me , and went far
beyond, frankly, any degree of interaction that I would have even guessed at.
Of course, much of the outrage over the Trump Tower meeting arose from the fact that the
Trump campaign was trying to get dirt on their opponent from a foreign government (the same
thing, incidentally, the Democratic Party actually did in 2016
with the Ukrainian government ). But quite apart from that, Rhodes here is scandalized
specifically by the idea the campaign would simply sit down with representatives of the
Russian government.
As Rhodes would later admit, he and other Obama campaign officials did communicate with
foreign governments during the 2008 campaign and the transition, only they happened to be "a
very small number of friendly governments to the United States." Rhodes tacitly acknowledges
there's nothing inherently wrong with a campaign meeting with or communicating with a foreign
government -- the issue for him is which foreign government , a fundamentally political
question.
Here's Yates
responding to a question from Rep. Denny Heck (D-WA) about whether "incoming
administrations or people on their behalf never have contact with representatives of foreign
governments" (emphasis mine):
YATES: No. I don't think that that was anybody's sense there, that you would never have
any contact. I think what – as they described it to me, what seemed different about
this was that he was having conversations with the Russians attempting to influence their
conduct now during this administration, and that that would be unusual and troubling.
HECK: And –
YATES: And it also -- given that it was the Russians, there's sort of an extra concern
there as well.
Or
here's Obama's outgoing national security advisor recalling her conversations during the
transition period with Flynn, the man set to replace her:
We did talk about Russia as an adversary, as a threat to NATO. But, frankly, we spent a
lot more time talking about China in part because General Flynn's focus was on China as our
principal overarching adversary. He had many questions and concerns about China. And when I
elicited -- sought to elicit his perspective on Russia, he downplayed his assessment of
Russia as a threat to the United States. He called it overblown. He said they're a declining
power, they're demographically challenged, they're not really much of a threat, and then
reemphasized the importance of China.
Flynn's factual points about Russia, by the way, are all objectively true . But
as Rice went on to say, she "had seen enough at that point and heard enough to be a little bit
sensitive to the question of the nature of General Flynn's engagements with the Russians," and
so she declined to brief Flynn on Russia policy in the fullest detail, figuring he would be
fully briefed once he officially took office.
Like Rhodes, Rice conceded that "it was normal, customary to have contacts with the
governments of friendly countries" during a transition, as Obama's did with the "British,
French, Germans, NATO allies, Asian allies."
"It was not normal," she said, "to have contacts with adversarial governments during a
transition."
Rather than breaching any kind of legal standard, the common complaint among these officials
was that Trump and his team had violated the norm or precept of "one government at a time":
that even though the Trump administration was coming in, Obama and his team were still in the
driver's seat, and it was inappropriate to step on their toes. Flynn's decision to do the
opposite may have been unwise -- but was it really an acceptable basis for everything that
followed?
It's clear that the chaos, dysfunction, and sheer weirdness of Trump's campaign and budding
presidency contributed to deepening suspicion of him and his team. But it's also clear that
this suspicion was more than a little animated by what was essentially a political disagreement
over whether Russia is a US adversary, and if it should be treated as such via official
policy.
Such a question might sound absurd to some ears. But outside the Beltway there are vast
swaths of the US political spectrum where such foreign policy positions are contested: on
relations with Iran and China, for instance, or the efficacy of the "war on terror" -- issues
on which opposing views have often been deemed dangerous, suspect, or even treasonous by one
side or another.
Rice herself declared at the end of her testimony, as she complained about Trump's praise
for WikiLeaks, that "the rest of us, everybody in this room, knew that WikiLeaks was our
adversary." Yet in 2010, when the Obama administration was aggressively going after this
"adversary," the public was
evenly split on whether Wikileaks had "served" or "harmed" the "public interest" -- with 57
percent of young people holding the former view. Just because Rice and the rest of the national
security state viewed the organization as an adversary doesn't make it an objective fact.
And let's not forget the ongoing, total silence over the US government's decades-long
friendly relationship with "allies" like Saudi Arabia, whose government officials were involved
not in releasing embarrassing information about American policymakers, but a terrorist attack
that killed thousands.
"A Debating Weapon Against the Opposition"
Whatever one thinks of the wisdom of Trump's
ultimately aborted attempt to re-forge a friendly relationship with Russia, it's a foreign
policy decision that a duly elected government is entitled to make. It therefore lays squarely
in the political realm, not the legal one -- though national security officials and Democrats
have tried their best to make it fit in the latter.
This is perhaps best symbolized by Comey and Obama's apparent goal of prosecuting Flynn
under the Logan Act, a probably
unconstitutional 221-year-old law enacted by the same repressive Congress that brought you
the Alien and Sedition Acts, and which has never been used to successfully prosecute an
American. As liberal legal scholar Detlev F. Vagts put it in in 1966, throughout its history, the
Logan Act has been used as "a debating weapon against the opposition and as a threat against
those out of power," a charge that
remains just as true today , as attested by its invocation during the Bush and Obama
years.
That the administration ultimately resorted to this antiquated law, which prohibits citizens
from "correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government" over disagreements with the
US, is a sign of how desperate it was to charge Flynn with anything in its waning days. That
Flynn was no ordinary citizen but an official for an elected administration-in-waiting whose
direct remit was foreign policy makes the threat even more absurd.
Unfortunately, this isn't the end of it. As
others have
pointed out , long before the Mueller report made clear a Trump-Russia conspiracy didn't
actually exist, a number of Obama officials testified to the closed-door committee that they
saw no actual evidence for this -- only hints that made them suspicious.
Yet that didn't stop those involved from using their public platforms to fan the flames of
conspiracy against the Trump administration. Maybe most outrageous was former DNI Clapper, who
despite testifying he'd seen no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion has
repeatedly gone on CNN and
charged that Trump could be a Russian asset. (Amusingly, for all of Obama's complaints that
Flynn was allowed to get away with "perjury," it's Clapper who actually committed that
particular crime, lying
to Congress about the scope of government surveillance, which Obama's DoJ
refused to lift a finger about despite demands from members of Congress).
Also deserving of special mention is Rep. Adam Schiff, the Democrat who more than any other
pushed the "collusion" storyline, riding it to prominence and
political donations . Schiff, long a conduit for
military contractors , who entered Congress by
fundraising record amounts off the
Clinton-Lewinsky scandal , has spent years alleging a grand conspiracy between Trump and
the Kremlin despite being told under oath by Obama officials hostile to Trump that they had
seen no evidence of such a thing. Unsurprisingly, Schiff, the intelligence committee's
chairman, long
resisted the release of the transcripts.
Russiagate is therefore looking more and more like a familiar story: one of national
security officials, driven by an unflinching belief in the righteousness of their cause and a
suspicion of any foreign policy vision outside the narrow and militarist Washington consensus,
leading a crusade against those whose views they viewed ran contrary to their own. As always,
they turned fundamentally political disagreements into an issue of national security, resulting
in the FBI violating norms and laws of its
own, while running roughshod over the rights of American citizens.
It is too bad that, because the misconduct this time targeted the justifiably loathed figure
of Trump, many observers are incapable of seeing this. The FBI's misconduct in the Trump-Russia
investigation was "troubling, no question," writes
Vox . "But they may not be unique to the Russia investigation, but rather endemic to
the agency itself."
This is not a defense; it's a description of the very problem.
Why Should the Liberal
Left Care?
For many on the liberal left, the Flynn case and the entire Russiagate saga elicits anything
ranging from disinterest to outright cheer-leading. After all, why should anyone opposed to
Trump, a lifelong
criminal and dangerous reactionary, be bothered that the might of the United States' vast
security state was, for once, turned against him?
The answer is that, as with all anti-civil liberties
measures , these tactics are first legitimated by being turned on groups and individuals
that are wholly unsympathetic, so they can later be used against less objectionable targets.
Justifying prosecutorial misconduct and state overreach in one case where an outgoing
administration and its allies targeted their political opponents over matters of policy sets a
dangerous precedent for future victims, including a potential left-wing or even liberal
administration.
Imagine, for instance, if Trump (or any other Republican administration) had spent years
alarmingly tamping up tensions with an officially designated foreign adversary -- Iran or
China, for instance. Imagine one of those governments then leaked unflattering but true
information about Republican corruption and malfeasance in order to help their Democratic
opponents win, and Trump retaliated with sanctions and other measures.
Imagine, too, that Democrats had publicly pledged to restore friendly relations with these
powers during the campaign, and, upon winning the election, an official in the soon-to-be
Democratic administration privately urged them not to overreact to Trump's retaliatory actions.
Imagine, then, that the Trump administration unlawfully spied on members of the Democratic
campaign, attempted to railroad that official on flimsy grounds, all while his allies continued
hobbling the succeeding administration by alleging an unproven foreign conspiracy -- all
because they thought reorienting relations with countries viewed as dangerous enemies by the
Right was something inherently suspect and criminal.
Just as Democrats were right to demand Robert Mueller be allowed to carry out his inquiry,
Republicans are absolutely correct to want an investigation
of these abuses, even if they're driven by partisan motives -- partisan concerns, after
all, have always played some role in the accounting of malfeasance in Washington, from
Iran-Contra to the 9/11 Commission. And it's perfectly possible to be outraged at this entire
saga without supporting Trump or treating the GOP as principled defenders of civil liberties --
indeed, the party is right now pushing a radical
expansion of government surveillance powers that should worry us all.
It is particularly symbolic that in the midst of this imbroglio, the FBI just
accidentally revealed the name of another Saudi embassy official complicit in the September
11 attacks, whose identity was long kept hidden by the US government as a "state secret" whose
revelation could cause "significant harm to the national security." Collusion, foreign
adversary, national security: in Washington, it's all in the eye of the beholder.
by Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/20/2020 - 18:05 A 2017 Inauguration Day email that former national security adviser
Susan Rice sent to herself documenting a January 5 Oval Office meeting discussing the case
against her successor Michael Flynn was done so at the direction of White House counsel ,
according to
Fox News . The meeting documented in Rice's memo included Obama, former VP Joe Biden and
former FBI Director James Comey, who - according to Rice, "does have some concerns that
incoming NSA Flynn is speaking frequently with Russian Ambassador Kislyak."
"Given the importance and sensitivity of the subject matter, and upon the advice of the
White House Counsel's Office, Ambassador Rice created a permanent record of the discussion,"
Rice's attorney Kathryn Ruemmler wrote to senators in 2018. "Ambassador Rice memorialized the
discussion on January 20, because that was the first opportunity she had to do so, given the
particularly intense responsibilities of the National Security Advisor during the remaining
days of the administration and transition."
Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell declassified the previously
redacted section of Rice's email and Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., made it public on Tuesday.
That section says Comey suggested to Obama that the National Security Council [NSC] might
not want to pass "sensitive information related to Russia" to incoming national security
adviser Flynn.
The email pointed to what were apparently widespread concerns about Flynn's Russia
contacts. Multiple sources confirmed to Fox News that what initially put Flynn on the radar
was the number of interactions he had with senior Russian government officials in 2016, as
laid out in various intelligence reports viewed by Obama White House officials. -
Fox News
Damage control?
For those who aren't buying the given explanation for the email, 'Sundance' of The Conservative Treehouse has an
interesting theory that it was written to cover up the fact that Obama knew all about the Flynn
investigation .
2) The position of President Obama and Susan Rice is that the White House was unaware of
any FBI investigation of Flynn (or the Trump campaign); nor did they have any involvement in
directing it to take place.
4) When James Clapper walked directly into the White House with "intelligence cuts", from
the FBI to share with President Obama, it's likely the legal team around Obama -specifically
including Kathryn Reummler- went bananas.
6) Worse... if anyone should later question FBI Director Comey about it, Comey would say
(honestly) he knew Obama was briefed on it because he provided a paper trail.
WH counsel Ruemmler would have immediately identified the White House exposure.
Addendum: The framework and purpose of the Rice 'memo to file' was obvious in the 2018
Rice/Ruemmler response to the Senate. pic.twitter.com/2IQxIyFwuK
incoming
NSA Flynn is speaking frequently with Russian Ambassador Kislyak " in a meeting documented
in the January 2017 memo by National Security Advisor Susan Rice, the unredacted first page of
which was obtained by CBS on Tuesday.
The FBI director admits he " has no indication thus far that Flynn has passed classified
information to Kislyak ," and no real basis for his insistence that the probe must go
on.
-- Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) May
19, 2020
The only thing backing his hunch that the meetings between the general and the Russian
diplomat " could be an issue "?
" The level of communication is unusual ," Comey tells Obama, according to Rice,
hinting that the National Security Council should " potentially " avoid passing "
sensitive information related to Russia " to Flynn.
The FBI director did not elaborate on what is supposed to be " unusual " about an
incoming foreign policy official speaking with a Russian counterpart, especially in the midst
of what was then a rapidly-unraveling diplomatic relationship between the two countries with
Obama expelling 35 Russian diplomats and imposing sanctions over
alleged-but-never-substantiated " election interference. " Given the circumstances, an
absence of communication might have been more unusual. But the timing is certainly
auspicious.
Rice, Flynn's predecessor who authored the memo, relates that the January 5 meeting followed
" a briefing by [Intelligence Committee] leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016
Presidential election ."
The previous day, the FBI field office assigned with investigating Flynn attempted to close
the case against him, called CROSSFIRE RAZOR, after having found " no derogatory
information " to justify continued inclusion in the overarching CROSSFIRE HURRICANE probe
(the " Russian collusion " investigation). They were blocked from doing so by Agent
Peter Strzok, who added that the orders to keep the investigation going came from the " 7th
floor " - i.e. agency leadership. The Flynn investigation had been underway since August,
beginning the day after Strzok discussed an 'insurance policy' that was supposed to keep
then-candidate Donald Trump out of office with Comey's deputy, Andrew McCabe. While Comey
describes his probe of Flynn as " proceeding 'by the book' " after Obama repeatedly
stresses he wants only a " by the book " investigation - both parties presumably
hoping to avoid exactly the sequence of revelatory events that are currently unfolding -
recently-unsealed documents from the case against Flynn indicate the general was entrapped,
with the FBI's goal being to " prosecute him or get him fired " with an ambush-style
interview.
They got both their wishes - after agents tricked him into sitting for questioning without a
lawyer present, Flynn was accused of lying about his contacts with Kislyak, fired from his post
in the White House, and subsequently pled guilty to lying to a federal agent.
The Department of Justice has dropped its charges against Flynn, citing gross misconduct and
abuse of power at the FBI, which it claims had no basis for launching its investigation.
However, US District Judge Emmet Sullivan has attempted to block the dismissal, appointing a
retired judge as independent prosecutor to both argue against the Justice Department's move and
pursue perjury charges against Flynn - essentially charging him with lying about lying.
On Tuesday, Flynn's attorney filed a writ of mandamus with the US Court of Appeals for the
DC Circuit, urging them to force Sullivan to step aside and allow the dismissal of the
charges.
"... I guess Obama didn't think he could rely on Sally Yates to lie on his behalf but knew he could count on "Old Faithful" Susan Rice to do the job. If the MSM were fair they'd be mocking (at the very least) her overuse of the figure of speech "by the book". I hope someone throws that book at her and the rest of the cabal. ..."
"... BTW, I seem to recall reading a long time ago that Rice made a mess wherever she served. I could be mistaken though. ..."
"... Well if we can't get a "perfumed prince" in the docket, this deplorable will settle for a "perfumed princess. ..."
...This is nothing more than a lame, stupid attempt on the part of Susan Rice to create some plausible deniability for Barack
Obama. She placed herself in a meeting that, according to Sally Yates, was limited to Obama, Comey and Yates. Rice puts the blame
on Comey for talking about the Russians. The Sally Yates account told to FBI under the penalty of lying to the FBI, was quite clear
that Obama initiated the discussion of Russia, Flynn and the sanctions.
Someone is lying. Susan Rice is a demonstrated liar and was not under oath when she wrote up her fabricated version of the 5 January
meeting. Sally Yates, however, would face legal peril if she lied to the FBI agents who interviewed her. I believer Sally Yates provided
the truthful account of what actually happened after Barack Obama asked everyone but Yates and Comey to leave the room.
Did Barry ever wing anything on his own without his sidekicks Rce or Jarrett immediately by his side, ready to run cover for
him later when necessary?
Rice's presence was probably so ubiquitous, it was not worthy of mention in later present party recollections. I would assume
Barry could not speak in public without a teleprompter and not speak in private without his "wingman".
Why do we assume Valerie Jarrett is still living in the same house as the former POTUS? So when the phone rings and someone
wants to know something about what Barry did while he was in office, ValJar the NightStalker can be ready with the answer.
My guess is Rice was attached at the hip whenever there was a chance Barry would open his mouth. Make the failure to mention
Rice more an oversight rather than something ominous.
More troubling was Yates getting cut off by Lindsey Graham every time she tried to explain that Flynn had not been "unmasked"
during her Senate testimony, per the video clip. What that just dismissive on Graham's part or inadvertent. Wild speculation,
had McCain "leaked" the Flynn phone call to Wapo?
I guess Obama didn't think he could rely on Sally Yates to lie on his behalf but knew he could count on "Old Faithful" Susan
Rice to do the job. If the MSM were fair they'd be mocking (at the very least) her overuse of the figure of speech "by the book".
I hope someone throws that book at her and the rest of the cabal.
BTW, I seem to recall reading a long time ago that Rice made a mess wherever she served. I could be mistaken though.
Has anyone else noticed that James Comey's been very quiet lately?
"... The US Treasury Department was regularly spying on Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn , Paul Manafort Jr., senior staffers on the 2016 Trump campaign, members of the Trump family, and congressional lawmakers , according to The Tennessee Star 's Neil W. McCabe. ..."
"... The scheme allowed the perpetrators to circumvent classified avenues to surveil Americans. Once enough information had been gathered against a target, they would use a different type of search. ..."
"... In March 2017, the whistleblower filed a complaint with Acting Treasury Inspector General Richard K. Delmar, who never followed up on the matter despite acknowledging receipt of the complaint. Prior to that, she filed an August 2016 notification which was rejected as it didn't meet the requirements of a formal complaint. ..."
"... This surveillance program was run out of Treasury's Office of Intelligence Analysis , which was then under the leadership of S. Leslie Ireland ..."
"... The whistleblower said Treasury should never have been part of the unmasking of Flynn, because its surveillance operation was off-the-books. That is to say, the Justice Department never gave the required approval to the Treasury program, and so there were no guidelines, approvals nor reports that would be associated with a DOJ-sanctioned domestic surveillance operation. - The Tennessee Star ..."
The US Treasury Department was regularly spying on Lt. Gen.
Michael T. Flynn , Paul Manafort Jr., senior staffers on the 2016 Trump campaign, members of
the Trump family, and congressional lawmakers , according to
The Tennessee Star 's Neil W. McCabe.
"I started seeing things that were not correct, so I did my own little investigation,
because I wanted to make sure what I was seeing was correct," a former senior Treasury
Department official and veteran of the intelligence community told McCabe. "You never want to
draw attention to something if there is not anything there," she added.
The whistleblower said she only saw metadata, that is names and dates when the general's
financial records were accessed. "I never saw what they saw."
By March 2016, the whistleblower said she and a colleague, who was detailed to Treasury
from the intelligence community, became convinced that the surveillance of Flynn was not tied
to legitimate criminal or national security concerns, but was straight-up political
surveillance among other illegal activity occurring at Treasury.
"When I showed it to her, what she said, 'Oh, sh%t!' and I knew right then and there that
I was right – this was some shady stuff," the whistleblower said.
"It wasn't just him," the whistleblower said. "They were targeting other U.S. citizens, as
well." -
The Tennessee Star
"Another thing they would do is take targeted names from a certain database – I cannot
name, but you can guess – and they were going over to an unclassified database and they
were running those names in the unclassified database," she added.
The scheme allowed the perpetrators to circumvent classified avenues to surveil Americans.
Once enough information had been gathered against a target, they would use a different type of
search.
In March 2017, the whistleblower filed a complaint with Acting Treasury Inspector General
Richard K. Delmar, who never followed up on the matter despite acknowledging receipt of the
complaint. Prior to that, she filed an August 2016 notification which was rejected as it didn't
meet the requirements of a formal complaint.
In May 2017, she filed another complaint with the Office of Special Counsel.
The whistleblower said Treasury should never have been part of the unmasking of Flynn,
because its surveillance operation was off-the-books. That is to say, the Justice Department
never gave the required approval to the Treasury program, and so there were no guidelines,
approvals nor reports that would be associated with a DOJ-sanctioned domestic surveillance
operation. -
The Tennessee Star
"Accessing this information without approved and signed attorney general guidelines would
violate U.S. persons constitutional rights and civil liberties," said the whistleblower, adding
"IC agencies have to adhere to Executive Order 12333, or as it is known in the community: E.O.
12-Triple-Three. Just because OIA does not have signed guidelines does not give them the power
or right to operate as they want, if you want information on a U.S. person then work with the
FBI on a Title III, if it is a U.S. person involved with a foreign entity then follow the
correct process for a FISA, but without signed AG guidelines you cannot even get started ."
@Godfree Roberts Just a headsup The Economist is a Rothschild publication, now
part-owned, The wife, Lynn Forester de Rothschild used to be Editor. Personally, I wouldn't
believe a single article in The Economist – its all propaganda to fit their
narrative, which is your point, I know.
Donald J. Trump: I think that the BuzzFeed piece was a disgrace to our country. It was a
disgrace to journalism and I think also the coverage by the mainstream media was disgraceful.
And I think it's going to take a long time for the mainstream media to recover its
credibility.
JS (Jeremy Scahill): Trump's absolutely bizarre legal marionette Rudy Giuliani was also
gleeful.
Rudy Giuliani: The Justice Department and the Special Counsel's Office said that the story
was inaccurate and the inaccuracy is that there's no evidence that the president told him to
lie.
JS: Now, I have no idea if BuzzFeed's report is accurate. It may be. Or some of it may be
wrong and some of it correct. But if it does turn out to be wrong in its major assertion, if
Trump did not in fact instruct Michael Cohen to lie, then this would be the latest in a string
of highly inflammatory stories relating to Trump and Russia and published by major news
organizations that turned out to be false.
The British Guardian newspaper has still not addressed why it is that no other news outlet
has reported that former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort met three times with Wikileaks
founder Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. No one else has been able to
confirm any of that. Paul Manafort denies it. Julian Assange denies it. That is the most
surveilled embassy door on planet earth and no video has emerged to support the Guardian's
report. The story came. It was a very big deal. No one else confirmed it and now it's just
floating out there on the internet.
CNN and NBC also made a huge error when they reported on Don Jr. supposedly having advance
knowledge of Wikileaks publications during the campaign. Well, that turned out to be false too
and that the sources that gave that information to CNN and apparently NBC had actually gotten
dates wrong on emails sent to Don Jr. about Wikileaks. The emails were sent after the
publication of documents. Same is true of the salacious story -- this was a while ago, but I'm
sure you remember it -- that Trump had set up a secret Russian server to communicate with the
Kremlin. It was also untrue that Russian hackers had hacked into the U.S. electrical grid in
Vermont. Not true. Just not true.
I'm bringing all of this up not to say that there is no scandal with Trump or Trump/Russia
and move along, look the other way. I bring it up because all of these false stories help
Trump, they bolster his very dangerous narrative about the news media and about fake news. They
also potentially hurt the actual, provable assertions and allegations against Donald Trump
because Trump can now say, "Oh, well the waters are muddy and look at all these false stories
that have been published about me." He can use it to confuse the actual, provable
narrative.
And the fact that the public is drowning in sensationalized coverage of Trump and Russia and
Mueller, it's almost certainly going to set the public up for a very confusing, underwhelming
reality when the Special Counsel's report is made public. At least, that's what ABC News White
House correspondent Jonathan Karl seems to think.
Jonathan Karl: This is all building up to the Mueller report and raising expectations of a
bombshell report and they've been expectations that have been building of course, for over a
year on this. But people who are closest to what Mueller has been doing, interacting with the
Special Counsel caution me that this report is almost certain to be anti-climactic.
JS: Earlier this month, the veteran national security journalist William Arkin of NBC News
published an email that he sent to colleagues informing them that he was no longer working for
the network. In the letter, Arkin blasted NBC for its obsession over Trump, writing: "I find
myself completely out of sync with the network, being neither a day-to-day reporter nor
interested in the Trump circus." Arkin went on to say that, at NBC, investigative journalism
"got sucked into the tweeting vortex, increasingly lost in a directionless adrenaline rush. The
national security and political version of leading the broadcast with every snow storm. And I
would assert that in many ways NBC just began emulating the national security state itself --
busy and profitable. No wars won but the ball is kept in play." Arkin continued: "I'd argue
that under Trump, the national security establishment not only hasn't missed a beat but indeed
has gained dangerous strength. Now it is ever more autonomous and practically impervious to
criticism."
William Arkin: The national security community itself has gotten stronger and has gained
strength under Donald Trump and part of our responsibility as journalists is to cover the
government not just the president. And so, I feel like people should know more.
JS: I could not agree more with Bill Arkin's summation of how the national security
establishment, the CIA, the U.S. war machine has benefitted from the media's hyper-obsession
over Trump/Russia. At the same time, we have to cover stories that could potentially bring down
a president, or potentially conclude that the president has engaged in criminal conduct. It's
not a question of if this story deserves to be covered. It most certainly does and there has
been a lot of great journalism happening on Trump/Russia. But the real question is how unhinged
and unsubstantiated some of the most serious accusations are handled, including by major
established U.S. news organizations.
Journalist Michael Isikoff on Media Coverage of
Trump/Russia, The Mueller Investigation, Rudy Giuliani, and Donald Trump
JS: For more on all of this and the BuzzFeed story and the way Trump/Russia is covered, I am
joined by one of the most experienced investigative journalists in Washington, Michael Isikoff.
He is the chief investigative correspondent for Yahoo! News. Before that, he was an
investigative correspondent for NBC as well as a staff writer for Newsweek and the Washington
Post. Isikoff has written two best-sellers, "Uncovering Clinton" and along with David Corn
"Hubris," which was about the selling of the Iraq War. Isikoff has broken several major stories
on Donald Trump and he is the co-author with Corn of the book "Russian Roulette: The Inside
Story of Putin's War on America and the Election of Donald Trump."
Michael Isikoff, welcome to Intercepted.
MI: Good to be with you.
JS: I would be remiss in not kicking this off by asking you about this BuzzFeed story. What
is your assessment of what was reported in that piece and the veracity of the central
allegation which is that Trump directed his longtime attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress
about these negotiations to build the Trump Tower in Moscow?
MI: Well, before we even get to the Mueller statement, just take the story on its face. It's
got this, you know, very bold, provocative lede that has enormous implications but there's
absolutely no backup in it at all -- directed him to lie which is what the lede said "The
president directed Cohen to lie" is a characterization of something. What is it a
characterization of? A conversation between Trump and Cohen? When? Where? How? How was it
documented if it was documented at all? And then when the story refers to texts and emails,
from whom? Where did they come from? I mean all the things you would want to know when you're
reading that story, or frankly, editing that story were not in it.
So, it's two anonymous federal law enforcement officials characterizing something but you
don't know what they're characterizing. So, the story raised lots of questions for me about you
know what to make of this because there were no facts in there. It was just somebody's
characterization of facts that we haven't seen. Then as the day went on, you know, you have
this disconnect between the two reporters on the story. One, Anthony Cormier tells CNN that no,
they hadn't seen any documents that underlie the gist of the story. And the other reporter
Jason Leopold tells MSNBC he has seen -- "We've seen the documents."
Brian Stelter: Anthony, you said on CNN on Friday that you had not seen the documents you
described in the story. Jason Leopold said on MSNBC we've seen documents. Can you explain that
to us?
Anthony Cormier: Yeah, I can't really get into the details there but we're really at this
point, because of the calls for a leak investigation and the sort of sensitivity around that
matter, we really can't go any further at all in order not to jeopardize our sources.
MI: So, you know it's sort of, they couldn't get their story straight.
JS: One of the reasons that I really wanted to talk to you is not just because of your
reporting on Trump/Russia but because of the totality of your reporting particularly in the
post 9/11 world that we live in and your ability to tell stories that very few journalists are
able to nail down. And I've always particularly admired your work on the Valerie Plame story
and the Iraq lack of WMDs. Have you in all of your muck-raking that you've been doing, heard
anything to back up what BuzzFeed reported about Trump directing Cohen to lie?
MI: Look, I think that the Trump Tower Moscow story is a hugely significant one because it
was an effort by the Trump organization to do business in Moscow during the presidential
campaign. So, when you add into the mix the fact -- unknown to the American public at the time
-- that Trump is simultaneously trying to do a deal in Moscow that presumably would have
required on some level the Kremlin's approval, it really was a significant conflict of interest
and an important one. And I think when Michael Cohen pled guilty at the end of November of last
year to the fact that he lied to the Senate about this, that the talks went on much further
than had been previously testified the fact that he was in direct communication with somebody
in Putin's office about securing land and financing for the deal, that is a major story and
something that should not be minimized or forgotten. In fact, it needs a full accounting. But
that said, the specifics in the BuzzFeed story about directing to lie, that's on its face an
impeachable offense. That's subordination of perjury. That's telling a witness to lie to the
Congress. So, yeah.
JS: Just to share with people the specific statement issued by the Special Counsel's Office,
it was as follows: "BuzzFeed's description of specific statements to the Special Counsel's
Office and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office regarding
Michael Cohen's congressional testimony are not accurate." How do you read that?
MI: There is, I suppose, some ambiguity there because to say something is not accurate, I
mean, I and I'm sure, you and virtually every reporter has gotten pushback on stories we've
written that your story is not accurate and of course, the first thing you want to know is well
what is not accurate? Is it something minor? Is it something peripheral or does it go to the
heart of the story? But that said, the way that statement is worded I take it as going to the
heart, to the core of the story. And it's worth just taking a step back and looking at what The
Washington Post reported about this which is they got the email that Jason Leopold sends to
Peter Carr. The email says "We are going to report that Trump directed Cohen to lie." And Carr
responds "We'll decline comment." So, it makes perfect sense to me that he would pass after
receiving that first email. But apparently he did something more. He did something else. He
then sends to Leopold a copy of what Cohen actually said about this when he pled guilty in
federal court. And what Cohen said was, I lied about this in order to be consistent with Donald
Trump's messaging during the presidential campaign and out of loyalty to him. He doesn't say
anything about being told to lie.
So, at a minimum the reporters if they had not gone back and looked at what Cohen said in
federal court in the first place, having been advised that they should look at it by Mueller's
office, should have included that in the story because there is an inconsistency between what
they were reporting and what Cohen himself said in federal court when he was pleading guilty.
And so, you know, in terms of the journalistic screw-ups here I would have to include that one
as sort of basic you know, responsible reporting is you've got to look at what the public
record says about this matter and the public record was not in sync with what the BuzzFeed guys
were reporting.
JS: When major news organizations get these big big stories wrong about Trump, how does it
impact the politics of this and the potential outcome?
MI: Just as we all learned a lesson on Friday to avoid the 'if true' construction, we should
probably also avoid the 'if not true' construction, OK. At this point, I want to hear from
Michael Cohen himself. He's supposed to testify February 7th before the House Oversight
Committee. All questions on the table going to the core of the Russia story should be asked of
him. He should be directed to answer. At this point, Congress has a responsibility to get to
the facts on its own regardless of whether Robert Mueller raises an objection or not. We really
do deserve a full accounting at this point. We've had more than two years of investigations
into this now.
It is in my view, outrageous that the House and the Senate investigating committees have
done virtually everything behind closed doors. We, the public has never seen the testimony of
key players including Michael Cohen, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, all of that took place
behind closed doors. We'll see what the Democrats in the House are now going to do whether they
will step up to the plate and perform their constitutional responsibility. I was disheartened
to see that Adam Schiff right off the bat after his first week on the job pledging a new era of
transparency at the Intelligence Committee said he wanted to have Cohen behind closed doors.
This is something that the public deserves answers. Congress needs to have the answers on its
own not outsourcing its constitutional responsibilities to an executive branch official which
is what they've done here for well over a year and a half now with Robert Mueller. So, and
look, a lot of the stories that you're citing are about Michael Cohen himself.
JS: Well, okay, what about Paul Manafort visiting Assange three times in the Ecuadorian
embassy?
MI: Sure, yeah, that's -- Look, I mean, there are legitimate questions. There've been
stories that nobody else has corroborate and that's not good for us. Yeah, now that said,
there's also been a lot of really terrific reporting by people --
JS: For sure, no question.
MI: -- Across the board. So, I don't want to, you know --
JS: No, no question about that.
MI: -- This is not a news media scandal. It is first and foremost --
JS: I agree.
MI: -- A scandal about Trump and Russia. But that said yeah, there's been a lot of stories
that have gotten people all whipped up and with very little backup.
JS: Well part part of why I'm asking you this, Michael, is because one of the concerns that
I've had from the beginning with this is that I think a lot of people are, unfortunately,
willing to believe you know any dung that's thrown on the wall of Trump because it just looks
so perfect sitting there. And when major news organizations get major stories wrong, I think it
hurts the investigation not just the official investigations but the kinds of investigations
you're doing because Trump can use it as part of his narrative. Have we been groomed to think
that there's going to be this cataclysmic finding by Mueller and that the facts are going to be
much shadier? I mean do you get what I'm saying? Like doesn't this undermine the impact of the
real investigation?
MI: As for Mueller's report? I don't know. I don't think anybody does. I do think that
there's been a little too much of this sort of fetish about Mueller as though you know, he's
God and he's going to come down with the you know with the Ten Commandments from Mt. Sinai that
will answer all our questions and direct us what to do from here. You know, Mueller's job is
actually very tailored and specific, is to find violations of federal statutes and prosecute
them if he can make them hold up in court. And that's you know, kind of much narrower brief
than I think you know, most of us would want at this point. And also the Mueller report -- I'm
not even sure -- we don't know what the Mueller report is. I mean, is it going to be a detailed
accounting of everything he's discovered or is it just going to be you know, a short terse memo
saying "I've prosecuted these people and I've declined to prosecute these other people?" And
you know, then after that there's the questions of grand jury secrecy and executive privilege,
all of which could restrict what we see in any report from Bob Mueller. So, as a general sense
yes, I think we've spent too much time waiting for the magic bullet from Robert Mueller to come
and all the more reason -- I go back to my point before -- is it's Congress job to resolve all
the many questions we have about this, not Robert Mueller's job.
JS: What do you make of the multiple performances by Rudy Giuliani this past weekend and the
statements that he made specifically about BuzzFeed and Michael Cohen? And you have this other
layer about the accidental revelation by Manafort's attorneys that he had shared polling data
with Konstantin Kilimnik who worked with Manafort as a political consultant in Ukraine. What do
you make of Rudy Giuliani's position representing the Trump administration right now?
MI: Oh God knows, I mean, you know, he's all over the map. He says something one day then he
clarifies it the next day. Clarifying his comments on Meet the Press on Sunday --
RG: Throughout 2016, weren't a lot of them but there were conversations. Can't be sure of
the exact dates. But the president can remember having conversations with him about it.
Chuck Todd: Throughout 2016 --
RG: The president also remembers -- yeah, probably up to, could be up to as far as October,
November. Our answers cover until the election. So, anytime during that period they could have
talked about it. But the president's recollection of it is --
MI: In his clarification, he says he's only speaking hypothetically and not based on any
conversations with his client. Well, if he's not basing it on conversations he's had with his
client or evidence he's accumulated as the president's lawyer, then on what basis is he talking
at all and why are people having him on TV? I mean, you know, he's only there because he's the
president's lawyer and if he's not speaking from a position of knowledge about the facts then
and only riffing on his own, I mean, you know, I don't know what to make of it. But you know,
some people see some kind of you know 'crazy like a fox' strategy here maybe but you know based
on the record so far you know it just seems to me he's the befuddled guy who can't keep his
facts straight.
JS: Michael, I wanted to ask you about William Arkin leaving NBC and his open letter that he
wrote about his departure from NBC where he was basically saying that because of the
overwhelming focus on Trump/Russia, we aren't paying attention or as close of attention as we
did under Bush or Obama to basically everything else happening in the world particularly on a
national security level with wars, with drone strikes, with what's happening with the process
with North Korea, in Afghanistan, Syria. Do you share some of Bill Arkin's analysis or concerns
about this?
MI: As you just articulated them, yes. Yeah, should we be paying more attention to what's
going on in the world in terms of U.S. foreign policy, U.S. military policy, what's going on,
what our military is doing in Africa and the Middle East and Afghanistan? Absolutely. You know,
we were talking before the podcast began about drone strikes something that we were all very
heavily focused on back during the Obama years because Obama had ramped them up and you know,
what kind of oversight there was of them, what kind of accountability there was for screw ups.
You know, how many innocent civilians were being killed by our drone strikes? You know, those
were all legitimate questions then. They are legitimate questions now and you know, we should
not forget about them while we're also simultaneously dealing with what I do think is a
legitimate scandal that we need to get to the bottom of and that's the story of Trump and
Russia.
JS: Do you believe that this story ends with Trump getting indicted in any jurisdiction?
MI: [Laughs.] Look, I mean, you know what Justice Department policy is and that is you can't
indict a sitting president. And by the way, I happened to, just happened to be looking last
night at the Special Counsel regulations it very explicitly says that the Special Counsel
should adhere to all Justice Department policies and so, no, I don't think that Donald Trump is
going to be indicted certainly by a federal grand jury while he is president. I suppose it is
conceivable that a state grand jury in New York or somewhere else could indict him. But there'd
be a legal battle you know, that would go to the Supreme Court about that. So, anyway, now what
happens after he leaves office? You know, assuming he leaves at the end of 2020, he doesn't get
re-elected, then you know all bets are off and he can be indicted then. But you know, right now
we still do not have a specific criminal charge. The closest we've got are the campaign finance
violations but we still have -- in New York, on the payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen
McDougal -- but we still have not seen the specific evidence on that.
JS: Right, and none of that is Russia.
MI: And none of that is Russia, correct.
JS: All right, Michael Isikoff, thank you very much for joining us.
MI: Good to be with you.
JS: Michael Isikoff is the chief investigative correspondent for Yahoo! News. He is the
author of "Uncovering Clinton," "Hubris" and most recently "Russian Roulette."
Russiaphobia as a pathological reaction on the deep crisis of neoliberalism
Notable quotes:
"... The described lack of confidence was reflected in the exaggerated fear that Russia was capable of destroying the West's values. However, Russia and Putin were neither omnipresent nor threatening to destroy the United States' political system. ..."
"... Russia's basic motives remain defensive even when the Kremlin relies on assertive tactics. Russia's assertiveness, even in cyberspace, is of a reactive nature and is a response to US policies. ..."
"... Rather than fighting a full-scale information war with the West, Russia seeks to increase its status and strengthen its bargaining position in relations with the United States. 68 The Kremlin has been proposing to negotiate rules of cooperation in the cyber area since early in the twenty-first century. Motivated by an insistence on "cyber-sovereignty," Russia regularly proposes resolutions at the United Nations to prohibit "information aggression," In a 2011 letter to the United Nations General Assembly, Russia proposed an "International Code of Conduct for Information Security," stipulating that states subscribing to the code would pledge to "not use information and communications technologies and other information and communications networks to interfere with the internal affairs of other states or with the aim of undermining their political, economic and social stability." 69 ..."
"... Overall, what the Kremlin challenges is the United States' post–Cold War behavior that undermines Russia's status as a great power. Although Russia is not in a position to directly challenge the United States and the US-centered international order, the Kremlin hopes to gain external recognition as a great power by relying on low-cost methods and revealing the vulnerability of Western nations. Russia's capabilities and presence in global cyber and media space are limited, and the Kremlin is motivated by asymmetric deployment of its media, information, and cyber power. ..."
The chapter extends the argument about media and value conflict between Russia and the
United States to the age of Donald Trump. The new value conflict is assessed as especially
acute and exacerbated by the US partisan divide. The Russia issue became central because it
reflected both political partisanship and the growing value division between Trump voters and
the liberal establishment. In addition to explaining the new wave of American Russophobia, the
chapter analyzes Russia's own role and motives. The media are likely to continue the
ideological and largely negative coverage of Russia, especially if Washington and Moscow fail
to develop a pragmatic form of cooperation.
Keywords: Russia, Trump, US elections, narrative of collusion, partisan divide
This chapter addresses the new development in the US media perception of the Russian threat
following the election of Donald Trump as the United States' president. The election revealed
that US national values could no longer be viewed as predominantly liberal and favoring the
global promotion of democracy, as supported by Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and
Barack Obama. During and after the election, the liberal media sought to present Moscow as not
only favoring Trump but being responsible for his election and even ruling on behalf of the
Kremlin. Those committed to a liberal worldview led the way in criticizing Russia and Putin for
assaulting liberal democratic values globally and inside the United States. This chapter argues
that the Russia issue became so central in the new internal divide because it reflects both
political partisanship and the growing division between the values of Trump voters and those of
the liberal establishment. The domestic political struggle has exacerbated the divide. Russia's
otherness, again, has highlighted values of "freedom," seeking to preserve the confidence of
the liberal self. (p.82)
The Narrative of Trump's "Collusion" with Russia
During the US presidential election campaign, American media developed yet another
perception of Russia as reflected in the narrative of Trump's collusion with the Kremlin.
1 Having originated in liberal media and building on the previous perceptions of
neo-Soviet autocracy and foreign threat, the new perception of Russia was that of the enemy
that won the war against the United States. By electing the Kremlin's favored candidate,
America was defeated by Russia. As a CNN columnist wrote, "The Russians really are here,
infiltrating every corner of the country, with the single goal of disrupting the American way
of life." 2 The two assumptions behind the new media narrative were that Putin was an
enemy and that Trump was compromised by Putin. The inevitable conclusion was that Trump could
not be a patriot and potentially was a traitor prepared to act against US interests.
The new narrative was assisted by the fact that Trump presented a radically different
perspective on Russia than Clinton and the US establishment. The American political class had
been in agreement that Russia displayed an aggressive foreign policy seeking to destroy the
US-centered international order. Influential politicians, both Republicans and Democrats,
commonly referred to Russian president Putin as an extremely dangerous KGB spy with no soul.
Instead, Trump saw Russia's international interests as not fundamentally different from
America's. He advocated that the United States to find a way to align its policies and
priorities in defeating terrorism in the Middle East -- a goal that Russia shared -- with the
Kremlin's. Trump promised to form new alliances to "unite the civilized world against Radical
Islamic Terrorism" and to eradicate it "completely from the face of the Earth." 3 He hinted that he was prepared to revisit the thorny issues of Western
sanctions against (p.83) the Russian economy and the recognition of Crimea as a part of Russia.
Trump never commented on Russia's political system but expressed his admiration for Putin's
leadership and high level of domestic support. 4
Capitalizing on the difference between Trump's views and those of the Democratic Party
nominee, Hillary Clinton, the liberal media referred to Trump as the Kremlin-compromised
candidate. Commentators and columnists with the New York Times , such as Paul Krugman,
referred to Trump as the "Siberian" candidate. 5 Commentators and pundits, including those with academic and political
credentials, developed the theory that the United States was under attack. The former
ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, wrote in the Washington Post that Russia had
attacked "our sovereignty" and continued to "watch us do nothing" because of the partisan
divide. He compared the Kremlin's actions with Pearl Harbor or 9/11 and warned that Russia was
likely to perform repeat assaults in 2018 and 2020. 6 The historian Timothy Snyder went further, comparing the election of Trump to
a loss of war, which Snyder said was the basic aim of the enemy. Writing in the New York
Daily News , he asserted, "We no longer need to wonder what it would be like to lose a war
on our own territory. We just lost one to Russia, and the consequence was the election of
Donald Trump." 7
The election of Trump prompted the liberal media to discuss Russia-related fears. The
leading theory was that Trump would now compromise America's interests and rule the country on
behalf of Putin. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times called for actions against Russia
and praised "patriotic" Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham for being tough on
Trump. 8 MSNBC host Rachel Maddow asked whether Trump was actually under Putin's
control. Citing Trump's views and his associates' travel to Moscow, she told viewers, "We are
also starting to see (p.84) what may be signs of continuing [Russian] influence in our country,
not just during the campaign but during the administration -- basically, signs of what could be
a continuing operation." 9 Another New York Times columnist, Nicholas Kristof, published a column
titled "There's a Smell of Treason in the Air," arguing that the FBI's investigation of the
Trump presidential campaign's collusion "with a foreign power so as to win an election" was an
investigation of whether such collusion "would amount to treason." 10 Responding to Trump's statement that his phone was tapped during the election
campaign, the Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum tweeted that "Trump's insane
'GCHQ tapped my phone' theory came from . . . Moscow." McFaul and many others then endorsed and
retweeted the message. 11
To many within the US media, Trump's lack of interest in promoting global institutions and
his publicly expressed doubts that the Kremlin was behind cyberattacks on the Democratic
National Committee (DNC) served to exacerbate the problem. Several intelligence leaks to the
press and investigations by Congress and the FBI contributed to the image of a president who
was not motivated by US interests. The US intelligence report on Russia's alleged hacking of
the US electoral system released on January 8, 2017, served to consolidate the image of Russia
as an enemy. Leaks to the press have continued throughout Trump's presidency. Someone in the
administration informed the press that Trump called Putin to congratulate him on his victory in
elections on March 18, 2018, despite Trump's advisers' warning against making such a call.
12
In the meantime, investigations of Trump's alleged "collusion" with Russia were failing to
produce substantive evidence. Facts that some associates of Trump sought to meet or met with
members of Russia's government did not lead to evidence of sustained contacts or collaboration.
It was not proven that the Kremlin's "black dossier" on Trump compiled by British intelligence
officer (p.85) Christopher Steele and leaked to CNN was truthful. Russian activity on American
social networks such as Facebook and Twitter was not found to be conclusive in determining
outcomes of the elections. 13 In February 2018, a year after launching investigation, Special Counsel
Robert Mueller indicted thirteen Russian nationals for allegedly interfering in the US 2016
presidential elections, yet their connection to Putin or Trump was not established. On March
12, 2018, Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr stated that he had not yet seen
any evidence of collusion. 14 Representative Mike Conaway, the Republican leading the Russia investigation,
announced the end of the committee's probe of Russian meddling in the election. 15
Trump was also not acting toward Russia in the way the US media expected. His views largely
reflected those of the military and national security establishment and disappointed some of
his supporters. 16 The US National Security Strategy and new Defense Strategy presented Russia
as a leading security threat, alongside China, Iran, and North Korea. The president made it
clear that he wanted to engage in tough bargaining with Russia by insisting on American terms.
17 Instead of improving ties with Russia, let alone acting on behalf of the
Kremlin, Trump contributed to new crises in bilateral relations that had to do with the two
sides' principally different perceptions. While the Kremlin expected Washington to normalize
relations, the United States assumed Russia's weakness and expected it to comply with
Washington's priorities regarding the Middle East, Ukraine, and Afghanistan and nuclear and
cyber issues. 18 Trump also authorized the largest expulsion of Russian diplomats in US
history and ordered several missile strikes against Assad's Russia-supported positions in
Syria, each time provoking a crisis in relations with Moscow. Even Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson, whom Rachel Maddow suspected of being appointed on Putin's advice to "weaken" the
State Department and "bleed out" (p.86) the FBI, 19 was replaced by John Bolton. The latter's foreign policy reputation was that
of a hawk, including on Russia. 20
Responding to these developments, the media focused on fears of being attacked by the
Kremlin and on Trump not doing enough to protect the country. These fears went beyond the
alleged cyber interference in the US presidential elections and included infiltration of
American media and social networks and attacks on congressional elections and the country's
most sensitive infrastructure, such as electric grids, water-processing plants, banking
networks, and transportation facilities. In order to prevent such developments, media
commentators and editorial writers recommended additional pressures on the Kremlin and
counteroffensive operations. 21 One commentator recommended, as the best defense from Russia's plans to
interfere with another election in the United States, launching a cyberattack on Russia's own
presidential elections in March 2018, to "disrupt the stability of Vladimir Putin's regime."
22 A New York Times editorial summarized the mood by challenging
President Trump to confront Russia further: "If Mr. Trump isn't Mr. Putin's lackey, it's past
time for him to prove it." 23 The burden of proof was now on Trump's shoulders.
Opposition to the
"Collusion" Narrative
In contrast to highly critical views of Russia in the dominant media, conservative,
libertarian, and progressive sources offered different assessments. Initially, opposition to
the collusion narrative came from the alternative media, yet gradually -- in response to scant
evidence of Trump's collusion -- it incorporated voices within the mainstream.
The conservative media did not support the view that Russia "stole" elections and presented
Trump as a patriot who wanted to make America great rather than develop "cozy" relationships
with (p.87) the Kremlin. Writing in the American Interest , Walter Russell Mead argued
that Trump aimed to demonstrate the United States' superiority by capitalizing on its military
and technological advantages. He did not sound like a Russian mole. Challenging the liberal
media, the author called for "an intellectually solvent and emotionally stable press" and wrote
that "if President Trump really is a Putin pawn, his foreign policy will start looking much
more like Barack Obama's." 24 Instead of viewing Trump as compromised by the Kremlin, sources such
Breitbart and Fox News attributed the blame to the deep state, "the complex of
bureaucrats, technocrats, and plutocrats," including the intelligence agencies, that seeks to
"derail, or at least to de-legitimize, the Trump presidency" by engaging in accusations and
smear campaigns. 25
Echoing Trump's own views, some conservatives expressed their admiration for Putin as a
dynamic leader superior to Obama. In particular, they praised Putin for his ability to defend
Russia's "traditional values" and great-power status. 26 Neoconservative and paleoconservative publications like the National
Review , the Weekly Standard, Human Events Online , and others critiqued Obama's
"feckless foreign policy," characterized by "fruitless accommodationism," contrasting it with
Putin's skilled and calculative geopolitical "game of chess." 27 A Washington Post / ABC News poll revealed that among Republicans, 75%
approved of Trump's approach on Russia relative; 40% of all respondents approved. 28 This did not mean that conservatives and Republicans were "infiltrated" by
the Kremlin. Mutual Russian and American conservative influences were limited and
nonstructured. 29 The approval of Putin as a leader by American conservatives meant that they
shared a certain commonality of ideas and were equally critical of liberal media and
globalization. 30
Progressive and libertarian media also did not support the narrative of collusion. Gary
Leupp at CounterPunch found the (p.88) narrative to be serving the purpose of reviving
and even intensifying "Cold War-era Russophobia," with Russia being an "adversary" "only in
that it opposes the expansion of NATO, especially to include Ukraine and Georgia." 31 Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com questioned the narrative by pointing to
Russia's bellicose rhetoric in response to Trump's actions. 32 Glenn Greenwald and Zaid Jilani at Intercept reminded readers that,
overall, Trump proved to be far more confrontational toward Russia than Obama, thereby
endangering America. 33 In particular Trump severed diplomatic ties with Russia, armed Ukraine,
appointed anti-Russia hawks, such as ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, National
Security Advisor John Bolton, and Secretary of State Michal Pompeo to key foreign policy
positions, antagonized Russia's Iranian allies, and imposed tough sanctions against Russian
business with ties to the Kremlin. 34
The dominant liberal media ignored opposing perspectives or presented them as compromised by
Russia. For instance, in amplifying the view that Putin "stole" the elections, the
Washington Post sought to discredit alternative sources of news and commentaries as
infiltrated by the Kremlin's propaganda. On November 24, 2016, the newspaper published an
interview with the executive director of a new website, PropOrNot, who preferred to remain
anonymous, and claimed that the Russian government circulated pro-Trump articles before the
election. Without providing evidence on explaining its methodology, the group identified more
than two hundred websites that published or echoed Russian propaganda, including WikiLeaks and
the Drudge Report , left-wing websites such as CounterPunch, Truthout, Black Agenda
Report, Truthdig , and Naked Capitalism , as well as libertarian venues such as
Antiwar.com and the Ron Paul Institute. 35 Another mainstream liberal outlet, CNN, warned the American people to be
vigilant against the Kremlin's alleged efforts to spread propaganda: "Enormous numbers of
(p.89) Americans are not only failing to fight back, they are also unwitting collaborators --
reading, retweeting, sharing and reacting to Russian propaganda and provocations every day."
36
However, voices of dissent were now heard even in the mainstream media. Masha Gessen of the
New Yorker said that Trump's tweet about Robert Mueller's indictments and Moscow's
"laughing its ass off" was "unusually (perhaps accidentally) accurate." 37 She pointed out that Russians of all ideological convictions "are remarkably
united in finding the American obsession with Russian meddling to be ridiculous." 38 The editor of the influential Politico , Blake Hounshell, confessed
that he was a Russiagate skeptic because even though "Trump was all too happy to collude with
Putin," Mueller's team never found a "smoking gun." 39 In reviewing the book on Russia's role in the 2016 election Russian
Roulette , veteran New York Times reporter Steven Lee Myers noted that the Kremlin's
meddling "simply exploited the vulgarity already plaguing American political campaigns" and
that the veracity of many accusations remained unclear. 40
Explaining Russophobia
The high-intensity Russophobia within the American media, overblown even by the standards of
previous threat narratives, could no longer be explained by differences in national values or
by bilateral tensions. The new fear of Russia also reflected domestic political polarization
and growing national unease over America's identity and future direction.
The narrative of collusion in the media was symptomatic of America's declining confidence in
its own values. Until the intervention in Iraq in 2004, optimism and a sense of confidence
prevailed in American social attitudes, having survived even the terrorist attack on the United
States on September 11, 2001. The (p.90) country's economy was growing and its position in the
world was not challenged. However, the disastrous war in Iraq, the global financial crisis of
2008, and Russia's intervention in Georgia in August 2008 changed that. US leadership could no
longer inspire the same respect, and a growing number of countries viewed it as a threat to
world peace. 41 Internally, the United States was increasingly divided. Following
presidential elections in November 2016, 77% of Americans perceived their country as "greatly
divided on the most important values." 42 The value divide had been expressed in partisanship and political
polarization long before the 2016 presidential elections. 43 The Russia issue deepened this divide. According to a poll taken in October
2017, 63% of Democrats, but just 38% of Republicans, viewed "Russia's power and influence" as a
major threat to the well-being of the United States. 44
During the US 2016 presidential elections, Russia emerged as a convenient way to accentuate
differences between Democratic and Republican candidates, which in previous elections were
never as pronounced or defining. The new elections deepened the partisan divide because of
extreme differences between the two main candidates, particularly on Russia. Donald Trump
positioned himself as a radical populist promising to transform US foreign policy and "drain
the swamp" in Washington. His position on Russia seemed unusual because, by election time, the
Kremlin had challenged the United States' position in the world by annexing Crimea, supporting
Ukrainian separatism, and possibly hacking the DNC site.
The Russian issue assisted Clinton in stressing her differences from Trump. Soon after it
became known that DNC servers were hacked, she embraced the view that Russia was behind the
cyberattacks. She accused Russia of "trying to wreak havoc" in the United States and threatened
retaliation. 45 In his turn, Trump used Russia to challenge Clinton's commitment to national
security (p.91) and ability to serve as commander in chief. In particular, he drew public
attention to the FBI investigation into Clinton's use of a private server for professional
correspondence, and even noted sarcastically that the Russians should find thirty thousand
missing emails belonging to her. The latter was interpreted by many in liberal media and
political circles as a sign of Trump's being unpatriotic. 46 Clinton capitalized on this interpretation. She referred to the issue of
hacking as the most important one throughout the campaign and challenged Trump to agree with
assessments of intelligence agencies that cyberattacks were ordered by the Kremlin. She
questioned Trump's commitments to US national security and accused him of being a "puppet" for
President Putin. 47 Following Trump's victory, Clinton told donors that her loss should be partly
attributed to Putin and the election hacks directed by him. 48
Clinton's arguments fitted with the overall narrative embraced by the mainstream media since
roughly 2005 characterizing Russia as abusive and aggressive. Clinton viewed Russia as an
oppressive autocratic power that was aggressive abroad to compensate for domestic weaknesses.
Previously, in her book Hard Choices , then-secretary of state Clinton described Putin
as "thin-skinned and autocratic, resenting criticism and eventually cracking down on dissent
and debate." 49 This view was shared by President Obama, who publicly referred to Russia as a
"regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors not out of strength but out
of weakness." 50 During the election's campaign, Clinton argued that the United States should
challenge Russia by imposing a no-fly zone in Syria with the objective of removing Assad from
power, strengthening sanctions against the Russian economy, and providing lethal weapons to
Ukraine in order to contain the potential threat of Russia's military invasion.
Following the elections, the partisan divide deepened, with liberal establishment attacking
the "unpatriotic" Trump. Having (p.92) lost the election, Clinton partly attributed Trump's
victory to the role of Russia and advocated an investigation into Trump's ties to Russia. In
February 2017 the Clinton-influenced Center for American Progress brought on a former State
Department official to run a new Moscow Project. 51 As acknowledged by the New Yorker , members of the Clinton inner
circle believed that the Obama administration deliberately downplayed DNC hacking by the
Kremlin. "We understand the bind they were in," one of Clinton's senior advisers said. "But
what if Barack Obama had gone to the Oval Office, or the East Room of the White House, and
said, 'I'm speaking to you tonight to inform you that the United States is under attack . . .'
A large majority of Americans would have sat up and taken notice . . . it is bewildering -- it
is baffling -- it is hard to make sense of why this was not a five-alarm fire in the White
House." 52
In addition to Clinton, many other members of the Washington establishment, including some
Republicans, spread the narrative of Russia "attacking" America. Republican politicians who
viewed Clinton's defeat and the hacking attacks in military terms included those of chairman of
the Senate Armed Services Committee John McCain, who stated, "When you attack a country, it's
an act of war," 53 and former vice president Dick Cheney, who called Russia's alleged
interference in the US election "a very serious effort made by Mr. Putin" that "in some
quarters that would be considered an act of war." 54 A number of Democrats also engaged in the rhetoric of war, likening the
Russian "attack," as Senator Ben Cardin did, to a "political Pearl Harbor." 55
Rumors and leaks, possibly by members of US intelligence agencies, 56 and activities of liberal groups that sought to discredit Trump contributed
to the Russophobia. In addition to the DNC hacking accusations, many fears of Russia in the
media were based on the assumption that contacts, let alone cooperation with the (p.93)
Kremlin, was unpatriotic and implied potentially "compromising" behavior: praise of Putin as a
leader, possible business dealings with Russian "oligarchs," and meetings with Russian
officials such Ambassador Sergei Kislyak. 57
There were therefore two sides to the Russia story in the US liberal media -- rational and
emotional. The rational side had to do with calculations by Clinton-affiliated circles and
anti-Russian groups pooling their resources to undermine Trump and his plans to improve
relations with Russia. Among others, these resources included dominance within the liberal
media and leaks by the intelligence community. The emotional side was revealed by the liberal
elites' values and ability to promote fears of Russia within the US political class and the
general public. Popular emotions of fear and frustration with Russia already existed in the
public space due to the old Cold War memories, as well as disturbing post–Cold War
developments that included wars in Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine. In part because of these
memories, factions such as those associated with Clinton were successful in evoking in the
public liberal mind what historian Richard Hofstadter called the "paranoid style" or "the sense
of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy." 58 Mobilized by liberal media to pressure Trump, these emotions became an
independent factor in the political struggle inside Washington. The public display of fear and
frustration with Russia and Trump could only be sustained by a constant supply of new
"suspicious" developments and intense discussion by the media.
Russia's Role and
Motives
Russia's "attacking" America and Trump's "colluding" with the Kremlin remained poorly
substantiated. Taken together, the DNC hacking, Trump's and Putin's mutual praise, and Trump
associates' (p.94) contacts with Russian officials implied Kremlin infiltration of the United
States' internal politics. Yet viewed separately, each was questionable and unproven. Some of
these points could have also been made about Hillary Clinton, who had ties to Russian -- not to
mention Saudi Arabian -- business circles and Ukrainian politicians. 59 Political views cannot be counted as evidence. Contacts with Russian
officials could have been legitimate exchanges of views about two countries' interests and
potential cooperation. Even the CIA- and the FBI-endorsed conclusion that Russia attacked the
DNC servers was questioned by some observers on the grounds that forensic evidence was lacking
and that it relied too much on findings by one cybersecurity company. 60 In general, discussion of Russia in the US media lacked nuances and a sense
of proportion. As Jesse Walker, an editor at Reason magazine and author of The United
States of Paranoia , pointed out,
There's a difference between thinking that Moscow may have hacked the Democratic National
Committee and thinking that Moscow actually hacked the election, between thinking the
president may have Russian conflicts of interest and thinking he's a Russian puppet . . .
when someone like the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman declares that Putin "installed"
Donald Trump as president, he's moving out of the realm of plausible plots and into the world
of fantasy. Similarly, Clinton's warning that Trump could be Putin's "puppet" leaped from an
imaginable idea, that Putin wanted to help her rival, to the much more dubious notion that
Putin thought he could control the impulsive Trump. (Trump barely seems capable of
controlling himself.) 61
The loose and politically tendentious nature of discussions, circulation of questionable
leaks and dossiers complied by unidentified (p.95) individuals, and lack of serious evidence
led a number of observers to conclude that the Russia story was more about stopping Trump than
about Russia. The Russian scandal was symptomatic of the poisonous state of bilateral relations
that Democrats exploited for the purpose of derailing Trump. US-Russia relations became a
hostage of partisan domestic politics. As one liberal and tough critic of Putin wrote,
Democratic lawmakers' rhetoric of war in connection with the 2016 elections "places Republicans
-- who often characterize themselves as more hawkish on Russia and defense -- in a bind as they
try to defend to the new administration's strategy towards Moscow." 62 Another observer noted that Russiagate performed "a critical function for
Trump's political foes," allowing "them to oppose Trump while obscuring key areas where they
either share his priorities or have no viable alternative." 63
The described lack of confidence was reflected in the exaggerated fear that Russia was
capable of destroying the West's values. However, Russia and Putin were neither omnipresent nor
threatening to destroy the United States' political system. A number of analysts, such as Mark Schrad, identified fears of Russia as "increasingly hysterical fantasies" and argued that
Russia was not a global menace. 64 If the Kremlin was indeed behind the cyberattacks, it was not for the reasons
commonly broached. Rather than trying to subvert the US system, it sought to defend its own
system against what it perceived as a US policy of changing regimes and meddling in Russia's
internal affairs. The United States has a long history of covert activities in foreign
countries. 65 Washington's establishment has never followed the advice given by prominent
American statesmen such as George Kennan to let Russians "be Russians" and "work out their
internal problems in their own manner." 66 Instead, the United States assumes that America defines the rules and
boundaries of proper behavior in international politics, while others must simply follow the
rules.
(p.96) Russia's basic motives remain defensive even when the Kremlin relies on assertive
tactics. Russia's assertiveness, even in cyberspace, is of a reactive nature and is a response
to US policies. Experts observe that Russia's conception of cyber and other informational power
serves the overall purpose of protecting national sovereignty from encroachments by the United
States. 67Rather than fighting a full-scale information war with the West, Russia seeks
to increase its status and strengthen its bargaining position in relations with the United
States. 68 The Kremlin has been proposing to negotiate rules of cooperation in the cyber
area since early in the twenty-first century. Motivated by an insistence on
"cyber-sovereignty," Russia regularly proposes resolutions at the United Nations to prohibit
"information aggression," In a 2011 letter to the United Nations General Assembly, Russia
proposed an "International Code of Conduct for Information Security," stipulating that states
subscribing to the code would pledge to "not use information and communications technologies
and other information and communications networks to interfere with the internal affairs of
other states or with the aim of undermining their political, economic and social stability."
69
Overall, what the Kremlin challenges is the United States' post–Cold War behavior that
undermines Russia's status as a great power. Although Russia is not in a position to directly
challenge the United States and the US-centered international order, the Kremlin hopes to gain
external recognition as a great power by relying on low-cost methods and revealing the
vulnerability of Western nations. Russia's capabilities and presence in global cyber and media
space are limited, and the Kremlin is motivated by asymmetric deployment of its media,
information, and cyber power.
This is about intelligence agencies becaming a powerful by shadow political force, much like
STASI. This not about corruption per se, but about perusing of political goals by dirty means. So
it is closer to sedition then to corruption.
Notable quotes:
"... there was no valid reason for the FBI to have interrogated Flynn about his conversations with Kislyak in the first place. There is nothing remotely untoward or unusual -- let alone criminal -- about an incoming senior national security official, three weeks away from taking over, reaching out to a counterpart in a foreign government to try to tamp down tensions. As the Washington Post put it , "it would not be uncommon for incoming administrations to interface with foreign governments with whom they will soon have to work." ..."
"... there was also massive corruption on the part of the investigators themselves, exploiting and abusing their vast and invasive investigative and prosecutorial powers for ideological goals, political subterfuge, election manipulation, and personal vendettas ..."
"... To begin with, cable and other news outlets that employed former Obama-era intelligence operatives, generals, and prosecutors to disseminate every Russiagate conspiracy theory they could find -- virtually always without any dissent or even questioning -- have barely acknowledged these explosive new documents. ..."
"... But the most critical reason to delve deeply into this case is that it reveals one the most dangerous abuses of power a democracy can suffer: The powers of the CIA, FBI, and NSA were blatantly and repeatedly abused to manipulate election outcomes and achieve political advantage. ..."
"... Flynn is a right-wing, hawkish general whose views on the so-called war on terror are ones utterly anathema to my own beliefs. That does not make his prosecution justified. One's views of Flynn personally or his politics (or those of the Trump administration generally) should have absolutely no bearing on one's assessment of the justifiability of what the U.S. government did to him here -- any more than one has to like the political views of the detainees at Guantanamo to find their treatment abusive and illegal , or any more than one has to agree with the views of people who are being censured in order to defend their right of free expression . ..."
"... As the journalist Aaron Maté demonstrated when he brilliantly challenged The Guardian's Luke Harding about his bestselling book claiming to prove collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia -- one of the few times a Russiagate conspiracy advocate was forced to confront a knowledgeable critic -- those claims often cannot survive even minimal critical scrutiny. That's why media outlets have insulated these conspiracy theory advocates, as well as their audiences, from any dissent or even critical questioning. ..."
Gen. Michael Flynn, President Obama's former director of the Defense
Intelligence Agency and President Donald Trump's former national security adviser,
pleaded guilty on December 1, 2017, to a single count of lying to the FBI about two
conversations he had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak while Flynn served as a Trump
transition team official (Flynn was never
charged for any matters relating to his relationship with the Turkish government). As part
of the plea deal, special counsel Robert Mueller
recommended no jail time for Flynn , and the plea agreement also seemingly put an end to
threats from the Mueller team to prosecute Flynn's son.
Last Thursday, the Justice Department
filed a motion seeking to dismiss the prosecution of Flynn based, in part, on newly
discovered documents revealing that the conduct of the FBI, under the leadership of
Director James Comey and his now-disgraced Deputy Andrew McCabe (who himself was forced to
leave the Bureau after
being caught lying to agents ), was improper and motivated by corrupt objectives. That
motion prompted histrionic howls of outrage from
the same political officials and their media allies who have spent the last three years pushing
maximalist Russiagate conspiracy theories.
But the prosecution of Flynn -- for allegedly lying to the FBI when he denied in a January
24 interrogation that he had discussed with Kislyak on December 29 the new
sanctions and expulsions imposed on Russia by the Obama administration -- was always odd
for a number of reasons. To begin with, the FBI agents who questioned Flynn said afterward that
they did not believe he was lying (as
CNN reported in February 2017: "the FBI interviewers believed Flynn was cooperative and
provided truthful answers. Although Flynn didn't remember all of what he talked about, they
don't believe he was intentionally misleading them, the officials say"). For that reason, CNN
said, "the FBI is not expected to pursue any charges against" him.
More importantly, there was no valid reason for the FBI to have interrogated Flynn about
his conversations with Kislyak in the first place. There is nothing remotely untoward or
unusual -- let alone criminal -- about an incoming senior national security official, three
weeks away from taking over, reaching out to a counterpart in a foreign government to try to
tamp down tensions. As the Washington Post
put it , "it would not be uncommon for incoming administrations to interface with foreign
governments with whom they will soon have to work." What newly released documents over the
last month reveal is what has been generally evident for the last three years: The powers of
the security state agencies -- particularly the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and the DOJ -- were
systematically abused as part of the 2016 election and then afterward for political rather than
legal ends.
While there was obviously deceit and corruption on the part of some Trump
officials in lying to Russiagate investigators and otherwise engaging in depressingly
common D.C. lobbyist corruption , there was also massive corruption on the part of the
investigators themselves, exploiting and abusing their vast and invasive investigative and
prosecutorial powers for ideological goals, political subterfuge, election manipulation, and
personal vendettas . The former category (corruption by Trump officials) has received a
tidal wave of endless media attention, while the latter (corruption and abuse of power by those
investigating them) has received almost none.
For numerous reasons, it is vital to fully examine with as much clarity as possible the
abuse of power that drove the prosecution of Flynn. To begin with, cable and other news
outlets that employed
former Obama-era intelligence operatives, generals, and prosecutors to disseminate every
Russiagate conspiracy theory they could find -- virtually always without any dissent or even
questioning -- have barely acknowledged these explosive new documents.
More disturbingly, liberals and Democrats -- as part of their movement toward venerating
these security state agencies -- have completely jettisoned long-standing, core principles
about the criminal justice system, including questioning whether
lying to the FBI should be a crime at all and recognizing that innocent people
are often forced to plead guilty -- in order to justify both the Flynn prosecution
and the broader Mueller probe.
But the most critical reason to delve deeply into this case is that it reveals one the
most dangerous abuses of power a democracy can suffer: The powers of the CIA, FBI, and NSA were
blatantly and repeatedly abused to manipulate election outcomes and achieve political
advantage. In other words, we know now that these agencies did exactly what Democratic
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer warned they would do to Trump when he appeared on Rachel
Maddow's MSNBC program shortly before Trump's inauguration:
This turned out to be one of the most prescient and important (and creepy) statements of
the Trump presidency: from Chuck Schumer to Rachel Maddow - in early January, 2017, before
Trump was even inaugurated: pic.twitter.com/TUaYkksILG
Because U.S. politics is now discussed far more as tests of tribal loyalty ("Whose
side are you on?") than actual ideological or even political beliefs ("Which policies do you
favor or oppose?"), it is very difficult to persuade people to separate their personal or
political views of Flynn ("Do you like him or not?") from the question of whether the U.S.
government abused its power in gravely dangerous ways to prosecute him.
Flynn is a right-wing, hawkish general whose views on the so-called war on terror are
ones utterly anathema to my own beliefs. That does not make his prosecution justified. One's
views of Flynn personally or his politics (or those of the Trump administration generally)
should have absolutely no bearing on one's assessment of the justifiability of what the U.S.
government did to him here -- any more than one has to like the political views of the
detainees at Guantanamo to find their
treatment abusive and illegal , or any more than one has to agree with the views of people
who are being censured in
order to defend their right of
free expression .
The ability to distinguish between ideological questions from evidentiary
questions is vital for rational discourse to be possible, yet has been all but eliminated at
the altar of tribal fealty. That is why evidentiary questions completely devoid of ideological
belief -- such as whether one found the Russiagate conspiracy theories supported by convincing
evidence -- have been treated not as evidentiary matters but as tribal ones: to be affiliated
with the left (an ideological characterization), one must affirm belief in those conspiracy
theories even if one does not find the evidence in support of them actually compelling. The
conflation of ideological and evidentiary questions, and the substitution of substantive
political debates with tests of tribal loyalty, are indescribably corrosive to our public
discourse.
As a result, whether one is now deemed on the right or left has almost nothing to do with
actual political beliefs about policy questions and everything to do with one's willingness to
serve the interests of one team or another. With the warped formula in place, U.S. politics has
been depoliticized , stripped of any meaningful ideological debates in lieu of mindless
team loyalty oaths on non-ideological questions.
Our newest SYSTEM UPDATE episode, debuting today, is devoted to enabling as clear and
objective an examination as possible of the abuses that drove the Flynn prosecution --
including these critical, newly declassified documents -- as well the broader Russiagate
investigations of which it was a part. These abuses have received far too little attention from
the vast majority of the U.S. media that simply excludes any questioning or dissent of their
prevailing narratives about all of these matters.
Notably, we invited several of the cable stars and security state agents who have been
pushing these conspiracy theories for years to appear on the program for a civil discussion,
but none were willing to do so -- because they are so accustomed to being able to spout these
theories on MSNBC, CNN, and in newspapers without ever being meaningfully challenged.
Regardless of one's views on these scandals, it is unhealthy in the extreme for any media to
insulate themselves from a diversity of views.
As the journalist Aaron Maté demonstrated when he brilliantly challenged The Guardian's Luke
Harding about his bestselling book claiming to prove collusion between the Trump campaign and
Russia -- one of the few times a Russiagate conspiracy advocate was forced to confront a
knowledgeable critic -- those claims often cannot survive even minimal critical scrutiny.
That's why media outlets have insulated these conspiracy theory advocates, as well as their
audiences, from any dissent or even critical questioning.
Today's SYSTEM UPDATE episode, which we believe provides the most comprehensive examination
to date of these new documents relating to the Flynn prosecution and how this case relates to
the broader Russiagate investigative abuses, can be viewed above or on The Intercept's YouTube channel .
This is about control of MSM by intelligence agencies, not so much about corruption of
individual journalists. Journalist became like in the USSR "Soldiers of the Party" -- well paid
propagandist of particular, supplied to them talking points.
What is particularly valuable about Smith's article is its perfect description of a media
sickness borne of the Trump era that is rapidly corroding journalistic integrity and
justifiably destroying trust in news outlets. Smith aptly dubs this pathology "resistance
journalism," by which he means that journalists are now not only free, but encouraged and
incentivized , to say or publish anything they want, no matter how reckless and fact-free,
provided their target is someone sufficiently disliked in mainstream liberal media venues
and/or on social media:
[Farrow's] work, though, reveals the weakness of a kind of resistance journalism that has
thrived in the age of Donald Trump: That if reporters swim ably along with the tides of
social media and produce damaging reporting about public figures most disliked by the loudest
voices, the old rules of fairness and open-mindedness can seem more like impediments than
essential journalistic imperatives.
That can be a dangerous approach, particularly in a moment when the idea of truth and a
shared set of facts is under assault.
In assailing Farrow for peddling unproven conspiracy theories, Smith argues that such
journalistic practices are particularly dangerous in an era where conspiracy theories are
increasingly commonplace. Yet unlike most journalists with a mainstream platform, Smith
emphasizes that conspiracy theories are commonly used not only by Trump and his movement
(conspiracy theories which are quickly debunked by most of the mainstream media), but are also
commonly deployed by Trump's enemies, whose reliance on conspiracy theories is virtually never
denounced by journalists because mainstream news outlets themselves play a key role in peddling
them:
We are living in an era of conspiracies and dangerous untruths -- many pushed by President
Trump, but others hyped by his enemies -- that have lured ordinary Americans into
passionately believing wild and unfounded theories and fiercely rejecting evidence to the
contrary. The best reporting tries to capture the most attainable version of the truth, with
clarity and humility about what we don't know. Instead, Mr. Farrow told us what we wanted to
believe about the way power works, and now, it seems, he and his publicity team are not even
pretending to know if it's true.
Ever since Donald Trump was elected , and one could argue even in the months leading up to
his election, journalistic standards have been consciously jettisoned when it comes to
reporting on public figures who, in Smith's words, are "most disliked by the loudest voices,"
particularly when such reporting "swim[s] ably along with the tides of social media." Put
another way: As long the targets of one's conspiracy theories and attacks are regarded as
villains by the guardians of mainstream liberal social media circles, journalists reap endless
career rewards for publishing unvetted and unproven -- even false -- attacks on such people,
while never suffering any negative consequences when their stories are exposed as shabby
frauds.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/OOhRRr6c1wA?autoplay=0&rel=0&enablejsapi=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Ftheintercept.com&widgetid=1
infiltrated and taken over the U.S. government through sexual and financial blackmail
leverage over Trump and used it to dictate U.S. policy; Trump officials conspired with the
Kremlin to interfere in the 2016 election; Russia was attacking the U.S. by
hacking its electricity grid , recruiting
journalists to serve as clandestine Kremlin messengers , and plotting to cut off heat to
Americans in winter. Mainstream media debacles -- all in service of promoting the same set of
conspiracy theories against Trump -- are literally too numerous to count, requiring one to
select the worst offenses as illustrative .
In March of last year, Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi -- writing under the
headline "It's official: Russiagate is this generation's WMD" -- compared the prevailing
media climate since 2016 to that which prevailed in 2002 and 2003 regarding the invasion of
Iraq and the so-called war on terror: little to no dissent permitted, skeptics of
media-endorsed orthodoxies shunned and excluded, and worst of all, the very journalists who
were most wrong in peddling false conspiracy theories were exactly those who ended up most
rewarded on the ground that even though they spread falsehoods, they did so for the
right cause.
Under that warped rubric -- in which spreading falsehoods is commendable as long as
it was done to harm the evildoers -- the New Yorker's Jeffrey Goldberg, one of the most
damaging endorsers of
false
conspiracy theories about Iraq , rose to become editor-in-chief of The Atlantic,
while two of the most deceitful Bush-era neocons, Bush/Cheney speechwriter David Frum and
supreme propagandist Bill Kristol, have reprised their role as leading propagandists and
conspiracy theorists -- only this time aimed against the GOP president instead of on his behalf
-- and thus have become beloved liberal media icons. The communications director for both the
Bush/Cheney campaign and its White House, Nicole Wallace, is one of the most popular liberal
cable hosts from her MSNBC perch.
Join
Our NewsletterOriginal reporting. Fearless journalism. Delivered to you. I'm in
Exactly the same journalism-destroying dynamic is driving the post-Russiagate media landscape.
There is literally no accountability for the journalists and news outlets that spread
falsehoods in their pages, on their airwaves, and through their viral social media postings.
The Washington Post's media columnist Erik Wemple has been one of the very few journalists
devoted to holding these myth-peddlers accountable -- recounting how one of the most reckless
Russigate conspiracy maximialists, Natasha Bertrand,
became an overnight social media and journalism star by peddling discredited conspiratorial
trash (she was notably hired by Jeffrey Goldberg to cover Russigate for The Atlantic); MSNBC's
Rachel Maddow
spent three years hyping conspiratorial junk with no need even to retract any of it; and
Mother Jones' David Corn played a
crucial, decisively un-journalistic role in mainstreaming the lies of the Steele dossier
all with zero effect on his journalistic status, other than to enrich him through a predictably
bestselling book that peddled those unhinged conspiracies further.
Wemple's post-Russiagate
series has established him as a commendable, often-lone voice trying -- with futility -- to
bring some accountability to U.S. journalism for the systemic media failures of the past three
years. The reason that's futile is exactly what Smith described in his column on Farrow: In
"resistance journalism," facts and truth are completely dispensable -- indeed, dispensing with
them is rewarded -- provided "reporters swim ably along with the tides of social media
and produce damaging reporting about public figures most disliked by the loudest voices."
That describes perfectly the journalists who were defined, and enriched, by years of
Russiagate deceit masquerading as reporting. By far the easiest path to career success over the
last three years -- booming ratings, lucrative book sales, exploding social media followings,
career rehabilitation even for the most discredited D.C. operatives -- was to feed
establishment liberals an endless diet of fearmongering and inflammatory conspiracies about
Drumpf and his White House. Whether it was true or supported by basic journalistic standards
was completely irrelevant. Responsible reporting was simply was not a metric used to assess its
worth.
It was one thing for activists, charlatans, and con artists to exploit fears of Trump for
material gain: that, by definition, is what such people do. But it was another thing entirely
for journalists to succumb to all the low-hanging career rewards available to them by
throwing all journalistic standards into the trash bin in exchange for a star turn as a
#Resistance icon. That , as Smith aptly describes, is what "Resistance Journalism" is,
and it's hard to identify anything more toxic to our public discourse.
Perhaps the single most shameful and journalism-destroying episode in all of this -- an
obviously difficult title to bestow -- was when a national security blogger, Marcy Wheeler,
violated long-standing norms and ethical standards of journalism by announcing in 2018 that she
had voluntarily turned in her own source to the FBI,
claiming she did so because her still-unnamed source "had played a significant role in the
Russian election attack on the US" and because her life was endangered by her brave decision to
stop being a blogger and become an armchair cop by pleading with the FBI and the Mueller team
to let her work with them. In her blog post announcing what she did, she claimed she was going
public with her treachery because her life was in danger, and this way everyone would know the
real reason if "someone releases stolen information about me or knocks me off tomorrow."
To say that Wheeler's actions are a grotesque violation of journalistic ethics is to
radically understate the case. Journalists are expected to protect their sources' identities
from the FBI even if they receive a subpoena and a court order compelling its disclosure; we're
expected to go to prison before we comply with FBI attempts to uncover our source's
identity. But here, the FBI did not try to compel Wheeler to tell them anything; they displayed
no interest in her as she desperately tried to chase them down.
By all appearances, Wheeler had to beg the FBI to pay attention to her because they treated
her like the sort of unstable, unhinged, unwell, delusional obsessive who, believing they have
uncovered some intricate conspiracy, relentlessly harass and bombard journalists with their
bizarre theories until they finally prattle to themselves for all of eternity in the spam
filter of our email inboxes. The claim that she was in possession of some sort of explosive and
damning information that would blow the Mueller investigation wide open was laughable. In her
post, she claimed she "always planned to disclose this when this person's role was publicly
revealed," but to date -- almost two years later -- she has never revealed "this person's"
identity because, from all appearances, the Mueller report never relied on Wheeler's intrepid
reporting or her supposedly red-hot secrets.
Like so many other Russiagate obsessives who turned into social media and MSNBC/CNN
#Resistance stars, Wheeler was living a wild, self-serving fantasy, a Cold War Tom Clancy
suspense film that she invented in her head and then cast herself as the heroine: a crusading
investigative dot-connecter uncovering dangerous, hidden conspiracies perpetrated by dangerous,
hidden Cold War-style villains (Putin) to the point where her own life was endangered by her
bravery. It was a sad joke, a depressing spectacle of psycho-drama, but one that could have had
grave consequences for the person she voluntarily ratted out to the FBI. Whatever else is true,
this episode inflicted grave damage on American journalism by having mainstream,
Russia-obsessed journalists not denounce her for her egregious violation of journalistic ethics
but celebrate her for turning journalism on its head.
Why? Because, as Smith said in his Farrow article, she was "swim[ing] ably along with the
tides of social media and produc[ing] damaging reporting about public figures most disliked by
the loudest voices" and thus "the old rules of fairness and open-mindedness [were] more like
impediments than essential journalistic imperatives." Margaret Sullivan, the former New York
Times public editor and now the Washington Post's otherwise reliably commendable media
reporter,
celebrated Wheeler's bizarre behavior under the headline: "A journalist's conscience leads
her to reveal her source to the FBI."
Despite acknowledging that "in their reporting, journalists talk to criminals all the time
and don't turn them in" and that "it's pretty much an inviolable rule of journalism: Protect
your sources," Sullivan heralded Wheeler's ethically repugnant and journalism-eroding
violation of those principles. "It's not hard to see that her decision was a careful and
principled one," Sullivan proclaimed.
She even endorsed Wheeler's cringe-inducing, self-glorifying claims about her life being
endangered by invoking long-standard Cold War clichés about the treachery of the
Russkies ("Overly dramatic? Not really. The Russians do have a penchant for disposing of people
they find threatening."). The English language is insufficient to convey the madness required
to believe that the Kremlin wanted to kill Marcy Wheeler because her blogging was getting Too
Close to The Truth, but in the fevered swamps of resistance journalism, literally no claim was
too unhinged to be embraced provided that it fed the social media #Resistance masses.
Sullivan's article quoted no critics of Wheeler's incredibly controversial behavior
-- no need to: She was on the right side of social media reaction. And Sullivan never bothered
to return to wonder why her prediction -- "Wheeler hasn't named the source publicly, though his
name may soon be known to all who are following the Mueller investigation" -- never
materialized. Both CNN
and, incredibly, the
Columbia Journalism Review published similarly sympathetic accounts of Wheeler's desperate
attempts to turn over her source to the FBI and then cosplay as though she were some sort of
insider in the Mueller investigation. The most menacing attribute of what Smith calls
"Resistance Journalism" is that it permits and tolerates no dissent and questioning: perhaps
the single most destructive path journalism can take. It has been well-documented that MSNBC
and CNN spent three years peddling all sorts of ultimately discredited Russiagate conspiracy
theories by excluding from their airwaves anyone who dissented from or even questioned those
conspiracies. Instead, they relied upon an
increasingly homogenized army of former security state agents from the CIA, FBI, and NSA to
propound, in unison, all sorts of claims about Trump and Russia that turned out to be false,
and peppered their panels of "analysts" with journalists whose career skyrocketed exclusively
by pushing maximalist Russiagate claims, often by relying on the same intelligence officials
these cable outlets sat them next to.
That NBC & MSNBC hired as a "news analyst" John Brennan - who ran the CIA when the
Trump/Russia investigation began & was a key player in the news he was shaping as a paid
colleague of their reporters - is a huge ethical breach. And it produced this: pic.twitter.com/nPlaq5YVxf
This trend -- whereby diversity of opinion and dissent from orthodoxies are
excluded from media discourse -- is worsening rapidly due to two major factors. The first is
that cable news programs are constructed to feed their audiences only self-affirming narratives
that vindicate partisan loyalties. One liberal cable host told me that they receive ratings not
for each show but for each segment , and they can see the ratings drop off -- the
remotes clicking away -- if they put on the air anyone who criticizes the party to which that
outlet is devoted (Democrats in the case of MSNBC and CNN, the GOP in the case of Fox).
But there's another more recent and probably more dissent-quashing development: the
disappearance of media jobs. Mass layoffs were already common in online journalism and local
newspapers
prior to the coronavirus pandemic , and have now turned into
an industrywide massacre . With young journalists watching jobs disappearing en masse, the
last thing they are going to want to do is question or challenge prevailing orthodoxies within
their news outlet or, using Smith's "Resistance Journalism" formulation, to "swim against the
tides of social media" or question the evidence amassed against those "most disliked by the
loudest voices."
Affirming those orthodoxies can be career-promoting, while questioning them can be
job-destroying. Consider the powerful incentives journalists face in an industry where jobs are
disappearing so rapidly one can barely keep count. During Russiagate, I often heard from young
journalists at large media outlets who expressed varying degrees of support for and agreement
with the skepticism which I and a handful of other journalists were expressing, but they felt
constrained to do so themselves, for good reason. They watched the reprisals and shunning doled
out even to journalists with a long record of journalistic accomplishments and job security for
the crime of Russiagate skepticism, such as Taibbi (similar to the way MSNBC fired Phil
Donahue in 2002 for opposing the invasion of Iraq), and they know journalists with less
stature and security than Taibbi could not risk incurring that collective wrath.
All professions and institutions suffer when a herd, groupthink mentality and the banning of
dissent prevail. But few activities are corroded from such a pathology more than journalism is,
which has as its core function skepticism and questioning of pieties. Journalism quickly
transforms into a sickly, limp version of itself when it itself wages war on the virtues of
dissent and airing a wide range of perspectives.
I do not know how valid are Smith's critiques of Farrow's journalism. But what I know for
certain is that Smith's broader diagnosis of "Resistance Journalism" is dead-on, and the harms
it is causing are deep and enduring. When journalists know they will thrive by affirming
pleasing falsehoods, and suffer when they insist on unpopular truths, journalism not only loses
its societal value but becomes just another instrument for societal manipulation, deceit, and
coercion.
Those are far from failures, those were successful disinformation/propaganda operations conducted with a certain goal --
remove Trump -- which demonstrate the level of intelligence agencies control of the MSM. In other words those are
parts of a bigger intelligence operation -- the color revolution against Trump led most probably by Obama and Brennan.
Now we know that Obama played an important role in Russiagate media hysteria and, most porbably, in planning and executing the
operation to entrap Flynn.
Notable quotes:
"... They are listed in reverse order, as measured by the magnitude of the embarrassment, the hysteria they generated on social media and cable news, the level of journalistic recklessness that produced them, and the amount of damage and danger they caused ..."
"... Note that all of these "errors" go only in one direction: namely, exaggerating the grave threat posed by Moscow and the Trump circle's connection to it. It's inevitable that media outlets will make mistakes on complex stories. If that's being done in good faith, one would expect the errors would be roughly 50/50 in terms of the agenda served by the false stories. That is most definitely not the case here. Just as was true in 2002 and 2003, when the media clearly wanted to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and thus all of its "errors" went in that direction, virtually all of its major "errors" in this story are devoted to the same agenda and script: ..."
"... Crowdstrike, the firm hired by the DNC, claimed they had evidence that Russia hacked Ukrainian artillery apps; they then retracted it . ..."
"... The U.S. media and Democrats spent six months claiming that all "17 intelligence agencies" agreed Russia was behind the hacks; the NYT finally retracted that in June, 2017: "The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community." ..."
"... Widespread government and media claims that accused Russian agent Maria Butina offered "sex for favors" were totally false (and scurrilous). ..."
BuzzFeed was once notorious for
traffic-generating "listicles," but has since become an impressive outlet for deep
investigative journalism under editor-in-chief Ben Smith. That outlet was prominently in the
news this week thanks to its "bombshell" story about President Trump and Michael Cohen: a story
that, like so many others of its kind,
blew up in its face , this time when the typically mute Robert Mueller's office took the
extremely rare step to
label its key claims "inaccurate."
But in homage to BuzzFeed's past viral glory, following are the top ten worst media failures
in two-plus-years of Trump/Russia reporting. They are listed in reverse order, as measured by
the magnitude of the embarrassment, the hysteria they generated on social media and cable news,
the level of journalistic recklessness that produced them, and the amount of damage and danger
they caused. This list was extremely difficult to compile in part because news outlets
(particularly CNN and MSNBC) often delete from the internet the video segments of their most
embarrassing moments. Even more challenging was the fact that the number of worthy nominees is
so large that highly meritorious entrees had to be excluded, but are acknowledged at the end
with (dis)honorable mention status.
Note that all of these "errors" go only in one direction: namely, exaggerating the grave
threat posed by Moscow and the Trump circle's connection to it. It's inevitable that media
outlets will make mistakes on complex stories. If that's being done in good faith, one would
expect the errors would be roughly 50/50 in terms of the agenda served by the false stories.
That is most definitely not the case here. Just as was true in 2002 and 2003, when the media
clearly wanted to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and thus all of its "errors"
went in that direction, virtually all of its major "errors" in this story are devoted to the
same agenda and script:
10. RT Hacked Into and Took Over C-SPAN (Fortune)
On June 12, 2017, Fortune claimed that RT had hacked into and taken over C-SPAN and that
C-SPAN "confirmed" it had been hacked. The whole story was false:
Holy shit. Russia state propaganda (RT) "hacked" into C-SPAN feed and took over for a good
40 seconds today? In middle of live broadcast. https://t.co/pwWYFoDGDU
9. Russian Hackers Invaded the U.S. Electricity Grid to Deny Vermonters Heat
During the Winter (WashPost)
On December 30, 2016, the Washington Post reported that "Russian hackers penetrated the U.S.
electricity grid through a utility in Vermont," causing predictable outrage and panic, along
with threats from U.S. political leaders. But then they kept diluting the story with editor's
notes – to admit that the malware was found on a laptop not connected to the U.S.
electric grid at all – until finally acknowledging, days later, that the whole story was
false, since the malware had nothing to do with Russia or with the U.S. electric grid:
Breaking: Russian hackers penetrated U.S. electricity grid through a utility in Vermont
https://t.co/LED11lL7ej
8. A New, Deranged, Anonymous Group Declares Mainstream Political Sites on the
Left and Right to be Russian Propaganda Outlets and WashPost Touts its Report to Claim Massive
Kremlin Infiltration of the Internet (WashPost)
On November 24, 2016, the Washington Post
published one of the most inflammatory, sensationalistic stories to date about Russian
infiltration into U.S. politics using social media, accusing "more than 200 websites" of being
"routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season, with combined audiences of
at least 15 million Americans." It added: "stories planted or promoted by the disinformation
campaign [on Facebook] were viewed more than 213 million times."
Unfortunately for the paper, those statistics were provided by a new, anonymous group that
reached these conclusions by classifying long-time, well-known sites – from the Drudge
Report to Clinton-critical left-wing websites such as Truthout, Black Agenda Report, Truthdig,
and Naked Capitalism, as well as libertarian venues such as Antiwar.com and the Ron Paul
Institute. – as "Russian propaganda outlets," producing one of the longest Editor's Note
in memory appended to the top of the article (but
not until two weeks later , long after the story was mindlessly spread all throughout the
media ecosystem):
Russian propaganda effort helped spread fake news during election, say independent
researchers https://t.co/3ETVXWw16Q
Just want to note I hadn't heard of Propornot before the WP piece and never gave
permission to them to call Bellingcat "allies" https://t.co/jQKnWzjrBR
7. Trump Aide Anthony Scaramucci is Involved in a Russian Hedge Fund Under
Senate Investigation (CNN)
On June 22, 2017, CNN reported that Trump aide Anthony Scaramucci was involved with the
Russian Direct Investment Fund, under Senate investigation. He was not. CNN retracted the story
and forced the three reporters who published it to leave the network. 6. Russia Attacked
U.S. "Diplomats" (i.e. Spies) at the Cuban Embassy Using a Super-Sophisticated Sonic Microwave
Weapon (NBC/MSNBC/CIA)
On September 11, 2017, NBC News and MSNBC
spread all over its airwaves a claim from its notorious CIA puppet Ken Dilanian that Russia
was behind a series of dastardly attacks on U.S. personnel at the Embassy in Cuba using a sonic
or microwave weapon so sophisticated and cunning that Pentagon and CIA scientists had no idea
what to make of it.
But then teams of neurologists began calling into doubt that these personnel had suffered
any brain injuries at all – that instead they appear to have experienced collective
psychosomatic symptoms – and then biologists published findings that the "strange sounds"
the U.S. "diplomats" reported hearing were identical to those emitted by a common Caribbean
male cricket during mating season.
An @NBCNews
exclusive: After more than a year of mystery, Russia is the main suspect in the sonic attacks
that sickened 26 U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials in Cuba. @MitchellReports has the
latest. pic.twitter.com/NEI9PJ9CpD
4. Paul Manafort Visited Julian Assange Three Times in the Ecuadorian Embassy
and Nobody Noticed (Guardian/Luke Harding)
On November 27, 2018, the Guardian
published a major "bombshell" that Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had somehow managed
to sneak inside one of the world's most surveilled buildings, the Ecuadorian Embassy in London,
and visit Julian Assange on three different occasions. Cable and online commentators
exploded.
Seven weeks later,
no other media outlet has confirmed this ; no video or photographic evidence has emerged;
the Guardian refuses to answer any questions; its leading editors have virtually gone into
hiding; other media outlets have expressed serious doubts about its veracity; and an Ecuadorian
official who worked at the embassy has called the story a complete fake:
Paul Manafort held secret talks with Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in
London, and visited around the time he joined Trump's campaign, the Guardian has been told.
https://t.co/Fc2BVmXipk
The Guardian reports that Paul Manafort visited Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks,
the same month that Manafort joined Donald Trump's presidential campaign in 2016, a meeting
that could carry vast implications for the Russia investigation https://t.co/pYawnv4MHH
3. CNN Explicitly Lied About Lanny Davis Being Its Source – For a Story
Whose Substance Was Also False: Cohen Would Testify that Trump Knew in Advance About the Trump
Tower Meeting (CNN)
On July 27, 2018, CNN
published a blockbuster story : that Michael Cohen was prepared to tell Robert Mueller that
President Trump knew in advanced about the Trump Tower meeting. There were, however, two
problems with this story: first, CNN got caught blatantly lying when its reporters claimed that
"contacted by CNN, one of Cohen's attorneys, Lanny Davis, declined to comment" (in fact, Davis
was one of CNN's key sources, if not its only source, for this story), and second, numerous
other outlets retracted the story after the source, Davis, admitted it was a lie. CNN, however,
to this date has refused to do either: 2. Robert Mueller Possesses Internal Emails and Witness Interviews Proving Trump
Directed Cohen to Lie to Congress (BuzzFeed)
BREAKING: President Trump personally directed his longtime attorney Michael Cohen to lie
to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow in order to obscure his
involvement. https://t.co/BEoMKiDypn
The allegation that the President of the United States may have suborned perjury before
our committee in an effort to curtail the investigation and cover up his business dealings
with Russia is among the most serious to date. We will do what's necessary to find out if
it's true. https://t.co/GljBAFqOjh
Listen, if Mueller does have multiple sources confirming Trump directed Cohen to lie to
Congress, then we need to know this ASAP. Mueller shouldn't end his inquiry, but it's about
time for him to show Congress his cards before it's too late for us to act. https://t.co/ekG5VSBS8G
To those trying to parse the Mueller statement: it's a straight-up denial. Maybe Buzzfeed
can prove they are right, maybe Mueller can prove them wrong. But it's an emphatic denial
https://t.co/EI1J7XLCJe
. @Isikoff :
"There were red flags about the BuzzFeed story from the get-go." Notes it was inconsistent
with Cohen's guilty plea when he said he made false statements about Trump Tower to Congress
to be "consistent" with Trump, not at his direction. pic.twitter.com/tgDg6SNPpG
We at The Post also had riffs on the story our reporters hadn't confirmed. One noted Fox
downplayed it; another said it "if true, looks to be the most damning to date for Trump." The
industry needs to think deeply on how to cover others' reporting we can't confirm
independently. https://t.co/afzG5B8LAP
Washington Post says Mueller's denial of BuzzFeed News article is aimed at the full story:
"Mueller's denial, according to people familiar with the matter, aims to make clear that none
of those statements in the story are accurate." https://t.co/ene0yqe1mK
If you're one of the people tempted to believe the self-evidently laughable claim that
there's something "vague" or unclear about Mueller's statement, or that it just seeks to
quibble with a few semantic trivialities, read this @WashPost story about this https://t.co/0io99LyATS
pic.twitter.com/ca1TwPR3Og
You can spend hours parsing the Carr statement, but given how unusual it is for any DOJ
office to issue this sort of on the record denial, let alone this office, suspect it means
the story's core contention that they have evidence Trump told Cohen to lie is fundamentally
wrong.
New York Times throws a bit of cold water on BuzzFeed's explosive -- and now seriously
challenged -- report that Trump instructed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress: https://t.co/9N7MiHs7et
pic.twitter.com/7FJFT9D8fW
I can't speak to Buzzfeed's sourcing, but, for what it's worth, I declined to run with
parts of the narrative they conveyed based on a source central to the story repeatedly
disputing the idea that Trump directly issued orders of that kind.
1. Donald Trump Jr. Was Offered Advanced Access to the WikiLeaks Email Archive
(CNN/MSNBC)
The morning of December 9, 2017, launched
one of the most humiliating spectacles in the history of the U.S. media. With a tone so
grave and bombastic that it is impossible to overstate, CNN went on the air and announced a
major exclusive: Donald Trump, Jr. was offered by email advanced access to the trove of DNC and
Podesta emails published by WikiLeaks – meaning before those emails were made public.
Within an hour, MSNBC's Ken Dilanian, using a tone somehow even more unhinged, purported to
have "independently confirmed" this mammoth, blockbuster scoop, which, they said, would have
been the smoking gun showing collusion between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks over the hacked
emails (while the YouTube clips have been removed, you can still watch one of the amazing MSNBC
videos
here ).
There was, alas, just one small problem with this massive, blockbuster story: it was totally
and completely false. The email which Trump, Jr. received that directed him to the WikiLeaks
archive was sent after WikiLeaks published it online for the whole world to see, not before.
Rather than some super secretive operative giving Trump, Jr. advanced access, as both CNN and
MSNBC told the public for hours they had confirmed, it was instead just some totally pedestrian
message from a random member of the public suggesting Trump, Jr. review documents the whole
world was already talking about. All of the anonymous sources CNN and MSNBC cited somehow all
got the date of the email wrong.
To date, when asked how they both could have gotten such a massive story so completely wrong
in the same way, both CNN and MSNBC have adopted the posture of the CIA by maintaining complete
silence and refusing to explain how it could possibly be that all of their "multiple,
independent sources" got the date wrong on the email in the same way, to be as incriminating
– and false – as possible. Nor, needless to say, will they identify their sources
who, in concert, fed them such inflammatory and utterly false information.
Sadly, CNN and MSNBC have deleted most traces of the most humiliating videos from the
internet, including demanding that YouTube remove copies. But enough survives to document just
what a monumental, horrifying, and utterly inexcusable debacle this was. Particularly amazing
is the clip of the CNN reporter (see below) having to admit the error for the first time, as he
awkwardly struggles to pretend that it's not the massive, horrific debacle that it so obviously
is:
Knowingly soliciting or receiving anything of value from a foreign national for campaign
purposes violates the Federal Election Campaign Act. If it's worth over $2,000 then penalties
include fines & IMPRISONMENT. @DonaldJTrumpJr may be in bigly
trouble. #FridayFeeling
https://t.co/dRz6Ph17Er
CNN is leading the way in bashing BuzzFeed but it's worth remembering CNN had a
humiliation at least as big & bad: when they yelled that Trump Jr. had advanced access to
the WL archive (!): all based on a wrong date. They removed all the segments from YouTube,
but this remains: pic.twitter.com/0jiA50aIku
ABC News' Brian Ross is fired for
reporting Trump told Flynn to make contact with Russians when he was still a candidate;
in fact, Trump did that after he won.
The New York Times claimed Manafort provided
polling data to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a person "close to the Kremlin"; in fact, he
provided them to Ukrainians, not Russians.
Crowdstrike, the firm hired by the DNC, claimed they had evidence that Russia hacked
Ukrainian artillery apps;
they then retracted it .
Bloomberg and the WSJ reported Mueller subpoenaed Deustche Bank for Trump's financial
records; the NYT said
that never happened .
Rachel Maddow devoted 20 minutes at the start of her show to very melodramatically
claiming a highly sophisticated party tried to trick her by sending her a fake Top Secret
document modeled after the one published by the Intercept, and said it could only have come
from the U.S. Government (or the Intercept) since the person obtained the document before it
was published by us and thus must have had special access to it; in fact,
Maddow and NBC completely misread the metadata on the document ; the fake sent to Maddow
was created after we published the document, and was sent to her by a random member of the
public who took the document from the Intercept's site and doctored it to see if she'd fall
for an obvious scam. Maddow's entire timeline, on which her whole melodramatic conspiracy
theory rested, was fictitious.
The U.S. media and Democrats spent six months claiming that all "17 intelligence
agencies" agreed Russia was behind the hacks; the NYT finally
retracted that in June, 2017: "The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies --
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not
approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community."
AP claimed on February 2, 2018, that the Free Beacon commissioned the Steele Dossier;
they thereafter acknowledged that was false and
noted, instead: "Though the former spy, Christopher Steele, was hired by a firm that was
initially funded by the Washington Free Beacon, he did not begin work on the project until
after Democratic groups had begun funding it."
Widespread government and media claims that accused Russian agent Maria Butina offered
"sex for favors" were
totally false (and scurrilous).
After a Russian regional jet crashed on February 11, 2018, shortly after it took off from
Moscow, killing all 71 people aboard, Harvard Law Professor and frequent MSNBC contributor
Laurence Tribe
strongly implied Putin purposely caused the plane to go down in order to murder Sergei
Millian, a person vaguely linked to George Papadopoulos and Jared Kushner; in fact, Millian
was not on the plane nor, to date, has anyone claimed they had any evidence that Putin
ordered his own country's civilian passenger jet brought down.
From comments to the podcast: "Attempting to damage and/or remove a sitting US President
with a political and legal hoax, from within, is a seditious attack against the United States
of America."
Starting at minute 20 interview of Svetlana and Chuck makes the point that leak of the
call to the press was to sabotage Flynn and the Trump administration. The PTB knew very early
on that Flynn was not a Russian asset.
"... "Did [ FBI Director James B. Comey] seek permission from you to do the formal opening of the counterintelligence investigation?" Rep. Adam B. Schiff, California Democrat, asked the former attorney general. ..."
"... "No, and he ordinarily would not have had to do that," Ms. Lynch answered. "lt would not have come to the attorney general for that." ..."
"... Mr. Schiff, a fierce defender of the FBI in the Russia probe, seemed taken aback. "Even in the case where you're talking about a campaign for president?" he asked. ..."
"... "I can't recall if it was discussed or not," Ms. Lynch said. "I just don't have a recollection of that in the meetings that I had with him." ..."
"... "Yates was very frustrated in the call with Comey," said the FBI interview report, known as a 302. "She felt a decision to conduct an interview of Flynn should have been coordinated with [the Department of Justice ]." ..."
"... Ms. Yates told the FBI that the interview was "problematic" because the White House counsel should have been notified. ..."
"... During his book tour, Mr. Comey bragged that he sent the two agents without such notification by taking advantage of the White House's formative stage. He said he "wouldn't have gotten away with it" in a more seasoned White House. ..."
"... Other evidence of an FBI on autopilot: The Justice Department inspector general's report on how the bureau probed the Trump campaign revealed more than a dozen instances of FBI personnel submitting false information in wiretap applications and withholding exculpatory evidence. For example, agents evaded Justice Department scrutiny by not telling their warrant overseer that witnesses had cast doubt on the reliability of the Steele dossier. ..."
Newly released documents show FBI agents
operated on autopilot in 2016 and 2017 while targeting President Trump and his campaign with
little or no Justice Department guidance
for such a momentous investigation.
Loretta E. Lynch, President Obama's attorney general, said she never knew the FBI
was placing wiretaps on a Trump campaign volunteer or using the dossier claims of former
British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to put the
entire Trump world under suspicion. Mr. Steele was handled by Fusion
GPS and paid with funds from the Democratic Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
"I don't have a recollection of briefings on Fusion GPS or Mr. Steele ," Ms. Lynch told the
House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence in October 2017. "I don't have any information on that,
and I don't have a recollection being briefed on that."
Under pressure from acting Director of National Intelligence
Richard A. Grenell, the committee last week released transcripts of her testimony and that of
more than 50 other witnesses in 2017 and 2018, when Republicans controlled the Trump-
Russia
investigation.
Ms. Lynch also testified that she had no knowledge the FBI had taken the
profound step of opening an investigation, led by agent Peter Strzok, into the Trump campaign
on July 31, 2016.
"Did [ FBI Director
James B. Comey] seek permission from you to do the formal opening of the counterintelligence
investigation?" Rep. Adam B. Schiff, California Democrat, asked the former attorney
general.
"No, and he ordinarily would not have had to do that," Ms. Lynch answered. "lt would not
have come to the attorney general for that."
Mr. Schiff, a fierce defender of the FBI in the
Russia probe,
seemed taken aback. "Even in the case where you're talking about a campaign for president?" he
asked.
"I can't recall if it was discussed or not," Ms. Lynch said. "I just don't have a
recollection of that in the meetings that I had with him."
Attorney General William P. Barr has changed the rules. He announced that the attorney
general now must approve any FBI decision to
investigate a presidential campaign.
Ms. Lynch's testimony adds to the picture of an insular, and sometimes misbehaving,
FBI as its agents
searched for evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to interfere in the
2016 election to damage Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton .
In documents filed by the Justice Department last
week, then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates expressed dismay that Mr. Comey would
dispatch two agents, including Mr. Strzok, on Jan. 24, 2017, to interview incoming National
Security Adviser Michael Flynn at the White House.
Ms. Yates, interviewed by FBI agents
assigned to the Robert Mueller special counsel probe, said Mr. Comey notified her only after
the fact.
"Yates was very frustrated in the call with Comey," said the FBI interview
report, known as a 302. "She felt a decision to conduct an interview of Flynn should have been
coordinated with [the Department of Justice
]."
Ms. Yates told the FBI that the
interview was "problematic" because the White House counsel should have been notified.
During his book tour, Mr. Comey bragged that he sent the two agents without such
notification by taking advantage of the White House's formative stage. He said he "wouldn't
have gotten away with it" in a more seasoned White House.
Mr. Barr filed court papers asking U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to dismiss the
Flynn case and his guilty plea to lying to Mr. Strzok about phone calls with Russian Ambassador
Sergey Kislyak. Mr. Strzok and other FBI personnel
planned the Flynn interview as a near ambush with a goal of prompting him to lie and getting
fired, according to new court filings.
Other evidence of an FBI on autopilot:
The Justice Department
inspector general's report on how the bureau probed the Trump campaign revealed more than a
dozen instances of FBI personnel
submitting false information in wiretap applications and withholding exculpatory evidence. For
example, agents evaded Justice Department scrutiny
by not telling their warrant overseer that witnesses had cast doubt on the reliability of the
Steele
dossier.
The far-fetched dossier was the one essential piece of evidence required to obtain four
surveillance warrants on campaign volunteer Carter Page, according to Justice Department
Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz. The Mueller and Horowitz reports have discredited the
dossier's dozen conspiracy claims against the president and his allies.
Mr. Schiff, now chairman of the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence , had held on
to the declassified transcripts for more than a year. Under pressure from Republicans and Mr.
Grenell, he released the 6,000 pages on the hectic day Mr. Barr moved to end the Flynn
prosecution.
The closed-door testimony included witnesses such as Mr. Obama's national security adviser,
a United Nations ambassador, the nation's top spy and the FBI deputy
director. There were also Clinton campaign chieftains and
lawyers.
The transcripts' most often-produced headline: Obama investigators never saw evidence of
Trump conspiracy between the time the probe was opened until they left office in mid-January
2017.
"I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was
plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election," former Director of
National Intelligence James
R. Clapper told the committee .
Mr. Clapper is a paid CNN analyst who has implied repeatedly and without evidence that Mr.
Trump is a Russian spy and a traitor. The Mueller report contained no evidence that Mr. Trump
is a Russian agent or election conspirator.
Mr. Schiff told the country repeatedly that he had seen evidence of Trump collusion that
went beyond circumstantial. Mr. Mueller did not.
Mr. Schiff was a big public supporter of Mr. Steele 's dossier, which
relied on a Moscow main source and was fed by deliberate Kremlin disinformation against Mr.
Trump, according to the Horowitz report.
Trump Tower
One of Mr. Schiff's pieces of evidence of a conspiracy "in plain sight" is the meeting
Donald Trump
Jr. took with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya on June 9, 2016.
The connections are complicated but, simply put, a Russian friend of the Trumps' said she
might have dirt on Mrs. Clinton . At the time, Ms.
Veselnitskaya was in New York representing a rich Russian accused by the Justice Department of
money laundering. To investigate, she hired Fusion GPS -- the same firm that retained Mr.
Steele
to damage the Trump campaign.
The meeting was brief and seemed to be a ruse to enable Ms. Veselnitskaya to pitch an end to
Obama-era economic sanctions that hurt her client. Attending were campaign adviser Paul
Manafort, Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner and Anatoli Samochornov. Mr. Samochornov is a dual
citizen of Russia
and the U.S. who serves as an interpreter to several clients, including Ms. Veselnitskaya and
the State Department.
Mr. Samochornov was the Russian lawyer's interpreter that day. His recitation of events
basically backs the versions given by the Trump associates, according to a transcript of his
November 2017 committee testimony.
The meeting lasted about 20 minutes. Ms. Veselnitskaya briefly talked about possible illegal
campaign contributions to Mrs. Clinton . Manafort, busy on his
cellphone, remarked that the contributions would not be illegal. Mr. Kushner left after a few
minutes.
Then, Rinat Akhmetshin, a lobbyist, made the case for ditching sanctions. He linked that to
a move by Russian President Vladimir Putin to end a ban on Americans adopting Russian
children.
Mr. Trump Jr. said that issue would be addressed if his father was elected. In the end, the
Trump administration put more sanctions on Moscow's political and business operators.
"I've never heard anything about the elections being mentioned at that meeting at all or in
any subsequent discussions with Ms. Veselnitskaya," Mr. Samochornov testified.
No mask
One of the first things Rep. Devin Nunes, California Republican, did to earn the animus of
Democrats and the liberal media was to visit the Trump White House to learn about "unmaskings"
by Obama appointees.
The National Security Agency, by practice, obscures the names of any Americans caught up in
the intercept of foreign communications. Flynn was unmasked in the top-secret transcript of his
Kislyak call so officials reading it would know who was on the line.
In reading intelligence reports, if government officials want the identity of an "American
person," they make a request to the intelligence community. The fear is that repeated requests
could indicate political purposes.
That suspicion is how Samantha Power ended up at the House intelligence committee witness
table. The former U.N. ambassador seemed to have broken records by requesting hundreds of
unmaskings, though the transcript did not contain the identities of the people she exposed.
She explained to the committee why
she needed to know.
"I am reading that intelligence with an eye to doing my job, right?" Ms. Power said.
"Whatever my job is, whatever I am focused on on a given day, I'm taking in the intelligence
to inform my judgment, to be able to advise the president on ISIL or on whatever, or to inform
how I'm going to try to optimize my ability to advance U.S. interests in New York."
She continued: "I can't understand the intelligence . Can you go
and ascertain who this is so I can figure out what it is I'm reading. You've made the
judgement, intelligence professionals, that I need to read this piece of intelligence, I'm
reading it, and it's just got this gap in it, and I didn't understand that. But I never
discussed any name that I received when I did make a request and something came back or when it
was annotated and came to me. I never discussed one of those names with any other
individual."
Rep. Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Republican, listened and then mentioned other officeholders,
such as the White House national security adviser and the secretary of state.
"There are lots of people who need to understand intelligence products, but the number of
requests they made, ambassador, don't approach yours," Mr. Gowdy said.
Ms. Power implied that members of her staff were requesting American identities and invoking
her name without her knowledge.
The dossier
By mid- to late 2017, the full story on the Democrats' dossier -- that it was riddled with
false claims of criminality that served, as Mr. Barr said, to sabotage the Trump White House --
was not known.
Mr. Steele claimed that there was
a far-reaching Trump- Russia conspiracy, that Mr. Trump was a
Russian spy, that Mr. Trump financed Kremlin computer hacking, that his attorney went to Prague
to pay hush money to Putin operatives, and that Manafort and Carter Page worked as a conspiracy
team.
Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn R. Simpson, a Clinton operative, spread the inaccuracies all
over Washington: to the FBI , the
Justice
Department , Congress and the news media.
None of it proved true.
But to Clinton loyalists in 2017, the
dossier was golden.
"I was mostly focused in that meeting on, you know, the guy standing behind this material is
Christopher Steele ," campaign
foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan said about a Fusion meeting. "He is the one who's judging
its credibility and veracity. You know him. What do you think, based on your conversations with
him? That's what I was really there to try and figure out. And Glenn was incredibly positive
about Steele and felt he was really
on to something and also felt that there was more out there to go find."
Clinton campaign attorney Marc
Elias vouched for the dossier, and its information spread to reporters. He met briefly with Mr.
Steele
during the election campaign.
"I thought that the information that he or they wished to convey was accurate and
important," Mr. Elias testified.
"So the information that Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele wished to
portray to the media in the fall of 2016 at that time, you thought, was accurate and
important?" he was asked.
"As I understand it," he replied.
Mr. Elias rejected allegations that the Clinton campaign conspired with
Russia by having
its operatives spread the Moscow-sourced dirt.
"I don't have enough knowledge about when you say that Russians were involved in the
dossier," he said to a questioner. "I mean that genuinely. I'm not privy to what information
you all have.
"It sounds like the suggestion is that Russia somehow gave information to the
Clinton
campaign vis-a-vis one person to one person, to another person, to another person, to me, to
the campaign. That strikes me as fanciful and unlikely, but perhaps as I said, I don't have a
security clearance. You all have facts and information that is not available to me. But I
certainly never had any hint or whiff."
"... The contradictions revealed in recent disclosures, including the list of officials seeking to "unmask" the identity of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, are shocking. There seems a virtual news blackout on these disclosures, including the fact that both former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden followed the investigation. Indeed, Biden's name is on the unmasking list. ..."
"... The declassification of material from the Michael Flynn case has exposed more chilling details of an effort by prosecutors to come up with a crime to use against the former national security adviser. ..."
"... That included the testimony of Evelyn Farkas, a former White House adviser who was widely quoted by the media with her public plea for Congress to gather all of the evidence that she learned of as part of the Obama administration. ..."
"... That story would have been encompassing if it was learned that there was no direct evidence to justify the investigation and that the underlying allegation of Russian collusion was ultimately found to lack a credible basis. ..."
"... But the motives of Obama administration officials are apparently not to be questioned. Indeed, back when candidate Donald Trump said the Obama administration placed his campaign officials under surveillance, the media universally mocked him. That statement was later proven to be true. The Obama administration used the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court to conduct surveillance of Trump campaign officials. ..."
"... While unmasking is more routinely requested by intelligence officials, with a reported 10,000 such requests by the National Security Agency last year alone, it is presumably less common for figures like Biden or White House chief of staff Denis McDonough ..."
"... The media portrayed both Obama and Biden as uninvolved. But now we know they both actively followed the investigation. ..."
The contradictions revealed in recent disclosures, including the list of officials seeking
to "unmask" the identity of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, are shocking. There
seems a virtual news blackout on these disclosures, including the fact that both former
President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden followed the investigation. Indeed,
Biden's name is on the unmasking list.
The declassification of material from the Michael Flynn case has exposed more chilling
details of an effort by prosecutors to come up with a crime to use against the former national
security adviser. This week, however, a letter revealed another unsettling detail. Among over
three dozen Obama administration officials seeking to "unmask" Flynn in the investigation was
former Vice President Joe
Biden . This revelation came less than a day after Biden denied any involvement in the
investigation of Flynn. It also follows a disclosure that President Obama was aware of that
investigation.
For three years, many in the media have expressed horror at the notion of the Trump campaign
colluding with Russia to influence the 2016 election. We know there was never credible evidence
of such collusion. In recently released transcripts, a long list of Obama administration
officials admitted they never saw any evidence of such Russian collusion. That included the
testimony of Evelyn Farkas, a former White House adviser who was widely quoted by the media
with her public plea for Congress to gather all of the evidence that she learned of as part of
the Obama administration.
The media covered her concern that this evidence would be lost "if they found out how we
knew what we knew" about Trump campaign officials "dealing with Russians." Yet in her
classified testimony under oath, she said she did not know anything. Farkas is now running for
Congress in New York and highlighting her role in raising "alarm" over collusion. As much of
the media blindly pushed this story, a worrying story unfolded over the use of federal power to
investigate political opponents.
There is very little question that the response by the media to such a story would have been
overwhelming if George Bush and his administration had targeted the Obama campaign figures with
secret surveillance .
That story would have been encompassing if it was learned that there was no direct evidence
to justify the investigation and that the underlying allegation of Russian collusion was
ultimately found to lack a credible basis.
But the motives of Obama administration officials are apparently not to be questioned.
Indeed, back when candidate Donald Trump said the Obama administration placed
his campaign officials under surveillance, the media universally mocked him. That statement was
later proven to be true. The Obama administration used the secret Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act court to conduct surveillance of Trump campaign officials.
Yet none of this matters as the media remains fully invested in the original false
allegations of collusion. If Obama administration officials were to be questioned now, the
coverage and judgment of the media may be placed into question, as even this latest disclosure
from the investigation of the unmasking request of Biden will not alter the media
narrative.
Unmasking occurs when an official asks an intelligence agency to remove anonymous
designations hiding the identity of an individual. This masking is a very important protection
of the privacy of American citizens who are caught up in national security surveillance. The
importance of this privacy protection is being dismissed by media figures, like Andrea
Mitchell, who declared the Biden story to be nothing more than gaslighting.
While unmasking is more routinely requested by intelligence officials, with a reported
10,000 such requests by the National Security Agency last year alone, it is presumably less
common for figures like Biden or White House chief of staff Denis McDonough. Seeking unmasking
information that was likely to reveal the name of a political opponent and possibly damage the
Trump administration raises a concern. More importantly, it adds a detail of the scope of
interest and involvement in an investigation that targeted Flynn without any compelling
evidence of a crime or collusion.
The media portrayed both Obama and Biden as uninvolved. But now we know they both actively
followed the investigation.
Atlantic Council senior fellow, Congressional candidate, and Russia conspiracy theorist
Evelyn Farkas is desperately trying to salvage her reputation after recently released
transcripts from her closed-door 2017 testimony to the House Intelligence Committee revealed
she totally lied on national TV .
In March of 2017, Farkas confidently told MSNBC 's Mika Brzezinski: " The Trump folks, if
they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff dealing with Russians , that they
would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would not longer have access to
that intelligence ."
Except, during testimony to the House, Farkas admitted she lied . When pressed by former
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) on why she said 'we' - referring to the US government, Farkas said she
"didn't know anything."
In short, she was either illegally discussing US intelligence matters with her "former
colleagues," or she made the whole thing up.
Now, Farkas is in damage control mode - writing in the
Washington Post that her testimony demonstrated "that I had not leaked intelligence and
that my early intuition about Trump-Kremlin cooperation was valid.' She also claims that her
comments to MSNBC were based on "media reports and statements by Obama administration officials
and the intelligence community," which had "began unearthing connections between Trump's
campaign and Russia."
Farkas is now blaming a 'disconcerting nexus between Russia and the reactionary right,' for
making her look bad (apparently Trey Gowdy is part of the "reactionary right" for asking her
who she meant by "we").
Attacks against me came first on Twitter and other social media platforms, from far-right
sources. Forensics data I was shown suggested at least one entity had Russian ties . The
attacks increased in quantity and ferocity until Fox News and Trump-allied Republicans --
higher-profile, and more mainstream, sources -- also criticized me .
...
Trump surrogates, including former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski ,
Donald Trump Jr. and Fox
News hosts such as Tucker Carlson have essentially accused me
of treason for being one of the "fraudulent originators" of the "Russia hoax." -Evelyn
Farkas
She then parrots the Democratic talking point that the attacks she's received are part of
Trump's larger "Obamagate" allegations - " a narrative that distracts attention from his
administration's disastrous pandemic response and attempts to defect blame for Russian
interference onto the Obama administration" (Obama told Putin to ' cut it out ' after all).
Meanwhile, Poor Evelyn's campaign staff has become " emotionally exhausted " after her
Facebook, Twitter and Instagram accounts have been "overwhelmed with a stream of vile, vulgar
and sometimes violent messages" in response to the plethora of conservative outlets which have
called her out for Russia malarkey.
There is evidence that Russian actors are contributing to these attacks. The same day that
right-wing pundits began pumping accusations, newly created Russian Twitter accounts picked them up. Within a day,
Russian "
disinformation clearinghouses " posted versions of the story . Many of the Twitter
accounts boosting attacks have posted in unison, a sign of inauthentic social media
behavior.
She closes by defiantly claiming "I wasn't silenced in 2017, and I won't be silenced
now."
No Evelyn, nobody is silencing you. You're being called out for your role in the perhaps the
largest, most divisive hoax in US history - which was based on faulty intelligence that
includes crowdstrike admitting they had
no proof of that Russia exfiltrated DNC emails, and Christopher Steele's absurd dossier
based on his 'Russian sources.'
MrBoompi, 18 minutes ago
Lying is a common occurrence on MSNBC. Farkas was just showing her party she is qualified
for a more senior position.
chubbar, 23 minutes ago
My opinion, based on zero facts, is that the lie she told was to Gowdy. She had to say she
lied about having intelligence data or she'd be looking at a felony along with whomever she
was talking to in the US gov't. You just know these cocksuckers in the resistance don't give
a **** about laws or fairness, it's all about getting Trump. So they set up an informal
network to get classified intelligence from the Obama holdovers out into the wild where these
assholes could use it against Trump and the gov't operations. Treason. She needs to be
executed for her efforts!
LetThemEatRand, 59 minutes ago
This whole thing reminds me of a fan watching their team play a championship game. If the
ref makes a bad call and their team wins, they don't care. And if the ref makes a good call
and their team loses, they blame the ref. No one cares about the truth or the facts. That in
a nutshell is politics in the US. If you believe that anyone will "switch sides" or admit the
ref made a bad call or a good call, you're smoking the funny stuff.
mtumba, 50 minutes ago
It's a natural response to a corrupt system.
When the system is wholly corrupt so that truth doesn't matter, what else is there to care
about other than your side winning?
Hussein isn't sweating. He believes he's untouchable. He's that arrogant. He was a
Trojan horse and has done irrefutable damage to our Constitution and our country.
I have to echo Greg Gutfeld's sentiments on Adam Schiff: When the HELL is someone going to
hold him accountable for the Three-Year-Schiff-Show the United States has had to go
through??!?!?
He needs to be charged AT LEAST with leaking classified damnit!
And then all the other legal lies he held firm to! My last intelligence nerve was pressed
hard with that.....and yet, there he continues lying his ass off protected (for now) by
Congress! Elections CANNOT come quick enough! Can't wait to vote this year!
> He will go down as The most corrupt president in history! Spied on an opponents
campaign Authorised the intelligence agencies to spy Leaker Collided with Russia
Our Fakenews networks conspired with Obama, Obama's previous Cabinet, Hillary, the CIA,
FBI, NSA, DNC, and Democrats in Congress. They were all in on it together. #Sedition #Treason
ex-president Obummer biggest legacy to the democratic world is allowing China to claim all
of the South China Sea by turning a blind eye whilst China was dredging the sea beds and
creating artificial islands all over the South China sea!!
Obama was an America hater from day one, and committed many treasons public and private.
His "legacy" is and was a fabrication of the MSM, who tolerated no end of abuses, including
Obama suing a number of journalists.
But let's just look at one item, underplayed by the MSM: Obama did everything he could to
stop the 9/11 victims bill, including a presidential veto, which was then overridden by a
gigantic (97-1) senate vote.
McCain and Graham continued to fight the LAW, undoubtedly with Obama help, using Arab
funded lawyers to the tune of 1.2 million dollars per month.
"... According to these transcripts of congressional testimony by some of the participants, the FBI decided all by itself after Comey was fired to consider acting against Trump by pursuing him for suspicion of conspiracy with Russia to give the Russians the president of the US that they supposedly wanted. ..."
"... Following these seditious and IMO illegal discussions the FBI and Sessions/Rosenstein's Justice Department sought FISA Court warrants for surveillance against associates of Trump and members of his campaign for president. ..."
"... IMO this collection of actions when added to whatever Clapper, Brennan and "the lads" of the Deep State were doing with the British intelligence services amount to an attempted "soft coup" against the constitution and from the continued stonewalling of the FBI and DoJ the coup is ongoing ..."
The president of the US was made head of the Executive Branch (EC) of the federal government by Article 2 of the present constitution
of the US. He is also Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the federal government. As head of the EC, he is head of all the
parts of the government excepting the Congress and the Federal courts which are co-equal branches of the federal government. The
Department of Justice is just another Executive Branch Department subordinate in all things to the president. The FBI is a federal
police force and counter-intelligence agency subordinate to the Department of Justice and DNI and therefore to the president in
all things. The FBI actually IMO has no legal right whatever to investigate the president. He is the constitutionally elected
commander of the FBI. Does one investigate one's commander? No. The procedures for legally and constitutionally removing a president
from office for malfeasance are clear. He must be impeached by the House of Representatives for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"
and then tried by the US Senate on the charges. Conviction results in removal from office.
According to these transcripts of congressional testimony by some of the participants, the FBI decided all by itself after
Comey was fired to consider acting against Trump by pursuing him for suspicion of conspiracy with Russia to give the Russians
the president of the US that they supposedly wanted. Part of the discussions among senior FBI people had to do with whether
or not the president had the legal authority to remove from office an FBI Director. Say what? Where have these dummies been all
their careers? Do they not teach anything about this at the FBI Academy? The US Army lectures its officers at every level of schooling
on the subject of the constitutional and legal basis and limits of their authority.
Following these seditious and IMO illegal discussions the FBI and Sessions/Rosenstein's Justice Department sought FISA
Court warrants for surveillance against associates of Trump and members of his campaign for president. Their application
for warrants were largely based on unsubstantiated "opposition research" funded by the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign.
The judge who approved the warrants was not informed of the nature of the evidence. These warrants provided an authority for surveillance
of the Trump campaign.
IMO this collection of actions when added to whatever Clapper, Brennan and "the lads" of the Deep State were doing with
the British intelligence services amount to an attempted "soft coup" against the constitution and from the continued stonewalling
of the FBI and DoJ the coup is ongoing. pl
Trump say that Brennan was one of the architect. Obama knew everything and probably directed
the color revolution against Trump
Notable quotes:
"... Self-described, "scandal-free" administration Obama is a lie nonetheless, Obama will eventually have to testify in front of Congress there is no hiding from it. ..."
Self-described, "scandal-free" administration Obama is a lie nonetheless, Obama will
eventually have to testify in front of Congress there is no hiding from it.
Oh, he didn't like hearing what his "job" is. She's right. Journalists used to do
something called "investigative reporting." Now, it's all about that, "GOTCHA!" Pathetic.
🥱
"... Could Samantha Powers husband, Bloomberg media and book writer Cass Sunstein, have been looking over Samantha's shoulder when she was unmasking hundreds of names critically necessary for her job as UN Ambassador, even though she does not remember requesting any of them? ..."
"... why would Obama proceed with the dramatic expulsions of all those Russian diplomats and properties (when we now all know that Russia didn't hack the DNC and exfiltrate any e-mails) in that particular point in time and just a few weeks before the inauguration? ..."
Mr. Johnson, Thank you both for your lucid explanations of Russiagate and your tenacity. I
pray that with your help, the forces of good will triumph.
A question, are the plotters trying to hold out till the elections? It would seem that if
they succeeded in doing that they and Trump loses the election, then they will have gotten
away with this crime and established the IC as the equivalent of the Praetorian Guard.
Could Samantha Powers husband, Bloomberg media and book writer Cass Sunstein, have been
looking over Samantha's shoulder when she was unmasking hundreds of names critically
necessary for her job as UN Ambassador, even though she does not remember requesting any of
them?
Dan Bongino claims he had an epiphany and solved the non-unmasking of Flynn during that
crucial period. (Remember, he had Trump for an interview a few weeks ago, his connection to
him and his people might have helped his powers of intuition a bit).
It is a scenario that explains a lot, like for example, why would Obama proceed with the
dramatic expulsions of all those Russian diplomats and properties (when we now all know that
Russia didn't hack the DNC and exfiltrate any e-mails) in that particular point in time and
just a few weeks before the inauguration?
What does the committee think of his take (if you can ignore his theatrics)?
The attempted prosecution of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn's business partners on alleged FARA crimes,
in which prosecutors are still saying the general is a foreign agent. [Foreign Agents
Registration Act, US law since 1938.] [Even though he is not a defendant in that case.]
His business partner was convicted by a jury, on this, last year.
Judge shortly thereafter said the court [that judge] failed to properly instruct the jury
– as the DOJ did not have evidence anyone was under the control of a foreign government
-- the key criteria.
The conviction was vacated by the judge; this criteria was not met, nor was evidence
produced by DOJ to show this.
This judge [Anthony Trenga] also allowed the DOJ to: appeal ruling.
That is, Trenga's ruling that vacated the conviction.
That is, let DOJ try and get a new trial -- a do-over.
Which, the DOJ, now under AG Bill Barr is currently attempting to do.
In the appeal for a new trial, Flynn is not a defendant.
His former business partners are.
The DOJ, in a motion and memorandum to the federal appeals court, ---pleading for right for
another trial --- in this motion, the DOJ also accused Flynn, in writing, of being an agent of
Turkey -- all along – "from the beginning," the DOJ motion, from January 2020 states.
Below is from 1/24/2020 DOJ filing against Messrs. Rafiekian and Alptekin, [Flynn's
then-business partners prior to 2017], docketed in federal court in January:
>>>>>[[The evidence discussed above equally shows concerted action between
Rafiekian, Flynn, and Alptekin to act subject to Turkey's direction or control. . . . From the
beginning, the co-conspirators agreed that. . . .]]<<<<<
[Note: Rafiekian, in 2006, was nominated by President Bush to Board of Directors of the
'Export–Import Bank of the United States'; this nomination was confirmed/approved by USA
Senate. He served on the bank's board from 2006 to 2011.
Attorney representing defendants, their reply, opposing DOJ appeal request -- rejecting the
January 2020 DOJ motion and claims about the men -- from April 2020, motion and memorandum
includes this:
[[Although the government's appellate brief now alleges that Flynn was a Turkish agent
"[f]rom the beginning" (Br. 2), it sang a different tune just a month before trial [last year],
when it told the district court that Flynn was not part of any conspiracy. It was only after
Flynn made it clear that he would not offer the testimony the government expected to hear that
it reversed course, announced that its erstwhile star witness was really a co-conspirator all
along. . . .]]
That is: "from the beginning," as the DOJ asserts in their January 2020 filing.
This case was dismissed last year because there was no evidence that any of them were under
the control of a foreign government, i.e., "foreign agents" -- yet the DOJ persists.
Nor was Flynn ever charged with any FARA alleged crimes, not by Mueller, not by anyone.
Flynn's case, prosecuted by Mueller/SCO -- the DOJ recently moved to end it all – yet
Judge Sullivan persists.
One case, presided by Judge Contreras, then Sullivan: should never have ever been
prosecuted. We now know this for a fact. Flynn was framed by his own government.
In the other case, that Trenga dismissed: Flynn, who is not a defendant, is accused of being
a foreign agent by the DOJ, in January 2020.
Of note: Sullivan, apparently believing that he is, threatened Flynn with 15 years in jail,
during a hearing in Dec. 2018, when the judge removed all pretense of being impartial, with his
rant about the general selling out his country, possible treason, blah blah blah. In other
words, the ghost of the long dead, still-born Logan Act, apparently.
To what issue will this come?
HAMLET My fate cries out, And makes each petty artery in this body As hardy as the Nemean lion's nerve. Still am I call'd. Unhand me, gentlemen. By heaven, I'll make a ghost of him that lets me! I say, away! Go on; I'll follow thee.
[HAMLET begins following the ghost, exits]
HORATIO He waxes desperate with imagination.
MARCELLUS Let's follow; 'tis not fit thus to obey him.
HORATIO Have after. To what issue will this come?
MARCELLUS Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
HORATIO Heaven will direct it.
MARCELLUS Nay, let's follow him.
Obama's recent signaling of Flynn as Mr. Perjury, followed up soon thereafter by Sullivan's
latching onto that exact same theme is curious. I don't know if this is just one more curve
ball in this, or a fast ball right down the middle.
Recall: There is no public record of Obama, or then AG Lynch or then DAG Sally Yates doing anything to
remove Comey as FBI director or discipline him when he announced there would be no prosecution
of Clinton in 2016 – keeping in mind Comey's role was not prosecutor, [as the country's
general attorney; rather, his role was as police chief of the nation].
McCabe leaking to Wall Street Journal, late October 2016, that there was a criminal
investigation involving Clinton Foundation. There is no record Obama, Lynch, Yates, Comey did
anything to remove McCabe from duty as the FBI deputy director, or discipline him.
There are numerous examples of this lack of action in 2016 right up until Jan. 20, 2017 when
Trump was inaugurated.
This exact pattern includes, of course the Flynn/Kislyak issue.
What is factual at this point is: Washington Post had knowledge as early as [and perhaps
sooner than] Jan. 5, 2017 of Flynn phone conversation with Russian ambassador to US, Sergey
Ivanovich Kislyak, that occurred late December.
And, this stuff was actually published, in WAP, on Jan. 12, 2017.
Obama left office noontime Jan. 20, 2017.
Among other things, might a purpose of the Flynn persecution also involve, rather, just be
another curve ball -- to keep eyes away from the failure by Obama team to prosecute this
criminal leak and outing of Flynn? I don't know.
I also don't know why Trump stated the following on Dec. 2, 2017, [the day after Flynn
plead:
[[I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled
guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful.
There was nothing to hide!]]
On May 13, 2020 Trump stated: [[And when I see what is happening to him, it's disgraceful. And it was all a ruse. And, by the
way, the FBI said he didn't lie. The FBI said he did not lie. So with all the stuff I'm hearing
about lying, the FBI said he didn't lie. But the sleazebag said, "Well, we don't care what he
-- what they say. We're saying he lied." Okay? But the FBI, you remember, when they left, they
said, "He didn't lie." What they've done to that man and that family is a disgrace. But I just
tell you that because I just left General Milley, and he said, "A great man and a great
soldier." Isn't that a shame.]]
We remember that in 1898, William Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, in order to increase the sales
of their daily newspapers, published false information in order to deliberately provoke a war
between the United States and the Spanish colony of Cuba. This was the beginning of "yellow
journalism" (publishing anything to make money). Today it is called "fake news".
It is not known at this time whether tycoons deliberately spread panic about Covid-19,
making this vulgar epidemic seem like the "end of the world". However, one distortion after
another, governments have become involved. Of course, it is no longer a question of selling
advertising screens by frightening people, but of dominating populations by exploiting this
fear.
... ... ...
Modern propaganda should not be limited to the publication of false news as the United
Kingdom did to convince its people to enter the First World War, but should also be used in the
same way as Germany did to convince its people to fight in the Second World War. The recipe is
always the same: to exert psychological pressure to induce subjects to voluntarily practice
acts that they know are useless, but which will lead them to lie [ 5 ]. For
example, in 2001, it was common knowledge that those accused of hijacking planes on 9/11 were
not on the passenger boarding lists. Yet, in shock, most accepted without question the inane
accusations made by FBI Director Robert Muller against "19 hijackers". Or, as is well known,
President Hussein's Iraq had only old Soviet Scud launchers with a range of up to 700
kilometers, but many Americans caulked the windows and doors of their homes to protect
themselves from the deadly gases with which the evil dictator was going to attack America. This
time, in the case of the Covid-19, it is the voluntary confinement in the home that forces the
person who accepts it to convince himself of the veracity of the threat.
So-called "experts" are too narrow in their focus and too often wrong in their
judgments to be able to decide the sorts of life-and-death issues a nation's political leaders
are asked to decide. If " War is too important to be left to the generals ," as
Georges Clemenceau, (France's prime minister during World War I) claimed, then foreign policy
is too important to be left to the intelligence agencies, and public policy is too important to
be left to the scientists.
From the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, politicians and media fell over themselves in their
rush to defer to the " experts. " Apparently, it was up to scientists to decide
whether a country should shut down its economy and keep its citizens locked up in their homes
in perpetuity. It was up to scientists to determine whether a country can, if ever, resume
normal life. As for the consequences -- economic depression, exploding national debt, lost
businesses and means of livelihood, growing alcoholism and drug abuse, rise in suicides,
spiraling untreated medical problems -- those are things the public would just have to live
with, because there could be no second-guessing of the scientists.
On the one side, figures allied to American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's vision for
an anti-Imperial world order lined up behind FDR's champion Harry Dexter White while those
powerful forces committed to maintaining the structures of a bankers' dictatorship (Britain was
always primarily a banker's empire) lined up behind the figure of John Maynard Keynes[
1 ].
John Maynard Keynes was a leading Fabian Society controller and treasurer of the British
Eugenics Association (which served as a model for Hitler's Eugenics protocols before and during
the war). During the Bretton Woods Conference, Keynes pushed hard for the new system to be
premised upon a one world currency controlled entirely by the Bank of England known as the
Bancor. He proposed a global bank called the Clearing Union to be controlled by the Bank of
England which would use the Bancor (exchangeable with national currencies) and serve as unit of
account to measure trade surpluses or deficits under the mathematical mandate of maintaining
"equilibrium" of the system.
Harry Dexter White, on the other hand, fought relentlessly to keep the City of London out of
the drivers' seat of global finance and instead defended the institution of national
sovereignty and sovereign currencies based on long term scientific and technological
growth.
Although White and FDR demanded that US dollars become the reserve currency in the new world
system of fixed exchange rates, it was not done to create a "new American Empire" as most
modern analysts have assumed, but rather was designed to use America's status as the strongest
productive global power to ensure an anti-speculative stability among international currencies
which entirely lacked stability in the wake of WWII.
Their fight for fixed exchange rates and principles of "parity pricing" were designed by FDR
and White strictly around the need to abolish the forms of chaotic flux of the un-regulated
markets which made speculation rampant under British Free Trade and destroyed the capacity to
think and plan for the sort of long term development needed to modernize nation states. Theirs
was not a drive for "mathematical equilibrium" but rather a drive to "end poverty" through REAL
physical economic growth of colonies who would thereby win real economic independence.
As figures like Henry Wallace (FDR's loyal Vice President and 1948 3rd party candidate),
Representative Wendell Wilkie (FDR's republican lieutenant and New Dealer), and Dexter White
all advocated repeatedly, the mechanisms of the World Bank, IMF, and United Nations were meant
to become drivers of an internationalization of the New Deal which transformed America from a
backwater cesspool in 1932 to becoming a modern advanced manufacturing powerhouse 12 years
later. All of these Interntional New Dealers were loud advocates of US-Russia –China
leadership in the post war world which is a forgotten fact of paramount importance.
It is vital to the United States, it is vital to China and
it is vital to Russia that there be peaceful and friendly relations between China and Russia,
China and America and Russia and America. China and Russia Complement and supplement each other
on the continent of Asia and the two together complement and supplement America's position in
the Pacific.
Contradicting the mythos that FDR was a Keynesian, FDR's assistant Francis Perkins
recorded the 1934 interaction between the two men when Roosevelt told her:
"I saw your friend Keynes. He left a whole rigmarole of figures. He must be a
mathematician rather than a political economist."
In response Keynes, who was then trying to coopt the intellectual narrative of the New Deal
stated he had "supposed the President was more literate, economically speaking."
In his 1936 German edition of his General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money
, Keynes wrote:
For I confess that much of the following book is illustrated and expounded
mainly with reference to the conditions existing in the Anglo Saxon countries. Nevertheless,
the theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much
more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state.
While Keynes represented the "soft imperialism" for the "left" of Britain's intelligentsia,
Churchill represented the hard unapologetic imperialism of the Old, less sophisticated empire
that preferred the heavy fisted use of brute force to subdue the savages. Both however were
unapologetic racists and fascists (Churchill even wrote admiringly of Mussolini's black shirts)
and both represented the most vile practices of British Imperialism.
FDR's Forgotten
Anti-Colonial Vision Revited
FDR's battle with Churchill on the matter of empire is better known than his differences
with Keynes whom he only met on a few occasions. This well documented clash was best
illustrated in his son/assistant Elliot Roosevelt's book As He Saw It (1946) who quoted his
father:
I've tried to make it clear that while we're [Britain's] allies and in it to victory
by their side, they must never get the idea that we're in it just to help them hang on to their
archaic, medieval empire ideas I hope they realize they're not senior partner; that we are not
going to sit by and watch their system stultify the growth of every country in Asia and half
the countries in Europe to boot.
[ ]
The colonial system means war. Exploit the resources of an India, a Burma, a Java; take all
the wealth out of these countries, but never put anything back into them, things like
education, decent standards of living, minimum health requirements – all you're doing is
storing up the kind of trouble that leads to war. All you're doing is negating the value of any
kind of organizational structure for peace before it begins.
Writing from Washington in a hysteria to Churchill, Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden said that
Roosevelt "contemplates the dismantling of the British and Dutch empires."
Unfortunately for the world, FDR died on April 12, 1945. A coup within the Democratic
establishment, then replete with Fabians and Rhodes Scholars, had already ensured that Henry
Wallace would lose the 1944 Vice Presidency in favor of Anglophile Wall Street Stooge Harry
Truman.
Truman was quick to reverse all of FDR's intentions, cleansing American intelligence of all
remaining patriots with the shutdown of the OSS and creation of the CIA, the launching of
un-necessary nuclear bombs on Japan and establishment of the Anglo-American special
relationship.
Truman's embrace of Churchill's New World Order destroyed the positive relationship with
Russia and China which FDR, White and Wallace sought and soon America had become Britain's dumb
giant.
The Post 1945 Takeover of the Modern Deep State
FDR warned his son before his death of his understanding of the British takeover of American
foreign policy, but still could not reverse this agenda. His son recounted his father's ominous
insight:
You know, any number of times the men in the State Department have tried to conceal
messages to me, delay them, hold them up somehow, just because some of those career diplomats
over there aren't in accord with what they know I think. They should be working for Winston.
As a matter of fact, a lot of the time, they are [working for Churchill]. Stop to think of
'em: any number of 'em are convinced that the way for America to conduct its foreign policy is
to find out what the British are doing and then copy that!" I was told six years ago, to clean
out that State Department. It's like the British Foreign Office
Before being fired from Truman's cabinet for his advocacy of US-Russia friendship during the
Cold War, Wallace stated:
American fascism" which has come to be known in recent years as
the Deep State [ ] Fascism in the postwar inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon
imperialism and eventually for war with Russia. Already American fascists are talking and
writing about this conflict and using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and
intolerances toward certain races, creeds and classes.
In his 1946 Soviet Asia Mission, Wallace said:
Before the blood of our boys is scarcely
dry on the field of battle, these enemies of peace try to lay the foundation for World War III.
These people must not succeed in their foul enterprise. We must offset their poison by
following the policies of Roosevelt in cultivating the friendship of Russia in peace as well as
in war.
Indeed this is exactly what occurred. Dexter White's three year run as head of the
International Monetary Fund was clouded by his constant attacks as being a Soviet stooge which
haunted him until the day he died in 1948 after a grueling inquisition session at the House of
Un-American Activities.
White had previously been supporting the election of his friend Wallace for the presidency
alongside fellow patriots Paul Robeson and Albert Einstein.
Today the world has captured a second chance to revive the FDR's
dream of an anti-colonial world . In the 21st century, this great dream has taken the form
of the New Silk Road, led by Russia and China (and joined by a growing chorus of nations
yearning to exit the invisible cage of colonialism).
If western nations wish to survive the oncoming collapse, then they would do well to heed
Putin's call for a New International system, join the BRI, and reject the Keynesian technocrats
advocating a false "New Bretton Woods" and "Green New
Deal" .
[1] You may be thinking "wait! Wasn't FDR and his New Deal premised on Keynes' theories??"
How could Keynes have represented an opposing force to FDR's system if this is the case? This
paradox only exists in the minds of many people today due to the success of the Fabian
Society's and Round Table Movement's armada of revisionist historians who have consistently
created a lying narrative of history to make it appear to future generations trying to learn
from past mistakes that those figures like FDR who opposed empire were themselves following
imperial principles.
Another example of this sleight of hand can be seen by the sheer number of people who
sincerely think themselves informed and yet believe that America's 1776 revolution was driven
by British Imperial philosophical thought stemming from Adam Smith, Bentham and John Locke.
Schiff probably practice his lies in his mirror every morning so he can convince himself
of Russian interference. Biggest liar in America Adam Schifty schiff. Needs to be arrested
immediately for treason and lying under oath. But as usual nothing will happen. These people
are above the law. And are untouchable. Its enough to frustrate the hell out of normal sain
Americans. 4 more years of Donald Trump
Folks need to take a much closer look at your own state legislature, district attorney,
prosecutors, public defenders, social workers... especially your own town councils and school
boards. They're stealing your lives and children at the Grassroots local level.
Adam Schiff is not resigning. He's doubling down yet again! If you "want" him to resign,
you need to understand he's staying in office until voted out. There's no willpower in the
house to take action against him.
"Wasn't completely honest"... mistress of understatements. She lied. The left's narrative
is imploding. Corrupt Ambassador, and the left whined when she was fired. Belongs in
prison... in Ukraine.
During the impeachment sham hearing, Yovanovitch said she had not recall anything about
the well known national scandal Burisma in Ukraine. Surprising, isn't it?
The entire Obama Administration was, for eight long years, a string of crimes and
cover-ups by the then President and all his partners in wrongdoings. When is Lady Justice
going to prevail?
"... It is not conspiracy-mongering to note that the investigation into Trump was predicated on an opposition-research document filled with fabulism and, most likely, Russian disinformation. We know the DOJ withheld contradictory evidence when it began spying on those in Trump's orbit. We have proof that many of the relevant FISA-warrant applications -- almost every one of them, actually -- were based on "fabricated" evidence or riddled with errors. We know that members of the Obama administration, who had no genuine role in counterintelligence operations, repeatedly unmasked Trump's allies. And we now know that, despite a dearth of evidence, the FBI railroaded Michael Flynn into a guilty plea so it could keep the investigation going. ..."
"... By 2016, the Obama administration's intelligence community had normalized domestic spying. Obama's director of national intelligence, James Clapper, famously lied about snooping on American citizens to Congress. His CIA director, John Brennan, oversaw an agency that felt comfortable spying on the Senate , with at least five of his underlings breaking into congressional computer files. His attorney general, Eric Holder, invoked the Espionage Act to spy on a Fox News journalist , shopping his case to three judges until he found one who let him name the reporter as a co-conspirator. The Obama administration also spied on Associated Press reporters , which the news organization called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion." And though it's been long forgotten, Obama officials were caught monitoring the conversations of members of Congress who opposed the Iran nuclear deal. ..."
"... In her very last hour in office, national-security adviser Susan Rice wrote a self-preserving email to herself , noting that she'd attended a meeting with the president, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, FBI director James Comey, and Vice President Joe Biden in which Obama stressed that everything in the investigation should proceed "by the book." ..."
"... Biden is the Democratic Party's presumptive presidential nominee, he's running as the heir to Obama's legacy, and he was at that meeting with Rice. He had denied even knowing anything about the FBI investigation into Flynn before being forced to correct himself after ABC's George Stephanopoulos pointed out that he was mentioned in Rice's email. It's completely legitimate to wonder what he knew about the investigation. ..."
"... s the FBI agents involved in the case noted, they wanted to have an " insurance policy " if the unthinkable happened. ..."
"... In 2016, the unthinkable did happen, and we're still dealing with the fallout four years later. We don't know where this scandal will end up, but one doesn't have to be a conspiracy theorist to wonder. ..."
Those sharing #Obamagate hashtags on Twitter would do best to avoid the hysterics we saw
from Russian-collusion believers, but they have no reason to ignore the mounting evidence that
suggests the Obama administration engaged in serious corruption.
Democrats and their allies, who like to pretend that President Obama's only scandalous act
was wearing a tan suit, are going spend the next few months gaslighting the public by focusing on
the most feverish accusations against Obama. But the fact is that we already have more
compelling evidence that the Obama administration engaged in misconduct than we ever did for
opening the Russian-collusion investigation.
It is not conspiracy-mongering to note that the investigation into Trump was predicated on
an opposition-research document filled with fabulism and, most likely, Russian disinformation.
We know the DOJ withheld contradictory evidence when it began spying on those in Trump's orbit.
We have proof that many of the relevant FISA-warrant applications -- almost every one of them,
actually -- were based on "fabricated" evidence or riddled with errors. We know that members of
the Obama administration, who had no genuine role in counterintelligence operations, repeatedly
unmasked Trump's allies. And we now know that, despite a dearth of evidence, the FBI
railroaded Michael Flynn into a guilty plea so it could keep the investigation going.
What's more, the larger context only makes all of these facts more damning . By 2016, the
Obama administration's intelligence community had normalized domestic spying. Obama's director
of national intelligence, James Clapper, famously
lied about snooping on American citizens to Congress. His CIA director, John Brennan,
oversaw an agency that felt comfortable spying on
the Senate , with at least five of his underlings breaking into congressional computer
files. His attorney general, Eric Holder, invoked the Espionage Act to spy
on a Fox News journalist , shopping his case to three judges until he found one who let him
name the reporter as a co-conspirator. The Obama administration also
spied on Associated Press reporters , which the news organization
called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion." And though it's been long forgotten, Obama
officials were caught monitoring
the conversations of members of Congress who opposed the Iran nuclear deal.
What makes anyone believe these people wouldn't create a pretext to spy on the opposition
party?
If anyone does, they shouldn't, because on top of everything else, we know that Barack Obama
was keenly interested in the Russian-collusion investigation's progress.
In her very last hour in office, national-security adviser Susan Rice
wrote a self-preserving email to herself , noting that she'd attended a meeting with the
president, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, FBI director James Comey, and Vice President
Joe Biden in which Obama stressed that everything in the investigation should proceed "by the
book."
Did high-ranking Obama-administration officials not always conduct such investigations "by
the book"? It is curious that they would need to be specifically instructed to do so. It is
also curious that the outgoing national-security adviser, 15 minutes after Trump had been sworn
in as president, would need to mention this meeting.
None of this means that Obama committed some specific crime; he almost assuredly did not. In
a healthy media environment, though, the mounting evidence of wrongdoing would spark an
outpouring of journalistic curiosity.
"But," you might ask, "why does it matter, anymore?"
Well, for one thing, many of the same characters central to all this apparent malfeasance
now want to retake power in Washington . Biden is the Democratic Party's presumptive
presidential nominee, he's running as the heir to Obama's legacy, and he was at that meeting
with Rice. He had denied even knowing anything about the FBI investigation into Flynn before
being forced to
correct himself after ABC's George Stephanopoulos pointed out that he was mentioned in
Rice's email. It's completely legitimate to wonder what he knew about the investigation.
Skeptics like to point out that the Obama administration had no motive to engage in abuse, because Democrats were sure they
were going to win. Richard Nixon won 49 states in 1972. His cronies had no need to break into the DNC's offices and touch off
Watergate. But as the FBI agents involved in the case noted, they wanted to have an "
insurance policy " if the unthinkable happened.
In 2016, the unthinkable did happen, and we're still dealing with the fallout four years
later. We don't know where this scandal will end up, but one doesn't have to be a conspiracy
theorist to wonder.
Did Barry want to drop a load of doo doo on Trump at the 11th hour, when he kicked out the
Russians and dropped the sanctions on them for their "proven election interference"?
That was my immediate feeling at the time - kind of a wag the dog in reverse - go ahead
Trump, get out of this one. Bye. I'm outta here. You take the Russian phone calls now.
According to the Conservative TreeHouse link, sounds like Barry was in a snit because the
Russians did not "over-react" the way Barry planned, so Trump's day one job would not be
putting out fires with the Russians that Barry had just started.
Barry was sorely perplexed. Jst why weren't the Russians doing what he had planned for
them to do - dump doo doo on the incoming President. Why weren't they sabre rattling and
putting incoming President Trump in his very first international incident, as Barry had
intended.
Nope, the Russians went all chill instead. Who cared what a lame duck POTUS does anyway.
Then Putin, invited all the Moscow foreign embassy kids over for a holiday party. No bombs,
no threats, not even any pouts. What was up with that? Good will and good cheer towards all
men, regardless of outgoing Boy President's little sand box snit.
What could have gone wrong, the Russians are supposed to be mad and escalating Barry's
"decisive" actions. Let's go snooping. And there begins one more chapter in Obamagate -
Waaaaaa, the Russians didn't do what I wanted them to do. I wanted them to rub schmutz in
Trump's face on Day One. Instead they offered us cookies and holiday crackers.
And in the process Team Obama left a nefarious paper trail. Thank you Susan - aka Lady
McBeth- Rice - your CYA memo for this final Obama Russian caper simply did not pass the smell
test. Barry was beaked the Russians did not start WWIII.
On the other side, evidence has emerged that makes it clear there were organized efforts to
collude against candidate Donald Trump - and then President Trump. For example:
Anti-Russian Ukrainians allegedly helped coordinate and execute a campaign against Trump
in partnership with the Democratic National Committee and news reporters.
A Yemen-born ex-British spy reportedly delivered political opposition research against
Trump to reporters, Sen. John McCain, and the FBI; the latter of which used the material--in
part--to obtain wiretaps against one or more Trump-related associates.
There were orchestrated leaks of anti-Trump information and allegations to the press,
including by ex-FBI Director James Comey.
The U.S. intel community allegedly engaged in questionable surveillance practices and
politially-motivated "unmaskings" of U.S. citizens, including Trump officials.
Alleged conflicts of interests have surfaced regarding FBI officials who cleared Hillary
Clinton for mishandling classified information and who investigated Trump's alleged Russia
ties.
But it's not so easy to find a timeline pertinent to the investigations into these
events.
(Please note that nobody cited has been charged with wrongdoing or crimes, unless the charge
is specifically referenced. Temporal relationships are not necessarily evidence of a
correlation.)
"Collusion against Trump" Timeline2011
U.S. intel community vastly expands its surveillance authority, giving itself permission to
spy on Americans who do nothing more than "mention a foreign target in a single, discrete
communication." Intel officials also begin storing and entering into a searchable database
sensitive intelligence on U.S. citizens whose communications are accidentally or "incidentally"
captured during surveillance of foreign targets. Prior to this point, such intelligence was
supposed to be destroyed to protect the constitutional privacy rights the U.S. citizens.
However, it's required that names U.S. citizens be hidden or "masked" --even inside U.S. intel
agencies --to prevent abuse.
July 1, 2012: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton improperly uses unsecured, personal email
domain to email President Obama from Russia.
2013
June 2013: FBI interviews U.S. businessman Carter Page, who's lived and worked in Russia,
regarding his ongoing contacts with Russians. Page reportedly tells FBI agents their time would
be better spent investigating Boston Marathon bombing (which the FBI's Andrew McCabe helped
lead). Page later claims his remark prompts FBI retaliatory campaign against him. The FBI,
under McCabe, will later wiretap Page after Page becomes a Donald Trump campaign adviser.
FBI secretly records suspected Russian industrial spy Evgeny Buryakov . It's later
reported that Page helped FBI build the case.
Sept. 4, 2013: James Comey becomes FBI Director, succeeding Robert Mueller.
2014
Russia invades Ukraine. Ukraine steps up hiring of U.S. lobbyists to make its case against
Russia and obtain U.S. aid. Russia also continues its practice of using U.S. lobbyists.
Ukraine forms National Anti-Corruption Bureau as a condition to receive U.S. aid. The
National Anti-Corruption Bureau later signs evidence-sharing agreement with FBI related to
Trump-Russia probe.
Ukrainian-American Alexandra Chalupa, a paid consultant for the Democratic National
Committee (DNC), begins researching lobbyist Paul
Manafort's Russia ties.
FBI investigates, and then wiretaps, Paul Manafort for allegedly not properly disclosing
Russia-related work. FBI fails to make a case, according to CNN, and discontinues wiretap.
August 2014: State Dept. turns over 15,000 pages of documents to Congressional Benghazi
committee, revealing former secretary of state Hillary Clinton used private server for
government email. Her mishandling of classified info on this private system becomes subject of
FBI probe.
2015
FBI opens
investigation into Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe, including for donations from a
Chinese businessman and Clinton Foundation donor.
FBI official Andrew McCabe meets with Gov. McAuliffe, a close Clinton ally. Afterwards,
"McAuliffe-aligned political groups donated about $700,000 to Mr. McCabe's wife for her
campaign to become a Democrat state Senator in Virginia." The fact of the McAuliffe-related
donations to wife of FBI's McCabe, while FBI was investigating McAuliffe and Clinton later
becomes the subject of
conflict of interest inquiry by Inspector General.
Feb. 9, 2015: U.S. Senate forms Ukrainian caucus to further Ukrainian interests. Sen. John
McCain (R-Ariz.) is a member.
March 4, 2015: New York Times breaks news about Clinton's improper handling of classified
email as secretary of state.
In internal emails , Clinton campaign chairman (and
former Obama adviser) John Podesta suggests Obama withhold Clinton's emails from Congressional
Benghazi committee under executive privilege.
March 2015: Attorney General Loretta Lynch privately directs FBI Director James Comey to
call FBI Clinton probe a "matter" rather than an "investigation." Comey follows the
instruction, though he later testifies that it made him
"queasy."
March 7, 2015: President Obama says he first learned of Clinton's improper email practices
"through news reports." Clinton campaign staffers privately
contradict that claim emailing: "it looks like [President Obama] just said he found out
[Hillary Clinton] was using her personal email when he saw it on the news." Clinton aide Cheryl
Mills responds, "We need to clean this up, [President Obama] has emails from" Clinton's
personal account.
May 19, 2015: Justice Dept. Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs Peter Kadzik
emails
Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta from a private Gmail account to give him a "heads ups"
involving Congressional questions about Clinton email.
Summer 2015: Democratic National Committee computers are hacked.
Sept. 2015: Glenn Simpson, co-founder of political opposition research firm Fusion GPS, is
hired by conservative website Washington Free Beacon to compile negative research on
presidential candidate Donald Trump and other Republicans.
Oct. 2015: President Obama uses a "confidentiality tradition" to keep his Benghazi emails
with Hillary Clinton secret.
Oct. 12, 2015: FBI Director Comey
replaces head of FBI Counterintelligence Division at New York Field Office with Louis
Bladel.
Oct. 22, 2015: Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)
publicly states that Clinton is "not under criminal investigation."
Clinton testifies to House Benghazi committee.
Oct. 23, 2015: Clinton campaign chair John Podesta meets for dinner with small group of
friends including a top Justice Dept. official Peter Kadzik.
Late 2015: Democratic operative Chalupa expands her
political opposition research about Paul Manafort to include Trump's ties to Russia. She
"occasionally shares her findings with officials from the Democratic National Committee and the
Clinton campaign."
Dec. 4, 2015: Donald Trump is beating his nearest Republican presidential competitor by 20
points in latest CNN poll .
Dec. 9, 2015: FBI Director Comey
replaces head of FBI Counterintelligence Division at Washington Field Office with Charles
Kable.
Dec. 23, 2015: FBI Director Comey
names Bill Priestap as assistant director of Counterintelligence Division.
2016
Obama officials vastly expand their searches through NSA database for Americans and the
content of their communications. In 2013, there were 9,600 searches involving 195 Americans.
But in 2016, there are 30,355 searches of 5,288 Americans.
Justice Dept. associate deputy attorney general Bruce Ohr
meets with Fusion GPS' Christopher Steele, the Yemen-born ex-British spy leading anti-Trump
political opposition research project.
January 2016: Democratic operative Ukrainian-American Chalupa tells a
senior Democratic National Committee official that she feels there's a Russia connection with
Trump.
Jan. 29, 2016: FBI Director Comey promotes
Andrew McCabe to FBI Deputy Director.
McCabe takes lead on Clinton probe even though his wife received nearly $700,000 in campaign
donations through Clinton ally Terry McAuliffe, who's also under FBI investigation.
March 2016: Clinton campaign chair John Podesta's email gets hacked.
Carter Page is named
as one of the Trump campaign's foreign policy advisers.
March 2, 2016: FBI Director Comey
replaces head of Intelligence Division of Washington Field Office with Gerald Roberts,
Jr.
March 11, 2016: Russian Evgeny Buryakovwhich pleads guilty to spying in FBI case that Carter
Page reportedly assisted with.
March 25, 2016: Ukrainian-American operative for Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chalupa
meets with top Ukrainian officials at Ukrainian Embassy in Washington D.C. to "expose ties
between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia," according to Politico. Chalupa
previously worked for the Clinton administration.
Ukrainian embassy proceeds to work "directly with reporters researching Trump, Manafort and
Russia to point them in the right directions," according
to an embassy official (though other officials later deny engaging in election-related
activities.)
March 29, 2016: Trump campaign hires Paul Manafort as manager of July Republican
convention.
March 30, 2016: Ukrainian-American Democratic operative Alexandra Chalupa briefs
Democratic National Committee (DNC) staff on Russia ties to Paul Manafort and Trump.
With "DNC's encouragement," Chalupa asks Ukrainian embassy to arrange meeting with Ukrainian
President Petro Poroshenko to discuss Manafort's lobbying for Ukraine's former president Viktor
Yanukovych. The embassy declines to arrange meeting but becomes "helpful" in trading info and
leads.
Ukrainian embassy officials and Democratic operative Chalupa "coordinat[e] an investigation
with the Hillary team" into Paul Manafort, according to a source in Politico. This effort
reportedly includes working with U.S. media.
April 2016: There's a second breach of Democratic National Committee computers.
Washington Free Beacon
breaks off deal with Glenn Simpson's Fusion GPS for political opposition research against
Trump.
Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee lawyer Mark Elias and his law firm,
Perkins Coie, hire Fusion GPS for anti-Trump political research project.
Ukrainian member of parliament Olga Bielkova reportedly seeks meetings with
five dozen members of U.S. Congress and reporters including former New York Times reporter Judy
Miller, David Sanger of New York Times, David Ignatius of Washington Post, and Washington Post
editorial page editor Fred Hiatt.
April 5, 2016: Convicted spy Buryakov is turned over to Russia.
Week of April 6, 2016: Ukrainian-American Democratic operative Chalupa and office of Rep.
Mary Kaptur (D-Ohio), co-chair of Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, discuss possible
congressional investigation or hearing on Paul Manafort-Russia "by September."
Chalupa begins working with investigative reporter Michael Isikoff, according to her later
account.
April 10, 2016: In national TV interview, President Obama states that Clinton did not intend
to harm national security when she mishandled classified emails. FBI Director James Comey later
concludes that Clinton should not face charges because she did not intend to harm national
security.
Around this time, the FBI begins drafting Comey's remarks closing Clinton email
investigation, though Clinton had not yet been interviewed.
April 12, 2016:" Ukrainian parliament member Olga Bielkova and a colleague meet"
with Sen. John McCain associate David Kramer with the McCain Institute. Bielkova also meets
with Liz Zentos of Obama's National Security Council, and State Department official Michael
Kimmage.
April 26, 2016: Investigative reporter Michael Isikoff publishes
story on Yahoo News about Paul Manafort's business dealings with a Russian oligarch.
April 27, 2016 : The BBC publishes
an article titled, "Why Russians Love Donald Trump."
April 28, 2016: Ukrainian-American Democratic operative Chalupa is invited to discuss her
research about Paul Manafort with 68 investigative journalists from Ukraine at Library of
Congress for Open World Leadership Center, a U.S. congressional agency. Chalupa invites
investigative reporter Michael Isikoff to "connect(s) him to the Ukrainians."
After the event, reporter Isikoff accompanies Chalupa to Ukrainian embassy reception.
May 3, 2016: Ukrainian-American Democratic operative Chalupa emails Democratic National Committee (DNC)
that she'll share
sensitive info about Paul Manafort "offline" including "a big Trump component that will hit in
next few weeks."
May 4, 2016: Trump locks up Republican nomination.
May 19, 2016: Paul Manafort is named Trump campaign chair.
May 23, 2016: FBI probe into Virginia governor and Clinton ally Terry McAuliffe
becomes public. (McAuliffe is ultimately not charged with a crime.)
Justice Department Inspector General confirms it's looking into FBI's Andrew McCabe for
alleged conflicts of interest in handling of Clinton and Gov. McAuliffe probes in light of
McAuliffe directing campaign donations to McCabe's wife.
FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, who are reportedly having an illicit affair, text
each other that Trump's ascension in the campaign will bring "pressure to finish" Clinton
probe.
Nellie Ohr, wife of Justice Dept. associate deputy attorney general Bruce Ohr and former CIA
worker, goes on the payroll of Fusion GPS and assists with anti-Trump political opposition
research. Her husband, Bruce, reportedly fails to disclose her specific employer and work in
his Justice Dept. conflict of interest disclosures.
June 2016: Fusion GPS' Glenn Simpson "
hires Yemen-born ex-British spy Christopher
Steele for anti-Trump political opposition research project."Steele uses info from Russian
sources "close to Putin" to compile unverified "dossier" later provided to reporters and FBI,
which the FBI uses to obtain secret wiretap.
The
Guardian and Heat Street report that the FBI applied for a FISA warrant in June 2016 to
"monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials"
but that the "initial request was denied."
June 7, 2016: Hillary Clinton locks up the Democrat nomination.
June 9, 2016: Meeting in Trump Tower includes Donald Trump Jr., Trump campaign chair Paul
Manafort and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner with Russian lawyer who said he has political
opposition research on Clinton. (No research was ultimately provided.) According to
CNN , the FBI has not yet restarted a wiretap against Manafort but will soon do so.
June 10, 2016: Democratic National Committee (DNC) tells employees that its computer system
has been hacked. DNC blames Russia but refuses to let FBI examine its systems.
June 15, 2016: "Guccifer 2.0" publishes first hacked document from Clinton campaign chair
John Podesta.
June 17, 2016: Washington Post publishes front page story linking Trump to Russia: "Inside
Trump's Financial Ties to Russia and His Unusual Flattery of Vladimir Putin."
June 20, 2016: Christopher Steele
proposes taking some of Fusion GPS' research about Trump to FBI.
June 22, 2016: WikiLeaks begins publishing embarrassing, hacked emails from Clinton campaign
and Democratic National Committee.
June 27, 2016: Attorney General Loretta Lynch meets
privately with former President Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac in Phoenix, Arizona.
Late June 2016: DCLeaks website begins publishing Democratic National Committee emails.
The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine signs evidence-sharing agreement with FBI and
will later publicly release a "ledger" implicating Paul Manafort in allegedly improper
payments.
June 30, 2016: FBI circulates internal draft of public remarks for FBI Director Comey to
announce closing of Clinton investigation. It refers to Mrs. Clinton's "extensive" use of her
personal email, including "from the territory of sophisticated adversaries," and a July 1, 2012
email to President Obama from Russia. The draft concludes it's possible that hostile actors
gained access to Clinton's email account.
Comey's remarks are revised to replace reference to "the President" with the phrase:
"another senior government official." (That reference, too, is removed from the final
draft.)
Attorney General Lynch tells FBI she plans to publicly announce that
she'll accept whatever recommendation FBI Director Comey makes regarding charges against
Clinton.
July 2016: Ukraine minister of internal affairs Arsen Avakov attacks Trump and Trump
campaign adviser Paul Manafort on Twitter and Facebook, calling Trump "an even bigger danger to
the US than terrorism."
Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk writes on Facebook that Trump has
"challenged the very values of the free world."
Carter Page travels to Russia to give
a university commencement address. (Fusion GPS political opposition research would later quote
Russian sources as saying Page met with Russian officials, which Page denies under oath and is
not proven.)
One-time CIA operative Stefan Halper reportedly begins meetings with Trump advisers Carter
Page and George Papadopoulos, secretly gathering information for the FBI. These contacts begin
"prior to the date FBI Director Comey later claimed the Russian investigation began."
July 1, 2016: Under fire for meeting with former President Clinton amid the probe into his
wife, Attorney General Lynch publicly states she'll " accept
whatever FBI Director Comey recommends" without interfering.
FBI official Lisa Page texts her boyfriend, FBI official Peter Strzok, sarcastically
commenting that Lynch's proclamation is "a real profile in courage, since she knows no charges
will be brought."
Ex-British spy Christopher Steele writes Justice Department official Bruce Ohr that he wants
to discuss "our favourite business tycoon!" (apparently referencing Trump.)
July 2, 2016: FBI official Peter Strzok and other agents interview Clinton. They don't
record the interview. Two potential subjects of the investigation, Cheryl Mills and Heather
Samuelson, are allowed to attend as Clinton's lawyers.
July 5, 2016: FBI Director Comey recommends no charges against Clinton, though he concludes
she's been extremely careless in mishandling of classified information. Comey claims he hasn't
coordinated or reviewed his statement in any way with Attorney General Lynch's Justice
Department or other government branches. "They do not know what I am about to say," says
Comey.
Fusion GPS' Steele, an ex-British spy,
approaches FBI at an office in Rome with allegations against Trump, according to
Congressional investigators. Justice Dept. official Bruce Ohr schedules a Skype conference call
with Steele.
Days after closing Clinton case, FBI official Peter Strzok signs document opening FBI probe
into Trump-Russia collusion.
July 10, 2016: Democratic National Committee (DNC) aide Seth Rich, reportedly a Bernie
Sanders supporter, is shot twice in the back and killed. Police suspect a bungled robbery
attempt, though nothing was apparently stolen. Conspiracy theorists speculate that Rich "not
the Russians" had stolen DNC emails after he learned the DNC was unfairly favoring Clinton. The
murder remains unsolved.
July 2016: Trump adviser Carter Page makes a business trip to Russia.
Obama national security adviser Susan Rice begins to show increased interest in National
Security Agency (NSA) intelligence material including "unmasked Americans" identities,
according to news reports referring to White House logs.
July 18-21, 2016: Republican National Convention
Late July 2016 : FBI agent Peter Strzok opens counterintelligence investigation based on
Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos.
Democratic operative and Ukrainian-American Chalupa leaves the Democratic National Committee
(DNC) to work full-time on her research into Manafort, Trump and Russia; and provides
off-the-record guidance to "a lot of journalists."
July 22, 2016: WikiLeaks begins publishing hacked Democratic National Committee emails.
WikiLeaks' Julian Assange denies the email source is Russian.
July 25-28, 2016 : Democratic National Convention
July 30, 2016 : Justice Dept. official Bruce Ohr meets with ex-British spy Christopher
Steele at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington. Ohr brings his wife, Nellie, who -- like Steele --
works at Fusion GPS on the Trump-Russia oppo research project. Ohr
calls FBI Deputy Director McCabe.
July 31, 2016 : FBI's Peter Strzok formally begins
counterintelligence investigation regarding Russia and Trump. It's dubbed "Crossfire
Hurricane."
Aug. 3, 2016: Ohr reportedly meets with
McCabe and FBI lawyer Lisa Page to discuss Russia-Trump collusion allegations relayed by
ex-British spy Steele. Ohr will later testify to Congress that he considered Steele's
information uncorroborated hearsay and that he told FBI agents Steele appeared motivated by a
"desperate" desire to keep Trump from becoming president.
Aug. 4, 2016: Ukrainian ambassador to U.S.
writes op-ed against Trump.
Aug. 8, 2016: FBI attorney Lisa Page texts her lover, FBI's head of Counterespionage Peter
Strzok,"[Trump is] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!" Strzok replies,"No. No
he won't. We'll stop it."
Aug. 14, 2016: New York Times breaks story about cash payments made a decade ago to Paul
Manafort by pro-Russia interests in Ukraine. The ledger was released and publicized by the
National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine.
Aug. 15, 2016: CNN reports the FBI is conducting an inquiry into Trump campaign chair Paul
Manafort's payments from pro-Russia interests in Ukraine in 2007 and 2009.
After a meeting discussing the election in FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's office, FBI's
Counterespionage Chief Peter Strzok texts FBI attorney Lisa Page referring to the possibility
of Trump getting elected. "We can't take that risk," he writes. And they speak of needing an
"insurance policy."
Aug. 19, 2016: Paul Manafort resigns as Trump campaign chairman.
Ukrainian parliament member Sergii Leshchenko
holds news conference to draw attention to Paul Manafort and Trump's "pro-Russia" ties.
Aug. 22, 2016 : Justice Dept. official Bruce Ohr meets with Fusion GPS' Glenn Simpson who
identifies several "possible intermediaries" between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Late August 2016:
Reportedly working for the FBI, one-time CIA operative Professor Halper meets with Trump
campaign co-chair Sam Clovis offering his services as a foreign-policy adviser, according to
The Washington Post. Halper would later offer to hire Carter Page.
Approx. Aug. 2016: FBI initiates a new
wiretap against ex-Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort, according to CNN, which extends at
least through early 2017.
Sept. 2016: Fusion GPS's Steele becomes FBI source and uses associate deputy attorney
general Bruce Ohr as point of contact. Steele tells Ohr that he's "desperate that Donald Trump
not get elected."
President Obama
warns Russia not to interfere in the U.S. election
Sept. 2, 2016: FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text that "[President Obama] wants
to know everything we're doing."
Sept. 13, 2016 : The nonprofit First Draft, funded by Google, whose parent company is run by
major Hillary Clinton supporter and donor Eric Schmidt, announces initiative to tackle "fake
news." It appears to be the first use of the phrase in its modern context.
Sept. 15, 2016: Clinton computer manager Paul Combetta appears before House Oversight
Committee but refuses to answer questions, invoking his Fifth Amendment rights.
Sept. 19, 2016: At UN General Assembly meeting, Ukrainian President Poroshenko meets with
Hillary Clinton.
Mid-to-late Sept. 2016: Fusion GPS's Christopher Steele's FBI contact tells him the agency
wants to see his opposition research "right away" and offers
to pay him $50,000, according to the New York Times, for solid corroboration of his salacious,
unverified claims. Steele
flies to Rome , Italy to meet with FBI and provide a "full briefing."
Sept. 22, 2016: Clinton computer aide Brian Pagliano is held in contempt of Congress for
refusing to comply with subpoena.
Sept. 23, 2016: It's revealed that Justice Department has granted five Clinton officials
immunity from prosecution: former chief of staff Cheryl Mills, State Department staffers John
Bentel and Heather Samuelson, and Clinton computer workers Paul Combetta and Brian
Pagliano.
Yahoo News publishes
report by Michael Isikoff about Carter Page's July 2016 trip to Moscow. (The article is
apparently based on leaked info from Fusion GPS Steele anti-Trump "dossier" political
opposition research.)
Sept. 25, 2016 : Trump associate Carter Page writes letter
to FBI Comey objecting to the so-called "witch hunt" involving him.
Sept. 26, 2016 : Obama administration asks secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
(FISC) court to allow National Counter Terrorism Center to access sensitive, "unmasked" intel
on Americans acquired by FBI and NSA. (The Court later approves the request.)
FBI head of counterespionage Peter Strzok
emails his mistress FBI attorney Lisa Page that Carter Page's letter (dated the day before)
"...provides us a pretext to interview."
Sept. 27, 2016: Justice Department Assistant Attorney General of National Security Division
John Carlin announces he's stepping down. He was former chief of staff and senior counsel to
former FBI director Robert Mueller.
End of Sept. 2016: Fusion GPS' Glenn Simpson and Christopher Steele
meet with reporters, including New York Times, Washington Post, Yahoo News, the New Yorker
and CNN or ABC. One meeting is at office of Democratic National Committee general counsel.
Early October 2016: Fusion GPS' Christopher Steele, the Yemen-born author of anti-Trump
"dossier," meets in New
York with David Corn, Washington-bureau chief of Mother Jones.
According to
The Guardian, the FBI submits a more narrowly focused FISA wiretap request to replace one
turned down in June to monitor four Trump associates.
Oct. 3, 2016: FBI seizes computers belonging to Anthony Weiner, who is accused of sexually
texting an underage girl. Weiner is married to top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin. FBI learns
there are Clinton emails on Weiner's laptop but waits several weeks before
notifying Congress and reopening investigation.
Oct. 4, 2016: FBI Director Comey
replaces head of Counterintelligence Division, New York Field Office with Charles
McGonigal.
Oct. 7, 2016: Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Department of Homeland
Security issue statement saying Russian government is responsible for hacking Democrat emails
to disrupt 2016 election.
Oct. 13, 2016: President Obama gives a speech in support of the crackdown on "fake news" by
stating that somebody needs to step in and "curate" information in the "wild, wild West media
environment."
Oct. 14, 2016: FBI head of counterespionage Peter Strzok
emails his mistress FBI attorney Lisa Page discussing talking points to convince FBI Deputy
Director Andrew McCabe to persuade a high-ranking Dept. of Justice official to sign a warrant
to wiretap Trump associate Carter Page. The email subject line is "Crossfire FISA." "Crossfire
Hurricane" was one of the code names for four separate investigations the FBI conducted related
to Russia matters in the 2016 election.
"At a minimum, that keeps the hurry the F up pressure on him," Strzok emailed Lisa Page less
than four weeks before Election Day.
Mid-Oct. 2016: Fusion GPS' Steele again
briefs reporters about Trump political opposition research. The reporters are from the New
York Times, the Washington Post, and Yahoo News.
Oct. 16, 2016: Mary McCord is named Assistant Attorney General for Justice Department
National Security Division.
Oct. 18, 2016: President Obama
advises Trump to "stop whining" after Trump tweeted the election could be rigged. "There is
no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even you could even rig
America's elections," said Obama. He also calls Trump's "flattery" of Russian president Putin
"unprecedented."
In FBI emails, head of counterespionage Peter Strzok and his mistress FBI lawyer Lisa Page
discuss rushing approval for a FISA warrant for a Russia-related investigation code-named
"Dragon."
Oct. 19, 2016: Ex-British spy Christopher Steele writes his last memo for anti-Trump
"dossier" political opposition research provided to FBI. The FBI reportedly authorizes payment
to Steele. Fusion GPS has reportedly paid him $160,000.
Approx. Oct. 21, 2016: For the second time in several months, Justice Department and FBI
apply to wiretap former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. FBI Director James Comey and Deputy
Attorney General Sally Yates sign the application. This time, the request is approved based on
new FBI "evidence" including parts of Fusion GPS' "Steele dossier" and Michael Isikoff Yahoo
article. The FBI
doesn't tell the court that Trump's political opponent, the Clinton campaign and the
Democratic National Committee, funded the "evidence."
Oct. 24, 2016: Benjamin Wittes, confidant of FBI Director James Comey and editor-in-chief of
the blog Lawfare, writes
of the need for an "insurance policy" in case Trump wins. It's the same phrase FBI officials
Lisa Page and Peter Strzok had used when discussing the possibility of a Trump win.
Obama intel officials orally inform Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of an earlier
Inspector General review uncovering their "significant noncompliance" in following proper "702"
procedures safeguarding the National Security Agency (NSA) intelligence database with sensitive
info on US citizens.
Late Oct. 2016: Fusion GPS' Steele again
briefs reporter from Mother Jones by Skype about Trump political opposition research.
Oct. 26, 2016: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court holds hearing with Obama intel
officials over their "702" surveillance violations. The judge criticizes
NSA for "institutional lack of candor" and states "this is a very serious Fourth Amendment
issue."
Oct. 28, 2016: FBI Director Comey notifies Congress that he's reopening Clinton probe due to
Clinton emails found on Anthony Wiener laptop several weeks earlier.
Oct. 30, 2016: Mother Jones writer David Corn is first to report on the anti-Trump
"dossier," quoting unidentified former spy, presumed to be Christopher Steele. FBI general
counsel James Baker had reportedly been in touch with Corn but Corn later denies Baker was the
leaker.
FBI terminates its relationship with Steele because Steele had
leaked his FBI involvement in Mother Jones article.
Steele reportedly maintains backchannel contact with Justice Dept. through Deputy Associate
Attorney General Bruce Ohr.
Oct. 31, 2016: New York Times
reports FBI is investigating Trump and found no illicit connections to Russia.
Nov. 1, 2016: FBI concludes ex-British spy Christopher Steele, who compiled anti-Trump
"dossier" using Russian sources, leaked to press and is not suitable for use as a confidential
source. However, Steele continues to "help," according to Jan. 31, 2017 texts to Justice Dept.
official Bruce Ohr.
Nov. 3, 2016: FBI Attorney Lisa Page texts FBI's Peter Strzok about her concerns that
Clinton might lose and Trump would become president: "The [New York Times] probability numbers
are dropping every day. I'm scared for our organization."
Nov. 6, 2016: FBI Director Comey tells Congress that Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner
computer do not change earlier conclusion: she should not be charged.
Nov. 8, 2016: Trump is elected president.
Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice's interest in NSA materials accelerates,
according to later news reports.
Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr
meets with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson shortly after election.
The FBI interviews Ohr about his ongoing contacts with Fusion GPS.
Nov. 9, 2016: An unnamed FBI attorney (later quoted in Dept. of Justice Inspector General
probe) texts another FBI employee, "I'm just devastated...I just can't imagine the systematic
disassembly of the progress we made over the last 8 years. ACA is gone. Who knows if the
rhetoric about deporting people, walls, and crap is true. I honestly feel like there is going
to be a lot more gun issues, too, the crazies won finally. This is the tea party on steroids.
And the GOP is going to be lost, they have to deal with an incumbent in 4 years. We have to
fight this again. Also Pence is stupid....Plus, my god damned name is all over the legal
documents investigating [Trump's] staff."
Nov. 10, 2016 : Emails
imply top FBI officials, including Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe and Bill Priestap engaged in
a new mission to "scrub" or research lists of associates of President-elect Trump, looking for
potential "derogatory" information.
President Obama
meets with President-elect Trump in the White House and reportedly advises Trump not to
hire Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
Nov. 2016: National Security Agency Mike Rogers
meets with president-elect Trump and is criticized for "not telling the Obama
administration."
Nov. 17, 2016: Trump
moves his Friday presidential team meetings out of Trump Tower.
Nov. 18, 2016: Trump names Flynn his national security adviser. Over the next few weeks,
Flynn communicates with numerous international leaders.
Nov. 18-20, 2016: Sen. John McCain and his longtime adviser, David Kramer--an ex-U.S. State
Dept. official--attend a security conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia where former UK ambassador
to Russia Sir Andrew Wood
tells them about the Fusion GPS anti-Trump dossier. (Kramer is affiliated with the anti-Russia "Ukraine
Today" media organization). They discuss confirming the info has reached top levels of FBI for
action.
Nov. 21, 2016 : Justice Dept. official Bruce Ohr, works for Deputy Attorney General Sally
Yates, meets with FBI officials including Peter Strzok, Strzok's girlfriend--FBI attorney Lisa
Page, and another agent. Ohr's notes indicate the FBI "may go back to [ex-British spy] Chris
Steele" of Fusion GPS just 20 days after dismissing him.
Nov. 28, 2016: Sen. McCain associate David Kramer flies to London to meet Christopher Steele
for a briefing on the anti-Trump research. Afterward, Fusion GPS' Glenn Simpson gives Sen.
McCain a copy of the "dossier." Steele also
passes anti-Trump info to top UK government official in charge of national security. Sen.
McCain soon arranges a meeting with FBI Director Comey.
Late Nov. 2016: Justice Dept. official Bruce Ohr officially tells
FBI about his contacts with Fusion GPS' Christopher Steele and about Ohr's wife's contract work
for Fusion GPS.
Nov. 30, 2016 : UN Ambassador Samantha Power makes request to unmask the name of Trump
National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who was "incidentally" captured by intel
surveillance.
Dec. 2016: Text messages between FBI officials Strzok and Page are later said to be "lost"
due to a technical glitch beginning at this point.
Dec. 2, 2016: UN Ambassador Samantha Power and Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper request to unmask the name of Trump National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn,
who was "incidentally" captured by intel surveillance.
Dec. 6, 2016: Two more Obama administration officials request to unmask the name of
Flynn.
Dec. 7, 2016 : Power makes another Flynn unmasking request.
Dec. 8 or 9, 2016: Sen. John McCain
meets with FBI Director Comey at FBI headquarters and
hands over Fusion GPS anti-Trump research, elevating the FBI's investigation into the
matter. The FBI compiles a classified two-page summary and attaches it to intel briefing note
on Russian cyber-interference in election for
President Obama .
Hillary Clinton makes a public appearance denouncing "fake news."
Hillary Clinton and Democratic operative David Brock of Media Matters announces he's leaving
board of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), one of his many
propaganda and liberal advocacy groups, to focus on "fake news" effort.
Brock later claims credit, privately to donors, for convincing Facebook to crack down on
conservative fake news.
Dec. 14, 2017 : There are
10 more requests to unmask Flynn's name in intelligence, including two by Power, CIA
Director Brennan, and six officials from the Treasury Dept.
Dec. 15, 2016: Obama intel officials "incidentally" spy on Trump officials meeting with the
United Arab Emirates crown prince in Trump Tower. This is taken to mean the government was
wiretapping the prince and "happened to capture" Trump officials communicating with him at
Trump Tower. Identities of Americans accidentally captured in such surveillance are strictly
protected or "masked" inside intel agencies for constitutional privacy reasons.
Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice
secretly "unmasks" names of the Trump officials, officially revealing their identities.
They reportedly include: Steve Bannon, Jared Kushner and Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
Director of National Intelligence Clapper expands rules to allow the National Security
Agency (NSA) to widely disseminate classified surveillance material within the government. The
same day,
17 Obama officials request the unmasking of Lt. Gen. Flynn in intelligence.
Dec. 16, 2016 : Five more Obama officials request unmasking of intelligence materials
regarding Lt. Gen. Flynn.
Dec. 23, 2016 : Power request another Flynn unmasking.
Dec. 28, 2016 :
Lt. Gen. Flynn speaks with Russia ambassador.
Clapper and the U.S. Ambassador to Turkey request Flynn unmasking.
Dec. 29, 2016: President Obama imposes sanctions against Russia for its alleged election
interference.
President-elect Trump national security adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn
speaks with Russian Ambassador to U.S. Sergey Kislyak. The calls are wiretapped by U.S.
intelligence and later leaked to the
press.
State Department
releases 2,800 work-related emails from Huma Abedin, a top aide to Hillary Clinton, found
by FBI on laptop computer of Abedin's husband, former Rep. Anthony Weiner.
2017
Jan. 2017: According to CNN: a
wiretap reportedly continues against former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort, including
times he speaks to Trump, meaning U.S. intel officials could have "accidentally" captured
Trump's communications.
Justice Dept. Inspector General confirms it's investigating several aspects of FBI and
Justice Department actions during Clinton probe.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testifies to Congress that Russia interfered
in U.S. elections by spreading fake news on social media.
Justice Dept. official Peter Kadzik, who "tipped off" Hillary Clinton campaign regarding
Congressional questions about Clinton's email, leaves government work for private practice.
The FBI interviews a main source of Christopher Steele's "dossier" and learns the
information was merely bar room gossip and rumor never meant to be taken as fact or submitted
to the FBI and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to wiretap Carter Page. (The FBI
does not notify the court and applies for, and receives, another wiretap against Page).
Early Jan. 2017: FBI renews
wiretap against Carter Page. FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates
again sign the application.
Jan. 3, 2017: Obama Attorney General Lynch signs rules Director of National Intelligence
Clapper expanded Dec. 15 allowing the National Security Agency (NSA) to widely disseminate
surveillance within the government.
Jan. 5, 2017: Intelligence Community leadership including FBI Director Comey, Yates, CIA
Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, provides classified
briefing to President Obama, Vice President Biden and National Security Adviser Susan Rice on
alleged Russia hacking during 2016 campaign, according to notes later written by national
security adviser Susan Rice.
After briefing, according notes made later by Rice, President Obama convenes Oval Office
meeting with her, FBI Director Comey, Vice President Biden and Deputy Attorney General Sally
Yates. The "Steele dossier" is reportedly discussed. Also reportedly discussed: Trump National
Security Adviser Flynn's talks with Russia's ambassador.
Jan. 6, 2017: FBI Director Comey and other Intel leaders meet with President-Elect Trump and
his national security team at Trump Tower in New York to brief them on alleged Russian efforts
to interfere in the election.
Later, Obama national security adviser Susan Rice would write herself an email stating that
President Obama suggested they hold back on providing Trump officials with certain info for
national security reasons.
After Trump team briefing, FBI Director Comey meets alone with Trump to "brief him" on
Fusion GPS Steele allegations "to alert the incoming President to the existence of this
material," even though it was salacious and unverified. Comey later says Director of National
Intelligence Clapper asked him (Comey) to do the briefing personally.
Jan. 7, 2017 : Clapper and two other Obama administration officials request Flynn
unmasking.
Jan. 10, 2017: The 35-page Fusion GPS anti-Trump "dossier" is leaked to the media and
published. It reveals that sources of the unverified info are Russians close to President
Putin.
Email written by FBI head of counterespionage Peter Strzok
indicates the FBI has been given the anti-Trump "dossier" by at least 3 different
anti-Trump sources.
A CIA official makes a Flynn unmasking request.
Jan. 11, 2017 : Power makes another Flynn unmasking request.
Jan. 12, 2017: Obama administration finalizes new rules allowing NSA to spread "certain
intel to" other U.S. intel agencies without normal privacy protections.
Justice Dept. inspector general announces review of alleged misconduct by FBI Director Comey
and other matters related to FBI's Clinton probe as well as FBI leaks.
Vice President Joe Biden and the Treasury Secretary request the unmasking of Flynn in
intelligence communications.
Someone leaks to to David Ignatius of the Washington Post that Trump National Security
Adviser Flynn had called Russia's ambassador. "What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the US
sanctions?" asked Ignatius in the article.
Jan. 13, 2017: Senate Intelligence Committee
opens investigation into Russia and U.S. political campaign officials.
Jan. 15, 2017: After leaks about Flynn's call with Russia's ambassador, Vice President-elect
Mike Pence tells the press that Flynn did not discuss U.S. sanctions on the call.
Jan. 20, 2017: Trump becomes president.
Fifteen minutes after Trump becomes president, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice
emails memo to herself purporting to summarize the Jan. 5 Oval Office meeting with President
Obama and other top officials. She states that Obama instructed the group to investigate "by
the book" and asked them to be mindful whether there were certain things that "could not be
fully shared with the incoming administration."
Jan. 22, 2017: Intel info leaks to Wall Street Journal which reports
"US counterintelligence agents have investigated communications" between Trump aide Gen.
Michael Flynn and Russia ambassador to the U.S. Kislyak to determine if any laws were
violated.
Jan. 23, 2017: Leak to Washington Post falsely claims Trump National Security Adviser Flynn
is not the subject of an investigation.
Jan. 24, 2017: Acting Attorney General Sally Yates sends two FBI agents, including Peter
Strzok, to the White House to question Gen. Flynn. FBI Director Comey later takes credit for
"sending a couple of guys" to interview Flynn, circumventing normal processes.
Notes kept
hidden until May 2020 show FBI officials discussing whether the goal of the meeting with Flynn
was to "get him to lie" so that he would be fired or prosecuted.
Jan. 26, 2017: Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and a high-ranking colleague go to White
House to tell counsel Don McGahn that Flynn had lied to Pence about the content of his talks
with Russian ambassador and "the underlying conduct that Gen. Flynn had engaged in was
problematic in and of itself."
Jan. 27, 2017: Acting Attorney General Sally Yates again visits the White House.
Jan. 31, 2017: President Trump fires Acting Attorney General Sally Yates after she refuses
to enforce his temporary travel ban on Muslims coming into U.S. from certain countries.
Ex-British spy Christopher Steele texts Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr who worked for
Yates: "B, doubtless a sad and crazy day for you re- SY."
Dana Boente becomes Acting Attorney General. (It's later revealed that Boente signed at
least one wiretap application against former Trump adviser Carter Page.)
Feb. 2, 2017: It's reported
that five men employed by House of Representatives Democrats, including leader Debbie Wasserman
Schultz (D-Florida), are under criminal investigation for allegedly "accessing House IT systems
without lawmakers' knowledge." Suspects include three Awan brothers "who managed office
information technology for members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and
other lawmakers."
Feb. 3, 2017: A Russian tech mogul named in the Steele "dossier" files defamation lawsuits
against BuzzFeed in the U.S. and Christopher Steele in the U.K. over the dossier's claims he
interfered in U.S. elections.
Feb. 8, 2017: Jeff Sessions becomes Attorney General and Dana Boente moves to Deputy
Attorney General.
Feb. 9, 2017: News of FBI wiretaps capturing Trump national security adviser Lt. Gen.
Michael Flynn speaking with Russia's ambassador is leaked to the press. New York Times and
Washington Post report Flynn discussed U.S. sanctions, despite his earlier denials. The Post
also reports the FBI "found nothing illicit" in the talks. The Post headline in an article by
Greg Miller, Adam Entous and Ellen Nakashima reads, "National Security Adviser Flynn Discussed
Sanctions with Russian Ambassador, Despite Denials, Officials Say."
Feb. 13, 2017 : Washington Post
reports Justice Dept. has opened a "Logan Act" violation investigation against Trump
national security adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
Feb. 14, 2017: New York Times reports
that FBI had told Obama officials there was no "quid pro quo" (promise of a deal in exchange
for some action) discussed between Gen. Flynn and Russian ambassador Kislyak.
Gen. Flynn resigns, allegedly acknowledging he misled vice president Mike Pence about the
content of his discussions with Russia.
Comey says that, in a meeting, Trump states, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting
this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." Comey says he
replies "he is a good guy." Trump later takes issue with Comey's characterization of the
meeting.
Feb. 15, 2017 : NPR
reports on "official transcripts of Flynn's calls" (saying they show no wrongdoing but that
doesn't rule out illegal activity).
Feb. 17, 2017: Washington Post reports that "Flynn told FBI he did not discuss sanctions"
with Russia ambassador and that "Lying to the FBI is a felony offense."
Feb. 24, 2017 : FBI interviews Flynn, according to later testimony from Deputy Attorney
General Sally Yates.
March 1, 2017: Washington Post reports Attorney General Jeff Sessions has met with Russian
ambassador twice in the recent past (as did many Democrat and Republican officials). His
critics say that contradicts his earlier testimony to Congress. The article by Adam Entous,
Ellen Nakashima and Greg Miller raises the idea of a special counsel to investigate.
March 2017: FBI Director James Comey
gives private briefings to members of Congress and reportedly says he does not believe Gen.
Flynn lied to FBI.
House Intelligence Committee requests list of unmasking requests Obama officials made. The
intel agencies do not provide the information, prompting a June 1 subpoena.
March 2, 2017: Attorney General Jeff Sessions recuses himself from Russia-linked
investigations.
Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General, becomes Acting Attorney General for Russia
Probe. It's later revealed that Rosenstein singed at least one wiretap application against
former Trump adviser Carter Page.
March 4, 2017: President Trump tweets: "Is it legal for a sitting President to be 'wire
tapping' a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!"
and "How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election
process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!"
March 10, 2017: Former Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat, steps forward to support
Trump's wiretapping claim, revealing that the Obama administration intel officials recorded his
own communications with a Libyan official in Spring 2011.
March 14, 2017 : FBI Attorney Lisa Page texts FBI official Peter Strzok: "Finally two pages
away from finishing [All the President's Men]. Did you know the president resigns in the end?!"
Strzok replies, "What?!?! God, that we should be so lucky. [smiley face emoji]"
March 20, 2017 : FBI Director Comey tells House Intelligence Committee he has "no
information that supports" the President's tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by
the prior administration. "We have looked carefully inside the FBI," Comey says. "(T)he answer
is the same for the Department of Justice and all its components."
FBI Director Comey tells Congress there is "salacious and unverified" material in the Fusion
GPS dossier used by FBI, in part, to obtain Carter Page wiretap. (Under FBI "Woods Procedures,"
only facts carefully verified by the FBI are allowed to be presented to court to obtain
wiretaps.)
March 22, 2017: Chairman of House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) publicly
announces he's seen evidence of Trump associates being "incidentally" surveilled by Obama intel
officials; and their names being "unmasked" and illegally leaked. Nunes briefs President Trump
and holds a news conference. He's criticized for doing so. An ethics investigation is opened
into his actions but later clears him of wrongdoing.
In an interview on PBS, former Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice responds to Nunes
allegations by stating: "I know nothing about this, I really don't know to what Chairman Nunes
was referring." (She later acknowledges unmasking names of Trump associates.)
March 2017: Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) writes Justice Dept. accusing Fusion GPS of
acting as an agent for Russia "without properly registering" due to its pro-Russia effort to
kill a law allowing sanctions against foreign human rights violators. Fusion GPS denies the
allegations.
March 24, 2017: Fusion GPS declines to answer Sen. Grassley's questions or document
requests.
March 27, 2017: Former Deputy Asst. Secretary of Defense Evelyn Farkas admits she encouraged
Obama and Congressional officials to "get as much information as they can" about Russia and
Trump officials before inauguration. "That's why you have the leaking," she told MSNBC.
Early April, 2017: A third FBI wiretap on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page is
approved.
Again, FBI Director James Comey, and acting attorney general Dana Boente sign the application.
Trump officials including Mike Pompeo at the CIA are now leading the intel agencies during the
wiretap.
April 3, 2017: Multiple news reports state that Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice
had requested and reviewed "unmasked" intelligence on Trump associates whose information was
"incidentally" collected by intel agencies.
April 4, 2017: Obama former National Security Adviser Rice admits, in an interview, that she
asked to reveal names of U.S. citizens previously masked in intel reports. She says her
motivations were not political. When asked if she leaked names, Rice states, "I leaked nothing
to nobody."
April 6, 2017: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes recuses himself from Russia
part of his committee's investigation.
April 11, 2017: FBI Director Comey
appoints Stephen Laycock as special agent in charge of Counterintelligence Division for
Washington Field Office.
Washington Post reports FBI secretly obtained wiretap against Trump campaign associate
Carter Page last summer. (Later, it's revealed the summer wiretap had been turned down, but a
subsequent application was approved in October.)
April 20, 2017: Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary McCord resigns as acting head of
Justice Dept. National Security Division. She'd led probes of Russia interference in election
and Trump-Russia ties.
April 28, 2017: Dana Boente is appointed acting assistant attorney general for national
security division to replace Mary McCord. (Boente has signed one of the questioned wiretap
applications for Carter Page.)
National Security Agency (NSA) submits remedies for its egregious surveillance violations
(revealed last October) to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court promising to "no longer
collect certain internet communications that merely mention a foreign intelligence target." The
NSA also begins deleting collected data on U.S. citizens it had been storing.
May 3, 2017: FBI Director Comey
testifies he's "mildly nauseous" at the idea he might have affected election with the 11th
hour Clinton email notifications to Congress.
Comey also testifies
he's "never" been an anonymous news source on "matters relating to" investigating the Trump
campaign.
Obama's former national security adviser Susan Rice declines Republican Congressional
request to testify at a hearing about unmaskings and surveillance.
May 8, 2017: Former acting Attorney General Sally Yates and former Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper testify to Congress. They
admit having reviewed "classified documents in which Mr. Trump, his associates or members
of Congress had been unmasked," and possibly discussing it with others under the Obama
administration.
May 9, 2017: President Trump fires FBI Director James Comey. Andrew McCabe becomes acting
FBI Director.
May 12, 2017: Benjamin Wittes, confidant of ex-FBI Director James Comey and editor in chief
of Lawfare, contacts New York Times reporter Mike Schmidt to
leak conversations he'd had with Comey as FBI Director that are critical of President
Trump.
May 16, 2017: New York Times
publishes leaked account of FBI memoranda recorded by former FBI Director James Comey.
Comey later acknowledges engineering the leak of the FBI material through his friend, Columbia
Law School professor Daniel Richman, to spur appointment of special counsel to investigate
President Trump.
Trump reportedly
interviews , but passes over, former FBI Director Robert Mueller for position of FBI
Director.
May 17, 2017: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appoints Robert Mueller as Special
Counsel, Russia-Trump probe. Mueller and former FBI Director Comey are friends and worked
closely together in previous Justice Dept. and FBI positions.
The gap of missing text messages between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page ends. The
couple is soon assigned to the Mueller team investigating Trump.
May 19, 2017: Anthony Wiener, former Congressman and husband of Hillary Clinton confidant
Huma Abedin, turns himself in to FBI in case of underage sexting ; his third major
kerfuffle over sexting in six years.
May 22, 2017 : FBI Counterespionage Chief Peter Strzok texts FBI Attorney Lisa Page about
whether Strzok should join Special Counsel Mueller's investigation of Trump-Russia collusion.
Strzok spoke of "unfinished business" that he "unleashed" with the Clinton classified email
probe and stated: "Now I need to fix it and finish it." He also referred to the Special Counsel
probe, which hadn't yet begun in earnest, as an "investigation leading to impeachment." But he
also stated he had a "gut sense and concern there's no big there there."
June 1, 2017: House Intelligence Committee issues 7 subpoenas, including for information
related to unmaskings requested by ex-Obama officials national security adviser Susan Rice,
former CIA Director John Brennan, and former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power.
June 8, 2017: Former FBI Director James Comey admits having engineered
leak of his own memo to New York Times to spur appointment of a special counsel to
investigate President Trump.
June 20, 2017: Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe names Philip Celestini as Special Agent in
Charge of the Intelligence Division, Washington Field Office.
Late June, 2017: FBI renews
wiretap against Carter Page for the fourth and final time that we know of. It lasts through
late Sept. 2017. (Page is never ultimately charged with a crime.) FBI Deputy Director Andrew
McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein sign the renewal application.
Late July, 2017: FBI reportedly searches Paul Manafort's Alexandria, Virginia home.
Summer 2017: FBI lawyer Lisa Page is reassigned from Mueller investigation. Her boyfriend,
FBI official Peter Strzok is removed from Mueller investigation after the Inspector General
discovers compromising texts between Strzok and Page. Congress is not notified of the
developments.
Aug. 2, 2017: Christopher Wray is named FBI Director.
August 2017: Ex-FBI Director Comey signs a book deal for a reported $2 million.
Sept. 13, 2017: Under questioning from Congress, Obama's former National Security Adviser
Susan Rice reportedly admits having requested to see the protected identities of Trump
transition officials "incidentally" captured by government surveillance.
Approx. Oct. 10, 2017: Former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos
pleads guilty to lying to FBI about his unsuccessful efforts during the campaign to
facilitate meetings between Trump officials and Russian officials.
Oct. 17, 2017: Obama's former U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power reportedly tells Congressional
investigators that many of the hundreds of "unmasking" requests in her name during the election
year were not made by her.
Oct. 24, 2017: Congressional Republicans announce new investigations into a 2010
acquisition that gave Russia control of 20% of U.S. uranium supply while Clinton was secretary
of state; and FBI decision not to charge Clinton in classified info probe.
Oct. 30, 2017: Special Counsel Mueller
charges ex-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and business associate Rick Gates with tax
and money laundering crimes related to their foreign work. The charges do not appear related to
Trump.
Nov. 2, 2017: Carter Page
testifies to House Intelligence committee under oath without an attorney and asks to have
the testimony published. He denies ever meeting the Russian official that Fusion GPS claimed
he'd met with in July 2016.
Nov. 5, 2017: Special Counsel Robert Mueller
files charges against ex-Trump national security adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for
allegedly lying to FBI official Peter Strzok about contacts with Russian ambassador during
presidential transition.
Dec. 1, 2017: Former national security adviser Gen. Flynn pleads guilty of
lying to the FBI. Prosecutors recommend no prison time (but later reverse their
recommendation).
James Rybicki steps down as chief of staff to FBI Director.
Dec. 6, 2017: Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr is reportedly stripped of one of
his positions at Justice Dept. amid controversy over his and his wife's role in anti-Trump
political opposition research.
Dec. 7, 2017: FBI Director Wray incorrectly testifies that there have been no "702"
surveillance abuses by the government.
Dec. 19, 2017: FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe repeatedly testifies that the wiretap
against Trump campaign official Carter Page would not have been approved without the Fusion GPS
info. FBI general counsel James Baker, who is himself subject of an Inspector General probe
over his alleged leaks to the press, attends as McCabe's attorney. McCabe acknowledges that if
Baker had met with Mother Jones reporter David Corn, it would have been inappropriate.
FBI general counsel James Baker is
reassigned amid investigation into his alleged anti-Trump related contacts with
media.
2018
Jan. 4, 2018: Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
refer criminal
charges against Christopher Steele to the FBI for investigation. There's an apparent
conflict of interest with the FBI being asked to investigate Steele since the FBI has used
Steele's controversial political opposition research to obtain wiretaps.
Jan. 8, 2018: Justice Dept. official Bruce Ohr loses his second title at the agency.
Jan. 10, 2018: Donald Trump lawyer Michael Cohen files defamation
suits against Fusion GPS and BuzzFeed News for publishing the "Steele dossier," which he says
falsely
claimed he met Russian government officials in Prague, Czech Republic, in August of
2016.
Jan. 11, 2018: House of Representatives approves government's
controversial "702" wireless surveillance authority. The Senate follows suit.
Jan. 19, 2018: Justice Dept. produces to Congress some text messages between FBI officials
Lisa Page and Peter Strzok but states that FBI lost texts between December 14, 2016 and May 17,
2017 due to a technical glitch.
President Trump signs six-year extension of "702" wireless surveillance authority.
Jan. 23, 2018: Former FBI Director Comey friend who leaked on behalf of Comey to New York
Times to spur appointment of special counsel is now Comey's attorney.
Jan. 25, 2018: Justice Dept. Inspector General notifies Congress it has recovered missing
text messages between FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok.
Jan. 27, 2018: Edward O'Callaghan is
named Acting Assistant Attorney General, National Security Division.
Jan. 29, 2018: Andrew McCabe steps down as Deputy
FBI Director
ahead of his March retirement.
Jan. 30, 2018: News reports
allege that Justice Department Inspector General is looking into why FBI Deputy Director
Andrew McCabe appeared to wait three weeks before acting on new Clinton emails found right
before the election.
Feb. 2, 2018: House Intelligence Committee (Nunes) Republican memo is released. It
summarizes classified documents revealing for the first time that Fusion GPS political
opposition research was used, in part, to justify Carter Page wiretap; along with Michael
Isikoff Yahoo News article based on the same opposition research.
Memo also states that Fusion GPS set up back channel to FBI through Nellie Ohr, who
conducted opposition research on Trump and passed it to her husband, associate deputy attorney
general Bruce Ohr.
Feb. 7, 2018: Justice Department official David Laufman, who helped oversee the Clinton and
Russia probes, steps down as chief of National Security Division's Counterintelligence and
Export Control Section.
Feb. 9, 2018: Former FBI Director Comey assistant Josh Campbell leaves FBI for job at
CNN.
Justice Department Associate Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, Rachel Brand,
resigns.
Feb. 16, 2018: Special counsel Mueller obtains guilty plea from a Dutch attorney for
lying to federal investigators about the last time he spoke to Rick Gates regarding a 2012
project related to Ukraine. The
plea does not appear to relate to 2016 campaign or Trump. The Dutch attorney is married to
the daughter of a Russian oligarch who's suing Buzzfeed and Christopher Steele for alleged
defamation in the "dossier."
Feb. 22, 2018: Former State Dept. official and Sen. John McCain associate David Kramer
invokes his Fifth Amendment right not to testify before House Intelligence Committee. Kramer
reportedly picked up the anti-Trump political opposition research in London and delivered it to
Sen. McCain who delivered it to the FBI.
Special counsel Mueller
files new charges against former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and former campaign
aide Rick Gates, accusing them of additional tax and bank fraud crimes. The allegations appear
to be unrelated to Trump.
Fri. Feb. 23, 2018: Former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates,
pleads guilty to conspiracy and lying to investigators (though he issues a statement saying
he's innocent of the indictment charges). The allegations and plea have no apparent link to
Trump-Russia campaign collusion.
Sat. Feb. 24, 2018: Democrats on House Intel Committee release
their rebuttal memo to the Republican version that summarized alleged FBI misconduct re: using
the GPS Fusion opposition research to get wiretap against Carter Page.
March 12, 2018 : House Intelligence Committee
closes Russia-Trump investigation with no evidence of collusion.
Fri. March 16, 2018 : Attorney General Jeff Sessions fires Deputy FBI
Director Andrew McCabe, based on recommendation from FBI ethics investigators.
Thurs. March 22, 2018 : President Trump announces plans to replace
National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster with former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John
Bolton.
House Judiciary Committee issues
subpoenas to Department of Justice after Department failed to produce documents.
May 4, 2018 : Amid allegations that he was responsible for improper leaks, FBI attorney
James Baker resigns and joins the Brookings Institution, writing for the anti-Trump blog
"Lawfare" that first discussed the need for an "insurance policy" in case Trump got
elected.
2019
March 2019 : Special Counsel Robert Mueller signs off on his final report stating
that there was no collusion or coordination between Trump -- or any American -- and Russia. He
leaves as an open question the issue of whether Trump took any actions that could be considered
obstruction. No new charges are recommended or filed with the issuance of the report.
June 2019 : Former Trump National Security Adviser Flynn fire his defense attorneys and
hires Sidney Powell.
Oct. 25, 2019 : Flynn files a motion to dismiss the case against him due to prosecutorial
misconduct. Among other claims, Flynn says prosecutors failed to turn over exculpatory material
tending to show his innocence. Prosecutors claim they were not required to turn over the
information.
Dec. 19, 2019 : An investigation by Inspector General
Michael Horowitz finds egregious abuses by FBI and Justice Department officials in obtaining
wiretaps of former Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page. The report also says an FBI attorney
doctored a document, providing false information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court, to get the wiretaps.
2020
Jan. 7, 2020 : Prosecutors reverse their earlier recommendation for no prison time, and ask
for up to six months in prison for Flynn.
Jan. 16, 2020 : Flynn files a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
Jan. 23, 2020 : The Dept. of Justice
finds that two of its wiretaps against former Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page were
improperly obtained and are therefore invalid.
Feb. 10, 2020: The Dept. of Justice asks a judge to sentence Trump associate Roger Stone to
7 to 9 years in prison for lying about his communications with WikiLeaks.
Feb. 11, 2020 : The Dept. of Justice reduces its recommendation for prison time for Stone
after President Trump and others criticized the initial representation as excessive. Stone
receives three years and four months in prison.
Feb. 20, 2020: President Trump
appoints Richard Grenell as acting Director of National Intelligence. Grenell begins
facilitating the release of long withheld documents regarding FBI actions against Trump
campaign associates.
March 31, 2020 : A Justice Dept. Inspector General's
analysis of more than two dozen wiretap applications from eight FBI field offices over two
months finds "we do not have confidence" that the bureau followed standards to ensure the
accuracy of the wiretap requests.
April 3, 2020 : Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court asks FBI to review whether it
wiretaps are valid in light of information about problems and abuses.
April 29, 2020 : Newly-released documents show FBI officials, prior to
their original interview with Flynn, discussing whether the goal was to try to get him to lie
to get him fired or so that he could be prosecuted.
May 7, 2020 : The Department of Justice announces a decision to drop the case against
Flynn.
al-Beeb s'Allah live news feed on their website Summary: Russia now has the third-highest
number of confirmed cases in the world, overtaking UK and Italy .
Three pages further on the live feed you can read:* Russia has confirmed 2,009 deaths
in total. You have to go to page four for the actual story @13:07 that links to the
summary to actual story details (there are no links in the summary at all!) to read taking
the total death toll to 2,009, which is far lower than the numbers reported in many other
countries. (my emphasis) *** So well below the UK's own tally of 32,000 heroic
deaths. That's good to know.
As others have pointed out, Russia has carried out the highest number of tests in u-Rope,
now greater than 4.5 million, which is only behind the US globally
Thank God there is the BBC to put things in to proper perspective in such a professional
way / sarc.
CrowdStrike, the private cyber-security firm that first accused Russia of hacking Democratic
Party emails and served as a critical source for U.S. intelligence officials in the years-long
Trump-Russia probe, acknowledged to Congress more than two years ago that it had no concrete
evidence that Russian hackers stole emails from the Democratic National Committee's server.
Crowdstrike President Shawn Henry: "We just don't have the evidence..."
CrowdStrike President Shawn Henry's admission under oath, in a recently declassified
December 2017 interview before the House Intelligence Committee, raises new questions about
whether Special Counsel Robert Mueller, intelligence officials and Democrats misled the public.
The allegation that Russia stole Democratic Party emails from Hillary Clinton, John Podesta and
others and then passed them to WikiLeaks helped trigger the FBI's probe into now debunked
claims of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to steal the 2016 election. The
CrowdStrike admissions were released just two months after the Justice Department retreated
from its its other central claim that Russia meddled in the 2016 election when it dropped
charges against Russian troll farms it said had been trying to get Trump elected.
Henry personally led the remediation and forensics analysis of the DNC server after being
warned of a breach in late April 2016; his work was paid for by the DNC, which refused to turn
over its server to the FBI. Asked for the date when alleged Russian hackers stole data from the
DNC server, Henry testified that CrowdStrike did not in fact know if such a theft occurred at
all: "We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated [moved electronically]
from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated," Henry said.
Henry reiterated his claim on multiple occasions:
"There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in
this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence
that says it actually left."
"There's not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial
evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated."
" There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network... We
didn't have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data left based on the
circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made."
"Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn't see the data leave, but
we believe it left, based on what we saw."
Asked directly if he could "unequivocally say" whether "it was or was not exfiltrated out
of DNC," Henry told the committee: "I can't say based on that."
Rep. Adam Schiff: Democrat held up interview transcripts, but finally relented after acting
intel director Richard Grenell suggested he would release them himself. (Senate Television via
AP)
In a later exchange with Republican Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah, Henry offered an explanation
of how Russian agents could have obtained the emails without any digital trace of them leaving
the server. The CrowdStrike president speculated that Russian agents might have taken
"screenshots" in real time. "[If] somebody was monitoring an email server, they could read all
the email," Henry said. "And there might not be evidence of it being exfiltrated, but they
would have knowledge of what was in the email. There would be ways to copy it. You could take
screenshots."
Henry's 2017 testimony that there was no "concrete evidence" that the emails were stolen
electronically suggests that Mueller was at best misleading in his 2019 final report, in which
he stated that Russian intelligence "appears to have compressed and exfiltrated over 70
gigabytes of data from the file server."
It is unlikely that Mueller had another source to make his more confident claim about
Russian hacking.
The stolen emails, which were published by Wikileaks – whose founder, Julian Assange
has long denied they came from Russia – were embarrassing to the party because, among
other things, they showed the DNC had favored Clinton during her 2016 primary battles against
Sen. Bernie Sanders for the presidential nomination. The DNC eventually issued an apology to
Sanders and his supporters "for the inexcusable remarks made over email." The DNC hack was
separate from the FBI's investigation of Clinton's use of a private server while serving as
President Obama's Secretary of State.
The disclosure that CrowdStrike found no evidence that alleged Russian hackers exfiltrated
any data from the DNC server raises a critical question: On what basis, then, did it accuse
them of stealing the emails? Further, on what basis did Obama administration officials make far
more forceful claims about Russian hacking?
Michael Sussmann: This lawyer at Perkins Coie hired CrowdStrike to investigate the DNC
breach. He was also involved with Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele in producing the
discredited Steele dossier.
The January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which formally accused Russia of a
sweeping influence campaign involving the theft of Democratic emails, claimed the Russian
intelligence service GRU "exfiltrated large volumes of data from the DNC." A July 2018
indictment claimed that GRU officers "stole thousands of emails from the work accounts of DNC
employees."
According to everyone concerned, the cyber-firm played a critical role in the FBI's
investigation of the DNC data theft. Henry told the panel that CrowdStrike "shared intelligence
with the FBI" on a regular basis, making "contact with them over a hundred times in the course
of many months." In congressional testimony that same year, former FBI Director James Comey
acknowledged that the FBI "never got direct access to the machines themselves," and instead
relied on CrowdStrike, which "shared with us their forensics from their review of the system."
According to Comey, the FBI would have preferred direct access to the server, and made
"multiple requests at different levels," to obtain it. But after being rebuffed, "ultimately it
was agreed to [CrowdStrike] would share with us what they saw."
Henry's testimony seems at variance with Comey's suggestion of complete information sharing.
He told Congress that CrowdStrike provided "a couple of actual digital images" of DNC hard
drives, out of a total number of "in excess of 10, I think." In other cases, Henry said,
CrowdStrike provided its own assessment of them. The firm, he said, provided "the results of
our analysis based on what our technology went out and collected." This disclosure follows
revelations from the case of Trump operative Roger Stone that CrowdStrike provided three
reports to the FBI in redacted and draft form. According to federal prosecutors, the government
never obtained CrowdStrike's unredacted reports.
CrowdStrike's newy disclosed admissions raise new questions about whether Special Counsel
Robert Mueller (above), intelligence officials and Democrats misled the public.
There are no indications that the Mueller team accessed any additional information beyond
what CrowdStrike provided. According to the Mueller report, "the FBI later received images of
DNC servers and copies of relevant traffic logs." But if the FBI obtained only "copies" of data
traffic – and not any new evidence -- those copies would have shown the same absence of
"concrete evidence" that Henry admitted to.
Adding to the tenuous evidence is CrowdStrike's own lack of certainty that the hackers it
identified inside the DNC server were indeed Russian government actors. Henry's explanation for
his firm's attribution of the DNC hack to Russia is replete with inferences and assumptions
that lead to "beliefs," not unequivocal conclusions. "There are other nation-states that
collect this type of intelligence for sure," Henry said, "but what we would call the tactics
and techniques were consistent with what we'd seen associated with the Russian state." In its
investigation, Henry said, CrowdStrike "saw activity that we believed was consistent with
activity we'd seen previously and had associated with the Russian Government. We said that we
had a high degree of confidence it was the Russian Government."
But CrowdStrike was forced to retract a similar accusation months after it accused Russia in
December 2016 of hacking the Ukrainian military, with the same software that the firm had
claimed to identify inside the DNC server.
The firm's work with the DNC and FBI is also colored by partisan affiliations. Before
joining CrowdStrike, Henry served as executive assistant director at the FBI under Mueller.
Co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch is a vocal critic of Vladimir Putin and a senior fellow at the
Atlantic Council, the pro-NATO think tank that has consistently promoted an aggressive policy
toward Russia. And the newly released testimony confirms that CrowdStrike was hired to
investigate the DNC breach by Michael Sussmann of Perkins Coie – the same Democratic-tied
law firm that hired Fusion GPS to produce the discredited Steele dossier, which was also
treated as central evidence in the investigation. Sussmann played a critical role in generating
the Trump-Russia collusion allegation. Ex-British spy and dossier compiler Christopher Steele
has
testified in British court that Sussmann shared with him the now-debunked Alfa Bank server
theory, alleging a clandestine communication channel between the bank and the Trump
Organization.
Henry's recently released testimony does not mean that Russia did not hack the DNC. What it
does make clear is that Obama administration officials, the DNC and others have misled the
public by presenting as fact information that they knew was uncertain. The fact that the
Democratic Party employed the two private firms that generated the core allegations at the
heart of Russiagate -- Russian email hacking and Trump-Russia collusion – suggests that
the federal investigation was compromised from the start.
The 2017 Henry transcript was one of dozens just released after a lengthy dispute. In
September 2018, the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee unanimously voted to
release witness interview transcripts and sent them to the U.S. intelligence community for
declassification review. In March 2019, months after Democrats won House control, Rep. Adam
Schiff ordered the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to withhold the
transcripts from White House lawyers seeking to review them for executive privilege. Schiff
also refused to release vetted transcripts, but finally relented after acting ODNI Director
Richard Grenell suggested this month that he would release them himself.
Several transcripts, including the interviews of former CIA Director John Brennan and Comey,
remain unreleased. And in light of the newly disclosed Crowdstrike testimony, another secret
document from the House proceedings takes on urgency for public viewing. According to Henry,
Crowdstrike also provided the House Intelligence Committee with a copy of its report on the DNC
email theft.
by Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/15/2020 - 11:54 The camera feed to former Obama Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper suddenly cut out while CNN 's John Berman was pressing him to answer questions about
leaks of classified information to the media, one day after a declassified memo revealed a list
of Obama administration officials who made 'unmasking' requests regarding President Trump's
first national security adviser, Michael Flynn. Included in the list are Clapper, former Vice
President Joe Biden, President Obama's Chief of Staff, and former CIA Director John Brennan.
Notably, the requests began before Flynn's call with former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak -
the classified details of which were leaked to the Washington Post in early 2017 as noted by
the
Washington Examiner .
"Asking for names, nothing wrong with that, unmasking in of itself, nothing wrong with
that," Berman said to Clapper. "Leaking classified information, and by definition, these phone
calls were classified, that's a problem, correct?"
Clapper, a CNN security analyst, responded "absolutely," before the image froze and his
screen went dark.
Watch: Clapper just conceded on CNN that "No, I did not" find evidence of Trump-Russia
collusion. Then, after being asked about leaking to the press, his video connection went
dead... pic.twitter.com/Ab13DVFVQa
Once his feed was restored, Clapper insisted that he wasn't the leaker.
"David Ignatius put out this famous column on Jan. 12 where he mentioned the phone call
between Michael Flynn -- the Dec. 29 phone call. Did you leak that information?" Berman asked.
"I did not," responded Clapper."
Once Clapper was back, he was asked whether he leaked the Flynn call to David Ignatius. He
says: "No, I did not." pic.twitter.com/mAww8wsp9U
Clapper insisted during Thursday's interview that unmasking a US citizen is a "routine
thing" when "you have a valid foreign intelligence target engaging with a U.S. person."
That said, he c ouldn't remember what prompted the request "that was made on my behalf for
unmasking" regarding Flynn, but that the "general concern" was over his engagement with
Russians during the Trump team's transition to the White House. Of course, as even Slate wrote
back in 2017, "Meetings between the president-elect's team and foreign officials are Normal,"
but that "Negotiations that undermine a sitting president's foreign policy are not
unprecedented, but remain highly controversial and Not Normal.'
John Durham, the U.S. attorney picked by Attorney General William Barr to investigate the
origins of the Trump-Russia inquiry, is scrutinizing the Flynn unmaskings and subsequent
leaks as part of his inquiry.
The Connecticut federal prosecutor is reportedly looking into a Jan. 12, 2017, article in
the Washington Post by Ignatius, which said Flynn "cultivates close Russian contacts" and
cited a "senior U.S. government official" who revealed Flynn had talked to former Russian
ambassador Sergey Kislyak on Dec. 29, 2016, which was the same day former President Barack
Obama expelled 35 Russian officials . It is likely that this revelation, and subsequent leaks
about the alleged contents of Flynn's discussions with Kislyak, were based on classified
information. -
Washington Examiner
And now, after destroying Flynn's life in a perjury trap, the Obama all-stars are
scrambling.
"Do you remember that part, in the Wizard of Oz, when the witch is dead and the Munchkins
start singing? Think that kind of happiness."
Julie Mulhern, from "The Deep End"
The New York Times is unable to
contain its glee at Russia's having had to cancel its Victory Day celebrations. There was
no end of negative press directed at Putin for having not yet announced postponement or
cancellation, because it looked for a bit as if Russia was going to go for herd immunity rather
than bringing everything to a grinding halt, and sequestering its terrified citizens in their
homes as the west has done. But finally the number of Russian infections began to rocket
encouragingly upward, and something had to be done. So it was lockdown, Victory Day postponed
indefinitely, and the Times couldn't be happier.
The Times has been going downhill at quite a clip ever since the mendacious
aluminum-tubes nonsense in the runup to the American invasion of Iraq, and in fact the Times
was an enthusiastic promoter of that war in general, swaddling itself in righteousness when
serial liar Judith Miller went to jail rather than reveal her sources. It was a 'proud but awful
moment for The Times' , but heroine Miller 'surrendered her liberty in defense of a greater
liberty'. Give me a moment, will you? I want to put on some violins.
Ah, that's better. Inspiring, thank you, Judith. But in the end the Times' blubbering about
greater liberty looked a lot more like a heartstrings strumfest in defense of telling
outrageous lies that got thousands upon thousands of innocent people killed, brought out
the very worst in Americans in the
grimy corridors of Abu Ghraib , and left a country so battered, demoralized and divided
that it has never recovered to this day.
The foregoing is simply a measure of how far the Times has fallen, from standard-bearer for
journalistic excellence to liberal demagogue, not fit to wrap fish and chips in. And the
unseemly sneering and giggling of the authors of the subject piece should be regarded with the
same contempt which would surely be directed at Russians who cheered at Independence Day
celebrations having to be canceled in the United States – stick your tailgate parties up
your tailgate, Amerikanski!
But since we're here, let's take a look at what a journalist's salary at The New York
Times buys you these days, shall we?
First of all, what does Victory Day celebrate? Because the Nazi surrender was actually
tendered twice; it was signed May 7th, 1945 at Reims, by Alfred Jodl for Germany, Walter Bedell
Smith for the Allied Expeditionary Force, and Ivan Susloparov for the Soviet High Command. But
the latter was only a junior officer who did not have the authority to sign on behalf of the
state, and the Soviet High Command had not approved the text of the surrender agreement. Stalin
insisted on a second ceremony, said that the first ceremony constituted a preliminary agreement
only, and insisted on the surrender being signed in Berlin, 'center of Nazi aggression'.
"Today, in Reims, Germans signed the preliminary act on an unconditional surrender. The
main contribution, however, was done by Soviet people and not by the Allies, therefore the
capitulation must be signed in front of the Supreme Command of all countries of the anti-Hitler
coalition, and not only in front of the Supreme Command of Allied Forces. Moreover, I disagree
that the surrender was not signed in Berlin, which was the center of Nazi aggression. We agreed
with the Allies to consider the Reims protocol as preliminary."
Eisenhower immediately agreed, and the final Instrument of Surrender was signed May 9th,
1945, by Field-Marshal Wilhelm Keitel for Germany, Marshal Georgy Zhukov for the Soviet High
Command, and Air Chief Marshal Arthur Tedder for the Allied Expeditionary Force. This is the
date which has been celebrated every year since, by the Soviet Union and its inheritor, the
Russian Federation.
What does it commemorate? The loss, according to credible research , of 23.8
million Soviet citizens due to war and occupation, 7.2 million of them soldiers who died on the
front lines, 3.1 million more Soviet prisoners of war in German custody, .9 million dead
– many of them starved to death – in the siege of Leningrad, and 2.5 million in the
Jewish holocaust.
Victory Day is not about we-had-more-people-killed-than-you. But just to put the magnitude
of Soviet losses in perspective – total deaths in World War II, what the Soviets called
the Great Patriotic War, were around 60 million people. The Soviet Union accounted for nearly
half the dead of the global total.
And another thing; the war was fought mostly in Europe, and if you look down the rows of
national casualties, you will notice a pattern – once you add civilian casualties on to
the military deaths, the total takes a huge jump. Austria; 261,000 military dead – total
deaths, 384,700. Belgium, 12,100 military dead. Total deaths, 86,000. France; military deaths,
217,600. Total deaths, 567,600. You see what I mean, I'm sure.
United States of America; military deaths, 416,800. Total deaths, 418,500. 1,700 civilian
deaths of American citizens. For each American soldier killed in battle, the Soviet Union lost
17.
And even the most pessimistic would have to admit that the USA came out of World War II in a
pretty good position; my, yes. Incredibly, American managers of General Motors and Ford
went along with the
conversion of their German plants to military production at a time when U.S. government
documents show they were still resisting calls by the Roosevelt administration to step up
military production in their plants at home.
"When American GIs invaded Europe in June 1944, they did so in jeeps, trucks and tanks
manufactured by the Big Three motor companies in one of the largest crash militarization
programs ever undertaken. It came as an unpleasant surprise to discover that the enemy was also
driving trucks manufactured by Ford and Opel -- a 100 percent GM-owned subsidiary -- and flying
Opel-built warplanes."
America profited handsomely, both by doing business with the Nazis right up until it was
forced to stop, while at the same time America was churning out war materiel to support the
allies as fast as factory lines could be made to run. Nice work if you can get it. The
Bretton Woods
agreement , concluded in 1944, abandoned the gold standard as the global currency in favour
of the US greenback, putting America in the driver's seat as the dominant world power. The
Soviets were left with a country in smoking ruins, as apple-cheeked America went back to work
with a whistle on its lips. Right away, muttering started about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact,
which has recently exploded into accusation by the US Ambassador to Poland
that Russia started the war. The Moscow Times, a militantly pro-western newspaper,
ponders why Russia will not 'confront its role in the war', and decides it must
be Putin's fault .
"Teaching history has never been easy in Russia, where archives are closed and
transparent discussions about the country's Soviet past are met with hostility. Even then,
teaching World War II is more difficult: with every year that Putin is in power, Russia fails
to confront its role in the war head on."
And now some fucking American chowderhead – in Moscow – openly snickers over the
cancellation of the Victory Day parade and celebration, in between boasting about how he
carries a shopping bag with him every time he decides to go out for a stroll, so police won't
challenge him on why he's not at home.
"I prefer going out during the day, walking with my wife, shielded by a big shopping bag
in the hope that the police will let us be."
And of course, the canard we have all become accustomed to, Russia is aflame with
coronavirus, with over 10.000 new cases per day for the last three days straight. As of the
middle of April, Russia reported that nearly half its new cases were asymptomatic , and that
proportion continues to increase – it seems reasonable to assume the high numbers result
from increased testing. Deaths from coronavirus in Russia remain extremely low. 1,723 COVID
victims have died, of a total 187,859 cases since the beginning of the outbreak, a mortality
rate so far of .91%, about the same as the seasonal flu.
"Travel brings wisdom only to the wise. It renders the ignorant more ignorant than
ever."
Oh, that is explained as well – "In a country with a long history of legal nihilism,
the mayor's stay-at-home pleas were not expected to gain much traction. Russia is, after all,
a land where, according to popular wisdom, "the severity of the law is compensated by the
laxity of its enforcement" and "when something is not allowed but is greatly desired it can
be done."
Again, the beauty of artistic license; on the one hand, the law in Russia is just words
– nobody really pays attention to it. The only people who don't do just as they please
are lazy fucking Russian puddings who can't be bothered to think big. On the other, whenever
Navalny and his hamsters want to march straight into Red Square or down major streets where
they can cause a traffic jam, the oppressive hand of the law is everywhere at once and
screaming children are dragged off to prison, or straight to the nearest recruiting office
where they are clapped into the army before they know what they're about. Depending on what
kind of story you are writing for the New York Times, the law in Russia can be either
wall-to-wall incompetence, Keystone Kops writ large, unenforceable and just going through the
motions. Or it can be oppression, everywhere at once, brave liberals sweating over their
keyboards at night in garrets, always waiting for that knock on the door, but so committed to
getting the truth out that they risk their very lives.
Russia can be anything you like, provided your objective is to shit on it.
The vignette the author details above suggests that he and his wife are just out for a
gratuitous stroll, to take the air – that little bit smarter than the native mugs who
stay crammed into their tiny apartments, you see. It never occurs to them that all they need
do is carry a shopping bag, and the cops will be either too lazy or too dumb to
investigate.
He's not really shopping and the dumb Orcs don't suspect that he is fooling them!
But I see Orcs walking around outside my Moscow house all the time, and they are not
carrying shopping bags and the cops do not stop them.
In fact, since this isolation regime has come into force, I have yet to see a cop in our
neighborhood.
At the very beginning of the "quarantine", 2 cops came to the basketball court outside our
house and told sone boys to bugger off. I am sure some old ratbag of an interfering babushka
had summoned them.
@Sgt.
Joe Friday "Actually, Maddow considers herself a Serious Journalist. She "speaks truth to
power," and she'd probably be the first to tell you that. Repeatedly.
Limbaugh on the other hand, if asked to pick a word to describe his profession would
likely say "entertainer.""
While in actuality, the roles are very nearly reversed. (Nearly only because I don't find
Maddow amusing)
"The New York Times has been accused for a second time of stealing major scoops from Russian
journalists. One of those stories won the Times a Pulitzer Prize this May.
The journalists who have accused the Times of taking their work without credit also
happen to be the same liberal media crusaders against Vladimir Putin [my emphasis] that
Western correspondents at the Times and other mainstream outlets have cast as persecuted
heroes
As Yasha Levine further down the page says, the NYT takes whatever it wants from whomever has
got it, without giving anything back or acknowledging any help or assistance, if it thinks it can
get away with it because it believes that, like the Empire it serves, it is Exceptional.
Chancellor Angela Merkel that stupid? "Chancellor Angela Merkel used strong words on Wednesday condemning an "outrageous"
cyberattack by Russia's foreign intelligence service on the German Parliament, her personal
email account included. Russia, she said, was pursuing "a strategy of hybrid warfare."
Notable quotes:
"... That alleged attack happened in 2015. The attribution to Russia is as shoddy as all attributions of cyberattacks are. ..."
"... Intelligence officials had long suspected Russian operatives were behind the attack, but they took five years to collect the evidence, which was presented in a report given to Ms. Merkel's office just last week. ..."
"... This is really funny because we recently learned that the company which investigated the alleged DNC intrusion, CrowdStrike, had found no evidence , as in zero, that a Russian hacker group had targeted the DNC or that DNC emails were exfiltrated over the Internet: ..."
"... CrowdStrike, the private cyber-security firm that first accused Russia of hacking Democratic Party emails and served as a critical source for U.S. intelligence officials in the years-long Trump-Russia probe, acknowledged to Congress more than two years ago that it had no concrete evidence that Russian hackers stole emails from the Democratic National Committee's server. ..."
"... The DNC emails were most likely stolen by its local network administrator, Seth Rich , who provided them to Wikileaks before he was killed in a suspicious 'robbery' during which nothing was taken. ..."
"... The whole attribution of case of the stolen DNC emails to Russia is based on exactly nothing but intelligence rumors and CrowdStrike claims for which it had no evidence. As there is no evidence at all that the DNC was attacked by a Russian cybergroup what does that mean for the attribution of the attack on the German Bundestag to the very same group? ..."
The New York Times continues its anti-Russia campaign with a report about an old
cyberattack on German parliament which also targeted the parliament office of Chancellor Angela
Merkel.
Chancellor Angela Merkel used strong words on Wednesday condemning an "outrageous"
cyberattack by Russia's foreign intelligence service on the German Parliament, her personal
email account included. Russia, she said, was pursuing "a strategy of hybrid warfare."
But asked how Berlin intended to deal with recent revelations implicating the Russians,
Ms. Merkel was less forthcoming.
"We always reserve the right to take measures," she said in Parliament, then immediately
added, "Nevertheless, I will continue to strive for a good relationship with Russia, because
I believe that there is every reason to always continue these diplomatic efforts."
That alleged attack happened in 2015. The attribution to Russia is as shoddy as all
attributions of cyberattacks are.
Intelligence officials had long suspected Russian operatives were behind the attack, but they
took five years to collect the evidence, which was presented in a report given to Ms.
Merkel's office just last week.
Officials say the report traced the attack to the same Russian hacker group that targeted
the Democratic Party during the U.S. presidential election campaign in 2016.
This is really funny because we recently learned that the company which investigated the
alleged DNC intrusion, CrowdStrike,
had found no evidence , as in zero, that a Russian hacker group had targeted the DNC or
that DNC emails were exfiltrated over the Internet:
CrowdStrike, the private cyber-security firm that first accused Russia of hacking Democratic
Party emails and served as a critical source for U.S. intelligence officials in the
years-long Trump-Russia probe, acknowledged to Congress more than two years ago that it had
no concrete evidence that Russian hackers stole emails from the Democratic National
Committee's server.
...
[CrowdStrike President Shawn] Henry personally led the remediation and forensics analysis of
the DNC server after being warned of a breach in late April 2016; his work was paid for by
the DNC, which refused to turn over its server to the FBI. Asked for the date when alleged
Russian hackers stole data from the DNC server, Henry testified that CrowdStrike did not in
fact know if such a theft occurred at all : "We did not have concrete evidence that the data
was exfiltrated [moved electronically] from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was
exfiltrated," Henry said.
The DNC emails were most likely stolen by its local network administrator, Seth Rich , who provided
them to Wikileaks before he was killed in a suspicious 'robbery' during which nothing was
taken.
The whole attribution of case of the stolen DNC emails to Russia is based on exactly nothing
but intelligence rumors and CrowdStrike claims for which it had no evidence. As there is no
evidence at all that the DNC was attacked by a Russian cybergroup what does that mean for the
attribution of the attack on the German Bundestag to the very same group?
While the NYT also mentions that NSA actually snooped on Merkel's private phonecalls
it tries to keep the spotlight on Russia:
As such, Germany's democracy has been a target of very different kinds of Russian
intelligence operations, officials say. In December 2016, 900,000 Germans lost access to
internet and telephone services following a cyberattack traced to Russia.
That mass attack on internet home routers, which by the way happened in November 2016 not in
December, was done with the Mirai
worm :
More than 900,000 customers of German ISP Deutsche Telekom (DT) were knocked offline this
week after their Internet routers got infected by a new variant of a computer worm known as
Mirai. The malware wriggled inside the routers via a newly discovered vulnerability in a
feature that allows ISPs to remotely upgrade the firmware on the devices. But the new Mirai
malware turns that feature off once it infests a device, complicating DT's cleanup and
restoration efforts.
...
This new variant of Mirai builds on malware
source code released at the end of September . That leak came a little more a week after
a botnet based on Mirai was used in a record-sized
attack that caused KrebsOnSecurity to go offline for several
days . Since then, dozens of new Mirai botnets have emerged , all
competing for a finite pool of vulnerable IoT systems that can be infected.
The attack has not been attributed to Russia but to a British man who offered attacks as a
service.
He was arrested in February 2017:
A 29-year-old man has been arrested at Luton airport by the UK's National Crime Agency (NCA)
in connection with a massive internet attack that disrupted telephone, television and
internet services in Germany last November. As regular readers of We Live Security will
recall, over 900,000 Deutsche Telekom broadband customers were knocked offline last November
as an alleged attempt was made to hijack their routers into a destructive botnet.
...
The NCA arrested the British man under a European Arrest Warrant issued by Germany's Federal
Criminal Police Office (BKA) who have described the attack as a threat to Germany's national
communication infrastructure.
According to German prosecutors, the British man allegedly offered to sell access to the
botnet on the computer underground. Agencies are planning to extradite the man to Germany,
where – if convicted – he could face up to ten years imprisonment.
During the trial, Daniel admitted that he never intended for the routers to cease
functioning. He only wanted to silently control them so he can use them as part of a DDoS
botnet to increase his botnet firepower. As discussed earlier he also confessed being paid by
competitors to takedown Lonestar.
In Aug 2017 Daniel was
extradited back to the UK to face extortion charges after attempting to blackmail Lloyds
and Barclays banks. According to press reports, he asked the Lloyds to pay about
£75,000 in bitcoins for the attack to be called off.
The Mirai attack is widely known to have been attributed to Kaye. The case has been
discussed
at length . IT security journalist Brian Krebs, who's site was also attacked by a Mirai bot
net, has written several
stories about it. It was never 'traced to Russia' or attributed it to anyone else but Daniel
Kaye.
Besides that Kennhold writes of "Russia's foreign intelligence service, known as the
G.R.U.". The real Russian foreign intelligence services is the SVR. The military intelligence
agency of Russia was once called GRU but has been renamed to GU.
The New York Times just made up the claim about Russia hacking in Germany from
absolutely nothing. The whole piece was published without even the most basic research and fact
checking.
It seems that for the Times anything can be blamed on Russia completely independent
of what the actually facts say.
Posted by b on May 14, 2020 at 14:38 UTC |
Permalink
Along the same lines, it always bothered me that among all the (mostly contrived)
arguments about who might have been responsible for the alleged "hacking" of DNC as well as
Clinton's emails, we never heard mentioned one single time the one third party that we
absolutely KNOW had intercepted and collected all of those emails--the NSA! Never a peep
about how US intelligence services could be tempted to mischief when in possession of
everyone's sensitive, personal information.
The "Fancy Bear" group (also knowns as advanced persistent threat 28) that is claimed to be
behind the hacks is likely little more than the collection of hacking tools shared on the
open and hidden parts of RuNet or Russian-speaking Internet. Many of these Russian-speaking
hackers are
actually Ukrainians .
Some of the Russian hackers also worked for the FSB, like the members of Shaltai
Boltai group that were later arrested for treason. George Eliason claims Shaltai Boltai
actually worked for Ukrainians. For a short version of the story read this:
Cyberanalyst George Eliason has written some intriguing blogs recently claiming that the
"Fancy Bear" which hacked the DNC server in mid-2016 was in fact a branch of Ukrainian
intelligence linked to the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike. I invite you to have a go at
one of his recent essays...
Patrick
Armstrong , May 14 2020 15:27 utc |
3 Wow! You've done it again. I was just writing my Sitrep and thinking what an amazing
coincidence it is that, just as the Russian pipelaying ship arrived to finish Nord Stream,
Merkel is told that them nasty Russkies are doing nasty things. I come here and you've
already solved it. Yet another scoop. Congratulations.
The NYT has removed that sentence about the attack on internet/phone access:
"Correction: May 14, 2020
An earlier version of this article incorrectly attributed responsibility for a 2016
cyberattack in which 900,000 Germans lost access to internet and telephone services. The
attack was carried out by a British citizen, not Russia. The article also misstated when the
attack took place. It was in November, not December. The sentence has been removed from the
article. "
From this we can learn that anything can be blamed by MSM, completely independent of what the
facts are. It is not limited to allegations related to Russia or China, but any and all
claims by MSM that have no direct reference to provable fact.
great coverage b... thank you... facts don't matter.. what matters is taking down any
positive image of russia, or better - putting up a constantly negative one... of this the
intel and usa msm are consistent... the sad reality is a lot of people will believe this
bullshit too...
i was just reading paul robinsons blog last night -
#DEMOCRACY RIP AND THE NARCISSISM OF RUSSIAGATE .. even paul is starting to getting
pissed off on the insanity of the media towards russia which is rare from what i have read
from him!
@ 3 patrick armstrong.. keep up the good work!! thanks for your work..
There is already a correction made to the DT attack - someone reads MofA! Shame they don't
get more of their new interpretation form here.
Whole piece reads here like it started as a Merkel gets close to Russia piece, shown
around to colleagues and politicians for feedback, and a ton of fake "why Merkel actually
hates the Russians" nonsense was added in.
After all pretty much everyone has tapped Merkel's phone by now.
Absolutely remarkable; in fact, 'stunning', as he uses it, is not too much of a stretch. The
'liberal elites' just go right on lying even though the sworn testimony of FBI interviewers
is available for anyone to read, as well as the chilling manipulations of Strozk and Page,
both of whom should be in prison and perhaps will be. And that fucker Schiff should swing. I
can't believe the transformation of Carlson from Bush shill to the reincarnation of Edward R.
Murrow. He makes this case so compellingly that nobody could watch that clip and not believe
that Flynn was railroaded from the outset. And what were they allegedly going to jail Flynn's
son for? Does anyone know? Were they just going to make something up? That is terrifying, and
almost argues for the disbanding of the FBI, although it demonstrably still contains honest
agents – as Carlson asks rhetorically, how many times have they done this already, and
gotten away with it?
It's hard to imagine anyone would vote Democrat now.
Couldn't have been too much of a crime, if they offered to let him go in exchange for Flynn
pleading guilty to lying. Actually, you'd kind of think their business was prosecuting crimes
whoever committed them, and that offering to excuse a crime in exchange for a guilty plea is
.kind of a crime.
Man, they have to clean house at the FBI. And there probably are several other
organizations that need it, too. Not the political culling based on ideology that was a
feature of the Bush White House, but the crowd that's in now just cannot be allowed to get
off with nothing.
Greetings Mark and all, I am a new arrival as Jen suggested the company is fine here for
barflies to ponder the world. Can I surmise that if Flynn and son were the FBI targets for
nefarious business dealings then surely Biden and son fall in to that same category. After
all Biden and son filched millions after arranging a USA loan of $1Billion to Ukraine and
then did it again after the IMF loaned a few million more. Carpetbagging and its modern day
practice is a crime in the USA last I looked.
If that conspicuous bias isn't enough cause to dismember the FBI then consider the Uranium
One deal that Hillary Clinton and family set up or perhaps the Debbie Wasserman Shultz
fostering the Awan family spy and blackmail ring.
Good day, Uncle, and welcome! For some reason I can't fathom, the Democrats seem to own or
control all the 'respectable' media in the USA. FOX News is an exception, and has been a
mouthpiece for the Republicans since its inception. But the Democrats control the New York
Times and the Washington Post, which together represent the bulk of American public feeling
to foreigners, and probably to the domestic audience as well. They are extremely active on
conflicts between the two parties, ensuring the Democratic perspective gets put forward in
calm, reasonable why-wouldn't-a-sensible-person-think-this-way manner. At the same time they
cast horrific aspersions at the Republicans. Not that either are much good; but the news
coverage is very one-sided – the position of the Democrats on the sexual-assault furor
over the Kavanaugh appointment compared with their wait-and-see attitude to very similar
accusations against Biden is a classic example.
I don't think its the Democrats that control the NYT &WP, so much as plutocrats.
They're also the ones who fund both the Democrats & the Republicans. The only significant
difference between the parties is largely in the arena of the social "culture war" issues.
But on the issues plutocrats care about, like economic policy & foreign policy, the
differences are shades of grey, rather than actual distinctions.
Just remember the coverage of both papers in the run up to George W Shrub's catastrophic
Iraq war. They're stenographers, not journalists.
That may well be true, but the NYT and WP historically champion the Democrats, endorse the
Democratic candidate for president, and pander to Democratic issues and projects. The Wall
Street Journal is the traditional Republican print outlet, and there might be others but I
don't know them. CNN is overwhelmingly and weepily Democratic in its content – Wolf
Blitzer's eyes nearly roll back in his head with ecstasy whenever he mentions Saint Hillary
– while FOX News is Repubican to the bone and openly contemptuous of liberals. It could
certainly be, on reflection probably is, that the same cabal of corporatists control them
all, and a fine joke they must think it. And I certainly and emphatically agree there is
almost no difference between the parties in execution of external policy.
"... Ideally, they should each be prosecuted with an attempt to discern their connections to the political establishment, and specifically to the Clintons. What does that woman have to do to get jailed – blow somebody away on the 6 o'clock news? ..."
After a prescient 2017 tip from inside the FBI, a slow drip of revelations exposed the
deep problems with the Flynn prosecution.
####
All at the link.
I should add that the author, seasoned investigative reporter John Soloman, wrote much of
this over at TheHill.com and was targeted for review over his clearly labelled 'opinion'
pieces reporting on the Bidens in the Ukraine. The Hill's conclusion is piss weak and accuses
him of what just about every other journalist in the US does and reads in particular of
holding him up to a much higher standard than others. As you will see from his twatter bio,
he's worked for AP, Washington Post, The Washington Times and The Hill. Some things you are
just not supposed to investigate, let alone report.
At an absolute minimum, the FBI officials involved – except those who did their jobs
properly and stated their judgments at the outset that there was no evidence Flynn was not
telling the truth, or believed he was – should be fired and their pensions, if
applicable, rescinded.
Ideally, they should each be prosecuted with an attempt to discern their connections
to the political establishment, and specifically to the Clintons. What does that woman have
to do to get jailed – blow somebody away on the 6 o'clock news?
Here we come to the Fourth Pillar of Sufficient Totalitarianism: Repetition, repetition,
repetition. In Mein Kampf (now removed from Amazon) Adolf said that propaganda should not
be entrusted to.intellectuals They are, he said, easily bored, like sophisticated ideas,
and constantly want to change the message.
Hitler indeed said it while criticizing German WWI propaganda and praising the British
one. Hitler was talking of what he learned form British propaganda and that it should be
emulated:
Particularly in the field of propaganda, placid aesthetes and blase intellectuals should
never be allowed to take the lead. The former would readily transform the impressive
character of real propaganda into something suitable only for literary tea parties. As to
the second class of people, one must always beware of this pest; for, in consequence of
their insensibility to normal impressions, they are constantly seeking new excitements.
Such people grow sick and tired of everything. They always long for change and will
always be incapable of putting themselves in the position of picturing the wants of their
less callous fellow-creatures in their immediate neighbourhood, let alone trying to
understand them. The blase intellectuals are always the first to criticize propaganda, or
rather its message, because this appears to them to be outmoded and trivial.
And he praised British propaganda for appealing to instincts not reason, staying on
message and never being objective:
In this respect also the propaganda organized by our enemies set us an excellent
example. It confined itself to a few themes, which were meant exclusively for mass
consumption, and it repeated these themes with untiring perseverance. Once these
fundamental themes and the manner of placing them before the world were recognized as
effective, they adhered to them without the slightest alteration for the whole duration of
the War. At first all of it appeared to be idiotic in its impudent assertiveness. Later on
it was looked upon as disturbing, but finally it was believed.
But in England they came to understand something further: namely, that the possibility
of success in the use of this spiritual weapon consists in the mass employment of it, and
that when employed in this way it brings full returns for the large expenses incurred.
In England propaganda was regarded as a weapon of the first order, whereas with us it
represented the last hope of a livelihood for our unemployed politicians and a snug job for
shirkers of the modest hero type.
Vilification of the enemy by British and American propaganda worked:
On the other hand, British and American war propaganda was psychologically efficient. By
picturing the Germans to their own people as Barbarians and Huns, they were preparing their
soldiers for the horrors of war and safeguarding them against illusions. The most terrific
weapons which those soldiers encountered in the field merely confirmed the information that
they had already received and their belief in the truth of the assertions made by their
respective governments was accordingly reinforced. Thus their rage and hatred against the
infamous foe was increased. The terrible havoc caused by the German weapons of war was only
another illustration of the Hunnish brutality of those barbarians; whereas on the side of
the Entente no time was left the soldiers to meditate on the similar havoc which their own
weapons were capable of. Thus the British soldier was never allowed to feel that the
information which he received at home was untrue.
While Germans did not have that strong animus to vilify. They rather ridiculed the enemy
and it was a mistake:
It was, for example, a fundamental mistake to ridicule the worth of the enemy as the
Austrian and German comic papers made a chief point of doing in their propaganda. The very
principle here is a mistaken one; for, when they came face to face with the enemy, our
soldiers had quite a different impression. Therefore, the mistake had disastrous results.
Once the German soldier realised what a tough enemy he had to fight he felt that he had
been deceived by the manufacturers of the information which had been given him. Therefore,
instead of strengthening and stimulating his fighting spirit, this information had quite
the contrary effect. Finally he lost heart.
And the greatest mistake of German propaganda was that sometimes it was trying to be
objective or even handed:
The aim of propaganda is not to try to pass judgment on conflicting rights, giving each
its due, but exclusively to emphasize the right which we are asserting. Propaganda must not
investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side,
present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that
aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side.
It was a fundamental mistake to discuss the question of who was responsible for the
outbreak of the war and declare that the sole responsibility could not be attributed to
Germany. The sole responsibility should have been laid on the shoulders of the enemy,
without any discussion whatsoever.
And what was the consequence of these half-measures? The broad masses of the people are
not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who
are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human
children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. As soon as our own
propaganda made the slightest suggestion that the enemy had a certain amount of justice on
his side, then we laid down the basis on which the justice of our own cause could be
questioned. The masses are not in a position to discern where the enemy's fault ends and
where our own begins
Ex-F.B.I.
Official Is Said to Undercut Justice Dept. Effort to Drop Flynn Case
Prosecutors questioned a former F.B.I. official whose
notes were used to buttress their motion to dismiss the charge against the president's first national security
adviser.
Bill Priestap, a former top F.B.I. official,
played a central role in the agency's 2016 investigation into Russia's efforts to interfere in the
presidential election.
Credit...
Alex
Wong/Getty Images
Published May 13,
2020
Updated May
14, 2020,
7:48 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON -- A key former F.B.I. official cast doubt on the Justice
Department's case for dropping a criminal charge against President Trump's former national security adviser
Michael
T. Flynn
during an interview with investigators last week, according to people familiar with the
investigation.
Department officials reviewing the Flynn case interviewed Bill Priestap, the
former head of F.B.I. counterintelligence, two days before making their extraordinary request to drop the
case to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. They did not tell Judge Sullivan about Mr. Priestap's interview. A Justice
Department official said that they were in the process of writing up a report on the interview and that it
would soon be filed with the court.
The department's motion referred to notes that Mr. Priestap wrote around the
bureau's 2017 questioning of Mr. Flynn, who later pleaded guilty to lying to investigators during that
interview. His lawyers said Mr. Priestap's notes -- recently uncovered during a review of the case --
suggested that the F.B.I. was trying to entrap Mr. Flynn, and Attorney General William P. Barr
said investigators were trying
to "lay a perjury trap."
That interpretation was wrong, Mr. Priestap told the prosecutors reviewing
the case. He said that F.B.I. officials were trying to do the right thing in questioning Mr. Flynn and that
he knew of no effort to set him up. Media reports about his notes misconstrued them, he said, according to
the people familiar with the investigation.
The department's decision to exclude mention of Mr. Priestap's interview in
the motion could trouble Judge Sullivan, who
signaled late on Tuesday
that he was skeptical of the department's arguments.
Mr. Priestap and the Justice Department declined to comment. Mr. Priestap
told investigators that he did not remember the circumstances surrounding the notes that he took, and that
he was giving them his interpretation of the notes as he read them now, according to a person familiar with
his interview.
Listen to 'The Daily': The Saga of Michael Flynn
The U.S. dropped its criminal case against President Trump's first national security
adviser. It was the latest reversal in a case full of them.
Former prosecutors and defense lawyers called the department's position
hypocritical and troubling.
"If it is accurate that the F.B.I. official provided context around those
notes, which is materially different from what they suggest, this could be a game changer in terms of how
the court views the motivations behind the request to dismiss the case," said Edward Y. Kim, a former
federal prosecutor in Manhattan.
The department's decision to drop the Flynn case was a stunning reversal,
widely regarded as part of an effort by Mr. Barr to
undermine the Russia investigation
. The prosecutor who led the case, Brandon L. Van Grack, withdrew from
it, and only the interim U.S. attorney in Washington, Timothy Shea, a longtime adviser to Mr. Barr, signed
the motion.
Both Mr. Van Grack and Jocelyn Ballantine, another prosecutor on the case,
were upset with Mr. Barr's decision to drop the charge and his overall handling of the Flynn review,
according to people familiar with their thinking.
Mr. Barr, who has long said that he had misgivings about the decision to
prosecute Mr. Flynn, asked the top federal prosecutor in St. Louis, Jeff Jensen, earlier this year to scrub
the case for any mistakes or improprieties.
Mr. Priestap's notes were among the documents that Mr. Jensen found. The
prosecutors already on the case, Mr. Jensen's team and the F.B.I. disagreed about whether they were
exculpatory and should be given to Mr. Flynn's lawyer, Sidney Powell. Mr. Jensen prevailed and gave them to
Ms. Powell, who declared that they would exonerate her client, people familiar with the events said.
Mr. Priestap played a central role in the F.B.I. investigation into Russian
interference in the presidential election and was involved in high-level discussions about whether to
question Mr. Flynn, whose phone calls to the Russian ambassador at the time, Sergey I. Kislyak, had aroused
investigators' suspicions.
Mr. Jensen and Ms. Ballantine, herself a veteran prosecutor, interviewed Mr.
Priestap along with another prosecutor, Sayler Fleming, and an F.B.I. agent from St. Louis who was there to
memorialize the encounter.
Justice Department investigators spoke with Mr. Priestap while they were
embroiled in a debate that began last month about whether to drop the Flynn case.
Mr. Jensen and officials in Mr. Shea's office pushed to give Mr. Flynn's
lawyers copies of the notes and other documents they had recently found. Mr. Van Grack and Dana Boente, the
F.B.I. general counsel, argued against disclosing them.
Eventually the F.B.I. agreed to release the documents because they contained
no classified or sensitive material, even though they believed they were not required to share them with the
defense, according to an email from lawyers in Mr. Boente's office on April 23.
By the beginning of May, Mr. Jensen recommended to Mr. Barr that the charge
be dropped, and the team began to draft the motion to dismiss it.
Mr. Van Grack and Ms. Ballantine, the prosecutors on the case, acknowledged
the facts but vociferously disagreed with Mr. Jensen's legal argument that Mr. Flynn's lies were immaterial
to the larger investigation into Russian election interference, according to department lawyers familiar
with their conversations.
As the lawyers digested the interview with Mr. Priestap, some prosecutors
expressed concern that they were moving too fast. But other officials pointed out that in less than a week
the department was due to respond to Mr. Flynn's motion to dismiss the case, and argued against proceeding
in that matter if they were about to drop the entire case.
Mr. Jensen agreed, as did Mr. Barr, and they filed their request. Even though
they knew it was coming, some prosecutors on the case expressed shock, associates said.
Mr. Flynn's case grew out of phone calls he made to Mr. Kislyak in the final
days of 2016, asking that Moscow refrain from retaliating after the Obama administration imposed sanctions
on Russia as punishment for interfering in the election. The conversations were captured on routine wiretaps
of Mr. Kislyak and prompted concern among the F.B.I. agents investigating Mr. Flynn once they learned of
them.
Then the incoming vice president, Mike Pence, publicly denied that Mr. Flynn
had asked Russia to hold off on sanctions. Agents began to suspect that Mr. Flynn was lying to other Trump
officials about the phone calls and were concerned that he was a blackmail risk because Russia knew the
truth of the calls.
Mr. Priestap's notes, taken hours before agents questioned Mr. Flynn on Jan.
24, 2017, showed that F.B.I. officials were debating how to proceed and trying to determine the objective of
questioning Mr. Flynn.
Mr. Priestap wrote: "What's our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie,
so we can prosecute him or get him fired?" Mr. Priestap also mentioned the risks of an interview, adding,
"Protect our institution by not playing games" and "If we're seen playing games, WH will be furious."
Those notes reflected Mr. Priestap's own thoughts before meeting with
F.B.I. leadership to discuss how to question Mr. Flynn, the people said. A footnote in Mr. Shea's motion
included a reference to Mr. Priestap's ruminations. The motion described them as "talking points."
The notes also showed that the F.B.I. softened its interview strategy with
Mr. Flynn. Officials decided that agents would be allowed to read back portions of the highly classified
phone call transcripts to refresh Mr. Flynn's memory. F.B.I. investigators felt at the time it was important
to figure out whether Mr. Flynn would tell the truth in an interview.
Though Mr. Flynn was told ahead of time about the interview, the F.B.I.
director at the time, James B. Comey, unilaterally decided to go forward with it, angering Justice
Department officials who said the bureau should have coordinated closely with them and notified the White
House Counsel's Office.
Two agents went to the White House to question Mr. Flynn. He lied repeatedly,
and prosecutors have said that agents gave him "multiple opportunities to correct his false statements by
revisiting key questions."
Mr. Flynn later agreed to plead guilty, entering a plea twice before he later
reversed himself, hiring new lawyers and asking Judge Sullivan to allow him to withdraw it.
After the notes and other documents were made public, Ms. Powell seized on
them to declare that they cast doubt on the F.B.I.'s decision to question Mr. Flynn and to charge him with
lying. She accused the bureau of framing her client.
Mr. Shea also argued that the F.B.I. had no legitimate reason to
interview Mr. Flynn. He said that the bureau's counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn had
essentially ended and agents had insufficient reason to keep it open and were trying to entrap him.
The interview with Mr. Flynn "seems to have been undertaken only to
elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn," Mr. Shea wrote.
Mr. Barr has called Mr. Flynn's conversations with Mr. Kislyak "
laudable
"
and said that his lies were immaterial to the Russia investigation, rejecting the view of the prosecutors
who had said that
Mr. Flynn hurt the inquiry
by misleading the F.B.I. agents. Judge Sullivan has also said the lies were
material.
"... he recognizes he is sitting on a volcano, partly of his own making because of decisions he made; and those of Judge Rudy Contreras, the man who was on the bench when Flynn plead to the false charges, circa Dec. 1, 2017. ..."
"... Neither Contreras, nor Flynn's Covington lawyers, prior this plea, demanded the DOJ produce original FBI 302s -- of the Jan. 24, 2017 FBI interview of Flynn -- to show the concrete substance, that is, actual evidence, that would purportedly show the general lied. ..."
"... The DOJ never produced this. Ever. Sullivan, he never asked nor demanded nor got to read those original 302s either, even though he has been sitting on this case since Dec. 7, 2017. ..."
"... The only rational reason, I think, Sullivan said he needs "help" -- before consummating the DOJ's request to end this matter – is simple. Sullivan knows he is sitting on a volcano, and he can't take the heat. ..."
"... Thus, he might be creating conditions for a last hurrah of nonsense from the enemies of justice who are the enemies of Flynn, who want to file amica with the court. Put another way, the judge is inviting the very circus he claim to want to avoid, in his Minute Order. ..."
Federal Judge Emmett Sullivan needs "help."
His words, not mine. Although amica, or amicus briefs can be routine in civil cases, in a criminal case, it is
a prosecutor's duty to decide things as basic as whether to prosecute a case. But in the Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn matter, Sullivan says he now needs outside help.
The need, the judge says, came following the DOJ decision to end prosecution of the
general, having determined there was no crime; the heretofore prosecution of him was a
phantom of the opera.
Sullivan now wants an encore. What might that be? Pirates of Penzance? Sullivan Flies Over
the Cuckoo's Nest?
In a recent order the judge said he will invite outside parties -- outside of the DOJ --
to provide this judge "unique information or perspective that can help the court." The
absurdity of Sullivan notwithstanding, it could be: he recognizes he is sitting on a
volcano, partly of his own making because of decisions he made; and those of Judge Rudy
Contreras, the man who was on the bench when Flynn plead to the false charges, circa Dec. 1,
2017.
Neither Contreras, nor Flynn's Covington lawyers, prior this plea, demanded the DOJ
produce original FBI 302s -- of the Jan. 24, 2017 FBI interview of Flynn -- to show the
concrete substance, that is, actual evidence, that would purportedly show the general
lied.
The DOJ never produced this. Ever. Sullivan, he never asked nor demanded nor got to
read those original 302s either, even though he has been sitting on this case since Dec. 7,
2017.
After a year of sitting on the case, Flynn said he was ready to be sentenced: the
prosecutors had said they were fine with no jail time for him.
During this Dec. 18, 2018 hearing, Sullivan Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. [If you have not,
read transcript of this hearing, it's at least a half-hour read.] Sullivan told Flynn he
could face 15 years in jail, implied he committed treason, was a traitor to his country, blah
blah blah.
The prosecutor at the time, Brandon Van Grack, told the Pirate of Penzance that more
assistance of Flynn was needed for the bogus Mueller investigation. Sullivan [Gilbert was not
in the courtroom] then allowed Flynn's sentencing hearing to be continued, so long as Mueller
submitted monthly progress reports to ascertain the general was cooperating with the special
counsel office's "investigation" of nonexistent "crimes" against who knows what at that
point. To recap: Sullivan threatened Flynn with 15 years in prison; Flynn withdrew his
willingness to be sentenced at that time; Van Grack out of nowhere said the general needed to
cooperate some more with Mueller.
Had Sullivan not gone rouge at this hearing; had he demanded and gotten the original 302s,
I would give more credence to what I'll say next.
The only rational reason, I think, Sullivan said he needs "help" -- before
consummating the DOJ's request to end this matter – is simple. Sullivan knows he is
sitting on a volcano, and he can't take the heat.
Thus, he might be creating conditions for a last hurrah of nonsense from the enemies
of justice who are the enemies of Flynn, who want to file amica with the court. Put another
way, the judge is inviting the very circus he claim to want to avoid, in his Minute
Order.
Reason I'm not necessarily opposed to this circus is practical: more sunshine can be
brought to this prosecution, this malicious and political perecution of Flynn –
sunshine, via the DOJ release document after document that just piles onto the record
DOJ/FBI/CIA lawlessness that was directed against and targeted Flynn. And perhaps other
delicious nuggets, too.
When the smoke clears, the fat lady finally sings, Sullivan can say or claim he did
everything to give everyone their say, blah blah blah, and hope like hell everyone forgets
this Pirate's dereliction of duty, as a judge with a lifetime appointment.
Perhaps, should this show go on, we might discover why Contreras mysteriously recused
himself right after the Flynn pleas.
Perhaps we will read all of the Covington law firm Eric Holder and Michael Chertoff
emails, and what they were saying about Flynn, the good, the bad, the ugly.
And, since Barry decided to directly and publicly insert himself in this fiasco last week,
with his remark about Flynn and "perjury," who knows what other documents will be filed on
the docket. [Obama's pre meditated use of "perjury" when he knows it was not about that,
indicates just how sinister his public involvement now is.]
I would like to see all of Sullivan's communications, work related and private, involving
the Flynn case.
Please file all of them on the docket, Judge Sullivan, un-redacted, you who opened this
can of worms. [So we can see if you, by your own "standards" might be a "security threat" or
"sold out your country," etc.]
Sullivan didn't start this fire; he did pour gasoline on it.
". . . .Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. . . ."[Epistle
to the Galatians]
Sir;
What was Flynn's attitude towards the "Holy Land" at that time? Was he a threat to the Judea
and Samaria clique?
I can't help but compare the treatment of Flynn to the treatment of Petraeus.
There is one hidden benefit leaving Flynn still "twisting slowly, slowly in the wind" for
making a "false statement during a federal investigation".
His treatment at the hands of his own government will certainly resonate with those we now
find on the unmasking list. They will soon be visited by federal investigators who will be
asking them a lot of questions - no lying guys and gals. Look what could happen to you
too.
I could use an explanation of the IMPLICATIONS of this revelation. Is it possible there's
nothing nefarious about someone who, for example, received a copy of Obama's daily briefing
in which Flynn may have been alluded to and therefore that person requested unmasking for a
fuller understanding of the matter? It's been reported that Obama exponentially expanded the
numbers of people who were privy to his daily briefing.
Does the fact that the FBI was undertaking a counterintelligence investigation of Gen.
Flynn at the time, wrong/unethical as that may have been, give cover?
Is there any legal jeopardy facing those whose names are on the list? If so, what?
And President Trump clearly won't let it go (and why should he after three years of utter
bullshit)...
If I were a Senator or Congressman, the first person I would call to testify about the
biggest political crime and scandal in the history of the USA, by FAR, is former President
Obama. He knew EVERYTHING. Do it @LindseyGrahamSC , just do it.
No more Mr. Nice Guy. No more talk!
-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 14,
2020
We won't be holding our collective breaths however, but it would be deliciously ironic if
the president who claimed "no scandals" during his presidency, was brought down after leaving
office by the biggest scandal in US history.
"... One of the most embarrassing is the testimony of Evelyn Farkas, a former Obama Administration official who was widely quoted in her plea to Congress to gather the evidence that she knew was found in by the Obama Administration. In her testimony under oath Farkas repeatedly stated that she knew of no such evidence of collusion. ..."
"... Farkas, who served as the deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia, was widely quoted when she said on MSNBC in 2017 that she feared that evidence she knew about would be destroyed by the Trump Administration. She stated: ..."
"... ...was urging my former colleagues, and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill Get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration, because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior people that left. So it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy . . . the Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about their, the staff, the Trump staff's dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence. So I became very worried, because not enough was coming out into the open, and I knew that there was more. ..."
"... 'You also didn't know whether or not anybody in the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, did you?' Gowdy later asked, getting to the point. ..."
The long-delayed release of testimony from the House Intelligence Committee has proved
embarrassing for a variety of former Obama officials who have been extensively quoted on the
allegedly strong evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign and the Russians. Figures like
James Clapper, who is a CNN expert, long indicated hat the evidence from the Obama
Administration was strong and alarming. However, in testimony, Clapper denied seeing any
such evidence .
One of the most embarrassing is the testimony of Evelyn Farkas, a former Obama
Administration official who was widely quoted in her plea to Congress to gather the evidence
that she knew was found in by the Obama Administration. In her testimony under oath Farkas
repeatedly stated that she knew of no such evidence of collusion.
Farkas, who served as the deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia,
was widely quoted when she said on MSNBC in 2017 that she feared that evidence she knew about
would be destroyed by the Trump Administration. She stated:
...was urging my former colleagues, and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill Get as much
information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves
the administration, because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with
the senior people that left. So it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy . . . the Trump
folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about their, the staff, the Trump staff's
dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning
we would no longer have access to that intelligence. So I became very worried, because not
enough was coming out into the open, and I knew that there was more.
MSNBC never seriously questioned the statements despite the fact that Farkas left
the Obama Administration in 2015 before any such investigation could have occurred. As we have
seen before, the factual and legal basis for such statements are largely immaterial in the age
of echo journalism. The statement fit the narrative even if it lacked any plausible basis.
Not surprisingly, the House Intelligence Committee was eager to have Farkas share all that
she stated she "knew about ["the Trump folks"], their staff, the Trump's staff's dealing with
Russian" and wanted to get "into the open." After all, she told MSNBC that "I knew that there
was more."
She was finally put under oath in the closed classified sessions and there was nothing but
classified crickets. Farkas was repeatedly asked to share that information that electrified the
MSNBC hosts and audience. She repeatedly denied any such knowledge, telling then Rep. Trey
Gowdy (R, S.C.), "I didn't know anything."
Gowdy noted that Farkas left the Obama administration in 2015 and asked "Then how did you
know?" She repeated again "I didn't know anything."
Gowdy then asked "Well, then why would you say, we knew?"
He also asked:
'You also didn't know whether or not anybody in the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia,
did you?' Gowdy later asked, getting to the point.
"I didn't," Farkas responded.
MSNBC has said nothing about its prior headline story being untrue. Indeed, the media has
barely acknowledged that the new documents reinforce that there was never any evidence of
collusion and ultimately the allegations were rejected by the Special Counsel, Congress, and
inspectors general.
'fter I left the Obama administration, I campaigned to help elect Secretary Clinton as our
next President. When Russians interfered in that election, I was among the first to sound the
alarm and urge Congress to take action. And I haven't let up since then.
She was indeed one of the first but it proved to be a false alarm based on
nonexistent knowledge. Does that matter anymore?
"... it's clear that Obama was always the vector through which the entire investigation into Donald Trump pointed. He's the only one with the power to have marshaled the forces arrayed against Trump for the past four years. ..."
"... What's clear now is the President Obama's administration was regularly engaged in illegally using NSA database access to spy on Americans and political opponents . This operation pre-dates Trump by a few years ..."
"... On April 18, 2016, following the preliminary audit results, Director Rogers shut down all FBI contractor access to the database after he learned FISA-702 "about"(17) and "to/from"(16) search queries were being done without authorization ..."
"... And that's when everything changed. Because at that point, having lost access Obama's spy team needed another way into the NSA database. Enter Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele and the ridiculous dossier used to issue FISA warrants on Carter Page and all the rest of it. ..."
"... Obama is guilty of the highest crimes a President can be guilty of, utilizing Federal law enforcement and intelligence services to spy on a political opponent during an election. This is after eight years of ruinous wars, coups both successful and not, drone-striking U.S. citizens and generally carrying on like the vandal he is. ..."
"... Obama's people have been covering for him for nearly four years now. They have been exposed as bald-faced liars by the transcripts of their impeachment testimonies to Adam Schiff and the House Intelligence Committee. ..."
"... Now that the heat is rising and the apparatus they used to control turns its attention to what they did, enough of them will roll over and give Attorney General William Barr what he wants. ..."
"... And here we are coming into the home stretch and the bitter end is staring these people in the face. They've lost all credibility, corrupted whole swaths of the Federal government beyond recognition and activated every resource they have in the media and the chattering classes to make manifest a bald-faced lie. And it didn't work. Now the desperation sets in. The exoneration of Gen. Michael Flynn, the release of the transcripts and conflicting stories told by John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey and the rest all point to something beyond sinister. ..."
"... You can smell the fear now. From Bill Kristol to John Brennan they can see the end of their project, whether it was for a New American Neocon Century or just the cynical push for a transnational oligarchy based around the European Union, their Utopian dreams have run into the immovable object of a people refusing to believe their lies anymore. ..."
From the beginning of the story RussiaGate was always about Barack Obama . I didn't always see it that way, certainly. My seething
hatred for all things Hillary Clinton is a powerful blind spot I admit to freely.
But, it's clear that Obama was always the vector through which the entire investigation into Donald Trump pointed. He's the
only one with the power to have marshaled the forces arrayed against Trump for the past four years.
We've known this for a couple of years now but there were a seemingly endless series of distractions put in place to obfuscate
the truth...
Donald Trump was not a Russian agent.
What's clear now is the President Obama's administration was regularly engaged in illegally using NSA database access to spy
on Americans and political opponents . This operation pre-dates Trump by a few years.
It was de rigeur by the time the election cycle ramped up in 2016. The timing of events is during that time period paints a very
damning picture.
This article from Zerohedge by way of
Conservative Treehouse lays out the timing, the activities and the shifts in the narrative that implicate Obama beyond any doubt.
On April 18, 2016, following the preliminary audit results, Director Rogers shut down all FBI contractor access to the
database after he learned FISA-702 "about"(17) and "to/from"(16) search queries were being done without authorization. Thus
begins the first discovery of a much bigger background story.
And that's when everything changed. Because at that point, having lost access Obama's spy team needed another way into the
NSA database. Enter Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele and the ridiculous dossier used to issue FISA warrants on Carter Page and all
the rest of it.
The details are all there for anyone with eyes willing to see, the question is whether anyone deep in the throes of Trump Derangement
Syndrome will take their eyes off the shadow play in front of them long enough to look.
I'm not holding my breath.
Obama is guilty of the highest crimes a President can be guilty of, utilizing Federal law enforcement and intelligence services
to spy on a political opponent during an election. This is after eight years of ruinous wars, coups both successful and not, drone-striking
U.S. citizens and generally carrying on like the vandal he is.
-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)
May 12, 2020
... ... ...
These people obviously missed the key point about Goebbels' Big Lie theory of propaganda. For it to work there has to be a nugget
of truth to wrap the lie in before you can repeat it endlessly to make it real. And that's why RussiaGate is dead. Long live ObamaGate.
Obama's people have been covering for him for nearly four years now. They have been exposed as bald-faced liars by the transcripts
of their impeachment testimonies to Adam Schiff and the House Intelligence Committee.
None of them were willing to testify under oath, and be guilty of perjury, to the effect that Trump was colluding with the Russians.
But, they'd say it on TV, Twitter and anywhere else they could to attack Trump with patent nonsense.
Now that the heat is rising and the apparatus they used to control turns its attention to what they did, enough of them will
roll over and give Attorney General William Barr what he wants. Some of them will fall on their sword for Obama.
But I don't think Trump will be satisfied with that. He has to know that Obama is the key to truly draining the Swamp if that
is, in fact, his goal. Because if he doesn't attack Obama now, Obama will be formidable in October. Both men are fighting for their
lives at this point.
Trump was supposed to roll over and play nice. But Pat Buchanan rightly had him pegged at the beginning of this back in January
of 2017, saying that Trump wasn't like Nixon, he wouldn't walk away to protect the office of the Presidency. He would fight to the
bitter end because that's who he is.
And here we are coming into the home stretch and the bitter end is staring these people in the face. They've lost all credibility,
corrupted whole swaths of the Federal government beyond recognition and activated every resource they have in the media and the chattering
classes to make manifest a bald-faced lie. And it didn't work. Now the desperation sets in. The exoneration of Gen. Michael Flynn,
the release of the transcripts and conflicting stories told by John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey and the rest all point to
something beyond sinister.
You can smell the fear now. From Bill Kristol to John Brennan they can see the end of their project, whether it was for a
New American Neocon Century or just the cynical push for a transnational oligarchy based around the European Union, their Utopian
dreams have run into the immovable object of a people refusing to believe their lies anymore.
CNN's latest installment of its 'Facts and Fears' town hall on the coronavirus
pandemic will feature teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg as one of its experts. What
expertise Thunberg can offer on the virus is a mystery.
"... It's not been a great week for proponents of Russiagate conspiracies. A release of transcripts of meetings of the American House of Representatives Intelligence Committee revealed that person after person interviewed by the Committee denied having any knowledge of collusion between Donald Trump and his campaign on the one hand and the Russian state on the other. This was despite the fact that many of those so interviewed had claimed in public that such collusion had taken place. The discrepancy between their public and private utterances has rightfully been interpreted as further evidence that the whole collusion story was a fabrication from start to finish. ..."
"... Collusion was only half of Russiagate. The other half was the allegation of Russian 'interference' in the US election, founded especially on claims that the Russian military intelligence service, the GRU, had hacked and leaked documents from the Democratic National Committee (DNC). This allegation was based on research undertaken by a private company Crowdstrike, but now the Intelligence Committee minutes reveal that Crowdstrike couldn't even confirm that how the DNC data had been leaked let alone that the Russians were responsible. All they had, according to the testimony, was 'circumstantial evidence' and 'indicators' – not exactly solid proof. ..."
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. [Gone with the Wind]
It's not been a great week for proponents of Russiagate conspiracies. A release of
transcripts of meetings of the American House of Representatives Intelligence Committee
revealed that person after person interviewed by the Committee denied having any knowledge of
collusion between Donald Trump and his campaign on the one hand and the Russian state on the
other. This was despite the fact that many of those so interviewed had claimed in public that
such collusion had taken place. The discrepancy between their public and private utterances has
rightfully been interpreted as further evidence that the whole collusion story was a
fabrication from start to finish.
Collusion was only half of Russiagate. The other half was the allegation of Russian
'interference' in the US election, founded especially on claims that the Russian military
intelligence service, the GRU, had hacked and leaked documents from the Democratic National
Committee (DNC). This allegation was based on research undertaken by a private company
Crowdstrike, but now the Intelligence Committee minutes reveal that Crowdstrike couldn't even
confirm that how the DNC data had been leaked let alone that the Russians were responsible. All
they had, according to the testimony, was 'circumstantial evidence' and 'indicators' –
not exactly solid proof.
Given this, you'd imagine that this would be a good time for Russiagaters to slink off into
a dark corner somewhere and hope that people forget all the nonsense they've been spouting for
the past four years. But not a bit of it, for what do we find in the latest edition of The
Atlantic magazine than an
article by Franklin Foer with the scary title 'Putin is well on the way to stealing the
next election'.
Foer is in some respects the original Russiagater. He was well ahead of the game, and in a
July 2016
article in Slate laid out the basic narrative many months before others latched
onto it. The article has it all: a scary title ('Putin's Puppet' – meaning Trump);
Vladimir Putin's evil plan to destroy Europe and the United States; a cast of characters with
allegedly dubious connections to the Kremlin (Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Carter Page, etc.
– you met them first in Foer's article); Trump's supposed desperation to break into the
Moscow real estate market; allegations of Trump's lack of creditworthiness leading him to seek
shady Russian sources of finance; and so on – in short, the whole shebang long before it
was on anyone else's radar.
Not wanting to let a good story go to waste, Foer has been on it ever since, and gained a
certain amount of notoriety when he broke the 'story' that US President Donald Trump was
secretly exchanging messages with the Russian government via the computer servers of Alfa Bank.
Unfortunately for Foer, it didn't take more than a minute or three for researchers to expose
his revelation as utter nonsense. This, however, didn't seem to shake him. In the world of
journalism there appears to be no such thing as accountability for those who publish fake news
about Russians producing fake news, and so it is that Foer is back on the Russiagate wagon with
his new piece in the Atlantic , warning us that it's bad enough that Putin elected
Trump once, but now he's going to do it all over again.
The basic theme of Foer's latest is pretty much the same as in his original article of July
2016. Back then Foer informed readers that, 'Vladimir Putin has a plan for destroying the West
– and that plan looks a lot like Donald Trump'. 'The destruction of Europe is a grandiose
objective; so is the weakening of the United States', Foer went on, keen to let us know that
Putin's aims were nothing if not extreme ('The destruction of Europe' no less!!). Now, nearly
four years later, he tell us breathlessly that 'Vladimir Putin dreams of discrediting the
American democratic system' (How does he know this? Does he have some special dream detection
equipment he's snuck into the Kremlin? Alas, Foer doesn't tell.) According to Foer:
It's possible, however, to mistake a plot point – the manipulation of the 2016
election – for the full sweep of the narrative. Events in the United States have
unfolded more favorably than any operative in Moscow could have dreamed: Not only did
Russia's preferred candidate win, but he has spent his first term fulfilling the potential it
saw in him, discrediting American institutions, rending the seams of American culture, and
isolating a nation that had styled itself as indispensable to the free world. But instead of
complacently enjoying its triumph, Russia almost immediately set about replicating it.
Boosting the Trump campaign was a tactic; #DemocracyRIP remains the larger objective.
#DemocracyRIP?? Seriously? Where does Foer get this? I'm willing to offer him a challenge.
I'll pay him $100 (Canadian not US) if he can find anywhere, anywhere, any statement by
Vladimir Putin or another top official in the Russian Federation in which they state any sort
of preference for what sort of political system the United States has, and in particular state
a preference that the USA ceases to be a democracy. If he can't, he'll have to pay me $100. I'm
confident I'll win. The truth, as far as I can see, is that like Rhett Butler, they don't give
a damn. America can be a democracy, or an autocracy, or any other thing as far as they're
concerned, as long as it just leaves them alone. Insofar as thinking Russians do discuss the
matter, I get a strong impression they generally regard the problem not as being that America
is a democracy so much as being that it isn't, not really, as actual power is seen as lying in
the hands of special interests and some sort of version of the 'deep state'. More democracy,
not less, would be the preferred solution.
So where does all the nonsense about Putin wanting to destroy democracy come from? It
certainly doesn't come from anything he's ever said. And it certainly doesn't come from a
serious examination of Russia's true potential. Russia can no more destroy American democracy
than it send a man to Alpha Centauri. And its leaders know that perfectly well. So why do
Americans think that Putin is lying in his bed, 'dreaming' about the 'destruction of Europe',
the 'weakening of America' and '#DemocracyRIP'? I'll hazard a guess – it's a serious case
of narcissism. America believes it is the centre of the universe, and it also imagines itself a
democracy, and so it thinks that American democracy must be what's at the centre of everybody
else's universe too. Well, sorry, Franky boy, it just ain't so. #DemocracyRIP?? In your dreams,
perhaps, but certainly not in Putin's.
Released today is a list from the National Security Agency of officials who asked -- between
8 November 2016 and 31 January 2017 -- that a name be unmasked in intercepted communications,
and the name turned out to be Gen. Michael Flynn--
Gen. Paul M. Nakasone, the Director of the NSA, included the list with a short memo to
Richard Grenell, the Acting Director of National Intelligence, who declassified the list and
then routed it today to U.S. Senators Charles Grassley and Ron Johnson.
I think the senators should have asked for a wider time frame.
Americans expect that politicians will lie, but sometimes the examples are so brazen that
they deserve special notice. Newly released Congressional testimony shows that Adam Schiff
spread falsehoods shamelessly about Russia and Donald Trump for three years even as his own
committee gathered contrary evidence.
The day just keeps getting better and better. The left is now moving the goalposts,
parroting the new talking point that: 'sure, Biden unmasked Flynn - but that just goes to show
how concerned everyone was about him.'
Biden spokesman Andrew Bates, meanwhile, took to Twitter to insult journalist Catherine
Herridge as a "partisan, rightwing hack who is a regular conduit for conservative media
manipulation..." for revealing Biden's involvement in unmasking Flynn. He then deleted the
tweet and issued a statement accusing President Trump of "dishonest media manipulation to
distract from his response to the worst public health crisis in 100 years," adding that the
documents "simply indicate the breadth and depth of concern across the American government --
including among career officials -- over intelligence reports of Michael Flynn's attempts to
undermine ongoing American national security policy through discussions with Russian officials
or other foreign representatives."
. @JoeBiden
camp responds to "unmasking" list: "These documents simply indicate the breadth and depth of
concern across the American govt...over intelligence reports of Michael Flynn's attempts to
undermine ongoing American national security policy" via @AndrewBatesNC
pic.twitter.com/bNl9Fp5JH1
Somehow their response failed to include why Biden tried to lie on Tuesday about knowledge
of the Flynn investigation. * * *
Update (1635ET): It did not take long for the liberalati to try and distract from what just
dropped and to turn their cognitive dissonance up to '11'. None other than Ben Rhodes quickly
ranted:
"The unconfirmed, acting DNI using his position to criminalize routine intelligence work
to help re-elect the president and obscure Russian intervention in our democracy would
normally be the scandal here..."
To which The Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel rebuked rather eloquently...
"This is the best they've got--to complain about transparency. "
But perhaps most notable is the fact the unmasking involved here occurred BEFORE the Kislyak
call that was supposedly triggered the move against Flynn et al.
Another riddle we are sure Messrs. Biden et al. will quickly mumble-splain.
* * *
A list of Obama administration officials who participated in the 'unmasking' of former
National Security Adviser Michael Flynn has been released by Sens. Ron Johnson and Chuck
Grassley. The names include former FBI Director James Comey, former CIA Director John Brennan,
former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former Vice President Joe Biden
.
SCOOP @CBSNews obtains @RichardGrenell
notification to congress declassified "unmasking list" Flynn between late 2016 and January
2017 - Read 3 pages provided by NSA here pic.twitter.com/NozVpQlRn2
-- Catherine Herridge
(@CBS_Herridge) May 13,
2020
#FLYNN unmasking
docs include these key details "Each individual was an authorized recipient of the original
report and the unmasking was approved through NSA's standard process..While the principals
are identified below, we cannot confirm they saw the unmasked information." pic.twitter.com/vz9W3uHPSz
-- Catherine
Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) May 13,
2020
The revelation comes after Biden was caught trying to lie about his knowledge of the Flynn
investigation during a Tuesday morning interview - changing course after host George
Stephanopoulos pointed out his documented attendance at a
January 5 Oval Office meeting in which key members of the Obama administration discussed
the ongoing investigation into Flynn's intercepted contacts with the Russian ambassador.
Notably, Obama asked Comey to conceal the FBI's investigation from the incoming
administration.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/oIaqV0CtOBY
Declassified documents reveal V.P. Biden ordered the unmasking of General Flynn's private
conversation.
Anyone think that Biden might have abused his power to go after a political opponent...
The Senate must immediately hold hearings on this! Clapper, Comey, Brennan and even Biden
owe it to the American people. They should testify under oath. What did the former president
know?
As we have previously noted, "unmasking" is a term used when the identity of a U.S. citizen
or lawful resident is revealed in classified intelligence reports. Normally, when government
officials receive intelligence reports, the names of American citizens are redacted to protect
their privacy. But officials can request that names, listed as "U.S. Person 1," for example, be
unmasked internally in order to give context about the potential value of the intelligence.
Unmasking is justified for national security reasons but is governed by strict rules across the
U.S. intelligence apparatus that make it illegal to pursue for political reasons or to leak
classified information generated by the process .
Last week, Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell visited the Justice
Department with the list of unmaskers, which the DOJ effectively said was up to him to release,
according to a Fox News report.
After Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice was outed as the ringleader of an unmasking
campaign, the Wall Street Journal reported that she wasn't the only administration official to
participate in Flynn's unmasking .
The new disclosure comes after the FBI was revealed to have attempted to ensnare Flynn in a
perjury trap , despite the agency's own DC field office suggesting that the case be closed.
Last week,
remarks by Obama were leaked to Yahoo News that were highly critical about Trump and his
administration, seeming to break a convention in US politics that former occupants of the White
House rarely criticize their successors.
Speaking to alumni of his administration, Obama said he was worried about the "rule of law",
in light of the justice department's decision to drop its case against the former national
security adviser Michael Flynn. That's the issue at the heart of Trump's attempts to gin up an
"Obamagate" scandal, which on Tuesday morning he again claimed "makes Watergate look small
time!"
Obama also said the response to the coronavirus pandemic had been "an absolute chaotic
disaster".
McConnell was
speaking to Trump's daughter-in-law Lara Trump in an online fundraiser on Monday night.
Asked about Obama "slamming" the administration for its response to the coronavirus
outbreak, he said: "I think President Obama should have kept his mouth shut.
"You know, we know he doesn't like much this administration is doing. That's understandable.
But I think it's a little bit classless frankly to critique an administration that comes after
you."
He added: "You had your shot. You were there for eight years. I think the tradition that the
Bushes set up of not critiquing the president who comes after you is a good tradition."
There is a tradition of former presidents not commenting on or attacking their successors in
the Oval Office, but Trump is not part of the informal club which currently includes Obama,
George W Bush, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, and he has regularly attacked those who went
before him.
Plus, Obama's views of Trump are pretty well known, if usually by indirect routes and leaks
to the press. For example, in a Hulu documentary about Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign against
Trump, the Virginia senator Tim Kaine is seen to say the then president thinks Trump is a
fascist.
In the remarks leaked to Yahoo News, Obama said he would be hitting the campaign trail for
Joe Biden this fall to help him try to unseat Trump and make him a one-term president. Biden
leads Trump in key swing states and national polling and McConnell is also presiding over a
Senate majority that now looks increasingly at risk as Republican popularity dips.
"... House Intelligence Committee staff told me that after an exhaustive investigation reviewing intelligence and interviewing intelligence officers, they found that Brennan suppressed high-quality intelligence suggesting that Putin actually wanted the more predictable and malleable Clinton to win the 2016 election . ..."
"... Instead, the Brennan team included low-quality intelligence that failed to meet intelligence community standards to support the political claim that Russian officials wanted Trump to win, House Intelligence Committee staff revealed. They said that CIA analysts also objected to including that flawed, substandard information in the assessment. ..."
"... Fox 's Henry said that he has obtained independent confirmation of the pro-Clinton Russia claim made by Fleitz . ..."
"... Brennan's concealment of this key information was yet another link in the chain of the Obama administration's plot to smear Donald Trump as a Russian asset - a hoax supported by the Clinton-funded Steele dossier, which the FBI knew was Russian disinformation (or, more likely, Steele's Russophobic fantasies) before they used it as a predicate to spy on Trump aide Carter Page during the 2016 election. ..."
Former CIA director John Brennan suppressed intelligence which
indicated that Russia wanted Hillary Clinton to win because "she was a known quantity," vs. the
unpredictable Donald Trump, according to Fox News ' Ed Henry.
During a Tuesday night discussion with Tucker Carlson, Henry said that Brennan "also had
intel saying, actually, Russia wanted Hillary Clinton to win because she was a known quantity,
she had been secretary of state, and Vladimir Putin's team thought she was more malleable,
while candidate Donald Trump was unpredictable."
Perhaps Russian President Vladimir Putin has fond memories of the time Bill Clinton
hung out at his 'private homestead' during the same trip where he collected a $500,000
payday for a speech at a Moscow bank, right before the Uranium One deal was approved.
And as
Breitbart 's Joel Pollak notes, Henry's claim backs up a similar
allegation by former National Security Council chief of staff Fred Fleitz , who said on
April 22:
House Intelligence Committee staff told me that after an exhaustive investigation
reviewing intelligence and interviewing intelligence officers, they found that Brennan
suppressed high-quality intelligence suggesting that Putin actually wanted the more
predictable and malleable Clinton to win the 2016 election .
Instead, the Brennan team included low-quality intelligence that failed to meet
intelligence community standards to support the political claim that Russian officials wanted
Trump to win, House Intelligence Committee staff revealed. They said that CIA analysts also
objected to including that flawed, substandard information in the assessment.
Fox 's Henry said that he has obtained independent confirmation of the pro-Clinton Russia
claim made by Fleitz .
Brennan's concealment of this key information was yet another link in the chain of the Obama
administration's plot to smear Donald Trump as a Russian asset - a hoax supported by the
Clinton-funded Steele dossier, which the FBI
knew was Russian disinformation (or, more likely, Steele's Russophobic fantasies) before
they used it as a predicate to spy on Trump aide Carter Page during the 2016 election.
And now, Brennan is a contributor on MSNBC. How fitting.
Russian 'meddling' in the 2016 US presidential election has become an article of faith, not
just among Democrats but many Republicans as well, thanks to the endless repetition of vague
talking points, none of which hold water. It all began with the Democratic National Committee
(DNC) claiming in June 2016 that Russia hacked their computers, after documents were published
revealing the party's rigging of the primaries. This was followed by Hillary Clinton accusing
her rival for the presidency Donald Trump that he was "colluding" with Russia by
asking Moscow for her emails – the ones she deleted from a private server she used to
conduct State Department business, that is.
With a little help of the mainstream media, which overwhelmingly endorsed Clinton and
predicted her victory, her efforts to cover up her email scandal turned into Russia
"hacking our democracy," eventually spawning the 'Russiagate' investigation led by
Special Counsel Robert Mueller and a series of failed attempts to derail Trump's election and
oust him from the White House.
Lie #1: Russia hacked the DNC
The infamous US intelligence community assessment (ICA) of January 2017, and the Senate
Intelligence Committee report based on it – as well as 'analysis' by actual election
meddlers , among others – all claimed that the Russian government and President
Vladimir Putin personally were behind the "hack" and publication of DNC documents.
These have always been assertions, and no evidence was ever provided.
Last week's declassification
of 50+ interviews in the probe conducted by the House Intelligence Committee revealed that
the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, brought in by the DNC lawyers to fix the "hack,"
did not have evidence either.
CrowdStrike's president, ex-FBI official Shawn Henry, testified that they "saw
activity that we believed was consistent with activity we'd seen previously and had
associated with the Russian Government." [emphasis added]
In the same testimony, Henry also testified that CrowdStrike never had any evidence the
data was actually "exfiltrated," i.e. stolen from the DNC servers.
I want to stress what a pretty big revelation this is. Crowdstrike, the firm behind the
accusation that Russia hacked & stole DNC emails, admitted to Congress that it has no
direct evidence Russia actually stole/exfiltrated the emails. More from Crowdstrike
president Shaun Henry: pic.twitter.com/UCGSyO2rLt
CrowdStrike's feelings about the hack remain the only "evidence" so far, since the
FBI never asked them or the DNC for the actual server, as Henry also confirmed. Meanwhile,
former NSA official and whistleblower William Binney argued back in November 2017 that actual
evidence showed a leak from the inside, not a hack.
There is likewise zero proof that the Russian government had anything to do with the
private email account of John Podesta, Clinton's campaign chair, which a staffer admitted had
been compromised when someone fell for a phishing scam.
Instead, the key argument that WikiLeaks was somehow 'colluding' with Russia over the
publication of the emails rests on a conspiracy theory promoted by the Clinton campaign
staff, after RT reported on a fresh batch of emails before WikiLeaks got around to tweeting
about them – but after they were published on the website and available to anyone
willing to do actual journalism.
In fact, the existence of RT has been a major "argument" of Russiagaters; a third
of the ICA intended to show 'Russian meddling' consisted of a four-year-old appendix about
RT that was in no way relevant to the 2016 situation but lamented its coverage of
fracking and 'Occupy Wall Street' protests, for example.
Lie #3: The Steele 'pee tape'
dossier was irrelevant
As it later emerged, Clinton's claims about 'Russian collusion' were based on a dodgy
dossier her campaign
commissioned through the DNC and a firm called Fusion GPS from a British spy named
Christopher Steele. It said that the Kremlin was blackmailing Trump with a tape of depraved
sex acts in a Moscow hotel, with prostitutes supposedly paid to urinate on a bed President
Barack Obama had slept on.
It was clearly ridiculous and entirely evidence-free. Democrats claimed it played no role
in Russia investigations. Yet the FBI paid Steele for information from the dossier, and used
it to justify a FISA warrant for the surveillance of Trump campaign aide Carter Page –
and with him the campaign itself – starting right before the election, and renewed
three times.
By January 2020, the DOJ had formally disavowed the dossier and all four FISA warrants,
along with any information obtained from them, saying "there was insufficient predication
to establish probable cause."
Lie #4: General Michael Flynn treasonously colluded
with Russia and lied about it to the FBI
Trump's first national security adviser was hounded out of the White House after less than
two weeks on the job, after media leaks insinuated he had improperly discussed sanctions with
Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, violating the Logan Act, and then lied to the FBI about
it.
After FBI Director James Comey was fired by Trump in May 2017, he told the media the
president had urged him to drop the investigation of Flynn, which was quickly construed as
"obstruction" and used as one of the pretexts to appoint Robert Mueller as special counsel
into 'Russiagate.'
When actual evidence was finally coaxed out of prosecutors, however, it showed that the
FBI sought to frame Flynn in a perjury trap, and that the people involved were Comey himself,
his deputy Andrew McCabe, disgraced lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and others. All
charges against Flynn were dropped.
Flynn didn't even lie to Strzok and the other agent interviewing him – and the memo
of that conversation had been first heavily edited, then destroyed. Basically, everything
about the Flynn case has been as false as ABC's December 2017 bombshell report about his
"collusion" with Russia that got Brian Ross fired.
When Mueller's final report came out, in the spring of 2019, it found zero evidence of
"collusion" but insisted there had been Russian "meddling" in the election. The
only trouble was that he had no proof of meddling ,
basing it entirely on the above-mentioned intelligence "assessments" and his own
indictments.
A Russian company named in one of the indictments actually contested it in US court and
won. First, a federal judge slapped down Mueller's prosecutors for violating rules by
presenting allegations as "established" and "confirmed" facts and ruling that
no link was actually established behind a catering company accused of "sowing discord"
on social media – a far cry from hacking the DNC! – and the Russian
government.
The DOJ quietly dropped that
particular case in March, just as coronavirus shutdowns were starting across the US, using
"recent events" and a change in classification of some of its evidence as a
face-saving excuse.
Lie #6: Paul Manafort was Trump's conduit to Russia
Paul Manafort, who ran Trump's campaign between March and August 2016, was convicted of
multiple counts of conspiracy against the US and sentenced to a lengthy prison term. However,
despite repeated attempts by the media to present him as some kind of liaison between Trump
and Russia, the entirety of things that got him in trouble with the law had to do with tax
evasion on money he made lobbying for and in Ukraine.
During the two trials against Manafort, it emerged that he and his business partner Rick
Gates had worked with Podesta's brother Tony to fleece Ukrainian oligarchs for years, and
stash the profits in tax havens.
The Ukrainian officials who leaked the so-called "black ledger" implicating
Manafort to the US media were even convicted of election
meddling by a court in Kiev, and the whole thing may have been solicited by a
Ukrainian-American DNC contractor The US media have been curiously uninterested in that
particular "collusion," needless to say.
Peel back all these layers of misinformation, like an onion, and what's left is an empty
talking point, endlessly repeated by Democrats like Adam Schiff (D-California), that
"Russia hacked our democracy."
The charge is vague enough that it can mean anything, and deliberately so. No evidence is
ever offered, because there isn't any – as the years of investigations and boxes full
of documents have clearly shown.
Why is former President Obama calling forth all his defensive resources now?
Why did former national security advisor Susan Rice write her CYA letter? Why have republicans in
congress not been willing to investigate the true origins of political surveillance? What is the
reason for so much anger, desperation and opposition from a variety of interests?
In a
single word in a single tweet tonight, President Trump explained it perfectly - with help from Fox
News' Tucker Carlson's detailed breakdown"
"OBAMAGATE!"
...
As around 2:15 in the clip above, Carlson explains that
then president of the United
States Barack Obama turned to the head of the FBI - the most powerful law enforcement official in
America, and said "Continue to secretly investigate my chief political rival so I can act against
him."
With the release of
recent
transcripts
and the
declassification
of material
from within the IG report, the Carter Page FISA and
Flynn
documents
showing FBI activity, there is a common misconception about
why
the
intelligence apparatus began investigating the Trump campaign in the first place. Why was Donald
Trump considered a threat?
In this outline we hope to provide some fully cited deep source material that will
explain the origin; and specifically why those inside the Intelligence Community began targeting
Trump and using Confidential Human Sources against campaign officials.
During the time-frame of December 2015 through April 2016 the NSA database was being
exploited
by contractors
within the intelligence community doing unauthorized searches.
On March 9, 2016, oversight personnel doing a review of FBI system access were alerted to
thousands of unauthorized search queries of specific U.S. persons within the NSA database.
NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers was made aware.
Subsequently NSA Director Rogers initiated a full compliance review of the system to identify
who was doing the searches; & what searches were being conducted.
On April 18, 2016, following the preliminary audit results, Director Rogers shut down all FBI
contractor access to the database after he learned FISA-702 "about"(17) and "to/from"(16) search
queries were being done without authorization. Thus begins the first discovery of a much bigger
background story.
When you compile the timeline with the people involved; and the specific wording of the
resulting review, which was then delivered to the FISA court; and overlay the activity that was
taking place in the GOP primary; what we discover is a process where the metadata collected by the
NSA was being searched for political opposition research and surveillance.
Additionally, tens-of-thousands of searches were identified by the FISA court as likely
extending much further than the compliance review period: "
while the government reports it is
unable to provide a reliable estimate of the non compliant queries since 2012, there is no apparent
reason to believe the November 2015 [to] April 2016 period coincided with an unusually high error
rate"
.
In short, during the Obama administration the NSA database was continually used to conduct
surveillance. This is the critical point that leads to understanding the origin of "Spygate", as it
unfolded in the Spring and Summer of 2016.
It was the discovery of the database exploitation and the removal of access as a surveillance
tool that created their initial problem.
Here's how we can tell
.
Initially in December 2015 there were 17 GOP candidates and all needed to be researched.
However, when Donald Trump won New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina the field was
significantly whittled. Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich and Carson remained.
On Super Tuesday,
March
2, 2016
, Donald Trump won seven states (VT, AR, VA, GA, AL, TN, MA) it was then clear that
Trump was the GOP frontrunner with momentum to become the presumptive nominee. On
March
5th
, Trump won Kentucky and Louisiana; and on
March
8th
Trump won Michigan, Mississippi and Hawaii.
The next day,
March 9th
, NSA security alerts warned internal oversight
personnel that something sketchy was going on.
This timing is not coincidental. As FISA Judge Rosemary Collyer later wrote in her report, "
many
of these non-compliant queries involved the use of the
same identifiers
over
different date ranges
." Put another way: attributes belonging to a specific individual(s) were
being targeted and queried, unlawfully. Given what was later discovered, it seems obvious the
primary search target, over
multiple date ranges
, was Donald Trump.
There were tens-of-thousands of unauthorized search queries; and as Judge Collyer stated in her
report, there is no reason to believe the
85% non compliant rate
was any different from
the abuse of the NSA database going back to 2012.
As you will see below the NSA database was how political surveillance was being conducted during
Obama's second term in office. However, when the system was flagged, and when NSA Director Mike
Rogers shut down "contractor" access to the system, the system users needed to develop another way
to get access.
Mike Rogers shuts down access on April 18, 2016. On April 19, 2016, Fusion-GPS founder Glenn
Simpson's wife, Mary Jacoby visits the White House. Immediately thereafter, the DNC and Clinton
campaign contract Fusion GPS who then hire Christopher Steele.
Knowing it was federal "contractors", outside government with access to the system, doing the
unauthorized searches, the question becomes:
who were the contractors?
The possibilities are quite vast. Essentially anyone the FBI or intelligence apparatus was using
could have participated. Crowdstrike was a known
FBI
contractor
; they were also
contracted
by the DNC
. Shawn Henry was the former head of the FBI office in DC and is now the head of
Crowdstrike; a
rather
dubious contractor
for the government and a politically connected data security and forensic
company. James Comey's special friend Daniel Richman was an unpaid FBI "special employee"
with
security access
to the database. Nellie Ohr began working for Fusion-GPS on the Trump project
in
November 2015
and she was a
CIA
contractor
; and it's entirely likely Glenn Simpson or people within his Fusion-GPS network were
also contractors for the intelligence community.
Remember the Sharyl Attkisson computer intrusions? It's all part of this same network; Attkisson
even names Shawn Henry
as
a defendant
in her ongoing lawsuit.
All of the aforementioned names, and so many more, held a political agenda in 2016.
It seems likely if the NSA flags were never triggered then the contracted system users would
have continued exploiting the NSA database for political opposition research; which would then be
funneled to the Clinton team. However, once the unauthorized flags were triggered, the system users
(including those inside the official intelligence apparatus) needed to find another back-door to
continue Again, the timing becomes transparent.
Immediately after NSA flags were raised March 9th; the same intelligence agencies began using
confidential human sources (CHS's) to run into the Trump campaign. By activating intelligence
assets like
Joseph
Mifsud
and
Stefan
Halper
the IC (CIA, FBI) and system users had now created an authorized way to continue the
same political surveillance operations.
When Donald Trump hired Paul Manafort on
March
28, 2016
, it was a perfect scenario for those doing the surveillance. Manafort was a
known
entity
to the FBI and was previously under investigation. Paul Manafort's entry into the Trump
orbit was perfect for Glenn Simpson to sell his prior research on Manafort as a Trump-Russia
collusion script two weeks later.
The shift from "unauthorized exploitation of the NSA database" to legally authorized
exploitation of the NSA database was now in place. This was how they continued the political
surveillance. This is the confluence of events that originated "spygate", or what officially
blossomed into the FBI investigation known as "Crossfire Hurricane" on July 31.
If the NSA flags were never raised; and if Director Rogers had never initiated the compliance
audit; and if the political contractors were never blocked from access to the database; they would
never have needed to create a legal back-door, a justification to retain the surveillance. The
political operatives/contractors would have just continued the targeted metadata exploitation.
Once they created the surveillance door, Fusion-GPS was then needed to get the FBI known
commodity of Chris Steele activated as a pipeline. Into that pipeline all system users pushed
opposition research. However, one mistake from the NSA database extraction during an "about" query
shows up as a New Yorker named Michael Cohen in Prague.
That misinterpreted data from a FISA-702 "about query" is then piped to Steele and turns up
inside the dossier; it was the wrong Michael Cohen. It wasn't Trump's lawyer, it was an art dealer
from New York City with the same name; the same "identifier".
A DEEP DIVE – How Did It Work?
Start by reviewing the established record from the
99-page
FISC opinion
rendered by Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer on April 26, 2017. Review the details
within the FISC opinion.
I would strongly urge everyone to read the
FISC
report
(full pdf below) because Judge Collyer outlines how the DOJ, which includes the FBI, had
an "institutional lack of candor" in responses to the FISA court. In essence, the Obama
administration was continually lying to the FISA court about their activity, and the rate of fourth
amendment violations for illegal searches and seizures of U.S. persons' private information for
multiple years.
Unfortunately, due to intelligence terminology Judge Collyer's brief and ruling is not an easy
read for anyone unfamiliar with the FISA processes. That complexity also helps the media avoid
discussing it; and as a result most Americans have no idea the scale and scope of the Obama-era
surveillance issues. So we'll try to break down the language.
For the sake of brevity and common understanding CTH will highlight the most pertinent segments
showing just how systemic and troublesome the unlawful electronic surveillance was.
Early in 2016 NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers
was
alerted
of a significant uptick in FISA-702(17) "About" queries using the FBI/NSA database that
holds all metadata records on every form of electronic communication.
The NSA compliance officer alerted Admiral Mike Rogers who then initiated a full compliance
audit on/around
March 9th, 2016
, for the period of November 1st, 2015, through May
1st, 2016.
While the audit was ongoing, due to the severity of the results that were identified, Admiral
Mike Rogers stopped anyone from using the 702(17) "about query" option, and went to the
extraordinary step of blocking all FBI contractor access to the database on
April 18, 2016
(keep
these dates in mind).
Here are some significant segments:
The key takeaway from these first paragraphs is how the search query results were exported from
the NSA database to users who were not authorized to see the material. The FBI contractors were
conducting searches and then removing, or 'exporting', the results. Later on, the FBI said all of
the exported material was deleted.
Searching the highly classified NSA database is essentially a function of filling out search
boxes to identify the user-initiated search parameter and get a return on the search result.
♦ FISA-702(16) is a search of the system returning a U.S. person ("702"); and the "16" is a
check box to initiate a search based on "
To and From
". Example, if you put in a
date and a phone number and check "16" as the search parameter the user will get the returns on
everything "To and From" that identified phone number for the specific date. Calls, texts,
contacts etc. Including results for the inbound and outbound contacts.
♦ FISA-702(17) is a search of the system returning a U.S. person (702); and the "17" is a
check box to initiate a search based on everything "
About
" the search
qualifier. Example, if you put a date and a phone number and check "17" as the search parameter
the user will get the returns of everything
about
that phone. Calls, texts, contacts,
geolocation (or gps results), account information, user, service provider etc. As a result,
702(17) can actually be used to locate where the phone (and user) was located on a specific date
or sequentially over a specific period of time which is simply a matter of changing the date
parameters.
And that's just from a phone number.
Search an ip address "about" and read all data into that server; put in an email address and
gain everything about that account. Or use the electronic address of a GPS enabled vehicle (about)
and you can withdraw more electronic data and monitor in real time. Search a credit card number and
get everything about the account including what was purchased, where, when, etc. Search a bank
account number, get everything about transactions and electronic records etc. Just about anything
and everything can be electronically searched; everything has an electronic
'identifier'
.
The search parameter is only limited by the originating field filled out. Names, places,
numbers, addresses, etc. By using the "About" parameter there may be thousands or millions of
returns. Imagine if you put "@realdonaldtrump" into the search parameter? You could extract all
following accounts who interacted on Twitter, or Facebook etc. You are only limited by your
imagination and the scale of the electronic connectivity.
As you can see below, on March 9th, 2016, internal auditors noted the FBI was sharing "raw FISA
information, including
but not limited to
Section 702-acquired information".
In plain English the raw search returns were being shared with unknown entities without any
attempt to "minimize" or redact the results. The person(s) attached to the results were named and
obvious. There was no effort to hide their identity or protect their 4th amendment rights of
privacy; and database access was from the FBI network:
But what's the scale here? This is where the story really lies.
Read this next excerpt carefully.
The operators were searching "U.S Persons". The review of November 1, 2015, to May 1, 2016,
showed "eighty-five percent of those queries" were unlawful or "non compliant".
85% !!
"representing [redacted number]".
We can tell from the space of the redaction the number of searches were between 10,000 and
99,999 [six digits]. If we take the middle number of 50,000 – a non compliant rate of 85 percent
means 42,500 unlawful searches out of 50,000.
The [six digit] amount (more than 10,000, less than 99,999), and 85% error rate, was captured in
a six month period, November 2015 to April 2016.
Also notice this
very important
quote: "
many of these non-compliant queries
involved the use of the same identifiers over different date ranges
." This tells us the system
users were searching the same phone number, email address, electronic identifier, repeatedly over
different dates.
Specific person(s) were being tracked/monitored
.
Additionally, notice the last quote: "
while the government reports it is unable to provide a
reliable estimate of" these non lawful searches "since 2012, there is no apparent reason to believe
the November 2015 [to] April 2016 coincided with an unusually high error rate"
.
That means the 85% unlawful FISA-702(16)(17) database abuse has likely been happening
since
2012
.
2012 is an important date in this database abuse because a network of specific interests is
assembled that also shows up in 2016/2017:
Who was 2012 FBI Director? Robert Mueller, who was selected by the FBI group to become
special prosecutor in 2017.
Who was Mueller' chief-of-staff? Aaron Zebley, who became one of the lead lawyers on the
Mueller special counsel.
Who was 2012 CIA Director? John Brennan (remember the ouster of Gen Petraeus)
Who was ODNI? James Clapper.
Remember, the NSA is inside the Pentagon (Defense Dept) command structure. Who was Defense
Secretary? Ash Carter
Who wanted NSA Director Mike Rogers fired in 2016? Brennan, Clapper and Carter.
And finally, who wrote and signed-off-on the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment and
then lied about the use of the Steele Dossier? The same John Brennan, and James Clapper along with
James Comey.
Tens of thousands of searches over four years (since 2012), and 85% of them are illegal. The
results were extracted for? . (I believe this is all political opposition use; and I'll explain why
momentarily.)
OK, that's the stunning scale; but who was involved?
Private contractors with access to "
raw FISA information that went well beyond what was
necessary to respond to FBI's requests
":
And as noted, the contractor access was finally halted on April 18th, 2016.
[Coincidentally (or likely not), the wife of Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson, Mary Jacoby,
goes
to the White House
the very next day on April 19th, 2016.]
None of this is conspiracy theory.
All of this is laid out inside this 99-page opinion from FISC Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer
who also noted that none of this FISA abuse was accidental in a
footnote
on page 87
: "
deliberate decisionmaking
":
This specific footnote, if declassified, could be a key. Note the phrase: "(
[redacted]
access to FBI systems was the subject of an interagency memorandum of understanding entered into
[redacted])"
, this sentence has the potential to expose an internal decision; withheld from
congress and the FISA court by the Obama administration; that outlines a process for access and
distribution of surveillance data.
Note: "
no notice of this practice was given to the FISC until 2016
", that is important.
Summary:
The FISA court identified and quantified tens-of-thousands of search queries of the NSA/FBI
database using the FISA-702(16)(17) system. The database was repeatedly used by persons with
contractor access who unlawfully searched and extracted the raw results without redacting the
information and shared it with an unknown number of entities.
The outlined process certainly points toward a political spying and surveillance operation; and
we are not the only one to think that's what this system is being used for.
Back in 2017 when House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was working to reauthorize
the FISA legislation, Nunes
wrote a letter
to ODNI Dan Coats
about this specific issue:
SIDEBAR
:
To solve the issue, well, actually attempt to ensure it never happened again, NSA Director
Admiral Mike Rogers eventually took away the "About" query option permanently in 2017. NSA Director
Rogers said the abuse was so inherent there was no way to stop it except to remove the process
completely. [
SEE
HERE
] Additionally, the NSA database operates as a function of the Pentagon, so the Trump
administration went one step further. On his last day as NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers -together
with ODNI Dan Coats- put U.S. cyber-command, the database steward, fully into the U.S. military as
a full combatant command. [
SEE
HERE
] Unfortunately it didn't work as shown by the 2018 FISC opinion rendered by FISC Judge
James Boasberg [
SEE
HERE
]
There is little doubt the FISA-702(16)(17) database system was used by Obama-era officials, from
2012 through April 2016, as a way to spy on their political opposition.
Quite simply there is no other intellectually honest explanation for the scale and volume of
database abuse that was taking place; and keep in mind these searches were all ruled to be
unlawful. Searches for repeated persons over a period time that were not authorized.
When we reconcile what was taking place and who was involved, then the actions of the exact same
principle participants take on a jaw-dropping amount of clarity.
All of the action taken by CIA Director Brennan, FBI Director Comey, ODNI Clapper and Defense
Secretary Ashton Carter make sense. Including their effort to get NSA Director Mike Rogers
fired
.
Everything after March 9th, 2016, had a dual purpose: (1) done to cover up the weaponization of
the FISA database. [
Explained
Here
] Spygate, Russia-Gate, the Steele Dossier, and even the 2017
Intelligence
Community Assessment
(drawn from the dossier and signed by the above) were needed to create a
cover-story and protect themselves from discovery of this four year weaponization, political
surveillance and unlawful spying. Even the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel makes
sense; he was
FBI Director
when this
began. And (2) they needed to keep the surveillance going.
The beginning decision to use FISA(702) as a domestic surveillance and political spy mechanism
appears to have started in/around 2012. Perhaps sometime shortly before the 2012 presidential
election and before John Brennan left the White House and moved to CIA. However, there was an
earlier version of data assembly that preceded this effort.
Political spying 1.0 was actually the weaponization of the IRS. This is where the term "
Secret
Research Project
" originated as a description from the Obama team. It involved the U.S.
Department of Justice under Eric Holder and the FBI under Robert Mueller. It never made sense why
Eric Holder requested over 1 million tax records via CD ROM, until overlaying the timeline of the
FISA abuse:
The IRS sent the FBI "21 disks constituting a 1.1 million page database of information from
501(c)(4) tax exempt organizations, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation." The transaction
occurred in October 2010 (
link
)
Why disks? Why send a stack of DISKS to the DOJ and FBI when there's a pre-existing financial
crimes unit within the IRS. All of the evidence within this sketchy operation came directly to the
surface in
early
spring 2012
.
The IRS scandal was never really about the IRS, it was always about the DOJ asking the IRS for
the database of information. That is why it was transparently a conflict when the same DOJ was
tasked with investigating the DOJ/IRS scandal. Additionally, Obama sent his chief-of-staff Jack Lew
to become Treasury Secretary; effectively placing an ally to oversee/cover-up any issues. As
Treasury Secretary Lew did just that.
Lesson Learned
– It would appear the Obama administration learned a lesson from
attempting to gather a large opposition research database operation inside a functioning
organization large enough to have some good people that might blow the whistle.
The timeline reflects a few months after realizing the "Secret Research Project" was now
worthless (June 2012), they focused more deliberately on a smaller network within the intelligence
apparatus and began weaponizing the FBI/NSA database. If our hunch is correct, that is what will be
visible in footnote #69:
How this all comes together in 2019/2020
Fusion GPS was not hired in April 2016 just to research Donald Trump. As shown in the evidence
provided by the FISC, the intelligence community was already doing surveillance and spy operations.
The Obama administration already knew everything about the Trump campaign, and were monitoring
everything by exploiting the FISA database.
However, after the NSA alerts in/around March 9th, 2016, and particularly after the April 18th
shutdown of contractor access, the Obama intelligence community needed Fusion GPS to create a legal
albeit
ex post facto
justification for the pre-existing surveillance and spy operations.
Fusion GPS gave them that justification in the Steele Dossier.
That's why the FBI small group, which later transitioned into the Mueller team, were so strongly
committed to and defending the
formation of the Steele Dossier
and its
dubious content.
The Steele Dossier, an outcome of the Fusion contract, contains three insurance policy purposes:
(1) the cover-story and justification for the pre-existing surveillance operation (protect Obama);
and (2) facilitate the FBI counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign (assist
Clinton); and (3) continue the operation with a special counsel (protect both).
An insurance policy would be needed. The Steele Dossier becomes the investigative virus the FBI
wanted inside the system. To get the virus into official status, they used the FISA application as
the delivery method and injected it into Carter Page. The FBI already knew Carter Page; essentially
Carter Page was irrelevant, what they needed was the FISA warrant and the Dossier in the system {
Go
Deep
}.
The Obama intelligence community needed Fusion GPS to give them a plausible justification for
already existing surveillance and spy operations. Fusion-GPS gave them that justification and
evidence for a FISA warrant with the Steele Dossier.
Ultimately that's why the Steele Dossier was so important; without it, the FBI would not have a
tool that Mueller needed to continue the investigation of President Trump. In essence by renewing
the FISA application, despite them knowing the underlying dossier was junk, the FBI was keeping the
surveillance gateway open for Team Mueller to exploit later on.
Additionally, without the Steele Dossier the DOJ and FBI are naked with their FISA-702 abuse as
outlined by John Ratcliffe.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/wWsvZuiPyTI
Thankfully we know U.S. Attorney John Durham has talked to NSA Director Mike Rogers. In this
video Rogers explains how he was notified of what was happening and what he did after the
notification.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/CIJGH9RS2Fc
* * *
After tonight's tweets from President Trump, we should expect a full-court press from 'the
resistance' to distract from the cracks appearing in the former President's halo of
invincibility...
When Putin came to power 20 years ago, he was a pro-western leader who, in the aftermath of the 9/11
terrorist attacks on the US, sought to recreate a contemporary version of the wartime grand alliance.
Putin's vision of renewed great power collaboration has been undermined but not yet obliterated by a succession
of Russian-Western crises and disputes over Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Georgia, Ukraine and Syria, as well as NATO
expansionism, the Skripal poisoning affair and Donald Trump's election as American president.
Critics often accuse Putin of being opposed to a rules-based world order. Rather, it is that he rejects
the self-serving rules some western states are seeking to impose on Russia under the guise of improving global
security.
As recently as January this year, Putin called for a five-power summit of the UN Security Council's
permanent members - Russia, China, the US, France and Britain - to discuss common economic, security and
environmental issues.
Maybe we can hope the current emergency will re-energise efforts to achieve a multi-lateral approach to
global challenges without the necessity for war.
Geoffrey Roberts is Emeritus Professor of History at University College
Cork.
His latest book (with Martin Folly and Oleg Rzheshevsky) is Churchill and Stalin: Comrades-in-Arms during
the Second World War.
Flashback: Obama Ordered Comey To Conceal FBI Activities Right Before Trump Took
Office by Tyler
Durden Mon, 05/11/2020 - 14:05 With weeks to go before Donald Trump's inauguration, former
President Obama and VP Joe Biden were briefed by Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, FBI
Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper on matters related to the Russia investigation.
The January 5, 2017 meeting - also attended by former National Security Adviser Susan Rice,
has taken on a new significance in light of revelations of blatant misconduct by the FBI - and
the fact that the agency decided not to brief then-candidate Trump that a "friendly foreign
government" (Australia) advised them that Russia had offered a member of his campaign 'dirt' on
Hillary Clinton.
The rumored 'dirt' was in fact told to Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos by Joseph
Mifsud - a shadowy Maltese professor and self-described member of the Clinton Foundation.
Papadopoulos then told Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, who told Aussie intelligence,
which tipped off the FBI, which then launched Operation Crossfire Hurricane. Papadopoulos was
then surveiled by FBI spy Stefan Halper and his honeypot 'assistant' who went by the name "Azra
Turk" - while in 2017, Papadopoulos claims a spy handed him $10,000 in what he says goes "all
the way back to the DOJ, under the previous FBI under Comey, and even the Mueller team."
Meanwhile, the Trump DOJ decided last week to drop the case against former Director of
National Security, Mike Flynn, after it was revealed that the FBI was trying to ensnare him in
a 'perjury trap,' and that Flynn was coerced into pleading guilty to lying about his very legal
communications with the Russian Ambassador.
And let's not forget that the FBI used the discredited Steele Dossier to spy on Trump
campaign associate Carter Page - and all of his contacts . Not only did the agency lie to the
FISA court to obtain the warrant, the DOJ knew the outlandish claims of Trump-Russia ties in
the Steele Dossier - funded by the Clinton Campaign - had no basis in reality.
And so, it's worth going back in time and reviewing that January 5, 2017 meeting which was
oddly documented by Susan Rice in an email to herself on January 20, 2017 - inauguration day,
which purports to summarize that meeting.
Rice later wrote an
email to herself on January 20, 2017 -- Trump's inauguration day and her last day in the
White House -- purporting to summarize that meeting. "On January 5, following a briefing by
IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election," Rice wrote,
"President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy
Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office. Vice President Biden and I were also
present."
According to Rice, "President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued
commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law
enforcement communities 'by the book.'" But then she added a significant caveat to that
"commitment": "From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants
to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is
any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia . "
The next portion of the email is classified, but Rice then noted that " the President
asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we
share classified information with the incoming team . Comey said he would."
At the time Obama suggested to Yates and Comey -- who were to keep their posts under the
Trump administration -- that the hold-overs consider withholding information from the
incoming administration, Obama knew that President Trump had named Flynn to serve as national
security advisor. Obama also knew there was an ongoing FBI investigation into Flynn premised
on Flynn being a Russian agent. -
The Federalist
And so, instead of briefing Trump on the Flynn investigation, Comey "privately briefed Trump
on the most salacious and absurd 'pee tape' allegation in the Christopher Steele dossier."
The fact that Comey did so leaked to the press, which used the briefing itself as
justification to report on, and publish the dossier .
What Comey didn't brief Trump on was the FBI's bullshit case against Michael Flynn -
accusing the incoming national security adviser of being a potential Russian agent. And
according to The Federalist , " Even after Obama had left office and Comey had a new
commander-in-chief to report to, Comey continued to follow Obama's prompt by withholding intel
from Trump. "
The Federalist also raises questions about former DNI James Clapper - specifically, whether
Clapper lied to Congress in July of 2017 when he said he never briefed Obama on the substance
of phone calls between Flynn and the Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak.
According to the report, accounts from Comey and McCabe directly contradict Clapper's
claim.
" Did you ever brief President Obama on the phone call, the Flynn-Kislyak phone calls? "
asked Rep. Francis Rooney (R0FL) during Congressional testimony, to which Clapper replied: "
No. "
Except, Comey told Congress that Clapper directly briefed Obama ahead of the January 5
meeting.
"[A]ll the Intelligence Community was trying to figure out, so what is going on here?" Comey
testified. "And so we were all tasked to find out, do you have anything [redacted] that might
reflect on this. That turned up these calls [between Flynn and Kislyak] at the end of December,
beginning of January," Comey testified. "And then I briefed it to the Director of National
Intelligence, and Director Clapper asked me for copies [redacted], which I shared with him ...
In the first week of January, he briefed the President and the Vice President and then
President Obama's senior team about what we found and what we had seen to help them understand
why the Russians were reacting the way they did. "
And now to see if anything comes of the ongoing Durham investigation, or if Attorney General
Bill Barr will simply tie a bow on the matter and call it a day.
R ep. Lee Zeldin demanded that Rep. Adam Schiff be stripped
of his post as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and resign because of his role in
the Russia investigation.
"Adam Schiff should not be the chair of the House Intelligence Committee. His gavel should
be removed. He should be censured. He should resign," Zeldin said Monday on Fox News. "There's
a lot that should happen, but Nancy Pelosi isn't going to punish Adam Schiff. In fact, that's
the reason why he has the gavel in the first place."
Republicans have been critical of Schiff in recent weeks after reports suggested that
Schiff was trying to block the release of some of the transcripts of the investigation's 53
witness interviews.
Some of the transcripts were eventually released and
undercut claims used by Democrats to push for impeachment.
"He's the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, which became the House Impeachment
Committee because of the way he writes these fairy-tale parodies," Zeldin said.
The Republican from New York suggested that Schiff and Democrats who impeached Trump and
tried to remove him from office were aided by friends in the media.
"It's actually one that the Democrats reward. It's one that the media rewards," Zeldin said.
"So, I'm not going to expect any repercussions even though he should resign today."
So the RussiaGate was giant gaslighting of the US electorate by Clinton gang and intelligence
agencies rogues.
Notable quotes:
"... For two and a half years the House Intelligence Committee knew CrowdStrike didn't have the goods on Russia. Now the public knows too. ..."
"... House Intelligence Committee documents released Thursday reveal that the committee was told two and half years ago that the FBI had no concrete evidence that Russia hacked Democratic National Committee computers to filch the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks ..."
"... Henry testifies that "it appears it [the theft of DNC emails] was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually left." ..."
"... This, in VIPS view, suggests that someone with access to DNC computers "set up" selected emails for transfer to an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example. The Internet is not needed for such a transfer. Use of the Internet would have been detected, enabling Henry to pinpoint any "exfiltration" over that network. ..."
"... Bill Binney, a former NSA technical director and a VIPs member, filed a sworn affidavit in the Roger Stone case. Binney said: "WikiLeaks did not receive stolen data from the Russian government. Intrinsic metadata in the publicly available files on WikiLeaks demonstrates that the files acquired by WikiLeaks were delivered in a medium such as a thumb drive." ..."
"... Both pillars of Russiagate–collusion and a Russian hack–have now fairly crumbled. ..."
"... Thursday's disclosure of testimony before the House Intelligence Committee shows Chairman Adam Schiff lied not only about Trump-Putin "collusion," [which the Mueller report failed to prove and whose allegations were based on DNC and Clinton-financed opposition research] but also about the even more basic issue of "Russian hacking" of the DNC. [See: "The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate."] ..."
"... Fortunately, the cameras were still on when I approached Schiff during the Q&A: "You have every confidence but no evidence, is that right?" I asked him. His answer was a harbinger of things to come. This video clip may be worth the four minutes needed to watch it. ..."
"... Schiff and his partners in crime will be in for much tougher treatment if Trump allows Attorney General Barr and US Attorney John Durham to bring their investigation into the origins of Russia-gate to a timely conclusion. Barr's dismissal on Thursday of charges against Flynn, after released FBI documents revealed that a perjury trap was set for him to keep Russiagate going, may be a sign of things to come. ..."
For two and a half years the House Intelligence Committee knew CrowdStrike didn't have
the goods on Russia. Now the public knows too.
House Intelligence Committee
documents released Thursday reveal that the committee was told two and half years ago that
the FBI had no concrete evidence that Russia hacked Democratic National Committee computers
to filch the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks in July 2016.
The until-now-buried, closed-door testimony came on Dec. 5, 2017 from Shawn Henry, a
protégé of former FBI Director Robert Mueller (from 2001 to 2012), for whom
Henry served as head of the Bureau's cyber crime investigations unit.
Henry retired in 2012 and took a senior position at CrowdStrike, the cyber security firm
hired by the DNC and the Clinton campaign to investigate the cyber intrusions that occurred
before the 2016 presidential election.
The following excerpts from Henry's testimony
speak for themselves. The dialogue is not a paragon of clarity; but if read carefully, even
cyber neophytes can understand:
Ranking Member Mr. [Adam] Schiff: Do you know the date on which the Russians
exfiltrated the data from the DNC? when would that have been?
Mr. Henry: Counsel just reminded me that, as it relates to the DNC, we have
indicators that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have no indicators that it was
exfiltrated (sic). There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say
conclusively. But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't
have the evidence that says it actually left.
Mr. [Chris] Stewart of Utah: Okay. What about the emails that everyone is so, you
know, knowledgeable of? Were there also indicators that they were prepared but not evidence
that they actually were exfiltrated?
Mr. Henry: There's not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's
circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated.
Mr. Stewart: But you have a much lower degree of confidence that this data actually
left than you do, for example, that the Russians were the ones who breached the security?
Mr. Henry: There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the
network.
Mr. Stewart: And circumstantial is less sure than the other evidence you've
indicated.
Mr. Henry: "We didn't have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data
left based on the circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made.
In answer to a follow-up query on this line of questioning, Henry delivered this classic:
"Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn't see the data leave, but we
believe it left, based on what we saw."
Inadvertently highlighting the tenuous underpinning for CrowdStrike's "belief" that Russia
hacked the DNC emails, Henry added: "There are other nation-states that collect this type of
intelligence for sure, but the – what we would call the tactics and techniques were
consistent with what we'd seen associated with the Russian state."
Interesting admission in Crowdstrike CEO Shaun Henry's testimony. Henry is asked when
"the Russians" exfiltrated the data from DNC.
Henry: "We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated from the DNC,
but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated." ?? pic.twitter.com/TyePqd6b5P
Try as one may, some of the testimony remains opaque. Part of the problem is ambiguity in
the word "exfiltration."
The word can denote (1) transferring data from a computer via the Internet (hacking) or
(2) copying data physically to an external storage device with intent to leak it.
As the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity has been reporting for more than
three years, metadata and other hard forensic evidence indicate that the DNC emails were not
hacked – by Russia or anyone else.
Rather, they were copied onto an external storage device (probably a thumb drive) by
someone with access to DNC computers. Besides, any hack over the Internet would almost
certainly have been discovered by the dragnet coverage of the National Security Agency and
its cooperating foreign intelligence services.
Henry testifies that "it appears it [the theft of DNC emails] was set up to be
exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually left."
This, in VIPS view, suggests that someone with access to DNC computers "set up"
selected emails for transfer to an external storage device – a thumb drive, for
example. The Internet is not needed for such a transfer. Use of the Internet would have been
detected, enabling Henry to pinpoint any "exfiltration" over that network.
Bill Binney, a former NSA technical director and a VIPs member, filed a sworn
affidavit in the Roger Stone case. Binney said: "WikiLeaks did not receive stolen data from
the Russian government. Intrinsic metadata in the publicly available files on WikiLeaks
demonstrates that the files acquired by WikiLeaks were delivered in a medium such as a thumb
drive."
The So-Called Intelligence Community Assessment
There is not much good to be said about the embarrassingly evidence-impoverished
Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) of Jan. 6, 2017 accusing Russia of hacking the
DNC.
But the ICA did include two passages that are highly relevant
and demonstrably true:
(1) In introductory remarks on "cyber incident attribution", the authors of the ICA made a
highly germane point: "The nature of cyberspace makes attribution of cyber operations
difficult but not impossible. Every kind of cyber operation – malicious or not –
leaves a trail."
(2) "When analysts use words such as 'we assess' or 'we judge,' [these] are not intended
to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on
collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary High confidence in a judgment
does not imply that the assessment is a fact or a certainty; such judgments might be wrong."
[And one might add that they commonly ARE wrong when analysts succumb to political pressure,
as was the case with the ICA.]
The intelligence-friendly corporate media, nonetheless, immediately awarded the status of
Holy Writ to the misnomered "Intelligence Community Assessment" (it was a rump effort
prepared by "handpicked analysts" from only CIA, FBI, and NSA), and chose to overlook the
banal, full-disclosure-type caveats embedded in the assessment itself.
Then National Intelligence Director James Clapper and the directors of the CIA, FBI, and
NSA briefed President Obama on the ICA on Jan. 5, 2017, the day before they gave it
personally to President-elect Donald Trump.
On Jan. 18, 2017, at his final press conference, Obama saw fit to use lawyerly language on
the key issue of how the DNC emails got to WikiLeaks , in an apparent effort to cover
his own derriere.
Obama: "The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking
were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting or not in being the conduit through
which we heard about the DNC e-mails that were leaked."
So we ended up with "inconclusive conclusions" on that admittedly crucial point. What
Obama was saying is that U.S. intelligence did not know -- or professed not to know --
exactly how the alleged Russian transfer to WikiLeaks was supposedly made, whether
through a third party, or cutout, and he muddied the waters by first saying it was a hack,
and then a leak.
From the very outset, in the absence of any hard evidence, from NSA or from its foreign
partners, of an Internet hack of the DNC emails, the claim that "the Russians gave the DNC
emails to WikiLeaks " rested on thin gruel.
In November 2018 at a public forum, I asked Clapper to explain why President Obama still
had serious doubts in late Jan. 2017, less than two weeks after Clapper and the other
intelligence chiefs had thoroughly briefed the outgoing president about their
"high-confidence" findings.
Clapper
replied : "I cannot explain what he [Obama] said or why. But I can tell you we're, we're
pretty sure we know, or knew at the time, how WikiLeaks got those emails." Pretty
sure?
Preferring CrowdStrike; 'Splaining to Congress
CrowdStrike already had a tarnished reputation for credibility when the DNC and Clinton
campaign chose it to do work the FBI should have been doing to investigate how the DNC emails
got to WikiLeaks . It had asserted that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery
app, resulting in heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine's struggle with separatists supported
by Russia. A Voice of America
report explained why CrowdStrike was forced to retract that claim.
Why did FBI Director James Comey not simply insist on access to the DNC computers? Surely
he could have gotten the appropriate authorization. In early January 2017, reacting to media
reports that the FBI never asked for access, Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee
there were "multiple requests at different levels" for access to the DNC servers.
"Ultimately what was agreed to is the private company would share with us what they saw,"
he said. Comey described
CrowdStrike as a "highly respected" cybersecurity company.
Asked by committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) whether direct access to the servers and
devices would have helped the FBI in their investigation, Comey said it would have. "Our
forensics folks would always prefer to get access to the original device or server that's
involved, so it's the best evidence," he said.
Five months later, after Comey had been fired, Burr gave him a Mulligan in the form of a
few kid-gloves, clearly well-rehearsed, questions:
BURR: And the FBI, in this case, unlike other cases that you might investigate
– did you ever have access to the actual hardware that was hacked? Or did you have to
rely on a third party to provide you the data that they had collected?
COMEY: In the case of the DNC, we did not have access to the devices themselves. We
got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done
the work. But we didn't get direct access.
BURR: But no content?
COMEY: Correct.
BURR: Isn't content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence
standpoint?
COMEY: It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks – the people who
were my folks at the time is that they had gotten the information from the private party that
they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016.
In June last year it was
revealed that CrowdStrike never produced an un-redacted or final forensic report for the
government because the FBI never required it to, according to the Justice Department.
By any normal standard, former FBI Director Comey would now be in serious legal trouble,
as should Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, et al. Additional evidence of FBI
misconduct under Comey seems to surface every week – whether the abuses of FISA,
misconduct in the case against Gen. Michael Flynn, or misleading everyone about Russian
hacking of the DNC. If I were attorney general, I would declare Comey a flight risk and take
his passport. And I would do the same with Clapper and Brennan.
Schiff: Every Confidence, But No Evidence
Both pillars of Russiagate–collusion and a Russian hack–have now fairly
crumbled.
Thursday's disclosure of testimony before the House Intelligence Committee shows
Chairman Adam Schiff lied not only about Trump-Putin "collusion," [which the Mueller report
failed to prove and whose allegations were based on DNC and Clinton-financed opposition
research] but also about the even more basic issue of "Russian hacking" of the DNC. [See:
"The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate."]
Five days after Trump took office, I had an opportunity to confront Schiff personally
about evidence that Russia "hacked" the DNC emails. He had repeatedly given that canard the
patina of flat fact during an address at the old Hillary Clinton/John Podesta "think tank,"
The Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Fortunately, the cameras were still on when I approached Schiff during the Q&A:
"You have every confidence but no evidence, is that right?" I asked him. His answer was a
harbinger of things to come. This video
clip may be worth the four minutes needed to watch it.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/SdOy-l13FEg
Schiff and his partners in crime will be in for much tougher treatment if Trump allows
Attorney General Barr and US Attorney John Durham to bring their investigation into the
origins of Russia-gate to a timely conclusion. Barr's dismissal on Thursday of charges
against Flynn, after released FBI documents revealed that a perjury trap was set for him to
keep Russiagate going, may be a sign of things to come.
Given the timid way Trump has typically bowed to intelligence and law enforcement
officials, including those who supposedly report to him, however, one might rather expect
that, after a lot of bluster, he will let the too-big-to-imprison ones off the hook. The
issues are now drawn; the evidence is copious; will the Deep State, nevertheless, be able to
prevail this time?
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of
the Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27-year career as a CIA analyst includes serving as
Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and preparer/briefer of the President's Daily
Brief. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). This
originally appeared at Consortium
News .
Under the subtitle The Secret History of Disinformation and Political Warfare, Thomas Rid helps remind us how we reached this
morass, one with antecedents reaching back to Czarist Russia and the Bolshevik revolution. To be sure, the US can use all the help
it can get as it navigates the current election cycle and the lies, rumours and
uncertainty that
shroud the origins of the coronavirus pandemic.
Rid was born in West Germany amid the cold war. The Berlin Wall fell when he was a teenager. He is now a professor at Johns Hopkins.
So what are “active measures”? Previously, Rid
testified they were “semi-covert or covert intelligence operations to shape an adversary’s political decisions”.
“Almost always,” he explained, “active measures conceal or falsify the source.”
The special counsel’s report framed them more narrowly as “operations conducted by Russian security services aimed at influencing
the course of international affairs”. Add in technology and hacking, and an image of modern asymmetric warfare emerges.
Rid travels back to the early years of communist
Russia, recounting the efforts of the government to discredit the remnants of the ancien régime and squash attempts to restore
the monarchy. The Cheka, the secret police, hatched a plot that involved forged correspondence, a fictitious organization, a fake
counter-revolutionary council and a government-approved travelogue.
Words and narratives morphed into readily transportable munitions. The émigré community was declawed and the multi-pronged combination
deemed “wildly successful”. The project also “served as an inspiration for future active measures”. A template had been set.
Fast forward to the cold war and the aftermath of the US supreme court’s landmark school desegregation case. The tension between
reality and the text and aspirations of the Declaration of Independence was in the open again. Lunch-counter sit-ins and demands
for the vote filled newspapers and TV screens. The fault lines were plainly visible – and the Soviet Union pounced.
In 1960, the KGB embarked on a “series of race-baiting disinformation operations” that included mailing Ku Klux Klan leaflets
to African and Asian delegations to the United Nations on the eve of a debate on colonialism. At the same time, Russian “operators
posed as an African American organization agitating against the KKK”.
More than a half-century later, Russia ran an updated version of the play. Twitter came to host
the fake accounts of both “John Davis”, ostensibly a gun-toting Texas Christian and family man, and @BlacktoLive”, along with
hundreds of others.
The Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian troll factory, organized pro-Confederate flag rallies.
As detailed by Robert Mueller, the IRA also claimed that the civil war was not “about slavery” and instead was “all about money”,
a false trope that continues to gain resonance among Trump supporters and proponents of the “liberate the states” movement. According
to Brian
Westrate, treasurer of the Wisconsin Republican party, “the Confederacy was more about states’ rights than slavery.”
Depicting West Germany as Hitler’s heir was another aim. At the time, “some aging former Nazis still held positions of influence”,
Rid writes. In the late 1960s, “encouraging ‘anti-German tendencies in the West’ was very much a priority”.
In 1964, with Russian assistance, Czech intelligence mounted
Operation Neptun, sinking
Nazi wartime
documents to the bottom of the ominous sounding Black Lake, near the German border. The cache was then “discovered” – media pandemonium
ensued. Four years later the mastermind of the scheme, Ladislav Bittman, defected to the US.
Prior to 2016, Russia’s most notable active measure using the US as a foil was the lie that Aids was “made in the USA”. In retaliation
for US reports of Soviet use of chemical weapons in Afghanistan, the KGB unfurled Operation Denver, a multi-platformed campaign that
falsely claimed “Aids
was an American biological weapon developed at Fort Detrick, Maryland”. Central to the effort was the earlier publication of
an anonymous letter with a New York byline by an Indian newspaper. The forged missive claimed “Aids may invade India: mystery disease
caused by US lab experiments.”
To achieve their goals, the pro-NATO propagandists often exploit the so-called
'Russian threat' concept; however, this merely provides a cover for their aggressive
actions to silence and discredit opposing opinions and sources of information they deem to
be counter to their own interests.
The reason behind their activity is simple – they must justify their existence
in reports to their sponsors. They are constantly and fiercely working to engineer
'successful actions' regardless of their validity. In order to continue securing funding to
expose and defeat an imaginary enemy, they must create imaginary victories, irrespective of
reality.
Uh, the author obviously knows better so why promote this narrative? These operatives
are not going after "wrong", or "invalid" targets to justify their funding. They're
specifically hired to do what they're doing now.
This is nationwide gaslighting by Clinton gang of neoliberals who attempted coup d'état, and Adam Schiff was just one of the
key figures in this coupe d'état, king of modern Joe McCarthy able and willing to destroy a person using false evidence
What is interesting is that Tucker attacked Republicans for aiding and abetting the coup
d'état against Trump
"... "This is one particular episode, but we view it as part of a number of related acts ... and we're looking at the whole pattern of conduct," Barr added, saying that they're investigating actions taken before "and after ... the election." ..."
"... And according to Fox' s source, Durham is investigating a "pattern of conduct" which includes lying to the FISA court to obtain warrants to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page . ..."
"... "Barr talks to Durham every day," a source recently told Fox News . " The president has been briefed that the case is being pursued, and it's serious. " ..."
"... " It was a very dangerous situation what they did ," Trump said during an interview with "Fox & Friends" Friday. " These are dirty politicians and dirty cops and some horrible people and hopefully they're going to pay a big price in the not too distant future. ..."
"... Durham's probe is expected to wrap up by the end of the summer. Right as Trump is expected to face off against Joe Biden - who was VP while most of this was going on . ..."
John Durham has supercharged his review into the origins of the
Russiagate hoax orchestrated by the Obama administration during and after the 2016 US election
- adding additional top prosecutors to explore different components of the original probe,
according to
Fox News .
Durham, the U.S. Attorney for Connecticut tasked with by Attorney General Bill Barr with
investigating the actions taken against the Trump team, has tapped Jeff Jensen - U.S. attorney
for the Eastern District of Missouri who had been investigating the Michael Flynn case. Also
added to the team is interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Timothy Shea,
according to Fox 's sources.
" They farmed the investigation out because it is too much for Durham and he didn't want to
be distracted ," said one source, adding "He's going full throttle, and they're looking at
everything. "
Word of Durham's beefed-up team comes amid worsening tensions between the Trump
administration and congressional Democrats, who have been making the case that the Justice
Department's reviews have become politicized given the decision last week to drop the Flynn
case - a move which House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) called
"outrageous."
" The evidence against General Flynn is overwhelming ," said Nadler - who probably wasn't
referring to handwritten notes by one of the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn which
exposed their perjury trap . Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his perfectly
legal communications with a Russian ambassador - a plea he made while under severe financial
strain due to legal expenses, and to save his son from the FBI 'witch hunt.' Flynn would later
withdraw his plea as evidence mounted that he was set up.
The DOJ determined that the bureau's 2017 Flynn interview -- which formed the basis for
his guilty plea of lying to investigators -- was "conducted without any legitimate
investigative basis."
Breadcrumbs were being dropped in the days preceding the decision that his case could be
reconsidered. Documents unsealed the prior week by the Justice Department revealed agents
discussed their motivations for interviewing him in the Russia probe – questioning
whether they wanted to "get him to lie" so he'd be fired or prosecuted, or get him to admit
wrongdoing. Flynn allies howled over the revelations, arguing that he essentially had been
set up in a perjury trap. In that interview, Flynn did not admit wrongdoing and instead was
accused of lying about his contacts with the then-Russian ambassador – to which he
pleaded guilty. -
Fox News
Jensen, the U.S. attorney now working with Durham, was reportedly the one who recommended
dropping the Flynn case to Barr.
Barr speaks
When asked whether he thought the FBI conspired against Flynn, Barr told CBS News on
Thursday "I think, you know, that's a question that really has to wait [for] an analysis of all
the different episodes that occurred through the summer of 2016 and the first several months of
President Trump's administration," adding that Durham is "still looking at all of this."
"This is one particular episode, but we view it as part of a number of related acts ... and
we're looking at the whole pattern of conduct," Barr added, saying that they're investigating
actions taken before "and after ... the election."
And according to Fox' s source, Durham is investigating a "pattern of conduct" which
includes lying to the FISA court to obtain warrants to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter
Page .
President Trump has long-referred to the investigation as a "witch hunt" - which Barr and
Durham are now untangling.
"Barr talks to Durham every day," a source recently told Fox News . " The president has been
briefed that the case is being pursued, and it's serious. "
President Trump on Friday offered a vague, but ominous, warning as the Durham probe
proceeds.
" It was a very dangerous situation what they did ," Trump said during an interview with
"Fox & Friends" Friday. " These are dirty politicians and dirty cops and some horrible
people and hopefully they're going to pay a big price in the not too distant future. "
Trump
was specifically reacting to newly released transcripts of interviews from the House
Intelligence Committee's Russia investigation
that revealed top Obama officials acknowledged they knew of no "empirical evidence" of a
conspiracy despite their concerns and suspicions. -
Fox News
Durham's probe is expected to wrap up by the end of the summer. Right as Trump is expected
to face off against Joe Biden - who was VP while most of this was going on .
"... Grenell reportedly visited the Justice Department last week to request the list of individuals, according to an official who spoke on condition of anonymity. ..."
Richard Grenell, President Trump's acting Director of National
Intelligence who successfully pressured Adam Schiff (D-CA) into releasing bombshell transcripts
from the Russia investigation, is now after former officials from the Obama administration
involved in the so-called "unmasking" of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn during
his conversations with the former Russian ambassador following the 2016 election, according to
ABC News .
"Unmasking" is a term used when the identity of a U.S. citizen or lawful resident is
revealed in classified intelligence reports. Normally, when government officials receive
intelligence reports, the names of American citizens are redacted to protect their privacy. But
officials can request that names, listed as "U.S. Person 1," for example, be unmasked
internally in order to give context about the potential value of the intelligence. Unmasking is
justified for national security reasons but is governed by strict rules across the U.S.
intelligence apparatus that make it illegal to pursue for political reasons or to leak
classified information generated by the process .
And much like Obama's IRS targeting scandal, US government capabilities were exploited to
accomplish political objectives .
Grenell reportedly visited the Justice Department last week to request the list of
individuals, according to an official who spoke on condition of anonymity.
His visit indicates his focus on an issue previously highlighted in 2017 by skeptics of
the investigation into the Trump campaign's contacts with Russia, specifically allegations
that former officials improperly unveiled Flynn's identity from intercepts of his call with
former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
Grenell's visit came the same week that Attorney General William Barr moved to dismiss the
criminal case against Flynn following his guilty plea for lying to the FBI about his
conversations with Kislyak. -
ABC News
After Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice was outed as the ringleader of an unmasking
campaign, the Wall Street Journal reported that she wasn't the only administration official to
participate in Flynn's unmasking .
The news comes after the DOJ dropped all charges against Flynn, after several unsealed
documents revealed that the FBI was more interested in ensnaring him in a perjury trap - after
the agency's own DC field office advised that they were
barking up the wrong tree . Under pressure due to legal bills and an FBI threat to pursue
his son, Flynn caved and pleaded guilty to lying about his communications with the Russian
ambassador.
" They did not have a basis for a counterintelligence investigation against Flynn at that
stage , based on a perfectly legitimate and appropriate call he made as a member of the
transition," Barr told CBS last week.
In 2017, then-House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA) accused the Obama
administration of unmasking Trump transition officials - while two national security officials
at the White House provided Nunes with supporting evidence.
Will Grenell unmask the unmaskers?
• @GenFlynn was wrongly targeted.
• The Steele Dossier was made-up.
• The Russia-collusion narrative was a farce.
Obama's White House and Justice Department led the way on these lies. Time for Susan Rice,
James Clapper, and Loretta Lynch to answer for what transpired.
"These agents specifically schemed and planned with each other how to not tip him off, that
he was even the person being investigated," Powell told Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures,"
adding "So they kept him relaxed and unguarded deliberately as part of their effort to set him
up and frame him."
According to recently released testimony, President Obama revealed during an Oval Office
meeting weeks before the interview that he knew about Flynn's phone call with Russian
Ambassador Sergey Kislyak , apparently surprising then-Deputy Attorney General
Sally Yates .
After the meeting, Obama asked Yates and then-FBI Director James Comey to "stay behind."
Obama "specified that he did not want any additional information on the matter, but was
seeking information on whether the White House should be treating Flynn any differently,
given the information." -
Fox News
Despite the FBI's Washington DC field office recommending closing the case against Flynn -
finding "no derogatory information" against him - fired agent Peter Strzok
pushed to continue investigating, while former FBI Director
James Comey admitted in December 2019 that he "sent" Strzok and agent Joe Pientka to
interview Flynn without notifying the White House first .
... ... ...
After Strzok and Pientka interviewed Flynn,
handwritten notes unsealed last month reveal that at least one agent thought the goal was
to entrap Flynn .
"What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him
fired?" reads one note.
... ... ...
"The whole thing was orchestrated and set up within the FBI, [former Director of National
Intelligence James] Clapper, [Former CIA Director John] Brennan, and in the Oval Office meeting
that day with President Obama," said Powell. When asked if she thinks Flynn was the victim of a
plot that extended to Obama, she said "Absolutely."
FDR warned his son before his death of his understanding of the British takeover of American
foreign policy, but still could not reverse this agenda. His son recounted his father's ominous
insight:
"You know, any number of times the men in the State Department have tried to conceal
messages to me, delay them, hold them up somehow, just because some of those career diplomats
over there aren't in accord with what they know I think. They should be working for Winston.
As a matter of fact, a lot of the time, they are [working for Churchill]. Stop to think of
'em: any number of 'em are convinced that the way for America to conduct its foreign policy
is to find out what the British are doing and then copy that!" I was told six years ago, to
clean out that State Department. It's like the British Foreign Office ."
Before being fired from Truman's cabinet for his advocacy of US-Russia friendship during the
Cold War, Wallace stated:
"American fascism" which has come to be known in recent years as the Deep State. "Fascism
in the postwar inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon imperialism and eventually for
war with Russia. Already American fascists are talking and writing about this conflict and
using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and intolerances toward certain races,
creeds and classes."
In his 1946 Soviet Asia Mission , Wallace said " Before the blood of our boys is scarcely
dry on the field of battle, these enemies of peace try to lay the foundation for World War
III. These people must not succeed in their foul enterprise. We must offset their poison by
following the policies of Roosevelt in cultivating the friendship of Russia in peace as well
as in war."
"... "[Plea bargaining] is not some adjunct to the criminal justice system; it is the criminal justice system." ..."
"... Federal prosecutors are equipped with a considerable range of legal weapons that can be used to compel confessions and discourage a jury trial, including charge-stacking (charging multiple criminal counts derived from a single act), mandatory-minimum sentences which eliminate discretion on the part of a sentencing judge, pretrial confinement, inordinately high bail, threats against friends and family, and the reality that any sentence handed down after trial will be substantially greater than one that could be reached via a plea bargain. ..."
"... The upside of such a process is a streamlined criminal justice system which places a premium on convictions and incarceration without the cost of a trial. The downside, however, is an unacceptably high rate of false confessions obtained by the plea deal process -- the National Registry of Exonerations estimates that as many as 20 percent of all plea deal-related confessions are false . ..."
"... The Obama national security team abused its power by unmasking Flynn's identity, then leaked Flynn's identity to the press, using this press reporting to justify the continuance of a baseless counterintelligence investigation in order to set a perjury trap intended to place Flynn in legal jeopardy. This is not how American justice is supposed to be dispensed, and the fact that Flynn had to undergo this ordeal should send a shiver down every American's spine, because if left unchecked, there but for the grace of God go us all. ..."
The Department of Justice's case against retired Army
Lieutenant General and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn has exposed an ugly
reality involving the abuse of power at the highest levels of the Executive Office all the way
down the justice system this country ostensibly holds so dear.
Plea bargains are an unfortunate reality of an American system of justice which finds merit
in coercing people to admit guilt for crimes they didn't commit in order to avoid the expense
of a trial and to prevent friends and family from potential legal liability. If the purpose
behind such procedural abuse of power is to fight actual crime, the American people have grown
accustomed to turning a blind eye. But if the purpose is to exact political revenge on someone
who has incurred the disfavor of those in power, then the plea bargain system is a direct
assault on the Constitution that should insult every American, regardless where they stand on
the respective merits of the case. General Flynn's case falls firmly in the latter
category.
But in a surprising turn of events, the Department of Justice has dropped
its case against Flynn on the eve of his being sentenced in a Federal Court. In their
dismissal of the case, the Justice department concluded that the FBI's interview with Flynn was
"conducted without any legitimate investigative basis" and that the questioning was "untethered
to, and unjustified by, the F.B.I.'s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn."
Flynn's many critics have cried foul, claiming the dismissal is nothing short of a
perversion
of justice carried out at the behest of President Trump by an overly partisan Attorney
General, William Barr. Flynn's supporters have praised this outcome as a
clear case of exoneration in the face of corrupt FBI agents who abused the extraordinary
powers they wield to engage in Constitutionally impermissible conduct designed to frame the
former General.
In 2018, the Department of Justice initiated approximately
80,000 federal prosecutions . Two percent of these cases went to trial, with an 83 percent
conviction rate. Of the remaining 98 percent of the cases, some 90 percent ended with the
defendant pleading guilty; the remaining 8 percent were dismissed. The plea process is so
prevalent and pervasive in the U.S. Court system that in the Supreme Court's 2012 decision in
Missouri v. Frye , Justice Steven Kennedy, writing for the majority, quoted
a prominent law review article which concluded that "[Plea bargaining] is not some adjunct to
the criminal justice system; it is the criminal justice system."
Federal prosecutors are equipped with
a considerable range of legal weapons that can be used to compel confessions and discourage
a jury trial, including charge-stacking (charging multiple criminal counts derived from a
single act), mandatory-minimum sentences which eliminate discretion on the part of a sentencing
judge, pretrial confinement, inordinately high bail, threats against friends and family, and
the reality that any sentence handed down after trial will be substantially greater than one
that could be reached via a plea bargain.
The reason for such a high rate of occurrence rests in the coercive reality attached to the
tools used by the prosecutor to leverage a plea in the first place. For someone who is guilty
of a crime, a plea deal that reduces a potential 20-year sentence to five is very attractive.
For an innocent person, however, the prospect of not being able to afford competent legal
representation (an all-too reality, especially in one is subjected to pre-trial confinement and
as such unable to earn a living), combined with potential threats made to prosecute family and
friends, make pleading guilty to a crime not committed a viable option.
The plea bargain process also facilitates prosecutorial misconduct. By pleading guilty, a
defendant cedes control of the processes of justice to the prosecution; issues related to
discovery -- the requirement on the part of the prosecution to turn over all evidence relating
to the charged conduct, even if exculpatory in nature -- are often brushed aside, since guilt
is admitted and no challenge to the charges will be mounted. Prosecutors more often than not
bully their way into a coerced plea agreement, even when they know that their case would not
withstand scrutiny, because simple statistics have proven that more often than not they can get
away with it.
♦♦♦
The prosecution of General Flynn is a text-book example of clear prosecutorial abuse
designed to obtain a guilty plea. The FBI initiated a counterintelligence-scope investigation
against General Flynn not because he was accused of committing a crime, but rather because he
had incurred the wrath of the Obama administration.
When the FBI opened its Crossfire Hurricane investigation was opened on July 31, 2016, its
scope was limited to allegations that a Trump campaign advisor, George Papadopoulos, was in
contact with persons working on behalf of the Russian government who were involved in the
alleged theft of documents from the Democratic National Committee server. Flynn had no
connection whatsoever to this issue. However, the FBI used the Crossfire Hurricane
investigation as cover to
open a separate investigation , known as Crossfire Razor, against Flynn based upon contacts
he had with Russia Today, a state-sponsored media outlet.
William Barr has since determined
that Crossfire Razor was not a bona fide counterintelligence investigation in so far as it
lacked proper predication and Flynn's Russian connections were not materially relevant.
In January 2017 the FBI was preparing to shut down Crossfire Razor when FBI Special Agent
Peter Strzok argued that it remain open so that he could conduct an interview with Flynn about
his telephone call with Ambassador Kislyak in December 2016. This is where the Flynn case loses
touch with its foundation of legality. The Flynn-Kislyak phone call was monitored by the U.S.
intelligence community. Normally the identity of any U.S. citizen so monitored is "masked," or
hidden, from any consumer of the intelligence. On certain occasions, select senior officials
may request that an identity be "unmasked" to allow for a greater understanding of the context
of the conversation. Flynn's identity was "unmasked" using this procedure, most likely on the
orders of then-FBI Director James Comey.
According to Comey , he then briefed Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, who
in turn briefed President Obama.
There was bad blood between Flynn, Clapper and Obama. On November 10, 2016, when Obama met
with President-elect Trump in the White House,
he warned Trump not to hire Flynn as his National Security Advisor, ostensibly because of
his behavior while serving as the Director of DIA; Trump ignored this advice, naming Flynn as
the incoming NSA on November 18. Clapper was the man who fired Flynn at the DIA in 2014.
On January 12, David Ignatius published an article in The Washington Post which
detailed Flynn's December conversation with Kislyak; Sydney Powell, Flynn's laywer, has filed
documents with the Federal Court asserting that Ignatius had received this highly classified
information in violation of the law, and furthermore that is was Clapper who
cleared Ignatius to "take the kill shot on Flynn" by publishing the details of the
Flynn-Kislyak conversation.
If the potential for collusion between the FBI Director (Comey), the Director of National
Intelligence (Clapper) and the President of the United States (Obama) to undermine Flynn wasn't
disturbing enough, the fact that Ignatius' article enabled the FBI to conduct an interview on
January 24 with Flynn that has been
described by William Barr as "a perjury trap" should seal the deal.
Flynn was subsequently fired as the NSA, charged with lying to the FBI, bankrupted in the
process of trying to defend himself, and threatened with the prosecution of his son if he opted
to take the matter to trial. Like many before him, Flynn pled guilty to a crime he never should
have been charged with in the first place. Only the diligence of Flynn's current legal team in
forcing disclosure of exculpatory information, combined with William Barr's efforts to expose
wrongdoing by the FBI and the Intelligence Community in investigating alleged collusion between
the Trump campaign and Russia, made the dismissal of Flynn's case possible.
It doesn't matter where one stands on the issue of Mike Flynn, the man. I for one am
personally disturbed by his overly partisan approach toward national security, and the liberty
he takes with facts when making an argument. I don't believe he was the right person to serve
as Trump's National Security Advisor. Apparently neither did President Obama and his national
security team. But we don't have a vote in this matter; the National Security Advisor is
President Trump's responsibility to select. Elections have consequences.
The Obama national security team abused its power by unmasking Flynn's identity, then leaked
Flynn's identity to the press, using this press reporting to justify the continuance of a
baseless counterintelligence investigation in order to set a perjury trap intended to place
Flynn in legal jeopardy. This is not how American justice is supposed to be dispensed, and the
fact that Flynn had to undergo this ordeal should send a shiver down every American's spine,
because if left unchecked, there but for the grace of God go us all.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former
Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert
Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of several
books, including his forthcoming, Scorpion King: America's Embrace of Nuclear Weapons From FDR to Trump
(2020).
This was a coup d'état and it has little to do with the protection of Oabama policies,
but a lot with protection of Clinton clan to which Obama belongs.
FBI investigators were corrupt and acted as a political police
Notable quotes:
"... Heavily redacted FBI documents that have been released indicate Flynn was one of several Trump campaign members who merited their own subfile investigation under the larger, now infamous " Crossfire Hurricane " debacle. Flynn even got his own cool codename -- "Crossfire Razor." (No, the FBI isn't usually that absurd. But absurdity colored that entire period of time.) ..."
"... FBI documents show that a Foreign Agent Registration Act ( FARA ) case was opened against Flynn. The stated reasons, in rank order, for initiating the investigation were that he was a member of the Trump campaign; he had "ties" to various Russian state-affiliated entities; he traveled to Russia; and he had a high-level top-secret clearance -- for which, by the way, he was polygraphed regularly to determine if he was a spy. ..."
"... None of the listed reasons is unusual activity for the kind of positions he held. Overall it is pretty thin justification for investigating an American citizen. Yet, most chillingly, the Crossfire Hurricane team stated it was investigating Flynn "specifically" because he was "an adviser to then Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump for foreign policy issues." ..."
"... Kevin R. Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI, was an FBI special agent for 24 years and principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). He is a founder and principal of NewStreet Global Solutions , which consults with private companies and public safety agencies on strategic mission technologies. ..."
investigation
of Michael Flynn , the
more it appears he was targeted precisely because, as the national security adviser to the
incoming Trump administration, he signaled that the new administration might undo Obama
administration policies -- which is kind of what the American people voted for in 2016.
Some will say that Gen. Flynn was investigated for legitimate criminal or national security
reasons. Yet, the FBI's ultimate interview of Flynn addressed none of the grounds that the FBI
used to open the original case against him. For those of us who have run FBI investigations,
that is more than odd.
Heavily redacted
FBI documents that have been released indicate Flynn was one of several Trump campaign
members who merited their own subfile investigation under the larger, now infamous "
Crossfire Hurricane " debacle. Flynn even got his own cool codename -- "Crossfire Razor."
(No, the FBI isn't usually that absurd. But absurdity colored that entire period of time.)
For the record, Flynn clearly exercised poor judgment as a result of being interviewed by
the FBI. The larger question is whether the team under then-Director James Comey had a legitimate basis to conduct the
interview at all.
FBI documents show that a Foreign Agent Registration Act ( FARA ) case was opened against Flynn. The stated
reasons, in rank order, for initiating the investigation were that he was a member of the Trump
campaign; he had "ties" to various Russian state-affiliated entities; he traveled to Russia;
and he had a high-level top-secret clearance -- for which, by the way, he was polygraphed
regularly to determine if he was a spy.
None of the listed reasons is unusual activity for the kind of positions he held. Overall it
is pretty thin justification for investigating an American citizen. Yet, most chillingly, the
Crossfire Hurricane team stated it was investigating Flynn "specifically" because he was "an
adviser to then Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump for foreign policy
issues."
Let me be clear: That is not a legitimate justification to investigate an American
citizen.
There is a theme that runs through the entire Crossfire Hurricane disaster, which has been
publicly articulated by Comey and his deputy director, Andrew McCabe : They saw themselves as stalwarts
in the breach defending America from a presidential candidate who they believed was an
agent
of Russia .
... ... ...
Kevin R. Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI, was an FBI
special agent for 24 years and principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). He is a
founder and principal of NewStreet Global
Solutions , which consults with private companies and public safety agencies on strategic
mission technologies.
All-in-all Obama was a CIA sponsored fraud: In 2008 I posted at another blog this: "Obama is a fraud and my view does not hang on
the controversial birther movement. " From whence he came? He made a speech at the Democratic
National Convention; 3 years in the Senate, then runs to occupy the White House. The media
puff pieces. "Hope and Change, Yes, We Can" Watch for the broken promises."
Notable quotes:
"... Now why is Obama against General Flynn? Hmmm. Good question. Did the FBI target Michael Flynn to protect Obama's policies, not national security? LINK ..."
"... Gen. Flynn: Obama Administration made a "wilful decision" to support Sunni extremists (a Jihadi proxy army) against Assad . This directly contradicts the phony narrative of Obama as peace-loving black man (as certified by his Nobel Prize!). ..."
"... In 2008 I posted at another blog this: "Obama is a fraud and my view does not hang on the controversial birther movement. " From whence he came? He made a speech at the Democratic National Convention; 3 years in the Senate, then runs to occupy the White House. The media puff pieces. "Hope and Change, Yes, We Can" Watch for the broken promises." ..."
Whether or not General Flynn is loathed or liked, there is Supreme Court decisions setting
precedence for dropping a case when found to be wrapped in prosecutorial misdeeds:
As for the first 'black' president out from the shadows;
Thanks for that additional link. And that's why Obama could not standby with Flynn in the
NSA role. Recall Hillary's on Trump- "if he is elected we'll hang" (paraphrased)
In 2008 I posted at another blog this: "Obama is a fraud and my view does not hang on
the controversial birther movement. " From whence he came? He made a speech at the Democratic
National Convention; 3 years in the Senate, then runs to occupy the White House. The media
puff pieces. "Hope and Change, Yes, We Can" Watch for the broken promises."
Fast Forward to 2011 he signs NDAA. "How Obama disappointed the world." Der Spiegel had
such an article 9 Aug.2011. But he was re-(S)-elected.
And you have to ask yourself one question. They all stuck with the same exact propaganda,
the same exact his information, that the Trump administration, that the Trump campaign
conspired with Russia, even though they had no evidence whatsoever, and they manufactured that
evidence against the president."
"And this is why all of them need to be investigated" explained Carter.
MSM now run under control of intelligence agencies and use State Department of Foreign Office talking points, much like in the USSR, where this role was played by communist Party
Notable quotes:
"... Part of the problem is that newspapers have morphed into viewspapers. The distinction between reporting and comment has been blurred. Back in the 70s, leading publications only had one comment piece and an editorial. Their pages were packed with news items, with stories reported factually and without a 'bent'. ..."
"... Today, comment has taken over, but while there's no shortage of 'opinion', most of it is saying very much the same thing. I think we first saw this phenomenon in the lead up to the Iraq War. I was one of the very few mainstream commentators who ridiculed the claim that Iraq had WMDs. It was obvious to me that if the leaders of the UK and US genuinely believed Saddam possessed these terrible weapons, they wouldn't be planning to do the one thing which would provoke the Iraqi leader into using them, i.e. invade his country. Yet the Great WMDs Hoax, which a child of five could see through, was promoted by nearly all 'serious' journalists. The most vociferous media cheerleaders for the invasion faced no professional blowback, on the contrary, their careers have flourished. ..."
Trust in the written press in Britain is the lowest in 33 European countries. That's hardly surprising seeing how so many journalists
have become mere stenographers for, or lackeys of, the Establishment power elites. Just when you think the reputation of the UK media
couldn't sink any lower, it just did. An annual survey undertaken by EurobarometerEU, across 33 countries, puts the UK at the bottom,
with a net trust of -60. Yes that's right, minus 60 . It's a fall of 24 points since last year. Just 15 percent of Brits trust
their print media. But it's not the only survey showing a similar trend.
The attached graphic about trust in the written press, published last week, has not been widely reported in Britain. This is
a huge annual survey by @EurobarometerEU
across 33 countries. It's the ninth year out of the past ten that the UK has been last. We have a problem.
pic.twitter.com/8eYoQR7XZw
Newspapers came in rock bottom (with a rating of -50) in a YouGov poll on Sky where the question was asked, "How much do you
trust the following on Coronavirus?" And in case you think it's only the Sun we're talking about here, another poll showed that
distrust of so-called 'upmarket' papers was running at 52 percent.
How did we get here? I've got a collection of old newspapers and magazines dating back several decades. Part of the problem
is that newspapers have morphed into viewspapers. The distinction between reporting and comment has been blurred. Back in the 70s,
leading publications only had one comment piece and an editorial. Their pages were packed with news items, with stories reported
factually and without a 'bent'.
Today, comment has taken over, but while there's no shortage of 'opinion', most of it is saying very much the same thing.
I think we first saw this phenomenon in the lead up to the Iraq War. I was one of the very few mainstream commentators who ridiculed
the claim that Iraq had WMDs. It was obvious to me that if the leaders of the UK and US genuinely believed Saddam possessed these
terrible weapons, they wouldn't be planning to do the one thing which would provoke the Iraqi leader into using them, i.e. invade
his country. Yet the Great WMDs Hoax, which a child of five could see through, was promoted by nearly all 'serious' journalists.
The most vociferous media cheerleaders for the invasion faced no professional blowback, on the contrary, their careers have flourished.
As bad as the Iraq War propaganda was, things have got even worse since then. Obnoxious gatekeepers have ensured that the parameters
of what can and can't be said in print have narrowed still further.
In the mid-Noughties, I was writing regularly in the UK mainstream print media. So too was John Pilger. Our articles were popular
with readers, but not with the gatekeepers. When I
wrote a balanced, alternative
view on Belarus for the New Statesman in 2011, I came under fierce gatekeeper attack.
I forgot that on Belarus and many other issues, only one point of view was allowed. Silly me.
Only one thing can save UK print press
Today, the lack of diversity of opinion is one of the reasons why newspaper sales have crashed – (sales have
slumped by two-thirds in the past 20 years), and conversely why 'alternative' sites, and media outlets where a wide range of
opinions ARE heard have done so well. Who wants to pay money for a paper when the political views published in it range from pro-war
centrist-left, to pro-war centrist-right?
If there was a single newspaper or magazine column which examined forensically whether Labour really did have an anti-Semitism
'crisis' under Jeremy Corbyn, I must have missed it.
And apart from Mary Dejevsky in the i paper, where was the journalism examining the many inconsistencies in the official narrative
of the Skripal case? Why has 'Private Eye', which bills itself as 'anti-Establishment', not covered the ongoing Philip Cross Wikipedia
editing scandal ?
I'm sure the old 'Eye' of Richard Ingrams and Bron Waugh would have if Wikipedia had been around then.
And what about the Covid-19 coverage? Has any journalist asked the very simple question: if the virus is as bad as the government
says it is, and a domestic lockdown is necessary to stop its spread, why have flights continued to come into the country (including
from virus hotspots) unchecked?
Don't get me wrong, there are still some good columnists out there, but sadly you can count them on one hand.
The only thing that can save UK print media from total collapse is if there is a large-scale clear-out of the faux-left/neocon-dominated
commentariat and their replacement by writers who actually address the issues that readers are interested in. Newspapers used to
be published for their readers, now it seems most are published for people who write for other newspapers – and to enable 'Inside
the Tenters' to congratulate each other for their 'brilliant' articles on Twitter.
The smug, mutual back-slapping nonsense, seen at its worst at journalist 'award' ceremonies, has gone on for too long. We need
more old-style chain-smoking journos, not frightened of telling truth to power – and less smoke and mirrors.
Trust in British print media can be restored, but only if we go back to the future.
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
Neil Clark is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. His award winning blog can be found at www.neilclark66.blogspot.com.
He tweets on politics and world affairs @NeilClark66 is a journalist,
writer, broadcaster and blogger. His award winning blog can be found at www.neilclark66.blogspot.com. He tweets on politics and world
affairs @NeilClark66 6 May, 2020 17:39
Get short URL
FBI under Obama acted as Gestapo -- the political police. Obama looks now especially bad and probably should be
prosecuted for the attempt to stage coup d'état against legitimately elected president. His CIA connections need to investigated
and prosecuted too, and first of all Brennan.
Notable quotes:
"... Yates, who was briefly the acting attorney general during the early days of the Trump administration before getting fired, also laid out how in the ensuing days, Comey kept the FBI's actions cloaked in secrecy and repeatedly rebuffed her suggestions that the incoming Trump team be made aware of the Flynn recordings. ..."
"... "One thing people will see when they look at the documents is how Director Comey purposely went around the Justice Department and ignored Deputy Attorney General Yate s," Attorney General William Barr said during a Thursday interview with CBS News. "Deputy Attorney General Yates, I've disagreed with her about a couple of things, but, you know, here she upheld the fine tradition of the Department of Justice. She said that the new administration has to be treated just like the Obama administration, and they should go and tell the White House about their findings And, you know, Director Comey ran around that." ..."
"... Obama asked Yates and Comey to stay behind when the meeting concluded. ..."
"... Obama "started by saying that he had 'learned of the information about Flynn' and his conversation with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak," Yates said, according to the notes. "Obama specified he did not want any additional information on the matter but was seeking information on whether the White House should be treating Flynn any differently." washington examiner ..."
"... Obama did not want any additional information on the matter? Careful CYA. From the account of this meeting it is clear that Obama and Biden knew that Comey was intent on pursuing Flynn. If that is so, then subsequent events indicate that Obama did not act to stop Comey, and since Comey was hiding his effort against Flynn from main Justice, it must be that someone on high was encouraging him. Now, who would that be? pl ..."
"... All this was known in DC for the past few years. Everyone on the HSPCI knew what the closed door testimony was. Clapper was categorical that there was "no empirical evidence of collusion". The Crowdstrike CEO was categorical that he had no definitive evidence that the Russians exfiltrated data from the DNC servers. Yet Schiff, Clapper, Brennan and all the media hacks were on TV every night screaming Russia! Russia! and Collusion! Collusion! ..."
"... I'm revealing my age by using this expression from the Watergate era, but "what did Obama, Biden and Comey know, and when did they know it?" ..."
"... So Obama used Yates to go after Flynn. They have really worked a number on Flynn to discredit him, and it almost worked. Now it would appear their scheme is starting to unravel a bit. ..."
"... Is Obama being thrown under the bus here? Are Comey and Yates (or others) trying to cover their asses now that Flynn is free? Did Trump and his allies always know this and waited for the right moment to reveal it for better effect? The game is at hand. ..."
"... Brennan was encouraging Comey. I just learned something recently. Brennan spent time in Indonesia around the same time that Obama's mother lived there. It has been reported that Obama and Brennan had a fairly close relationship. I wonder how long they have known each other. ..."
"... I did see a clip of Matt Gaetz calling out Ryan and Trey Gowdy from preventing them from issuing subpoenas. Why do you think the Republican leadership in the House and Senate did not want to investigate? ..."
"
Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates told special counsel Robert Mueller's team that
she first learned the FBI possessed and was investigating recordings of Flynn's late 2016
conversations with a Russian envoy following a Jan. 5, 2017, national security meeting at the
White House. It wasn't Comey who told her, but former President Barack Obama.
Yates, who was briefly the acting attorney general during the early days of the Trump
administration before getting fired, also laid out how in the ensuing days, Comey kept the
FBI's actions cloaked in secrecy and repeatedly rebuffed her suggestions that the incoming
Trump team be made aware of the Flynn recordings.
These revelations appear in declassified FBI interview notes of the Mueller team's
conversation with Yates in August 2017, highlighted by the Justice Department on Thursday as
U.S. Attorney for D.C. Timothy Shea moved to drop its
criminal charges against Flynn.
"One thing people will see when they look at the documents is how Director Comey purposely
went around the Justice Department and ignored Deputy Attorney General Yate s," Attorney
General William Barr
said during a Thursday
interview with CBS News. "Deputy Attorney General Yates, I've disagreed with her about a
couple of things, but, you know, here she upheld the fine tradition of the Department of
Justice. She said that the new administration has to be treated just like the Obama
administration, and they should go and tell the White House about their findings And, you know,
Director Comey ran around that."
Yates told Mueller's team she first learned of the Flynn recordings following a White House
meeting about the Intelligence Community Assessment attended by Yates, Comey, Vice
President Joe Biden , then-CIA Director John Brennan, then-Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper, then-national security adviser Susan Rice, and others. Obama asked
Yates and Comey to stay behind when the meeting concluded.
Obama "started by saying that he had 'learned of the information about Flynn' and his
conversation with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak," Yates said, according to the notes.
"Obama specified he did not want any additional information on the matter but was seeking
information on whether the White House should be treating Flynn any differently." washington
examiner
-------------
Obama did not want any additional information on the matter? Careful CYA. From the account
of this meeting it is clear that Obama and Biden knew that Comey was intent on pursuing Flynn.
If that is so, then subsequent events indicate that Obama did not act to stop Comey, and since
Comey was hiding his effort against Flynn from main Justice, it must be that someone on high
was encouraging him. Now, who would that be? pl
All this was known in DC for the past few years. Everyone on the HSPCI knew what the
closed door testimony was. Clapper was categorical that there was "no empirical evidence of
collusion". The Crowdstrike CEO was categorical that he had no definitive evidence that the
Russians exfiltrated data from the DNC servers. Yet Schiff, Clapper, Brennan and all the
media hacks were on TV every night screaming Russia! Russia! and Collusion! Collusion!
Devin Nunes was spot on and correct that there was an attempted coup. All the media and
even many Republicans called him a conspiracy theorist.
SST maintaining its glorious tradition was spot on in its analysis with the limited data
available that there was a coup and the traitors were not those in the Trump campaign but the
leadership in law enforcement and intelligence. A big shoutout to you, Larry and David
Habakkuk.
Trump himself was like deer caught in the headlights. Furiously tweeting but not doing
much of anything else while his own nominees at the DOJ and FBI were plotting and acting to
destroy his presidency. Devin Nunes imploring him to declassify and expose all the evidence
from the FISA applications, the 302s, the internal communications among the plotters
including the prolific FBI lovers. He still hasn't.
What happens next? Will the whole coup be exposed in its entirety? Will anyone be held to
account?
If Trump doesn't care enough even when his ass was being fried to disclose all the
evidence with the stroke of his pen and if all he cares is to tweet "witch-hunt" and "Drain
the Swamp", how realistic is it that any of the coup plotters will be tried for treason?
So Obama used Yates to go after Flynn. They have really worked a number on Flynn to discredit
him, and it almost worked. Now it would appear their scheme is starting to unravel a bit.
Is Obama being thrown under the bus here? Are Comey and Yates (or others) trying to cover
their asses now that Flynn is free? Did Trump and his allies always know this and waited for
the right moment to reveal it for better effect? The game is at hand.
Yahoo released a leaked call today of Obama criticizing Trump's response over coronavirus.
Here's the big headline Yahoo is running:
Exclusive: Obama says in private call that 'rule of law is at risk' in Michael Flynn
case
The Flynn case was invoked by Obama as a principal reason that his former administration
officials needed to make sure former Vice President Joe Biden wins the November election
against President Trump. "So I am hoping that all of you feel the same sense of urgency
that I do," he said. "Whenever I campaign, I've always said, 'Ah, this is the most
important election.' Especially obviously when I was on the ballot, that always feels like
it's the most important election. This one -- I'm not on the ballot -- but I am pretty darn
invested. We got to make this happen."
Obama misstated the charge to which Flynn had previously pleaded guilty. He was charged
with false statements to the FBI, not perjury.
Misstated seems like a stretch. The call sounds scripted and I suspect the leak was
deliberate.
Brennan was encouraging Comey.
I just learned something recently. Brennan spent time in Indonesia around the same time
that Obama's mother lived there. It has been reported that Obama and Brennan had a fairly close relationship. I wonder how
long they have known each other.
O'Biden's Dad just wheeled around the corner in a wood paneled station wagon and dressed
down the neighborhood kids who took O'Biden's ball. A humiliating experience for O'Biden who
sits in the passenger seat as a mere spectator.
The open question is: Just who were those contractors?
Surely that is known to some, and is significant to current politically-charged
inquiries.
Just why that information has not become public is a good question.
Can anyone provide a reliable source for that information?
It is unsurprising @realDonaldTrump enjoys wallowing in his fetid self-indulgence, but I
find it surreal that so many other government officials encourage his ignorance,
incompetence, & destructive behavior.
BTW, history will be written by the righteous, not by his lickspittle.
She served as Acting AG, accepting the post when Trump was inaugurated. What did she tell him
about his whole affair? Was the opposition to the EO 13769 just an excuse to have herself
fired so she would not have to either perjure herself or reveal the truth to Trump?
Jack,
"All this was known in DC for the past few years."
You left out that Paul Ryan was Speaker of the House because the Republicans were in the
majority then and the HPSCI under his term as speaker did not subpoena a very large group of
people, didn't ask relevant questions, didn't release information to the public and thus
ensuring the left took over the House after the 2016 elections.
I, too, coincidentally just concluded a close reading of the Conservative Tree House post
that Mr. Harbaugh just recommended. It is, indeed, well worth such a close reading. There
have been various puzzling things along the way these last few years for which this post
provides explanations. Of particular utility, is its inclusion of a timeline of the arc of
the episodes of illegal government surveillance that began (?) with the IRS spying of 2012,
and how - and why - it evolved from that episode into the massive abuses of the FISA process
of which we are becoming increasingly aware as revelations are forthcoming.
CTH's work is superb, but I do want to say that I am also supremely grateful for all of
the good work and analysis from Larry Johnson, and other contributors, as well as for the
trenchant comments of Col. Lang. Multivalent sources of information, analysis, and comment
provide one with the parallax requisite to understanding this web of perfidy. My gratitude
also is owing to all of you Members of the Committee of Correspondence, each of whom brings
personal observations and insights to bear, always much to my benefit.
I did see a clip of Matt Gaetz calling out Ryan and Trey Gowdy from preventing them from
issuing subpoenas. Why do you think the Republican leadership in the House and Senate did not
want to investigate?
["One thing people will see when they look at the documents is how Director Comey purposely
went around the Justice Department and ignored Deputy Attorney General Yates," Attorney
General William Barr said during a Thursday interview with CBS News. "Deputy Attorney General
Yates, I've disagreed with her about a couple of things, but, you know, here she upheld the
fine tradition of the Department of Justice. She said that the new administration has to be
treated just like the Obama administration, and they should go and tell the White House about
their findings And, you know, Director Comey ran around that."]
++++++++++++
This is fascinating because: this, what Barr is discussing, on national TV, . . . this
particular dimension, this Yates/Comey playing hide the bacon has nothing at all to do with
actual Brady material in the Lt. Gen. Flynn case.
Barr is referring to the Special Counsel Mueller Office's interview with Yates on Aug. 15,
2017, entered into the system three weeks later. Her interview occurred more than two months
prior to Flynn's coerced guilty plea.
This SCO document was released to the court May 7 as exhibit 4 attached to the DOJ motion
to end the prosecution of Flynn. It was produced in line with request by defense for Brady
material.
What Barr forgets to say is: This SCO interview of Yates shows that Comey and Yates talked
on the phone -- prior to -- the notorious Jan. 24, 2017 FBI interview of Flynn.
"Comey . . . informed her that two agents were on their way to interview Flynn at the
White House," the SCO said, according to the new court filing.
Yates took no action, -- she did nothing to order Comey to abort this soon-to-happen FBI
interview of Flynn, this SCO interview of her shows.
She was Comey's boss, the Acting Attorney General, at the time.
It shows that she was upset precisely because she wanted the FBI to coordinate with the
DOJ -- on getting Flynn screwed -- even suggesting, she told the SCO, that consideration that
Flynn be recorded, instead of memorialized using standard 302 form –
in-writing-only.
Yates wanted Flynn fired, she told the SCO.
Yates apparently was unable on her own to figure out, as the AG, the FBI and DOJ -- none
of them had any predicate, no "materiality," nothing "tethered" to any crime, as there was no
crime. And if she did not know these basic facts, had no awareness of them, then: why was she
the AG in the first place?
And what did Yates glean, right after this Jan. 24 interview of Flynn?
"Yates received a brief readout of the interview the night it happened, and a longer
readout the following day," which begs the question of why the original 302 of this was never
produced by the DOJ, to the defense; and also, why Covington law firm never asked to see this
before allowing Flynn to make his plea.
"Yates did not speak to the interviewing agents herself, but understood from others that
their assessment was that Flynn showed no 'tells' of lying," the SCO report says.
Based on her personal preference, rather than DOJ norms, she went to the White House, and
her expectation was they would fire Flynn. I fail to see how this nonsense by Yates seem to
escape Barr's notice. Or, is something else also going on?
She personally went to the White House, and her smear campaign against Flynn began, went
on and on and on, even after she was fired after being Acting AG for just ten days.
In her brief stint as Acting AG: Yates refused to tell the White House Counsel if Flynn
was being investigated, when the WHC asked her, directly, about this, according to what she
told the SCO. Can't blame this fact on the unctuous Comey.
She did tell the SCO that she wanted the WHC to know Flynn had been interviewed by the FBI
– and that she had concerns about Flynn, and she said those concerns related to the
Logan Act. Yates told SCO her concerns were because of the Logan Act, and that she expressed
this to the White House.
The Washington Examiner reporting that "It wasn't Comey who told her, but former President
Barack Obama" -- about the Flynn-Kislyak phone call --- this is interesting, very
interesting, if true, assuming Yates was telling the SCO the truth. This is what she claims
in her August 2017 interview with SCO.
But this bit of information is hardly Brady material [how is whether Obama or Comey told
her materially germane to the Flynn case, viz. Brady material?].
The question the SCO should have been concerned about is: who actually leaked the
transcript of the Flynn-Kislyak telephone call to the media?
Is this a serious crime? Or is this OK?
We still do not know this answer, and AG Barr has not told us. Nor has his boss,
Trump.
It is interesting that Barr chose to highlight that Comey went around Yates' back in Comey
ordering FBI to interview Flynn, but not that Yates knew of the Flynn interview before it
went down, and sat on her arse about it.
In fairness to Comey, they were, as the FB of Investigations, conducting the
investigation, which is their job, however rogue this FBI's I actually was, targeting
Flynn.
The Flynn-Kislyak telephone call, occurring late December of 2016, was reported by the
Washington Post on Jan. 12, 2017, eight days before Trump was sworn in.
And who leaked this, has anyone been prosecuted, will anyone be?
Obama still president, Loretta Lynch still AG, Yates still Deputy AG, Comey FBI director,
McCabe Deputy FBI director, etc.
Starting Jan. 20 and for ten days, Yates was the AG. She appeared bent on destroying
Flynn, and did nothing that I know of to prosecute who leaked the Flynn-Kislyak telephone
call to WAPO. Did someone on high perhaps ask her not to?
Nor was Comey and McCabe investigating this as best I can tell. Yet this was an actual,
clear cut crime we all saw, plain as day. Or maybe this is OK? Was someone on high asking
them not to?
I watched Barr say, during his interview with CBS news, [following the May 7 release of
documents to the court]: "One thing people will see when they look at the documents is how
Director Comey purposely went around the Justice Department and ignored Deputy Attorney
General Yates," Barr told Catherine Herridge.
And my first thought was: why is Barr doing an apparent CYA for Yates?
What office might she want to be running for in the future; is she a cooperating witness
in the wider Durham probe, why is Yates being portrayed as someone other than what she was: A
leader in the effort to destroy Michael Flynn.
She was the AG, and she failed to hold Comey accountable at the time; this is a fact,
apparently, that reflects poorly on her.
She told the White House -- as best she could -- that Flynn was a piece of dung, and told
the SCO, in their interview of her, that she expected the White House to fire Flynn. This
reflects poorly on her.
And threatened Logan Act prosecution of Flynn to the White house. This reflects poorly on
her.
She smeared Flynn in a CNN interview on May 16, the day before Mueller was appointed. This
reflects poorly on her.
Well, who leaked the Flynn-Kislyak telephone call, and did Yates act on that?
Folks that "should have known better" -- far and wide, smeared Flynn, justified the
lawlessness against him; one of many examples, titled: "Leaking Flynn's name to the press was
illegal, but utterly justified" published by TheHill.com.
She wasn't the only one, but Yates was smack dab in the middle of enabling and
perpetuating a long-running smear campaign against Flynn, to destroy him by any means
necessary. This reflects poorly on her.
Why is Barr carrying water for her.
As for Obama, he did nothing to stop Comey in 2016 when Comey announced he was exonerating
Clinton. Nor did AG Lynch, even though that is not the function of the FBI -- an act of
insubordination, by the way, for which Rosenstein officially fired him in May 2017, which
set, somehow, in motion the Mueller SC appointment by Rosenstein.
If Comey is such a rogue, and Barr is now claiming Yates tried to do the right thing, in
spite of Comey, then why didn't Yates fire Comey Jan. 24 right on the spot? And end the
fiasco right then and there?
In her May 16, 2017 CNN interview she only has kind words to say about him.
AS for who on high was encouraging Comey's extra legal free-lancing in the Clinton and
Flynn matters is a pertinent question.
Who were the enablers, in other words?
Barr appears to imply Comey did it all on his own, which is not entirely accurate. Perhaps
this also implies that Durham will prosecute Comey? I don't know if anyone will be prosecuted
at all. Time will tell.
It is clear Comey's enablers would, by rank, have been, viz. the Clinton matter: Obama and
Lynch.
In the Flynn matter: Trump and Yates.
Simple logic dictates that: if Main Justice was "not in the loop" then, for Clinton
matter, this means Obama was enabling Comey to exonerate her; and also dictate that, for
Flynn, that Trump was the one "on high" enabling Comey.
If there are others on high, they were not in the chain of command as I understand the
current US Government structure.
-30-
You seem to think Trump was informed of all the relevant information about the FBI's
conduct during his first ten days in office. Because Barr, being appointed AG two years after
these events, has yet to indict anyone in the case, Trump was actually enabling Yates in
destroying Flynn? Neither appear to be logical conclusions to me.
So on a December 29, 2016 The Obama administration placed sanctions on Russia that evolved to
Flynn, at the instruction of the incoming Trump administration, contacting the Russian
ambassador requesting that they not retaliate or heighten the situation.
On January 5th Ms. Yates learned from Obama of the Flynn intervention.
Rather than contact Trump directly Obama went along with the Comey Logan Act thoughts.
The decision to enact sanctions obviously involved State, CIA, DNI and FBI but why not
Justice or did it. But why was the incoming Trump administration not consulted.
There was only one Machiavellian thinker in that group and it wasn't the idiot who got his
panties all twisted up.
"This is a cabal of liars of the Obama administration senior officials," said Sara Carter, a
Fox News contributor and host of "The Sara Carter Show" on Fox News's show "The Ingraham Angle"
on Friday.
Watch
the latest video at <a href="https://www.foxnews.com">foxnews.com</a>
"And you have to ask yourself one question. They all stuck with the same exact propaganda,
the same exact his information, that the Trump administration, that the Trump campaign
conspired with Russia, even though they had no evidence whatsoever, and they manufactured that
evidence against the president."
"And this is why all of them need to be investigated " explained Carter.
" What they did here is not only in effect of our national security, they basically told a
lie across the globe and divided our nation for more than three years, and eventually someone
is going to pay the price for this. And I think this is exactly why John Durham and Attorney
General William Barr are conducting this investigation so thoroughly, because what they did was
a crime against the American people.
"Why is it that Obama asks Comey and Yates, how should we treat Michael Flynn? Why does he
ask that question to them in a private meeting in the Oval Office?" asked Raymond Arroyo, who
hosted "The Ingraham Angle' on Friday.
"I think that is pretty evident, because he along with Michael Flynn had a very divisive
relationship," responded Carter.
" When Michael Flynn challenged him on the narrative that he was spreading that Al Qaeda was
on the run and that ISIS was just this jayvee team, Michael Flynn was not going to accept that.
He also was not going to accept the fact that there were serious problems within the
intelligence community, and he challenged President Obama on that. I think in the beginning it
was a good relationship. I remember that, they had a good relationship, and then it broke
apart."
"A lot of people don't remember, was that meeting that President Trump, very first meeting
he had with President Obama at the White House," continued Sara Carter.
"When President Obama put a seed in President Trump's head, saying, I only have one person I
want to warn you about, and that is Mike Flynn. And the reason they wanted Mike Flynn out was
because he was the only one in the administration that really understood the intelligence
community, and he was going to catch all of them and what they were doing , which was what they
were trying to do was break the administration apart and remove President Trump."
Russiagate has been an obvious coup attempt from the beginning, and several attempts have
followed...
__________________________________________________
That is not at all obvious.
Russiagate was obviously designed to look like a coup attempt, but you have to be extremely
gullible to believe any of it is real.
The recent Flynn bruhaha is a perfect example of the phoniness surrounding Russiagate.
The FBI investigators that interviewed Flynn believed he had not been deceptive and any
fool who was paying attention at the time believed he was not guilty because 2 weeks before
that FBI interview the news media had reported that the phone call with Kislyak had been
recorded by the FBI and that there was nothing improper or illegal that would motivate Flynn
to lie about his talk with Kislyak. The story that Flynn lied to the FBI is unbelievable on
its face.
Don't blame the FBI for creating this fake story. Trump is the one and only one that
created the fake Flynn-lied-to-the-FBI story, Before Trump created the phony story that Flynn
had lied to the FBI nobody else had at that time believed Flynn lied to the FBI.
But once Trump had created the phony story that Flynn lied to the FBI then all the gullible
morons started to believe the phony story. And even Flynn himself goes along with Trump's
phony story because he is a good soldier that follows command.
Before Comey's testimony to Congress that suggested that Trump was twisting Comey's arm to
let Flynn go for lying to the FBI no one had ever said that Flynn lied to the FBI. That story
was created by Trump and reported by Comey.
And then Mueller and Flynn and Comey all helped Trump foist that phony story that Flynn lied
to the FBI onto the public.
The implication of Comey's testimony to Congress was that in order to get Flynn off a
charge of Lying to the FBI Trump first tried to cajole Comey to go easy on Flynn and when
that did not work Trump fired Comey.
The problem with that whole BS story is that the crux of it (that Flynn lied to the FBI)
never happened. It was entirely invented by Trump to make it look like Trump was engaged in
mortal combat with the deep state. But it was all staged and fake (i.e. Kayfabe)
_______________________________________________
Well duh....
Russiagate was designed to fall apart.
It was obvious all along that all the stories that came out in the Mueller Report were
badly written sit-com material - the script for a comic soap opera. And they were all
scripted to fall apart when examined closely.
What I could never figure out was what this guy Mueller was going to say when he was
dragged in front of Congress and required to answer tough questions about all the garbage he
had produced. I thought for sure that for Mueller the jig would be up there was no way the
farce would not be revealed for all to see.
And then it happened. Mueller testified and it turned out Mueller could not remember any
of it.
Senator: Did you say XYZ?
Mueller: Is that in the report??
Senator: yes it is.
Mueller: Then it is true.
Making Mueller Senile and unable to remember anything was brilliant - pure genius. The
rest of the Russiagate script was mediocre at best.
It was a transparently false narrative designed, by the most incompetent election
campaign team in history ...
Occam's razor says Hillary threw the election. No seasoned politician would make the
mistakes that she made - especially when they yearn to make history (as the first
woman president) and the entire establishment (left and right) is counting on them to
win.
Believing what is evidently incredible has long been a test of loyalty
...
And you prove your loyalty with the belief that Hillary lost because of an
"incompetent election campaign".
Did Obama Defense Deputy Lie To Protect Her Fraudulent Russiagate Sources?
xxx Barnacles, 1 minute ago
Justice for me, but not for thee. They prosecute Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Papadoupolis, and
tried to prosecute Trump. Yet, none of the Deep State/demonrats get prosecuted. No Comey,
Strzok, Page, McCabe, Clapper, or Brennan.
xxx booboo, 2 minutes ago
It would not be difficult to ascertain just the opposite, she spoke the truth in the MSNBC
interview and she lied under oath in a congressional hearing. There are always paper trails
and bread crumbs but they won't be followed because the Atlantic Council is the defacto State
Department. Ciitizen Jury, Crime and Punishment teams would have to enforce the law of the
land at this point.
xxx lwilland1012, 5 minutes ago (Edited)
Nobody is covering this bombshell that was dropped from the Grenell transcripts: "we had
indication that the DNC was hacked."
"Indication? Direct evidence?"
"No direct evidence."
Matt Taibi of all people is covering this bombshell from Crowdstrike
No direct evidence means that Russia DID NOT interfere in the election.
xxx onwisconsinbadger, 11 minutes ago
Did Michael Flynn Lie To Protect His Russia Sources?
Flynn was in violation of both federal law and the US Constitution Emoluments Clause which
forbids former military members from getting paid to lobby for a foreign government without
written permission from congress or the Secretary of the Army which he never got. Flynn was
lobbying for both Turkey and Russia without explicit permission to do so. Technically he
could be brought back to active duty and tried in a Courts Martial for what he did or be
charged in a federal court but that would be pointless with Trump as POTUS like so many other
things with Trump it establishes a dangerous precedent for future incidents because they will
argue a uneven application of law because Flynn wasn't prosecuted so why should they?
"... I tend to doubt that Chinese leaders have any overwhelming commitment to the truth, and the reasons for their greater veracity are probably practical ones. American news and entertainment completely dominate the global media landscape and they face no significant domestic rival. So China recognizes that it is vastly outmatched in any propaganda conflict, and as the far weaker party must necessarily try to stick closer to the truth, lest its lies be immediately exposed. Meanwhile, America's overwhelming control over global information may inspire considerable hubris, with the government sometimes promoting the most outrageous and ridiculous falsehoods in the confident belief that a supportive American media will cover for any mistakes. ..."
"... These considerations should be kept in mind as we attempt to sift the accounts of our often unreliable and dishonest media in hopes of extracting the true circumstances of the current coronavirus epidemic. Unlike careful historical studies, we are working in real-time and our analysis is greatly hindered by the ongoing fog of war, so that any conclusions are necessarily very preliminary ones. But given the high stakes, such an attempt seems warranted. ..."
"... Last month, a team of five WSJ reporters produced a very detailed and thorough 4,400 word analysis of the same period, and the NYT has published a helpful timeline of those early events as well. Although there may be some differences of emphasis or minor disagreements, all these American media sources agree that Chinese officials first became aware of the serious viral outbreak in Wuhan in early to mid-January, with the first known death occurring on Jan. 11th, and finally implemented major new public health measures later that same month. No one has apparently disputed these basic facts. ..."
"... It therefore appears that elements of the Defense Intelligence Agency were aware of the deadly viral outbreak in Wuhan more than a month before any officials in the Chinese government itself. Unless our intelligence agencies have pioneered the technology of precognition, I think this may have happened for the same reason that arsonists have the earliest knowledge of future fires. ..."
Even more serious charges are also being raised, with senior government officials informing
the media that they suspect that the Covid-19 virus was developed in a Chinese laboratory in
Wuhan and then carelessly released upon a vulnerable world. Such "conspiracy theories" were
once confined to the extreme political fringe of the Internet, but they are now found in the
respectable pages of my morning New York Times and Wall Street Journal.
Whether plausible or not, such accusations carry the gravest international implications, and
there are growing demands that China financially compensate our country for its trillions of
dollars in economic losses. A new global Cold War along both political and economic lines may
soon be at hand.
I have no personal expertise in biowarfare technology, nor access to the secret American
intelligence reports that seem to have been taken seriously by our most elite national
newspapers. But I do think that a careful exploration of previous Sino-American clashes over
the last couple of decades may provide some useful insight into the relative credibility of
those two governments as well as that of our own media.
During the late 1990s, America seemed to reach the peak of its global power and prosperity,
basking in the aftermath of its historic victory in the long Cold War, while ordinary Americans
greatly benefited from the record-long economic expansion of that decade. A huge Tech Boom was
at its height, and Islamic terrorism seemed a vague and distant thing, almost entirely confined
to Hollywood movies. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the possibility of large scale war
seemed to have dissipated so political leaders boasted of the "peace dividend" that citizens
were starting to enjoy as our huge military forces, built up over nearly a half-century, were
downsized amid sweeping cuts in the bloated defense budget. America was finally returning to a
regular peacetime economy, with the benefits apparent to everyone.
At the time, I was overwhelmingly focused on domestic political issues, so I only paid
slight attention to our one small military operation of that period, the 1999 NATO air war
against Serbia, intended to safeguard the Kosovo Albanians from ethnic cleansing and massacre,
a Clinton Administration project that I fully endorsed.
Although our limited bombing campaign seemed quite successful and soon forced the Serbs to
the bargaining table, the short war did include one very embarrassing mishap. The use of old
maps had led to a targeting error that caused one of our smart bombs to accidentally strike the
Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, killing three members of its delegation and wounding dozens more.
The Chinese were outraged by this incident, and their propaganda organs began claiming that the
attack had been deliberate, a reckless accusation that obviously made no logical sense.
In those days I watched the PBS Newshour every night, and was I shocked to see their
U.S. Ambassador raise those absurd charges with host Jim Lehrer, whose disbelief matched my
own. But when I considered that the Chinese government was still stubbornly denying the reality
of its massacre of the protesting students in Tiananmen Square a decade earlier, I concluded
that unreasonable behavior by PRC officials was only to be expected. Indeed, there was even
some speculation that China was cynically milking the unfortunate accident for domestic
reasons, hoping to stoke the sort of jingoist anti-Americanism among the Chinese people that
would finally help bind the social wounds of that 1989 outrage.
Such at least were my thoughts on that matter more than two decades ago. But in the years
that followed, my understanding of the world and of many pivotal events of modern history
underwent the sweeping transformations that I have described in my American Pravda series . And some
of my 1990s assumptions were among them.
Consider, for example, the Tiananmen Square Massacre, which every June 4th still evokes an
annual wave of harsh condemnations in the news and opinion pages of our leading national
newspapers. I had never originally doubted those facts, but a year or two ago I happened to
come across a short article by journalist Jay Matthews entitled "The Myth of
Tiananmen" that completely upended that apparent reality.
According to Matthews the infamous massacre had likely never happened, but was merely a
media artifact produced by confused Western reporters and dishonest propaganda, a mistaken
belief that had quickly become embedded in our standard media storyline, endlessly repeated by
so many ignorant journalists that they all eventually believed it to be true. Instead, as near
as could be determined, the protesting students had all left Tiananmen Square peacefully, just
as the Chinese government had always maintained. Indeed, leading newspapers such as the New
York Times and the Washington Post had occasionally acknowledged these facts over
the years, but usually buried those scanty admissions so deep in their stories that few ever
noticed. Meanwhile, the bulk of the mainstream media had fallen for an apparent hoax.
Matthews himself had been the Beijing Bureau Chief of the Washington Post ,
personally covering the protests at the time, and his article appeared in the Columbia
Journalism Review , our most prestigious venue for media criticism. This authoritative
analysis containing such explosive conclusions was first published in 1998, and I find it
difficult to believe that many reporters or editors covering China have remained ignorant of
this information, yet the impact has been absolutely nil. For over twenty years virtually every
mainstream media account I have read has continued to promote the Tiananmen Square Massacre
Hoax, usually implicitly but sometimes explicitly.
Even more remarkable were the discoveries I made regarding our supposedly accidental bombing
of the Chinese Embassy in 1999. Not long after launching this website, I added former Asia
Times contributor Peter Lee as a columnist, incorporating his China Matters blogsite
archives that stretched back for a decade. He soon published a 7,000 word
article on the Belgrade Embassy bombing, representing a compilation of material already
contained in a
half-dozen previous pieces he'd written on that subject from 2007 onward. To my
considerable surprise, he provided a great deal of persuasive evidence that the American attack
on the Chinese embassy had indeed been deliberate, just as China had always claimed.
According to Lee, Beijing had allowed its embassy to be used as a site for secure radio
transmission facilities by the Serbian military, whose own communications network was a primary
target of NATO airstrikes. Meanwhile, Serbian air defenses had shot down an advanced American
F-117A fighter, whose top-secret stealth technology was a crucial U.S. military secret.
Portions of that enormously valuable wreckage were carefully gathered by the grateful Serbs,
who delivered it to the Chinese for temporary storage at their embassy prior to transport back
home. This vital technological acquisition later allowed China to deploy its own J20 stealth
fighter in early 2011, many years sooner than American military analysts had believed
possible.
Based upon this analysis, Lee argued that the Chinese embassy was attacked in order to
destroy the Serbian retransmission facilities located there, while punishing the Chinese for
allowing such use. There were also widespread rumors in China that another motive had been an
unsuccessful attempt to destroy the stealth debris stored within. Later Congressional testimony
revealed
that the among all the hundreds of NATO airstrikes, the attack on the Chinese embassy was the
only one directly ordered by the CIA, a highly-suspicious detail.
I was only slightly familiar with Lee's work, and under normal circumstances I would have
been very cautious in accepting his remarkable claims against the contrary position universally
held by all our own elite media outlets. But the sources he cited completely shifted that
balance.
Although the American media dominates the English-language world, many British publications
also possess a strong global reputation, and since they are often much less in thrall to our
own national security state, they have sometimes covered important stories that were ignored
here. And in this case, the Sunday Observer published a remarkable expose in October
1999, citing several NATO military and intelligence sources who fully confirmed the deliberate
nature of the American bombing of the Chinese embassy, with a US colonel even reportedly
boasting that their smartbomb had hit the exact room intended.
This important story was immediately summarized in the Guardian ,
a sister publication, and also covered by the rival Times of London and many of the
world's other most prestigious publications, but encountered an absolute wall of silence in our
own country. Such a bizarre divergence on a story of global strategic importance -- a
deliberate and deadly US attack against Chinese diplomatic territory -- drew the attention of
FAIR, a leading American media watchdog group, which published
an initial critique and
a subsequent follow-up . These two pieces totaled some 3,000 words, and effectively
summarized both the overwhelming evidence of the facts and also the heavy international
coverage, while reporting the weak excuses made by top American editors to explain their
continuing silence. Based upon these articles, I consider the matter settled.
Few Americans remember our 1999 attack upon the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, and if not for
the annual waving of a bloody June 4th flag by our ignorant and disingenuous media, the
"Tiananmen Square Massacre" would also have long since faded from memory. Neither of these
events has much direct importance today, at least for our own citizens. But the broader media
implications of these examples do seem quite significant.
These incidents represented two of the most serious flashpoints between the Chinese and
American governments during the last thirty-odd years. In both cases the claims of the Chinese
government were entirely correct, although they were denied by our own top political leaders
and dismissed or ridiculed by virtually our entire mainstream media. Moreover, within a few
months or a year the true facts became known to many journalists, even being reported in fully
respectable venues. But that reality was still completely ignored and suppressed for decades,
so that today almost no American whose information comes from our regular media would even be
aware of it. Indeed, since many younger journalists draw their knowledge of the world from
these same elite media sources, I suspect that many of them have never learned what their
predecessors knew but dared not mention.
Most leading Chinese media outlets are owned or controlled by the Chinese government, and
they tend to broadly follow the government line. Leading American media outlets have a
corporate ownership structure and often boast of their fierce independence; but on many crucial
matters, I think the actual reality is not so very different from that in China.
I tend to doubt that Chinese leaders have any overwhelming commitment to the truth, and the
reasons for their greater veracity are probably practical ones. American news and entertainment
completely dominate the global media landscape and they face no significant domestic rival. So
China recognizes that it is vastly outmatched in any propaganda conflict, and as the far weaker
party must necessarily try to stick closer to the truth, lest its lies be immediately exposed.
Meanwhile, America's overwhelming control over global information may inspire considerable
hubris, with the government sometimes promoting the most outrageous and ridiculous falsehoods
in the confident belief that a supportive American media will cover for any mistakes.
These considerations should be kept in mind as we attempt to sift the accounts of our often
unreliable and dishonest media in hopes of extracting the true circumstances of the current
coronavirus epidemic. Unlike careful historical studies, we are working in real-time and our
analysis is greatly hindered by the ongoing fog of war, so that any conclusions are necessarily
very preliminary ones. But given the high stakes, such an attempt seems warranted.
When my morning newspapers first began mentioning the appearance of a mysterious new illness
in China during mid-January, I paid little attention, absorbed as I was in the aftermath of our
sudden assassination of Iran's top military leader and the dangerous possibility of a yet
another Middle Eastern war. But the reports persisted and grew, with deaths occurring and
evidence growing that the viral disease could be transmitted between humans. China's early
conventional efforts seemed unsuccessful in halting the spread of the disease.
Then on Jan. 23rd and after only 17 deaths, the Chinese government took the astonishing step
of locking down and quarantining the entire 11 million inhabitants of the city of Wuhan, a
story that drew worldwide attention. They soon extended this policy to the 60 million Chinese
of Hubei province, and not longer afterward shut down their entire national economy and
confined 700 million Chinese to their homes, a public health measure probably a thousand times
larger than anything previously undertaken in human history. So either the China's leadership
had suddenly gone insane, or they regarded this new virus as an absolutely deadly national
threat, one that needed to be controlled at any possible cost.
Given these dramatic Chinese actions and the international headlines that they generated,
the current accusations by Trump Administration officials that China had attempted to minimize
or conceal the serious nature of the disease outbreak is so ludicrous as to defy rationality.
In any event, the record shows that on December 31st, the Chinese had already alerted the World
Health Organization to the strange new illness, and Chinese scientists published the entire
genome of the virus on Jan. 12th, allowing diagnostic tests to be produced worldwide.
Unlike other nations, China had received no advance warning of the nature or existence of
the deadly new disease, and therefore faced unique obstacles. But their government implemented
public health control measures unprecedented in the history of the world and managed to almost
completely eradicate the disease with merely the loss of a few thousand lives. Meanwhile, many
other Western countries such as the US, Italy, Spain, France, and Britain dawdled for months
and ignored the potential threat, and have now suffered well over 100,000 dead as a
consequence, with the toll still rapidly mounting. For any of these nations or their media
organs to criticize China for its ineffectiveness or slow response represents an absolute
inversion of reality.
Some governments took full advantage of the early warning and scientific information
provided by China. Although nearby East Asian nations such as South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and
Singapore had been at greatest risk and were among the first infected, their competent and
energetic responses allowed them to almost completely suppress any major outbreak, and they
have suffered minimal fatalities. But America and several European countries avoiding adopting
these same early measures such as widespread testing, quarantine, and contact-tracing, and have
paid a terrible price for their insouciance.
A few weeks ago British Prime Minister Boris Johnson boldly declared that his own disease
strategy for Britain was based upon rapidly achieving "herd immunity" -- essentially
encouraging the bulk of his citizens to become infected -- then quickly backed away after his
desperate advisors recognized that the result might entail a million or more British
deaths.
By any reasonable measure, the response to this global health crisis by China and most East
Asian countries has been absolutely exemplary, while that of many Western countries has been
equally disastrous. Maintaining reasonable public health has been a basic function of
governments since the days of the city-states of Sumeria, and the sheer and total incompetence
of America and most of its European vassals has been breathtaking. If the Western media
attempts to pretend otherwise, it will permanently forfeit whatever remaining international
credibility it still possesses.
I do not think these particular facts are much disputed except among the most blinkered
partisans, and the Trump Administration probably recognizes the hopelessness of arguing
otherwise. This probably explains its recent shift towards a far more explosive and
controversial narrative, namely claiming that Covid-19 may have been the product of Chinese
research into deadly viruses at a Wuhan laboratory, which suggests that the blood of hundreds
of thousands or millions of victims around the world will be on Chinese hands. Dramatic
accusations backed by overwhelming international media power may deeply resonate across the
globe.
News reports appearing in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times have been reasonably consistent. Senior Trump Administration
officials have pointed to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a leading Chinese biolab, as the
possible source of the infection, with the deadly virus having been accidentally released,
subsequently spreading first throughout China and later worldwide. Trump himself has publicly
voiced similar suspicions, as did Secretary of State and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo in a
FoxNews
interview. Private lawsuits against China in the multi-trillion-dollar range have already
been filed by
rightwing activists and Republican senators Tom Cotton and Lindsey Graham have raised similar
governmental demands.
I obviously have no personal access to the classified intelligence reports that have been
the basis of these charges by Trump, Pompeo, and other top administration officials. But in
reading these recent news accounts, I noticed something rather odd.
Back in January, few Americans were paying much attention to the early reports of an unusual
disease outbreak in the Chinese city of Wuhan, which was hardly a household name. Instead,
overwhelming political attention was focused on the battle over Trump's impeachment and the
aftermath of our dangerous military confrontation with Iran. But towards the end of that month,
I discovered that the fringes of the Internet were awash with claims that the disease was
caused by a Chinese bioweapon accidentally released from that same Wuhan laboratory, with
former Trump advisor Steve Bannon and ZeroHedge , a popular right-wing
conspiracy-website, playing leading roles in advancing the theory. Indeed, the stories became
so widespread in those ideological circles that Sen. Tom Cotton, a leading Republican Neocon,
began promoting them on Twitter and FoxNews, thereby provoking an
article in the NYT on those "fringe conspiracy theories."
I suspect that it may be more than purely coincidental that the biowarfare theories which
erupted in such concerted fashion on small political websites and Social Media accounts back in
January so closely match those now publicly advocated by top Trump Administration officials and
supposedly based upon our most secure intelligence sources. Perhaps a few intrepid
citizen-activists managed to replicate the findings of our multi-billion-dollar intelligence
apparatus, and did so in days while the latter required weeks or months. But a more likely
scenario is that the wave of January speculation was driven by private leaks and "guidance"
provided by exactly the same elements that today are very publicly leveling similar charges in
the elite media. Initially promoting controversial theories in less mainstream outlets has long
been a fairly standard intelligence practice.
Regardless of the origins of the idea, does it seem plausible that the coronavirus outbreak
might have originated as an accidental leak from that Chinese laboratory? I am not privy to the
security procedures of Chinese government facilities, but applying a little common sense may
shed some light on that question.
Although the coronavirus is only moderately lethal, apparently having a fatality rate of 1%
or less, it is extremely contagious, including during an extended pre-symptomatic period and
also among asymptomatic carriers. Thus, portions of the US and Europe are now suffering heavy
casualties, while the policies adopted to control the spread have devastated their national
economies. Although the virus is unlikely to kill more than a small sliver of our population,
we have seen to our dismay how a major outbreak can so easily wreck our entire economic
life.
During January, the journalists reporting on China's mushrooming health crisis regularly
emphasized that the mysterious new viral outbreak had occurred at the worst possible place and
time, appearing in the major transport hub of Wuhan just prior to the Lunar New Year holiday,
when hundreds of millions of Chinese would normally travel to their distant family homes for
the celebration, thereby potentially spreading the disease to all parts of the country and
producing a permanent, uncontrollable epidemic. The Chinese government avoided that grim fate
by the unprecedented decision to shut down its entire national economy and confine 700 million
Chinese to their own homes for many weeks. But the outcome seems to have been a very near
thing, and if Wuhan had remained open for just a few days longer, China might easily have
suffered long-term economic and social devastation.
The timing of an accidental laboratory release would obviously be entirely random. Yet the
outbreak seems to have begun during the precise period of time most likely to damage China, the
worst possible ten-day or perhaps thirty-day window. As I noted in
January, I saw no solid evidence that the coronavirus was a bioweapon, but if it were, the
timing of the release seemed very unlikely to have been accidental.
If the virus was released intentionally, the context and motive for such a biowarfare attack
against China could not be more obvious. Although our disingenuous media continues to pretend
otherwise, the size of China's economy surpassed that of our own several years ago, and has
continued to grow much more rapidly. Chinese companies have also taken the lead in several
crucial technologies, with Huawei becoming the world's leading telecommunications equipment
manufacturer and dominating the important 5G market. China's sweeping Belt and Road Initiative
has threatened to reorient global trade around an interconnected Eurasian landmass, greatly
diminishing the leverage of America's own control over the seas. I have closely followed China
for over forty years, and the trend-lines have never been more apparent. Back in 2012, I
published an article bearing the provocative title "China's Rise, America's Fall?" and
since then I have seen no reason to reassess my verdict.
Which superpower is more threatened by its "extractive elites"?
RON UNZ • THE
AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE, APRIL 17, 2012 • 7,000 WORDS
For three generations following the end of World War II, America had stood as the world's
supreme economic and technological power, while the collapse of the Soviet Union thirty years
ago left us as the sole remaining superpower, facing no conceivable military rival. A growing
sense that we were rapidly losing that unchallenged position had certainly inspired the
anti-China rhetoric of many senior figures in the Trump Administration, who launched a major
trade war soon after coming into office. The increasing misery and growing impoverishment of
large sections of the American population naturally left these voters searching for a
convenient scapegoat, and the prosperous, rising Chinese made a perfect target.
Despite America's growing economic conflict with China over the last couple of years, I had
never considered the possibility that matters might take a military turn. The Chinese had long
ago deployed advanced intermediate range missiles that many believed could easily sink our
carriers in the region, and they had also generally improved their conventional military
deterrent. Moreover, China was on quite good terms with Russia, which itself had been the
target of intense American hostility for several years; and Russia's new suite of revolutionary
hypersonic missiles had drastically reduced any American strategic advantage. Thus, a
conventional war against China seemed an absolutely hopeless undertaking, while China's
outstanding businessmen and engineers were steadily gaining ground against America's decaying
and heavily-financialized economic system.
Under these difficult circumstances, an American biowarfare attack against China might have
seemed the only remaining card to play in hopes of maintaining American supremacy. Plausible
deniability would minimize the risk of any direct Chinese retaliation, and if successful, the
terrible blow inflicted to China's economy would set it back for many years, perhaps even
destabilizing its social and political system. Using alternative media to immediately promote
theories that the coronavirus outbreak was the result of a leak from a Chinese biowarfare lab
was a natural means of preempting any later Chinese accusations along similar lines, thereby
allowing America to win the international propaganda war before China had even begun to
play.
A decision by elements of our national security establishment to wage biological warfare in
hopes of maintaining American world power would certainly have been an extremely reckless act,
but extreme recklessness has become a regular aspect of American behavior since 2001,
especially under the Trump Administration. Just a year earlier we had kidnapped the
daughter of Huawei's founder and chairman, who also served as CFO and ranked as one of China's
most top executives, while at the beginning of January we suddenly assassinated Iran's top
military leader.
These were the thoughts that entered my mind during the last week of January once I
discovered the widely circulating theories suggesting that China's massive disease epidemic had
been the self-inflicted consequence of its own biowarfare research. I saw no solid evidence
that the coronavirus was a bioweapon, but if it were, China was surely the innocent victim of
the attack, presumably carried out by elements of the American national security
establishment.
Soon afterward, someone brought to my attention a very long article by an American ex-pat
living in China who called himself "Metallicman" and held a wide range of eccentric and
implausible beliefs. I have long recognized that flawed individuals can often serve as the
vessels of important information otherwise unavailable, and this case constituted a perfect
example. His piece denounced the outbreak as a likely American biowarfare attack, and provided
a great wealth of factual material I had not previously considered. Since he authorized
republication elsewhere I did so, and
his 15,000 word analysis , although somewhat raw and unpolished, began attracting an
enormous amount of readership on our website, probably being one of the very first
English-language pieces to suggest that the mysterious new disease was an American bioweapon.
Many of his arguments appeared doubtful to me or have been obviated by later developments, but
several seemed quite telling.
He pointed out that during the previous two years, the Chinese economy had already suffered
serious blows from other mysterious new diseases, although these had targeted farm animals
rather than people. During 2018 a new Avian Flu virus had swept the country, eliminating large
portions of China's poultry industry, and during 2019 the Swine Flu viral epidemic had
devastated China's pig farms, destroying 40% of the nation's primary domestic source of meat,
with widespread claims that the latter disease was being spread by mysterious small drones. My
morning newspapers had hardly ignored these important business stories, noting
that the sudden collapse of much of China's domestic food production might prove a huge boon to
American farm exports at the height of our trade conflict, but I had never considered the
obvious implications. So for three years in a row, China had been severely impacted by strange
new viral diseases, though only the most recent had been deadly to humans. This evidence was
merely circumstantial, but the pattern seemed highly suspicious.
The writer also noted that shortly before the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, that city had
hosted 300 visiting American military officers, who came to participate in the 2019 Military World
Games , an absolutely remarkable coincidence of timing. As
I pointed out at the time, how would Americans react if 300 Chinese military officers had
paid an extended visit to Chicago, and soon afterward a mysterious and deadly epidemic had
suddenly broken out in that city? Once again, the evidence was merely circumstantial but
certainly raised dark suspicions.
Scientific investigation of the coronavirus had already pointed to its origins in a bat
virus, leading to widespread media speculation that bats sold as food in the Wuhan open markets
had been the original disease vector. Meanwhile, the orchestrated waves of anti-China
accusations had emphasized Chinese laboratory research on that same viral source. But we soon
published
a lengthy article by investigative journalist Whitney Webb providing copious evidence of
America's own enormous biowarfare research efforts, which had similarly focused for years on
bat viruses. Webb was then associated with MintPress News , but that publication had
strangely declined to publish her important piece, perhaps skittish about the grave suspicions
it directed towards the US government on so momentous an issue. So without the benefit of our
platform, her major contribution to the public debate might have attracted relatively little
readership.
Around the same time, I noted another
extremely strange coincidence that failed to attract any interest from our somnolent national
media. Although his name had meant nothing to me, in late January my morning newspapers carried
major stories on the
sudden arrest of Prof. Charles Lieber, one of Harvard University's top scientists and Chairman
of its Chemistry Department, sometimes characterized as a potential future Nobel Laureate.
The circumstances of that case seemed utterly bizarre to me. Like numerous other prominent
American academics, Lieber had had decades of close research ties with China, holding joint
appointments and receiving substantial funding for his work. But now he was accused of
financial reporting violations in the disclosure portions of his government grant applications
-- the most obscure sort of offense -- and on the basis of those accusations, he was seized by
the FBI in an early-morning raid on his suburban Lexington home and dragged off in shackles,
potentially facing years of federal imprisonment.
Such government action against an academic seemed almost without precedent. During the
height of the Cold War, numerous American scientists and technicians were rightfully accused of
having stolen our nuclear weapons secrets for delivery to Stalin, yet I had never heard of any
of them treated in so harsh a manner, let alone a scholar of Prof. Lieber's stature, who was
merely charged with technical disclosure violations. Indeed, this incident recalled accounts of
NKVD raids during the Soviet purges of the 1930s.
Although Lieber was described as a chemistry professor, a few seconds of Googling revealed
that some of his most important work had been in virology, including technology for the
detection of viruses. So a massive and deadly new viral epidemic had broken out in China and
almost simultaneously, a top American scholar with close Chinese ties and expertise in viruses
was suddenly arrested by the federal government, yet no one in the media expressed any
curiosity at a possible connection between these two events.
I think we can safely assume that Lieber's arrest by the FBI had been prompted by the
concurrent coronavirus epidemic, but anything more is mere speculation. Those now accusing
China of having created the coronavirus might surely suggest that our intelligence agencies
discovered that the Harvard professor had been personally involved with that deadly research.
But I think a far more likely possibility is that Lieber began to wonder whether the epidemic
in China might not be the result of an American biowarfare attack, and was perhaps a little too
free in voicing his suspicions, thereby drawing the wrath of our national security
establishment. Inflicting such extremely harsh treatment upon a top Harvard scientist would
greatly intimidate all of his lesser colleagues elsewhere, who would surely now think twice
before broaching certain controversial theories to any journalist.
By the end of January, our webzine had published a dozen articles and posts on the
coronavirus outbreak, then added many more by the middle of February. These pieces totaled tens
of thousands of words and attracted a half million words of comments, probably representing the
primary English-language source for a particular perspective on the deadly epidemic, with this
material eventually drawing many hundreds of thousands of pageviews. A few weeks later, the
Chinese government began gingerly raising the possibility that the coronavirus may have been
brought to Wuhan by the 300 American military officers visiting that city, and was
fiercely attacked by the Trump Administration for spreading anti-American propaganda. But I
strongly suspect that the Chinese had gotten that idea from our own publication.
As the coronavirus gradually began to spread beyond China's own borders, another development
occurred that greatly multiplied my suspicions. Most of these early cases had occurred exactly
where one might expect, among the East Asian countries bordering China. But by late February
Iran had become the second epicenter of the global outbreak. Even more surprisingly, its
political elites had been especially hard-hit, with a full 10% of the entire
Iranian parliament soon infected and at least
a dozen of its officials and politicians dying of the disease, including some who were
quite
senior . Indeed, Neocon activists on Twitter began gleefully noting that their hatred
Iranian enemies were now dropping like flies.
Let us consider the implications of these facts. Across the entire world the only political
elites that have yet suffered any significant human losses have been those of Iran, and they
died at a very early stage, before significant outbreaks had even occurred almost anywhere else
in the world outside China. Thus, we have America assassinating Iran's top military commander
on Jan. 2nd and then just a few weeks later large portions of the Iranian ruling elites became
infected by a mysterious and deadly new virus, with many of them soon dying as a consequence.
Could any rational individual possibly regard this as a mere coincidence?
Biological warfare is a highly technical subject, and those possessing such expertise are
unlikely to candidly report their classified research activities in the pages of our major
newspapers, perhaps even less so after Prof. Lieber was dragged off to prison in chains. My own
knowledge is nil. But in mid-March I came across several extremely long and detailed comments
on the coronavirus outbreak that had been posted on a small website by an individual calling
himself "OldMicrobiologist" and who claimed to be a retired forty-year veteran of American
biodefense. The style and details of his material struck me as quite credible, and after a
little further investigation I concluded that there was a high likelihood his background was
exactly as he had described. I made arrangements to republish his comments in the form of
a 3,400 word
article , which soon attracted a great deal of traffic and 80,000 words of further
comments.
Although the writer emphasized the lack of any hard evidence, he said that his experience
led him to strongly suspect that the coronavirus outbreak was indeed an American biowarfare
attack against China, probably carried out by agents brought into that country under cover of
the Military Games held at Wuhan in late October, the sort of sabotage operation our
intelligence agencies had sometimes undertaken elsewhere. One important point he made was that
high lethality was often counter-productive in a bioweapon since debilitating or hospitalizing
large numbers of individuals may impose far greater economic costs on a country than a
biological agent which simply inflicts an equal number of deaths. In his words "a high
communicability, low lethality disease is perfect for ruining an economy," suggesting that the
apparent characteristics of the coronavirus were close to optimal in this regard. Those so
interested should read his analysis and judge for themselves his possible credibility and
persuasiveness.
One intriguing aspect of the situation was that almost from the first moment that reports of
the strange new epidemic in China reached the international media, a large and orchestrated
campaign had been launched on numerous websites and Social Media platforms to identify the
cause as a Chinese bioweapon carelessly released in its own country. Meanwhile, the far more
plausible hypothesis that China was the victim rather than the perpetrator had received
virtually no organized support anywhere, and only began to take shape as I gradually located
and republished relevant material, usually drawn from very obscure quarters and often
anonymously authored. So it seemed that only the side hostile to China was waging an active
information war. The outbreak of the disease and the nearly simultaneous launch of such a major
propaganda campaign may not necessarily prove that an actual biowarfare attack had occurred,
but I do think it tends to support such a theory.
When considering the hypothesis of an American biowarfare attack, certain natural objections
come to mind. The major drawback to biological warfare has always been the obvious fact that
the self-replicating agents employed will not respect national borders, thus raising the
serious risk that the disease might eventually return to the land of its origin and inflict
substantial casualties. For this reason, it seems very doubtful that any rational and
half-competent American leadership would have unleashed the coronavirus against China.
But as we see absolutely demonstrated in our daily news headlines, America's current
government is grotesquely and manifestly incompetent , more incompetent than one could
almost possibly imagine, with tens of thousands of Americans having now already paid with their
lives for such extreme incompetence. Rationality and competence are obviously nowhere to be
found among the Deep State Neocons that President Donald Trump has appointed to so many crucial
positions throughout our national security apparatus.
Moreover, the extremely lackadaisical notion that a massive coronavirus outbreak in China
would never spread back to America might have seemed plausible to individuals who carelessly
assumed that past historical analogies would continue to apply. As
I wrote a few weeks ago:
Reasonable people have suggested that if the coronavirus was a bioweapon deployed by
elements of the American national security apparatus against China (and Iran), it's difficult
to imagine why the they didn't assume it would naturally leak back in the US and start a huge
pandemic here, as is currently happening.
The most obvious answer is that they were stupid and incompetent, but here's another point
to consider
In late 2002 there was the outbreak of SARS in China, a related virus but that was far
more deadly and somewhat different in other characteristics. The virus killed hundreds of
Chinese and spread into a few other countries before it was controlled and stamped out. The
impact on the US and Europe was negligible, with just a small scattering of cases and only a
death or two.
So if American biowarfare analysts were considering a coronavirus attack against China,
isn't it quite possible they would have said to themselves that since SARS never
significantly leaked back into the US or Europe, we'd similarly remain insulated from the
coronavirus? Obviously, such an analysis was foolish and mistaken, but would it have seemed
so implausible at the time?
As some must have surely noticed, I have deliberately avoided investigating any of the
scientific details of the coronavirus. In principle, an objective and accurate analysis of the
characteristics and structure of the virus might help suggest whether it was entirely natural
or rather the product of a research laboratory, and in the latter case, perhaps whether the
likely source was China, America, or some third country.
But we are dealing with a cataclysmic world event and those questions obviously have
enormous political ramifications, so the entire subject is shrouded by a thick fog of complex
propaganda, with numerous conflicting claims being advanced by interested parties. I have no
background in microbiology let alone biological warfare, so I would be hopelessly adrift in
evaluating such conflicting scientific and technical claims. I suspect that this is equally
true of the overwhelming majority of other observers as well, although committed partisans are
loathe to admit that fact, and will eagerly seize upon any scientific argument that supports
their preferred position while rejecting those that contradict it.
Therefore, by necessity, my own focus is on evidence that can at least be understood by
every layman, if not necessarily always accepted. And I believe that the simple juxtaposition
of several recent disclosures in the mainstream media leads to a rather telling conclusion.
For obvious reasons, the Trump Administration has become very eager to emphasize the early
missteps and delays in the Chinese reaction to the viral outbreak in Wuhan, and has presumably
encouraged our media outlets to direct their focus in that direction.
As an example of this, the Associated Press Investigative Unit recently published a rather
detailed analysis of those early events purportedly based upon confidential Chinese documents.
Provocatively entitled "China Didn't Warn Public of Likely
Pandemic for 6 Key Days" , the piece was widely distributed, running
in abridged form in the NYT and elsewhere. According to this reconstruction, the
Chinese government first became aware of the seriousness of this public health crisis on Jan.
14th, but delayed taking any major action until Jan. 20th, a period of time during which the
number of infections greatly multiplied.
Last month, a team of five WSJ reporters produced a very detailed and thorough
4,400 word analysis of the same period, and the NYT has published a helpful timeline of
those early events as well. Although there may be some differences of emphasis or minor
disagreements, all these American media sources agree that Chinese officials first became aware
of the serious viral outbreak in Wuhan in early to mid-January, with the first known death
occurring on Jan. 11th, and finally implemented major new public health measures later that
same month. No one has apparently disputed these basic facts.
But with the horrific consequences of our own later governmental inaction being obvious,
sources within our intelligence agencies have sought to demonstrate that they were not the ones
asleep at the switch. Earlier this month,
an ABC News story cited four separate government sources to reveal that as far back
as late November, a special medical intelligence unit within our Defense Intelligence Agency
had produced a report revealing than an out-of-control disease epidemic was occurring in the
Wuhan area of China, and widely distributed that document throughout the top ranks of our
government, warning that steps should be taken to protect US forces based in Asia. After the
story aired, a Pentagon spokesman officially denied the existence of that November report,
while various other top level government and intelligence officials refused to comment. But a
few days later,
Israeli television revealed that in November American intelligence had indeed shared such a
report on the Wuhan disease outbreak with its NATO and Israeli allies, thus seeming to
independently confirm the complete accuracy of the original ABC News story and its
several government sources.
It therefore appears that elements of the Defense Intelligence Agency were aware of the
deadly viral outbreak in Wuhan more than a month before any officials in the Chinese government
itself. Unless our intelligence agencies have pioneered the technology of precognition, I
think this may have happened for the same reason that arsonists have the earliest knowledge of
future fires.
Back in February, before a single American had died from the disease,
I wrote my own overview of the possible course of events, and I would still stand by it
today:
Consider a particularly ironic outcome of this situation, not particularly likely but
certainly possible
Everyone knows that America's ruling elites are criminal, crazy, and also extremely
incompetent.
So perhaps the coronavirus outbreak was indeed a deliberate biowarfare attack against
China, hitting that nation just before Lunar New Year, the worst possible time to produce a
permanent nationwide pandemic. However, the PRC responded with remarkable speed and
efficiency, implementing by far the largest quarantine in human history, and the deadly
disease now seems to be in decline there.
Meanwhile, the disease naturally leaks back into the US, and despite all the advance
warning, our totally incompetent government mismanages the situation, producing a huge
national health disaster, and the collapse of our economy and decrepit political system.
As I said, not particularly likely, but certainly a very fitting end to the American
Empire
"... While this elite Pulitzer jury praised the New York Times for "at great risk, exposing the predations of Vladimir Putin's regime," it is not exactly clear what that "risk" is supposed to entail – because the major US newspaper appears to have stolen at least part of its reporting from Russian journalists . ..."
"... On May 4, journalist Roman Badanin published a Facebook post accusing the Times of ripping off a story he had released months before without credit. Badanin is the founder and editor-in-chief of the liberal anti-Putin news website Proekt , known as The Project in English. ..."
"... This report is eerily similar to a report published by the New York Times eight months later, in November , titled " How Russia Meddles Abroad for Profit : Cash, Trolls and a Cult Leader." This story, which was filed in Madagascar, does not once link to or credit Proekt's original reporting . ..."
"... Another anti-Putin Russian news website, Meduza, published an article on May 7 drawing attention to these allegations, titled " 'Fuck the Pulitzer -- I just want a hyperlink' : Russian journalists say 'The New York Times' should have acknowledged their investigative work in the newspaper's award-winning reports about the Putin regime's 'predations.'" ..."
"... Meduza interviewed Badanin, who said the New York Times "report about Madagascar from November 2019 repeats all the main and even secondary conclusions from our reporting about Madagascar and Africa generally between March and April last year." ..."
"... Badanin was also given a Stanford John S. Knight international fellowship in journalism. Stanford University has established itself as an outpost for Russian pro-Western liberals, and its journalist fellowship program provides institutional support for dissidents in countries targeted by Washington for regime change. ..."
"... The Times even featured Badanin prominently in the header image of the story -- just two years before the same newspaper would go on to rip off his reporting. ..."
The New York Times has been accused for a second time of stealing major scoops from Russian
journalists . One of those stories won the Times a Pulitzer Prize this May.
The journalists who have accused the Times of taking their work without credit also happen
to be the same liberal media crusaders against Vladimir Putin that Western correspondents at
the Times and other mainstream outlets have cast as persecuted heroes. The Pulitzer Prize Board is comprised of a who's who
of media aristocrats and Ivy League bigwigs. Given the elite backgrounds of the judges, it is
hardly a surprise that they rewarded reporting reinforcing the narrative of the new US Cold War
against official enemies like Russia and China .
Stephen Kinzer, a former New York Times correspondent who has since become a critic of US
foreign policy, noted that the three finalists in the Pulitzer Prize in international reporting
"were one story about how evil Russia is and two about how evil China is. These choices
encourage reporters to write stories that reinforce rather than question Washington's
foreign-policy narrative."
The finalists nominated in this category were Reuters and the New York Times for two
separate sets of stories.
The US newspaper of record ended up winning the 2020 award in international
reporting , for what the Pulitzer jury described as "a set of enthralling stories, reported
at great risk, exposing the predations of Vladimir Putin's regime."
The 3 finalists in the #PulitzerPrize2020
"international reporting" category were one story about how evil #Russia is and two
about how evil #China is. These
choices encourage reporters to write stories that reinforce rather than question Washington's
foreign-policy narative.
The Times was nominated again as a finalist for what the jury called its "gripping accounts
that disclosed China's top-secret efforts to repress millions of Muslims through a system of
labor camps, brutality and surveillance."
The staff of Reuters was selected as the third finalist for its reporting in support of
anti-China
protesters in Hong
Kong . (The photography staff of Reuters ended up winning the Pulitzer Prize in breaking
news photography for the same coverage.)
Among the five members of the Pulitzer jury
who selected these finalists was Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of the neoliberal
magazine The Atlantic and a former volunteer in the Israeli army who worked as a guard at a prison camp
where Palestinians who rose up in the First Intifada were interned.
Joining Goldberg on the jury was Susan Chira, a former New York Times editor.
While this elite Pulitzer jury praised the New York Times for "at great risk, exposing the
predations of Vladimir Putin's regime," it is not exactly clear what that "risk" is supposed to
entail – because the major US newspaper appears to have stolen at least part of its
reporting from Russian journalists .
On May 4, journalist Roman Badanin published a Facebook
post accusing the Times of ripping off a story he had released months before without
credit. Badanin is the founder and editor-in-chief of the liberal anti-Putin news website
Proekt , known as The Project in
English.
"I have no illusions about the real role of Russian journalism in the world, but I have to
note: the two The New York Times's investigations, for which this honored newspaper won the
Pulitzer prize yesterday, repeat the findings of The Project's articles published a few months
before," Badanin wrote on Facebook.
"I would also like to note that the winners did not put a single link to the English version
of our article, even when, for example, 8 months after The Project, they told about the
activities of Eugene Prigozhin's emissaries in Madagascar," he added.
Badanin linked to an article he published, both in Russian and English, back in March 2019
titled " Master and Chef : How
Evgeny Prigozhin led the Russian offensive in Africa." The story details how the businessman
Evgenу Prigozhin, who is sanctioned by the US government, has been promoting business
opportunities in Africa. The piece focuses specifically on Madagascar, where Russia also has a
military agreement.
This report is eerily similar to a report published by the New York Times eight months
later, in November , titled " How Russia
Meddles Abroad for Profit : Cash, Trolls and a Cult Leader." This story, which was filed in
Madagascar, does not once link to or credit Proekt's original reporting .
Another anti-Putin Russian news website, Meduza, published an article on May 7 drawing
attention to these allegations, titled " 'Fuck the
Pulitzer -- I just want a hyperlink' : Russian journalists say 'The New York Times' should
have acknowledged their investigative work in the newspaper's award-winning reports about the
Putin regime's 'predations.'"
Meduza interviewed Badanin, who said the New York Times "report about Madagascar from
November 2019 repeats all the main and even secondary conclusions from our reporting about
Madagascar and Africa generally between March and April last year."
While Badanin did not outright accuse the Times of plagiarism, he was frustrated that
"nowhere in the story did they acknowledge that we'd already reported on this topic," and said
it was either a "professional issue" or an "ethical problem."
A New York Times spokesperson denied that Proekt's reporting was used in any way. And the
Times reporter who authored this report from Madagascar, Michael Schwirtz , responded
dismissively to the accusations in a Twitter thread full of sarcastic quips.
Another
anti-Putin Russian activist accuses the New York Times of lifting his reporting
Michael Schwirtz authored another New York Times article in December that was cited by the
Pulitzer jury for the 2020 prize. This piece, "How a Poisoning
in Bulgaria Exposed Russian Assassins in Europe," is also suspiciously similar to reporting
published before by yet another anti-Putin website, called The Insider .
The Insider is edited by the Western-backed, diehard anti-Putin activist Roman Dobrokhotov.
In response to Schwirtz's Twitter thread, Dobrohotov angrily asked why The Insider's reports
were not credited as well. Schwirtz denied having used information from the previous
stories.
Schwirtz's Twitter thread tagged four Russian accounts: Proekt, The Insider, Dobrokhotov,
and Yasha Levine, the last of whom is an occasional contributor to The Grayzone and the author of " Surveillance Valley ."
Time to learn the hard truth: The New York Times -- like the Empire it represents --
doesn't give a fuck about you. It'll take whatever it wants, give nothing in return, and
suffer no consequences. And who'll believe you Russians anyway? https://t.co/V1YtZ7K6OB
"Time to learn the hard truth: The New York Times -- like the Empire it represents --
doesn't give a fuck about you. It'll take whatever it wants, give nothing in return, and
suffer no consequences. And who'll believe you Russians anyway?"
"The reverence with which liberal Russian journalists have treated the New York Times has
always been baffling to me," Levine continued. "But that's what you get when you're a colonial
subject like Russia. You fetishize the master. That reverence is starting to wear off, but it's
still there."
New York Times was also accused of stealing Russian journalists' reporting
back in 2017
This is not even the first time that the US newspaper of record has been accused of stealing
reporting from Russian journalists.
Back in 2017, the New York Times won the Pulitzer Prize in international reporting for its
reports on "Vladimir Putin's efforts to project Russia's power abroad."
At the time, journalists from the anti-Putin website Meduza accused the Times of ripping off
their reporting. The website Global Voices highlighted the controversy, in an article titled
"Russian Journalists Say One of
NYT's Pulitzer-Winning Stories Was Stolen ."
Meduza reported Daniil Turovsky accused New York Times Moscow correspondent Andrew E. Kramer
of lifting his reporting. Kramer actually took the time to respond in a Facebook comment,
acknowledging that his report was based on the Russian journalist's.
"Daniil, I spoke with you while preparing this article and explained that I intended to
follow in the footsteps of your fine work, that I would credit Meduza, as I did, and thanked
you for your help," Kramer said.
This did not satisfy Meduza, which also reminded readers in its latest 2020 article that the
Times had ripped off its 2017 reporting.
The NYT times has been honored with a Pulitzer Prize for "exposing the predations of
Vladimir Putin's regime" in 2019, but several top investigative journalists in Russia say the
U.S. newspaper ignored their groundbreaking work in this area -- again. https://t.co/R4WZdqHDp4
The Grayzone has also experienced this kind of shameless journalistic theft. In March 2019,
the New York Times released a report acknowledging that the so-called "humanitarian aid" convoy
that the US government tried to ram across the Venezuelan border in a February coup attempt had
been set on
fire not by government forces, but rather Washington-backed right-wing opposition
hooligans.
At the time of this February 23 putsch attempt, the Times had initially joined US
politicians like Senator Marco Rubio and the majority of the corporate media in blaming
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. But The Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal, who was
reporting in Venezuela, published a report
showing that all of the available evidence pointed to the opposition being responsible.
When the Times finally admitted this fact weeks later, it made no mention whatsoever of
Blumenthal's reporting.
Glenn Greenwald was the only high-profile journalist to credit Blumenthal and The
Grayzone.
New York Times had ironically heroized these Russian journalists before
stealing their reporting
Further compounding this staggering hypocrisy is the fact that the New York Times has in
fact published numerous articles lionizing these anti-Putin Russian journalists, while
simultaneously ripping off their work.
Proekt founder and editor Roman Badanin is not some kind of crypto pro-Kremlin activist
– far from it. He has spent years working within mainstream outlets, and was previously
the editor-in-chief of the decidedly anti-Putin Russian edition of Forbes magazine.
Badanin does friendly interviews with US-based neoconservative think tanks like the
Free Russia Foundation , a
right-wing anti-Putin lobbying group that appointed regime-changer Michael Weiss as its
director for special investigations.
In an
interview conducted by Valeria Jegisman , a neoconservative
anti-Russian activist who worked as a spokesperson for the government of Estonia and now works
at the US government's propaganda arm Voice of America, group accused the Kremlin of spreading
false information, claiming "Russia will continue its disinformation tactics."
Badanin also called for "the West" to "support independent media projects with non-profit
funding," stating clearly: "I think that what the West can do is to continue to support
independent media in the most transparent and clear way, and to stop being afraid of the
million tricks that the Russian authorities come up with to force the West to abandon these
investments."
The Russian journalist's pro-Western perspective has been rewarded. Badanin was honored by
the European Press Prize , a
program backed by Western governments and the top corporate media outlets in Europe,
particularly The Guardian and Reuters.
Badanin was also given a Stanford John S. Knight international fellowship in journalism.
Stanford University has established itself as an outpost for Russian pro-Western liberals, and
its journalist fellowship program provides institutional support for dissidents in countries
targeted by Washington for regime change.
Badanin's extensive links to Western regime-change institutions should not come as a
surprise to the New York Times; it has in fact honored him in numerous articles.
In 2017, the Times published an entire article framed around Badanin. Reporter Jim Rutenberg
explained, "I wanted to better understand President Trump's America So I
went to Russia ."
In Moscow, Rutenberg met with Badanin at the headquarters of the anti-Putin station TV Rain,
which he described as a "warehouse complex here, populated by young people with beards,
tattoos, piercings and colored hair. (Brooklyn hipster imperialism knows no bounds.)"
While praising Badanin and TV Rain, the Times also noted that the channel published a poll
suggesting that the Soviet Union "should have abandoned Leningrad to the Nazis to save
lives."
The Times even featured Badanin prominently in the header image of the story -- just two
years before the same newspaper would go on to rip off his reporting.
The New York Times also reported on Roman Badanin in
2016 and
2011 . It is abundantly clear the newspaper knew who he was.
The Gray Lady's willingness to snatch Badanin's reporting shows how little respect
newspapers like the New York Times actually have for the anti-Putin journalists they claim to
lionize . For the jet-setting correspondents of Western corporate media outlets, liberal
Russian reporters are just tools to advance their own ambitions.
So Flynn was framed but the plot eventually failed. will Strzok get a jail sencetnce for his role in this FBI operation?
Charlie Savage being a NYT correspondent belongs to Clinton gang and defend their point of view. But h revels some
interesting tidbits about the nature of framing and possible consequences for the key members of Clinton gang.
WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department's
decision to drop the criminal case against Michael T. Flynn
, President Trump's former national security
adviser, even though he had twice pleaded guilty to lying to investigators, was extraordinary and had no
obvious precedent, a range of criminal law specialists said on Thursday.
"I've been practicing for more time than I care to admit and I've never seen
anything like this," said Julie O'Sullivan, a former federal prosecutor who now teaches criminal law at
Georgetown University.
The move is the latest in a series that the department, under Attorney
General William P. Barr, has taken to undermine and dismantle the work of the investigators and prosecutors
who scrutinized Russia's 2016 election interference operation and its links to people associated with the
Trump campaign.
The case against Mr. Flynn for lying to the F.B.I. about his conversations
with the Russian ambassador was brought by the office of the former special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.
It had become a political cause for Mr. Trump and his supporters, and the president had signaled that he was
considering a pardon once Mr. Flynn was sentenced. But Mr. Barr instead abruptly short-circuited the case.
On Thursday, Timothy Shea, the interim U.S. attorney in the District of
Columbia, told the judge overseeing the case, Emmet G. Sullivan, that prosecutors were withdrawing the case.
They were doing so, he said, because the department could not prove to a jury that Mr. Flynn's admitted lies
to the F.B.I. about his conversations with the ambassador were "material" ones.
The move essentially erases Mr. Flynn's guilty pleas. Because he was never
sentenced and the government is unwilling to pursue the matter further, the prosecution is virtually certain
to end, although the judge must still decide whether to grant the department's request to dismiss it "with
prejudice," meaning it could not be refiled in the future.
A range of former prosecutors struggled to point to any previous instance in
which the Justice Department had abandoned its own case after obtaining a guilty plea. They portrayed the
justification Mr. Shea pointed to -- that it would be difficult to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt
that the lies were material -- as dubious.
"A pardon would have been a lot more honest," said Samuel Buell, a former
federal prosecutor who now teaches criminal law at Duke University.
The law regarding what counts as "material" is extremely forgiving to the
government, Mr. Buell added. The idea is that law enforcement is permitted to pursue possible theories of
criminality and to interview people without having firmly established that there was a crime first.
James G. McGovern
, a defense lawyer at Hogan Lovells and a former federal prosecutor, said juries rarely
bought a defendant's argument that a lie did not involve a material fact.
"If you are arguing 'materiality,' you usually lose, because there is a tacit
admission that what you said was untrue, so you lose the jury," he said.
No career prosecutors signed the motion. Mr. Shea is a former close aide to
Mr. Barr. In January, Mr. Barr
installed him as the top prosecutor
in the district that encompasses the nation's capital after
maneuvering out the Senate-confirmed former top prosecutor in that office, Jessie K. Liu.
Soon after, in an extraordinary move, four prosecutors in the office abruptly
quit the case against Mr. Trump's longtime friend
Roger
J. Stone Jr.
They did so after senior Justice Department officials intervened to recommend a more
lenient prison term than standard sentencing guidelines called for in the crimes Mr. Stone was convicted of
committing -- including witness intimidation and perjury -- to conceal Trump campaign interactions with
WikiLeaks.
It
soon emerged
that Mr. Barr had also appointed an outside prosecutor, Jeff Jensen, the U.S. attorney in
St. Louis, to review the Flynn case files. The department then began turning over F.B.I. documents showing
internal deliberations about questioning Mr. Flynn, like what warnings to give -- even though such files are
usually not provided to the defense.
Mr. Flynn's defense team has mined such files for ammunition to portray the
F.B.I. as running amok in its decision to question Mr. Flynn in the first place. The questioning focused on
his conversations during the transition after the 2016 election with the Russian ambassador about the Obama
administration's imposition of sanctions on Russia for its interference in the American election.
The F.B.I. had already concluded that there was no evidence that Mr. Flynn, a
former Trump campaign adviser, had personally conspired with Russia about the election, and it had decided
to close out the counterintelligence investigation into him. Then questions arose about whether and why Mr.
Flynn had lied to administration colleagues like Vice President Mike Pence about his conversations with the
ambassador.
Because the counterintelligence investigation was still open, the bureau used
it as a basis to question Mr. Flynn about the conversations and decided not to warn him at its onset that it
would be a crime to lie.
Notes from Bill Priestap
, then the head of the F.B.I.'s counterintelligence division, show that he wrote
at one point about the planned interview: "What's our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can
prosecute him or get him fired?"
Mr. Barr
has let it be known
that he does not think the F.B.I. ever had an adequate legal basis to open its
Russia investigation in the first place, contrary to the judgment of the Justice Department's inspector
general.
In
an interview on CBS News
on Thursday, Mr. Barr defended the dropping of the charges against Mr. Flynn on
the grounds that the F.B.I. "did not have a basis for a counterintelligence investigation against Flynn at
that stage."
Anne Milgram
, a former federal prosecutor and former New Jersey attorney general who teaches criminal
law at New York University, defended the F.B.I.'s decision to question Mr. Flynn in January 2017. She said
that much was still a mystery about the Russian election interference operation at the time and that Mr.
Flynn's lying to the vice president about his postelection interactions with a high-ranking Russian raised
new questions.
But, she argued, the more important frame for assessing the dropping of the
case was to recognize how it fit into the larger pattern of the Barr-era department "undercutting the law
enforcement officials and prosecutors who investigated the 2016 election and its aftermath," which she
likened to "eating the Justice Department from the inside out."
"... The foundational accusation of Russiagate was, and remains, charges that Russian President Putin ordered the hacking of DNC e-mails and their public dissemination through WikiLeaks in order to benefit Donald Trump and undermine Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, and that Trump and/or his associates colluded with the Kremlin in this "attack on American democracy." As no actual evidence for these allegations has been produced after nearly a year and a half of media and government investigations, we are left with Russiagate without Russia. ..."
"... This is unprecedented, preposterous, and dangerous, potentially more so than even McCarthy's search for "Communist" connections. It would suggest, for example, that scores of American corporations doing business in Russia today are engaged in criminal enterprise. ..."
"... Russiagate began sometime prior to June 2016, not after the presidential election in November, as is often said, as an anti-Trump political project. ..."
"... Leaving aside possible financial improprieties on the part of General Flynn, his persecution and subsequent prosecution is highly indicative. Flynn pled guilty to having lied to the FBI about his communications with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, on behalf of the incoming Trump administration, discussions that unavoidably included some references, however vague, to sanctions imposed on Russia by President Obama in December 2016, just before leaving office. ..."
"... Those sanctions were highly unusual-last-minute, unprecedented in their seizure of Russian property in the United States, and including a reckless veiled threat of unspecified cyber attacks on Russia. ..."
"... Finally, and similarly, Cohen points out, there is the ongoing effort by the political-media establishment to drive Secretary of State Tillerson from office and replace him with a fully neocon, anti-Russian, anti-détente head of the State Department. ..."
Cohen offers the following general observations, which form the basis of the discussion:
The foundational accusation of Russiagate was, and remains, charges that Russian President Putin ordered the hacking of DNC
e-mails and their public dissemination through WikiLeaks in order to benefit Donald Trump and undermine Hillary Clinton in the 2016
presidential election, and that Trump and/or his associates colluded with the Kremlin in this "attack on American democracy." As
no actual evidence for these allegations has been produced after nearly a year and a half of media and government investigations,
we are left with Russiagate without Russia. (An apt formulation perhaps first coined in an e-mail exchange by Nation writer
James Carden.) Special counsel Mueller has produced four indictments: against Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's short-lived national-security
adviser, and George Papadopolous, a lowly and inconsequential Trump "adviser," for lying to the FBI; and against Paul Manafort and
his partner Rick Gates for financial improprieties. None of these charges has anything to do with improper collusion with Russia,
except for the wrongful insinuations against Flynn. Instead, the several investigations, desperate to find actual evidence of collusion,
have spread to "contacts with Russia"-political, financial, social, etc.-on the part of a growing number of people, often going back
many years before anyone imagined Trump as a presidential candidate. The resulting implication is that these "contacts" were criminal
or potentially so.
This is unprecedented, preposterous, and dangerous, potentially more so than even McCarthy's search for "Communist" connections.
It would suggest, for example, that scores of American corporations doing business in Russia today are engaged in criminal enterprise.
More to the point, advisers to US policy-makers and even media commentators on Russia must have many and various contacts with Russia
if they are to understand anything about the dynamics of Kremlin policy-making. Cohen himself, to take an individual example, was
an adviser to two (unsuccessful) presidential campaigns, which considered his wide-ranging and longstanding "contacts" with Russia
to be an important credential, as did the one sitting president he advised. To suggest that such contacts are in any way criminal
is to slur hundreds of reputations and to leave US policy-makers with advisers laden with ideology and no actual expertise. It is
also to suggest that any quest for better relations with Russia, or détente, is somehow suspicious, illegitimate, or impossible,
as expressed recently by Andrew Weiss in The Wall Street Journal and by The Washington Post, in an editorial. This is one reason
Cohen, in a previous Batchelor broadcast and commentary, argued that Russiagate and its promoters have become the gravest threat
to American national security.
Russiagate began sometime prior to June 2016, not after the presidential election in November, as is often said, as an anti-Trump
political project. (Exactly why, how, and by whom remain unclear, and herein lies the real significance of the largely bogus
"Dossier" and the still murky role of top US intel officials in the creation of that document.) That said, Cohen continues, the mainstream
American media have been largely responsible for inflating, perpetuating, and sustaining the sham Russiagate as the real political
crisis it has become, arguably the greatest in modern American presidential and thus institutional political history. The media have
done this by increasingly betraying their own professed standards of verified news reporting and balanced coverage, even resorting
to tacit forms of censorship by systematically excluding dissenting reporting and opinions. (For inventories of recent examples,
see Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept and Joe Lauria at Consortium News. Anyone interested in exposures of such truly "fake news"
should visit these two sites regularly, the latter the product of the inestimable veteran journalist Robert Parry.) Still worse,
this mainstream malpractice has spread to some alternative-media publications once prized for their journalistic standards, where
expressed disdain for "evidence" and "proof" in favor of allegations without any actual facts can sometimes be found. Nor are these
practices merely the ordinary occasional mishaps of professional journalism. As Greenwald points out, all of the now retracted stories,
whether by print media or cable television, were zealous promotions of Russiagate and virulently anti-Trump. They, too, are examples
of Russiagate without Russia.
Leaving aside possible financial improprieties on the part of General Flynn, his persecution and subsequent prosecution is
highly indicative. Flynn pled guilty to having lied to the FBI about his communications with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak,
on behalf of the incoming Trump administration, discussions that unavoidably included some references, however vague, to sanctions
imposed on Russia by President Obama in December 2016, just before leaving office.
Those sanctions were highly unusual-last-minute, unprecedented in their seizure of Russian property in the United States,
and including a reckless veiled threat of unspecified cyber attacks on Russia. They gave the impression that Obama wanted to
make even more difficult Trump's professed goal of improving relations with Moscow.
Still more, Obama's specified reason was not Russian behavior in Ukraine or Syria, as is commonly thought, but Russiagate-that
is, Putin's "attack on American democracy," which Obama's intel chiefs had evidently persuaded him was an entirely authentic allegation.
(Or which Obama, who regarded Trump's victory over his designated successor, Hillary Clinton, as a personal rebuff, was eager to
believe.) But Flynn's discussions with the Russian ambassador-as well as other Trump representatives' efforts to open "back-channel"
communications with Moscow–were anything but a crime. As Cohen pointed out in another previous commentary, there were so many precedents
of such overtures on behalf of presidents-elect, it was considered a normal, even necessary practice, if only to ask Moscow not to
make relations worse before the new president had a chance to review the relationship. When Henry Kissinger did this on behalf of
President-elect Nixon, his boss instructed him to keep the communication entirely confidential, not to inform any other members of
the incoming administration. Presumably Flynn was similarly secretive, thereby misinforming Vice President Pence and finding himself
trapped-or possibly entrapped-between loyalty to his president and an FBI agent. Flynn no doubt would have been especially guarded
with a representative of the FBI, knowing as he did the role of Obama's Intel bosses in Russiagate prior to the election and which
had escalated after Trump's surprise victory. In any event, to the extent that Flynn encouraged Moscow not to reply in kind immediately
to Obama's highly provocative sanctions, he performed a service to US national security, not a crime. And, assuming that Flynn was
acting on the instructions of his president-elect, so did Trump. Still more, if Flynn "colluded" in any way, it was with Israel,
not Russia, having been asked by that government to dissuade countries from voting for an impending anti-Israel UN resolution.
Finally, and similarly, Cohen points out, there is the ongoing effort by the political-media establishment to drive Secretary
of State Tillerson from office and replace him with a fully neocon, anti-Russian, anti-détente head of the State Department.
Tillerson was an admirable appointee by Trump-widely experienced in world affairs, a tested negotiator, a mature and practical-minded
man. Originally, his role as the CEO of Exxon Mobil who had negotiated and enacted an immensely profitable and strategically important
energy-extraction deal with the Kremlin earned him the slur of being "Putin's pal." This preposterous allegation has since given
way to charges that he is slowly restructuring, and trimming, the long bloated and mostly inept State Department, as indeed he should
do. Numerous former diplomats closely associated with Hillary Clinton have raced to influential op-ed pages to denounce Tillerson's
undermining of this purportedly glorious frontline institution of American national security. Many news reports, commentaries, and
editorials have been in the same vein. But who can recall, Cohen asks, a major diplomatic triumph by the State Department or a secretary
of state in recent years? The answer might be the Obama administration's multinational agreement with Iran to curb its nuclear-weapons
potential, but that was due no less to Russia's president and Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which provided essential guarantees to
the sides involved. Forgotten, meanwhile, are the more than 50 career State Department officials who publicly protested-in the spirit
of DOD-Obama's rare attempt to cooperate with Moscow in Syria. Call it by what it was: the sabotaging of a president by his own State
Department. In this spirit, there are a flurry of leaked stories that Tillerson will soon resign or be ousted. Meanwhile, however,
he carries on. The ever-looming menace of Russiagate compels him to issue wildly exaggerated indictments of Russian behavior while,
at the same time, calling for a "productive new relationship" with Moscow, in which he clearly believes. (And which, if left unencumbered,
he might achieve.) Evidently, he has established a "productive" working relationship with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov,
the two of them having just announced North Korea's readiness to engage in negotiations with the United States and other governments
involved in the current crisis.
Tillerson's fate, Cohen concludes, will tell us much about the number-one foreign-policy question confronting America: cooperation
or escalating conflict with the other nuclear superpower, a détente-like diminishing of the new Cold War or the growing risks that
it will become hot war. Politics and policy should never be over-personalized; larger factors are always involved. But in these unprecedented
times, Tillerson may be the last man standing who represents the possibility of some kind of détente. Apart, that is, from President
Trump himself, loathe him or not. Or to put the issue differently: Will Russiagate continue to gravely endanger American national
security?
Stephen F. Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University.
A Nation contributing editor, his most recent book, War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate, is available in
paperback and in an ebook edition. His weekly conversations with the host of The John Batchelor Show, now in their seventh year,
are available at www.thenation.com.
Former Trump attorney John Dowd says it's "staggering" that former
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's "so-called Dream Team would put on such a fraud," after the
Wednesday release of the investigation's "scope memo" revealed that Mueller was tasked with
investigating accusations from Clinton-funded operative Christopher Steele which the DOJ
already knew were debunked . "In the last few days, I have been going back through my files
and we were badly misled by Mueller and his senior people , particularly in the meetings that
we had," Dowd told Fox News Radio host Brian Kilmeade on Thursday.
The scope memo also revealed that Mueller's authority went significantly beyond what was
previously known - including "allegations that Carter Page committed a crime or crimes by
colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government's efforts to
interfere with the 2016 election for President of the United States, in violation of United
States law," yet as John Solomon of
Just The News noted on Wednesday - the FBI had already:
fired Steele as an informant for leaking;
interviewed Steele's sub-source, who disputed information attributed to him;
ascertained that allegations Steele had given the FBI specifically about Page were
inaccurate and likely came from Russian intelligence sources as disinformation;
been informed repeatedly by the CIA that Page was not a Russian stooge but, rather, a
cooperating intelligence asset for the United States government.
" There's no question it's a fraud I think the whole report is just nonsense and it's
staggering that the so-called 'Dream Team' would put on such a fraud ," Dowd said, according to
Fox News .
"Durham has really got a load on his hands tracking all this down," Dowd said.
Durham was appointed last year by Attorney General Bill Barr to review the events
leading up to Trump's inauguration. However, Durham has since expanded his investigation to
cover a post-election timeline spanning the spring of 2017, when Mueller was appointed as
special counsel. - Fox News
"Nancy's Liar"
Dowd also circled back to a claim by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff that
there was "direct evidence" that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016
election, despite the fact that transcripts of House Intelligence Committee interviews proving
otherwise .
"Schiff doesn't release these interviews because they're going to make him a liar," said
Dowd, adding "They're going to expose him and he'll be run out of town."
"He lied for months in the impeachment inquiry. He's essentially Nancy [Pelosi]'s liar and
he's now going to be exposed."
Schiff Folds: Publishes Russiagate Transcripts After Showdown With DNI by Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2020 -
18:25 Following the standoff between Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Acting DNI Richard Grenell,
the House Intelligence Committee published all of the Russia investigation transcripts Thursday
evening.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman
Rep. Adam Schiff is planning to selectively release information from some of the 53
declassified transcripts of witnesses that testified before Congress regarding the FBI's
Russia probe into the Trump campaign. This move, comes after a long battle against
Republican colleagues, who are fighting to make all the transcripts available to the American
public, said a U.S. official, with knowledge of Schiff's plans.
Schiff has been fighting the release of the transcripts.
The decision for Schiff to publish a selective portion of the 6,000 pages of transcripts
comes after a recent public showdown with Director of National Intelligence
Richard Grenell, who is also fighting to make all the transcripts public. In fact, Grenell
reiterated in a letter Wednesday that if Schiff doesn't make the transcripts public then he
will release them himself.
Interestingly, the committee voted unanimously in the fall of 2018, to make all the
transcripts public after declassification, which has already been done.
"Schiff's planning to selectively leak to the liberal media what he wants, while keeping
the truth from the American people," said one source, familiar with Schiff's plans.
Schiff's office did not immediately respond to an email for comment.
A congressional source familiar with the issue said "the committee voted in the last
Congress to publish all the transcripts together, precisely to avoid any staged release
calculated for political effect."
"Schiff has had possession of most of the redacted transcripts for a long time, but he
used the fact that he didn't have all of them as an excuse not to publish any," said the
congressional source.
"If he selectively publishes just some of them now, it'll be rank hypocrisy."
Allegedly Schiff is also having his senior subcommittee staff director and counsel with the
intelligence committee contact the various heads of the intelligence community asking them to
challenge plans by Grenell to release the transcripts, which were declassified prior to his
arrival at DNI.
Several sources, familiar with Schiff's actions, have stated that his refusal to release the
transcripts is based on information contained in the testimony that will destroy his Russia
hoax propaganda.
"Schiff has been sitting on a lot of these transcripts for a long time," said a Republican
congressional source.
"They were using this as an excuse to ensure that the White House wouldn't have access to
the transcripts, now he wants to selectively leak and that's the game he plays – he's
definitely shifty. "
"... In 2010, Flynn co-authored an important analysis, Fixing Intel: A Blueprint for Making Intelligence Relevant in Afghanistan . Flynn's key conclusion warned that the U.S. intelligence effort in Afghanistan was failing: ..."
"... The paper argues that because the United States has focused the overwhelming majority of collection efforts and analytical brainpower on insurgent groups, our intelligence apparatus still finds itself unable to answer fundamental questions about the environment in which we operate and the people we are trying to protect and persuade. ..."
"... lambasted American intelligence performance in Afghanistan. . . [It] pulled no punches, using words like "marginally relevant," "ignorant," "hazy," and "incurious" to describe U.S. intelligence work in Afghanistan in a scathing fashion. ..."
"... During 2012-2013, DIA provided honest, objective analysis about the success of the Syrian Army in fighting against ISIS and Al Qaeda. If you go back and look at the media reporting at the time, there were dire reports claiming that the rebels were on the verge of ousting Syrian leader Assad and sweeping to power. Members of Congress, such as Senators McCain and Graham, were busy cheerleading the Syrian rebels progress. ..."
"... Few knew at the time that the CIA was running a massive arms and training program to support some of the Syrian rebels. ..."
"... This earned Michael Flynn the lasting enmity of DNI Director Jim Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan. Flynn would not play ball in down playing the jihadist threat in Syria. If you recall, President Obama referred to ISIS as the "junior varsity" during a January 2014 interview with the New Yorker: ..."
"... "The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn't make them Kobe Bryant," Obama said, resorting to an uncharacteristically flip analogy. "I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian. ..."
"... His refusal to downplay the ISIS threat was on of the contributing factors that led Obama to fire Flynn, who left the DIA position in August 2014. ..."
"... Michael Flynn did not go quietly into retirement. He became a vocal critic of Obama's failed policies in the Middle East ..."
"... This made him a target of both Clapper and Brennan. When Brennan put together a CIA Task Force in the late summer of 2015, I believe that one of the targets of the intelligence collection from that effort was Michael Flynn. By March of 2016, Flynn was squarely in the crosshairs of the Obama political/intelligence hit squad : ..."
"... Flynn, who was forced out of his post as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in August 2014 after clashing with other senior officials, has said that "political correctness" has prevented the U.S. from confronting violent extremism, which he sees as a "cancerous idea that exists inside of the Islamic religion." Flynn has authored a forthcoming book that argues the U.S. government "has concealed the actions of terrorists like [Osama] bin Laden and groups like ISIS, and the role of Iran in the rise of radical Islam " ..."
"... But that did not stop Jim Comey and his cronies from stepping up their efforts to find something they could use to charge and prosecute Flynn. Text messages from Peter Strzok to the author of the memo recommending the case be closed show that Strzok begged to keep the investigation open and cited "7th Floor" interest as justification. The 7th Floor of the FBI is where Jim Comey and Andy McCabe were located. ..."
"... Who authorized that collection of those conversations? Flynn was the acting National Security Advisor to President elect Donald Trump. Listening in on such a phone call was a pure act of domestic espionage against a political opponent of Obama. There was no justification to UNMASK General Flynn. But that is exactly what the FBI did. ..."
"... If and that's a big IF, somehow these scumbags (Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Strzok, et. al) ever got to a courtroom, they'd be facing - in DC - a jury of 12 Trump-haters and an Obama judge;see Roger Stone's trial. ..."
"... Excellent summary. Yes, Flynn was scapegoated and dragged through the mud for embarrassing his "betters" with the truth. He made mistakes and was naive himself, but he did the right thing exposing their plan to arm and support a jihadi takeover of Syria and Iraq. The plan was to let them takeover and then take the "JV team" out. ..."
"... They didn't want to send too many more troops to war. Americans had grown weary due to Bush's madness, so they used jihadis to carry out their plan in the Middle East and North Africa, to fill in the void ..."
"... It was very naive policy making and in the end Obama grew paranoid he was being screwed like Carter, that Benghazi was going to be turned into another Iranian hostage-like situation. It's a curious thing that Obama warned Trump of Flynn. In Obama's mind, Flynn was part of a conspiracy to screw him for choosing to back "Syrian and Libyan farmers" over American troops. That this was the US military brass showing him who's really boss and that they were trying to embarrass him. In reality, he made a bad policy decision based on failure to understand the region. His failures to under these people, exactly as Flynn warned, precipitated these failures. ..."
"... Trump showed a lot of promise that these circumstances would change for the better. Sadly, he has performed no better. Netanyahu and Pompeo are so far up his ass that they are now his ventriloquists. Obama should have warned him of those two instead. ..."
"... ...We see the same thing has evolved in the American Empire. If you take time to read up on the Flynn case or the much larger plot around it, you see a large cast of people with one thing in common. They all live together as a social class. Some were having sex with one another. Others had been friends since college. Others developed their relationships when they came to Washington. All of these social relationships transcend the formal positions and titles of the people... ..."
"... At that time of the Syria events, it appeared one of the biggest names in the background pushing for more support for Syrian "rebels", was the shadowy activist group AVAAZ. ..."
"... Now comes the present day kicker, the mistress Antonia Staats of the recently fired UK "expert" Neil Ferguson that caused our global shut down with his wildly inaccurate corona death count numbers, works for US based AVAAZ. Did she have any influence over his draconian pronouncements based up on her known AVAAZ activism? ..."
"... Is AVAAZ just one more name for Bernnan's CIA, not like unlike CNN? Should these dots be connected or just discarded as one more right-wing wacko conspiracy theory. ..."
"... Thanks for the excellent summary of how Flynn became "persona non grata" to various powers in the IC. But there is another powerful group in Washington whose fervent enmity he drew: the Democratic establishment. See: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/how-mike-flynn-became-americas-angriest-general-214362 ..."
"... Adding to my comment just above, my personal feeling on why there was such a push to find something to prosecute Flynn over was as a direct response to Flynn's leading of chants to "lock her up." "What goes around comes around" seems to be an operative policy for some in Washington. I can't help but believe that is what drove DOJ's otherwise inexplicable drive to find something to prosecute Flynn over. ..."
Two and one-half years ago, Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller unveiled charges against
Michael Flynn for "lying to Federal agents." At the time I gave Mueller the benefit of the
doubt and assumed, incorrectly, that the investigation was fair and honest. We now know without
any doubt that the so-called investigation of Michael Flynn was frame-up. It was a punishment
in search of a crime and ultimately led the FBI to manufacture a crime in order to take out
Michael Flynn and damage the fledgling Presidency of Donald Trump.
It is important to understand the lack of proper foundation to investigate Michael Flynn as
a collaborator with Russia as part of some bizarre plot to steal the 2016 Presidential election
for Donald Trump.
Flynn was perceived as a threat to the CIA and refused to cook the intelligence for the
Obama Administration while he was Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
The paper argues that because the United States has focused the overwhelming majority of
collection efforts and analytical brainpower on insurgent groups, our intelligence apparatus
still finds itself unable to answer fundamental questions about the environment in which we
operate and the people we are trying to protect and persuade.
Flynn's work did not sit well with Jim Clapper and John Brennan. John Schindler, a rabid
anti-Trumper, wrote a hit piece on Flynn in December 2017, that highlights the Deep State anger
at Flynn. Schindler characterizes Flynn's work in unflattering terms and
claims that Flynn :
lambasted American intelligence performance in Afghanistan. . . [It] pulled no punches,
using words like "marginally relevant," "ignorant," "hazy," and "incurious" to describe U.S.
intelligence work in Afghanistan in a scathing fashion.
Flynn's honesty in that assessment did
not derail his next promotion -- he was sworn in as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency in
July 2012. Once in that position he refused to cook the intelligence. I saw this firsthand (at
the time I had access to the classified intelligence analysis by DIA with respect to the war in
Syria). During 2012-2013, DIA provided honest, objective analysis about the success of the
Syrian Army in fighting against ISIS and Al Qaeda. If you go back and look at the media
reporting at the time, there were dire reports claiming that the rebels were on the verge of
ousting Syrian leader Assad and sweeping to power. Members of Congress, such as Senators McCain
and Graham, were busy cheerleading the Syrian rebels progress.
Few knew at the time that the CIA was running a massive arms and training program to support
some of the Syrian rebels. The program was a failure and the attack on the CIA base in
Benghazi, Libya came close to exposing the covert effort. What the media was not reporting is
that the rebels the U.S. backed were inept. The only rebels achieving some success were the
radical jihadists aligned with ISIS and elements of Al Qaeda (e.g. Al Nusra).
This earned Michael Flynn the lasting enmity of DNI Director Jim Clapper and CIA Director
John Brennan. Flynn would not play ball in down playing the jihadist threat in Syria. If you
recall, President Obama referred to ISIS as the "junior varsity" during a January 2014
interview with the New Yorker:
"The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts
on Lakers uniforms that doesn't make them Kobe Bryant," Obama said, resorting to an
uncharacteristically flip analogy. "I think there is a distinction between the capacity and
reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the
homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often
sectarian.
But that was not the story that Flynn's DIA was telling. His refusal to downplay the ISIS
threat was on of the contributing factors that led Obama to fire Flynn, who left the DIA
position in August 2014.
Michael Flynn did not go quietly into retirement. He became a vocal critic of Obama's failed
policies in the
Middle East :
Since taking off his uniform last August, Flynn, 56, has been in the vanguard of those
criticizing the president's policies in the Middle East, speaking out at venues ranging from
congressional hearings and trade association banquets to appearances on Fox News, CNN, Sky News
Arabia, and Japanese television, targeting the Iranian nuclear deal, the weakness of the U.S.
response to the Islamic State, and the Obama administration's refusal to call America's enemies
in the Middle East "Islamic militants."
This made him a target of both Clapper and Brennan. When Brennan put together a CIA Task
Force in the late summer of 2015, I believe that one of the targets of the intelligence
collection from that effort was Michael Flynn. By March of 2016, Flynn was squarely in the crosshairs of the Obama
political/intelligence hit squad :
They question why the retired general, who has earned criticism for his leadership style but
has generally been regarded as a well-intentioned professional, would assist a candidate who
has called for military actions that would constitute war crimes.
"I think Flynn and Trump are two peas in a pod," one former senior U.S. intelligence
official who knows Flynn told The Daily Beast. "They have this naïve notion that yelling
at people will just solve problems."
Flynn, who was forced out of his post as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in
August 2014 after clashing with other senior officials, has said that "political correctness"
has prevented the U.S. from confronting violent extremism, which he sees as a "cancerous idea
that exists inside of the Islamic religion." Flynn has authored a forthcoming book that argues
the U.S. government "has concealed the actions of terrorists like [Osama] bin Laden and groups
like ISIS, and the role of Iran in the rise of radical Islam "
His co-author, Michael Ledeen,
is a neoconservative author and policy analyst who was involved in the Iran-Contra Affair.
Thanks to the document release on 30 April, 2020, we know that the FBI opened an
unsuccessful investigation of Flynn. Here are the key points from the memo recommending the
investigation be closed:
The FBI opened captioned case based on an particularly false factual basis that CROSSFIRE RAZOR (CR)
may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation which
may constitute a federal crime· or threat to the national security.
The FBI predicated the investigation on predetermined criteria set forth by the CROSSFIRE
HURRICANE (CH) investigative team based on an assessment of reliable lead information received
during the course of the investigation.
The FBI queried the FBI databases and at least two other intelligence community databases
for incriminating information but found NO DEROGATORY INFORMATION .
The FBI used a Confidential Human Source (aka CHS probably Stefan Halper) to try to collect
incriminating information. The CHS claimed that Flynn was in contact with Svetlana Lokhova, a
British academic born in Russia, but a subsequent FBI search of their databases turned up NO
DEROGATORY INFORMATION .
The FBI memo concludes:
the absence of any derogatory information or lead information from these logical sources
reduced the number of investigative avenues and techniques to pursue. . . . The FBI is closing
this investigation.
But that did not stop Jim Comey and his cronies from stepping up their efforts to find
something they could use to charge and prosecute Flynn. Text messages from Peter Strzok to the
author of the memo recommending the case be closed show that Strzok begged to keep the
investigation open and cited "7th Floor" interest as justification. The 7th Floor of the FBI is
where Jim Comey and Andy McCabe were located.
They decided to pursue two lines of attack. First, to go after Flynn for allegedly failing
to register as a "Foreign Agent" because of a report his consulting firm prepared on a Turk
living in the United States that Turkey named as a "terrorist." Second, the FBI had in hand the
transcript of Flynn's conversations with Russia's Ambassador and wanted to entrap him into
lying about those conversations.
Who authorized that collection of those conversations? Flynn was the acting National
Security Advisor to President elect Donald Trump. Listening in on such a phone call was a pure
act of domestic espionage against a political opponent of Obama. There was no justification to
UNMASK General Flynn. But that is exactly what the FBI did.
The news of Mike Flynn's plea agreement in late 2017 with special prosecutor Robert Mueller
was trumpeted on the media as if Flynn admitted to killing Kennedy or having unprotected sex
with Vladimir Putin. But read the actual indictment and the accompanying agreement.
Here is the chronology of Michael Flynn's entirely appropriate actions as the National
Security Advisor to President-elect Donald Trump. This is not what an agent of Russia would do.
This is what the National Security Advisor to an incoming President would do.
December 21, 2016 --Egypt submitted a resolution to the United Nations Security Council on
the issue of Israeli settlements ("resolution").
December 22, 2016-- a very senior member of the Presidential Transition Team (reportedly
Jared Kushner) directed FLYNN to contact officials from foreign governments, including Russia,
to learn where each government stood on the resolution and to influence those governments to
delay the vote or defeat the resolution.
December 23, 2016-- FLYNN again spoke with the Russian Ambassador, who informed FLYNN that
if it came to a vote Russia would not vote against the resolution.
On this same day, President-elect Trump spoke with Egyptian leader Sisi, who agreed to
withdraw the resolution (
link ).
[I would note that there is nothing illegal or wrong about any of this. Quite an appropriate
action, in fact, for an incoming President. Moreover, if Trump and the Russians had been
conspiring before the November election, why would Trump and team even need to persuade the
Russian Ambassador to do the biding of Trump on this issue?]
December 28, 2016-- President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13757, which was to take
effect the following day, imposing sanctions on Russia. Russian Ambassador Kislyak called
General Flynn (who was vacationing in the Caribbean).
December 29, 2016 , FLYNN called a senior official of the Presidential Transition Team ("PTT
official"), who was with other senior members of the Presidential Transition Team at the
Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, to discuss what, if anything, to communicate to the
Russian Ambassador about the U.S. Sanctions. On that call, FLYNN and the PTT official discussed
the U.S. Sanctions, including the potential impact of those sanctions on the incoming
administration's foreign policy goals. The PTT official and FLYNN also discussed that the
members of the Presidential Transition Team at Mar-a-Lago did not want Russia to escalate the
situation.
FLYNN called the Russian Ambassador and requested that Russia not escalate the
situation and only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner.
Shortly after his phone call with the Russian Ambassador, FLYNN spoke with the PTT
official to report on the substance of his call with the Russian Ambassador, including
their discussion of the U.S. Sanctions.
December 31, 2016-- the Russian Ambassador called FLYNN and informed him that Russia had
chosen not to retaliate in response to FLYNN's request.
After his phone call with the Russian Ambassador, FLYNN spoke with senior members of the
Presidential Transition Team about FLYNN's conversations with the Russian Ambassador regarding
the U.S. Sanctions and Russia's decision not to escalate the situation.
Michael Flynn's contact with the Russian Government and other members of the UN Security
Council in the month preceding Trump's inauguration was appropriate and normal. He did nothing
wrong. But President Obama's henchmen, including James Comey, John Brennan, Jim Clapper and
Susan Rice were out for blood and relied on the FBI to stick the shiv into General Flynn's
belly.
That travesty of justice is being methodically and systematically revealed in the documents
delivered to the Flynn defense team thanks to the efforts of Attorney General William Barr.
Barr is relying on the US Attorney in the Eastern District of Missouri (EDMO) to review the
case and provide Brady material to the Flynn defense team. This is by the book. Doing it this
way provides the legal foundation for future prosecution of the FBI and prosecutors who abused
the General Flynn's rights and violated the Constitution. Stay tuned.
All true in my book but it would be very hard to prosecute and get convictions as the defense
would be "We were working in the best interests of the US against the dastardly Russkies"
At least half the country believes it goes the Russians interfered materially in the 2016
election. 2018 poll
Great analysis, your article added a lot of context on why Flynn was targeted. What a
horrible thing to do to a person.
http://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/ that has
been doing A+ work on the Flynn set up, linked to you.
If and that's a big IF, somehow these scumbags (Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Strzok, et. al) ever
got to a courtroom, they'd be facing -
in DC - a jury of 12 Trump-haters and an Obama judge;see Roger Stone's trial.
Bottom line: Until the swamp is drained and then burned (meaning all SES and over a certain GS level
bureaucrats gone), we will continue to live under the thumbs of this corrupt "ruling
class." And getting rid of all these people wouldn't make much of a difference to most
Americans; witness the notorious "shutdowns" in recent years.
Excellent summary. Yes, Flynn was scapegoated and dragged through the mud for embarrassing
his "betters" with the truth. He made mistakes and was naive himself, but he did the right
thing exposing their plan to arm and support a jihadi takeover of Syria and Iraq. The plan
was to let them takeover and then take the "JV team" out.
They didn't want to send too many more troops to war. Americans had grown weary due to
Bush's madness, so they used jihadis to carry out their plan in the Middle East and North
Africa, to fill in the void while they could before Russia remained weak and China yet to
fully emerge, to checkmate the grand chessboard Zbigniew wrote of while the US held
unchallenged supremacy.
Obama was very naive about what Muslims are really like in some of those parts. It's best
to liken them to Comanches. He bought into the Zbigniew/Neocon belief that they'll just be
another Taliban, but ask any Afghan who managed to escape the country at the time and they'll
tell you these guys are all devils, djinns.
It was very naive policy making and in the end Obama grew paranoid he was being screwed
like Carter, that Benghazi was going to be turned into another Iranian hostage-like
situation. It's a curious thing that Obama warned Trump of Flynn. In Obama's mind, Flynn was
part of a conspiracy to screw him for choosing to back "Syrian and Libyan farmers" over
American troops. That this was the US military brass showing him who's really boss and that
they were trying to embarrass him. In reality, he made a bad policy decision based on failure
to understand the region. His failures to under these people, exactly as Flynn warned,
precipitated these failures.
Obama made a lot of mistakes, but thankfully he didn't make it worse by invading in spite
of his red line. I have to credit him that much, but his failures in Libya and Syria are on
par with Bush's failures in Afghanistan and Iraq. Disastrous doesn't even begin to describe
these failures.
Trump showed a lot of promise that these circumstances would change for the better. Sadly,
he has performed no better. Netanyahu and Pompeo are so far up his ass that they are now his
ventriloquists. Obama should have warned him of those two instead.
"... internal investigation unit". If I run the IG and change the definition of "whistle
blower" to allow hearsay evidence that is not admissible as evidence in any court in the
Western world that still makes it okay to use hearsay, right? Of course it does. You forgot
about Horowitz and his IG report already, you guys must really be getting desperate. Thanks
for the laugh.
As much as I would love to see this "ruling class" brought low, by which I mean burnt to the
ground, we face the problem of The Ruling System, outlined in this post on the Z-Man blog:
http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=20405 A little snippet from the post:
...We see the same thing has evolved in the American Empire. If you take time to read up
on the Flynn case or the much larger plot around it, you see a large cast of people with one
thing in common. They all live together as a social class. Some were having sex with one
another. Others had been friends since college. Others developed their relationships when
they came to Washington. All of these social relationships transcend the formal positions and
titles of the people...
Z-Man examines this in various historical settings, Versailles, Communist Russia, before
arriving at The Swamp. Interesting angle.
Small world, speaking of Seymour Hersh's lengthy CIA gun-running to Syria expose in "The Red
Line and Rat Line", that all his prior media connections refused to publish at the time
(Benghazi-Obama days), until it finally appeared in the London Review of Books- or something
like that.
At that time of the Syria events, it appeared one of the biggest names in the background
pushing for more support for Syrian "rebels", was the shadowy activist group AVAAZ.
Now comes the present day kicker, the mistress Antonia Staats of the recently fired UK
"expert" Neil Ferguson that caused our global shut down with his wildly inaccurate corona
death count numbers, works for US based AVAAZ. Did she have any influence over his draconian
pronouncements based up on her known AVAAZ activism?
Who was it that says there are no coincidences? Long time since I saw any media attention
given to AVAAZ, nor any final answers why the CIA was running such a big operation in
Benghazi in 2012. However, all the same names and players still swirling around gives one
pause.
Is AVAAZ just one more name for Bernnan's CIA, not like unlike CNN? Should these dots be
connected or just discarded as one more right-wing wacko conspiracy theory.
Adding to my comment just above, my personal feeling
on why there was such a push
to find something to prosecute Flynn over
was as a direct response to Flynn's leading of chants to "lock her up."
"What goes around comes around" seems to be an operative policy for some in Washington.
I can't help but believe that is what drove DOJ's otherwise inexplicable drive to find
something to prosecute Flynn over.
AVAAZ pushed FaceBook and Zuckerberg to ban about half of FB content on novel coronavirus,
starting last month, Politico gleefully reported. [Two medical doctors in California 'out of
step' with the diktats of some medical cartel's message, among those FB canceled, for
example.]
AVAAZ, which pushed regime change in Syria, no fly zone in Libya, spews hatred of Russia,
etc. is alive and well, working hard at increasing online censorship.
Their clicktivism business model and lock downs go hand in hand.
[[Avaaz discovered that over 40 percent of the coronavirus-related misinformation it found
on Facebook. . .]]
[[Avaaz said that these fake social media posts -- everything from advice about bogus
medical remedies for the virus to claims that minority groups were less susceptible to
infection -- had been shared, collectively, 1.7 million times on Facebook in six
languages]]
[[Avaaz tracked 104 claims debunked by fact-checkers to see how quickly they were removed
from the platform]]
" If I run the IG and change the definition of "whistle blower" to allow hearsay evidence
that is not admissible as evidence in any court in the Western world that still makes it okay
to use hearsay, right? Of course it does. You forgot about Horowitz and his IG report
already, you guys must really be getting desperate. Thanks for the laugh."
No laughing matter. The IG position is obviously politicized. It may be a surprise to you,
but many police forces have an internal investigation unit that has extremely wide powers
that. go far beyond those available in ordinary investigation. The staff of such units are a
rare and disliked breed and the units are managed by the natural enemies of the police -
criminal lawyers.
Given that I've seen what these units do here, I am surprised that Strzok, Page and others
were not apprehended and charged very quickly.
Jim, thank you for the further AVAAZ info. Call me gob-smacked. Hope the investigative media picks up this thread. Seymour Hersh, are
you listening? AVAAZ felt sinister during the Benghazi days - also reacll some connections
with Samantha Power and Susan Rice - Barry's Girls.
Maybe mistress Antonia Staats was on a mission; and not just being a scofflaw mistress? In
fact is she trying out to be the new S.P.E.C.T.R.E Bond Girl?
IG's are no surprise to me nor the politicalization, such as Baltimore and Chicago, cities
run by the same political party for decades. Or the "intelligence community" IG, who changed
to rules to allow the scam of Schiff's supersecret whistleblower fraud to go forward. But
then you probably forgot that guy like you did Horowitz.
"I am surprised that Strzok, Page and others were not apprehended and charged ...." Larry insists that will happen. I'm not holding my breath.
It is interesting that Tucker Carlson started his program, last night, by railing against
news media that does not investigate issues, especially pertaining to Covid-19 he then
launched into a hypocritical tirade against China using unnamed government sources and unseen
government documents, as the source of Covid-19 malfeasance in reporting the disease, on
China's part. Carlson did this without one media investigation of the veracity of the US
government reports.
Carlson has turned into a hypocritical asshole.
This is because Tucker has always been a Sinophobe instead of a Russophobe.
Be that as it may, he is a hypocrite. Carlson pisses and moans about what lying, corrupt
bastards the intelligence agencies are when they attack the Trump administration, Roger
Stone, Gen. Flynn yet is ready to believe anything those same intelligence agencies say that
is derogatory toward China even though there is no evidence provided.
"... The effect of this information overload has been to disorientate the great majority of us who lack the time, the knowledge and the analytical skills to sift through it all and make sense of the world around us. It is hard to discriminate when there is so much information -- good and bad alike -- to digest. ..."
"... Nonetheless, we have got a sense from these online debates, reinforced by events in the non-virtual world, that our politicians do not always tell the truth, that money -- rather than the public interest -- sometimes wins out in decision-making processes, and that our elites may be little better equipped than us -- aside from their expensive educations -- to run our societies. ..."
"... One is to allow the information overload to continue, or even escalate. There is an argument to be made that the more possible truths we are presented with, the more powerless we feel and the more willing we are to defer to those most vocal in claiming authority. Confused and hopeless, we will look to father figures, to the strongmen of old, to those who have cultivated an aura of decisiveness and fearlessness, to those who look like down-to-earth mavericks and rebels. ..."
"... This approach will throw up more Donald Trumps, Boris Johnsons and Jair Bolsonaros. And these men, while charming us with their supposed lack of orthodoxy, will still, of course, be exceptionally accommodating to the most powerful corporate interests -- the military-industrial complex -- that really run the show. ..."
"... The other option, which has already been road-tested under the rubric of "fake news", will be to treat us, the public, like irresponsible children, who need a firm, guiding hand. The technocrats and professionals will try to re-establish their authority as though the last two decades never occurred, as though we never saw through their hypocrisy and lies. ..."
Debates like the 5G one have not emerged in a vacuum. They come at a moment of unprecedented
information dissemination that derives from a decade of rapid growth in social media. We are
the first societies to have access to data and information that was once the preserve of
monarchs, state officials and advisers, and in more recent times a few select journalists.
Now rogue academics, rogue journalists, rogue former officials -- anyone, in fact -- can go
online and discover a myriad of things that until recently no one outside a small establishment
circle was ever supposed to understand. If you know where to look, you can even find some of
this stuff on Wikipedia (see, for example, Operation Timber Sycamore ).
The effect of this information overload has been to disorientate the great majority of
us who lack the time, the knowledge and the analytical skills to sift through it all and make
sense of the world around us. It is hard to discriminate when there is so much information --
good and bad alike -- to digest.
Nonetheless, we have got a sense from these online debates, reinforced by events in the
non-virtual world, that our politicians do not always tell the truth, that money -- rather than
the public interest -- sometimes wins out in decision-making processes, and that our elites may
be little better equipped than us -- aside from their expensive educations -- to run our
societies.
Two decades of lies
There has been a handful of staging posts over the past two decades to our current era of
the Great Disillusionment. They include:
the
lack of transparency in the US government's
investigation into the events surrounding 9/11 (obscured by a parallel online controversy
about what took place that day); the
documented lies told about the reasons for launching a disastrous and illegal war of
aggression against Iraq in 2003 that unleashed regional chaos, waves of destabilising migration
into Europe and new, exceptionally brutal forms of political Islam; the astronomical bailouts
after the 2008 crash of bankers whose criminal activities nearly
bankrupted the global economy (but who were never held to account) and instituted more than
a decade of austerity measures that had to be paid for by the public; the refusal by western
governments and global institutions to take any
leadership on tackling climate change , as not only the science but the weather itself has
made the urgency of that emergency clear, because it would mean taking on their corporate
sponsors; and now the criminal failures of our governments to prepare
for, and respond properly to, the Covid-19 pandemic, despite many years of warnings.
Anyone who still takes what our governments say at face value well, I have several bridges
to sell you.
Experts failed us
But it is not just governments to blame. The failings of experts, administrators and the
professional class have been all too visible to the public as well. Those officials who have
enjoyed easy access to prominent platforms in the state-corporate media have obediently
repeated what state and corporate interests wanted us to hear, often only for that information
to be exposed later as incomplete, misleading or downright fabricated.
In the run-up to the 2003 attack on Iraq, too many political scientists, journalists and
weapons experts kept their heads down, keen to preserve their careers and status, rather than
speak up in support of those rare experts like Scott Ritter and
the late David Kelly who
dared to sound the alarm that we were not being told the whole truth.
In 2008, only a handful of economists was prepared to break with corporate orthodoxy and
question whether throwing money at bankers exposed as financial criminals was wise, or to
demand that these bankers be prosecuted. The economists did not argue the case that there must
be a price for the banks to pay, such as a public stake in the banks that were bailed out, in
return for forcing taxpayers to massively invest in these discredited businesses. And the
economists did not propose overhauling our financial systems to make sure there was no
repetition of the economic crash. Instead, they kept their heads down as well, in the hope that
their large salaries continued and that they would not lose their esteemed positions in
think-tanks and universities.
We know that climate scientists were quietly warning
back in the 1950s of the dangers of runaway global warming, and that in the 1980s scientists
working for the fossil-fuel companies predicted very precisely how and when the catastrophe
would unfold -- right about now. It is wonderful that today the vast majority of these
scientists are publicly agreed on the dangers, even if they are still trapped in a dangerous
caution by the conservatism of scientific procedure. But they forfeited public trust by leaving
it so very, very late to speak up.
And recently we have learnt, for example, that a series of Conservative governments in the
UK recklessly ran down the
supplies of hospital protective gear , even though they had more than a decade of warnings
of a coming pandemic. The question is why did no scientific advisers or health officials blow
the whistle earlier. Now it is too late to save the lives of many thousands, including dozens
of medical staff, who have fallen victim so far to the virus in the UK.
Worse still, in the Anglosphere of the US and the UK, we have ended up with political
systems that offer a choice between one party that supports a brutal, unrestrained version of
neoliberalism and another party that supports a marginally less brutal, slightly mitigated
version of neoliberalism. (And we have recently discovered in the UK that, after the grassroots
membership of one of those twinned parties managed to choose a leader in Jeremy Corbyn who
rejected this orthodoxy, his own party machine conspired
to throw the election rather than let him near power.) As we are warned at each election, in
case we decide that elections are in fact futile, we enjoy a choice -- between the lesser of
two evils.
Those who ignore or instinctively defend these glaring failings of the modern corporate
system are really in no position to sit smugly in judgment on those who wish to question the
safety of 5G, or vaccines, or the truth of 9/11, or the reality of a climate catastrophe, or
even of the presence of lizard overlords.
Because through their reflexive dismissal of doubt, of all critical thinking on anything
that has not been pre-approved by our governments and by the state-corporate media, they have
helped to disfigure the only yardsticks we have for measuring truth or falsehood. They have
forced on us a terrible choice: to blindly follow those who have repeatedly demonstrated they
are not worthy of being followed, or to trust nothing at all, to doubt everything. Neither
position is one a healthy, balanced individual would want to adopt. But that is where we are
today.
Big Brother regimes
It is therefore hardly surprising that those who have been so discredited by the current
explosion of information -- the politicians, the corporations and the professional class -- are
wondering how to fix things in the way most likely to maintain their power and authority.
They face two, possibly complementary options.
One is to allow the information overload to continue, or even escalate. There is an
argument to be made that the more possible truths we are presented with, the more powerless
we feel and the more willing we are to defer to those most vocal in claiming authority.
Confused and hopeless, we will look to father figures, to the strongmen of old, to those who
have cultivated an aura of decisiveness and fearlessness, to those who look like down-to-earth
mavericks and rebels.
This approach will throw up more Donald Trumps, Boris Johnsons and Jair Bolsonaros. And
these men, while charming us with their supposed lack of orthodoxy, will still, of course, be
exceptionally accommodating to the most powerful corporate interests -- the military-industrial complex -- that
really run the show.
The other option, which has already been road-tested under the rubric of "fake news",
will be to treat us, the public, like irresponsible children, who need a firm, guiding hand.
The technocrats and professionals will try to re-establish their authority as though the last
two decades never occurred, as though we never saw through their hypocrisy and lies.
They will cite "conspiracy theories" -- even the true ones -- as proof that it is time to
impose new curbs on internet freedoms, on the right to speak and to think. They will argue
that the social media experiment has run its course and proved itself a menace -- because we,
the public, are a menace. They are already flying trial balloons for this new Big Brother
world, under cover of tackling the health threats posed by the Covid-19 epidemic.
Surveillance a price worth paying to beat coronavirus, says Blair thinktank https://t.co/AAb1nnv4pG
We should not be surprised that the "thought-leaders" for shutting down the cacophony of the
internet are those whose failures have been most exposed by our new freedoms to explore the
dark recesses of the recent past. They have included Tony Blair, the British prime minister who
lied western publics into the disastrous and illegal war on Iraq in 2003, and Jack Goldsmith,
rewarded as a Harvard law professor for his role -- since whitewashed -- in helping the Bush
administration legalise torture and step up warrantless surveillance programmes.
Fmr. Bush admin lawyer/current Harvard Law prof Jack Goldsmith goes full-Thomas Friedman,
credits China's enlightened authoritarian approach to information as "largely right" and
laments the US' provincial fealty to the First Amendment as "largely wrong." https://t.co/1WyQtgE8bK
pic.twitter.com/1M03ybxh0I
The only alternative to a future in which we are ruled by Big Brother technocrats like Tony
Blair, or by chummy authoritarians who brook no dissent, or a mix of the two, will require a
complete overhaul of our societies' approach to information. We will need fewer curbs on free
speech, not more.
The real test of our societies -- and the only hope of surviving the coming emergencies,
economic and environmental -- will be finding a way to hold our leaders truly to account. Not
based on whether they are secretly lizards, but on what they are doing to save our planet from
our all-too-human, self-destructive instinct for acquisition and our craving for guarantees of
security in an uncertain world.
That, in turn, will require a transformation of our relationship to information and debate.
We will need a new model of independent, pluralistic, responsive, questioning media that is
accountable to the public, not to billionaires and corporations. Precisely the kind of media we
do not have now. We will need media we can trust to represent the full range of credible,
intelligent, informed debate, not the narrow Overton window through which we get a highly
partisan, distorted view of the world that serves the 1 per cent -- an elite so richly rewarded
by the current system that they are prepared to ignore the fact that they and we are hurtling
towards the abyss.
With that kind of media in place -- one that truly holds politicians to account and
celebrates scientists for their contributions to collective knowledge, not their usefulness to
corporate enrichment -- we would not need to worry about the safety of our communications
systems or medicines, we would not need to doubt the truth of events in the news or wonder
whether we have lizards for rulers, because in that kind of world no one would rule over us.
They would serve the public for the common good.
Sounds like a fantastical, improbable system of government? It has a name: democracy. Maybe
it is time for us finally to give it a go.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include
"Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East"
(Pluto
Looks like Mueller barked to the wrong tree... And that was not accidental
Notable quotes:
"... The back story that's really significant here is that Mueller redacted evidence of Israeli interference in the U.S. election, and the Russiagate! scandal was a cover for that and other third-country meddling. Most of us here knew that a couple years ago ..."
Previously sealed FBI documents indicate close contacts between Israel and the Trump
campaign and that the Mueller investigation found evidence of Israeli involvement, but
largely redacted it.
Menifee, CA (IAK) -- Newly released FBI documents suggest that Israeli government
officials were in contact with the 2016 Trump presidential campaign and offered "critical
intel."
In one of the extensively redacted documents, an official who appears to be an Israeli
minister warns that Trump was "going to be defeated unless we intervene." He goes on to tell
a Trump campaign official: "The key is in your hands."
The previously classified documents were released in response to a lawsuit brought by the
Associated Press, CNN, the New York Times, Politico, and the Washington Post. The unsealed
documents suggest that rather than Russia, it was Israel that covertly interfered in the
election.
While all these media companies except one seem to have ignored the apparent Israeli
connection revealed in the FBI documents, Israeli media have been quick to jump on it.
Israel's i24 News reports:
Newly released documents from the FBI suggest that Roger Stone, a senior aide in the 2016
Trump campaign, had one or more high-ranking contacts in the Israeli government willing to
help the then-Republican Party nominee win the presidential election."
Israel's Ha'aretz newspaper reports:
Tantalizing hints" of "alleged clandestine contacts came to light in recent publication of
redacted FBI documents."
The Times of Israel (TOI) the first to report on this, states:
The FBI material, which is heavily redacted, includes one explicit reference to Israel and
one to Jerusalem, and a series of references to a minister, a cabinet minister, a minister
without portfolio in the cabinet dealing with issues concerning defense and foreign affairs,'
the PM, and the Prime Minister."
TOI points out: "Benjamin Netanyahu was Israel's prime minister in 2016," and reports
circumstantial evidence that the "PM" mentioned in the document refers to Netanyahu:
One reference to the unnamed PM in the material reads as follows: 'On or about June 28,
2016, [NAME REDACTED] messaged STONE, "RETURNING TO DC AFTER URGENT CONSULTATIONS WITH PM IN
ROME.MUST MEET WITH YOU WED. EVE AND WITH DJ TRUMP THURSDAY IN NYC.' Netanyahu made a state
visit to Italy at the end of June 2016."
TOI also notes that "the Israeli government included a minister without portfolio, Tzachi
Hanegbi, appointed in May with responsibility for defense and foreign affairs."
Ha'aretz also names Hanebi as the likely contact, and confirms that he "was in the United
States on the dates mentioned, attending, among other things, a roll out of the first Israeli
F-35 jet at a Lockheed Martin plant in Fort Worth, Texas."
The previously classified FBI affidavit says: "On or about August 12, 2016, [name
redacted] messaged STONE, "Roger, hello from Jerusalem. Any progress? He is going to be
defeated unless we intervene. We have critical intell. The key is in your hands! Back in the
US next week."
Another section of the affidavit states: "On August 20, 2016, CORSI told STONE that they
needed to meet with [name redacted] to determine "what if anything Israel plans to do in
Oct." (Corsi refers to Jerome Corsi, a pro-Israel commentator and author known for extremist
statements.)
Roger Stone, a longtime confidant of President Trump who worked on the 2016 campaign, was
convicted last year in the Robert Mueller investigation into alleged collusion between Russia
and the Trump campaign.
Stone has denied wrongdoing, consistently criticizing the accusations against him as
politically motivated. Numerous analysts have found the "Russiagate" theory unconvincing, and
the American Bar Association reported that Mueller's investigation "did not find sufficient
evidence that President Donald Trump's campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the
United States' 2016 election."
There have been previous suggestions that it was Israel that had most worked to influence
the election.
[MORE]
The back story that's really significant here is that Mueller redacted evidence of
Israeli interference in the U.S. election, and the Russiagate! scandal was a cover for that and
other third-country meddling. Most of us here knew that a couple years ago .
Mint Press has also reported on Israeli intelligence involvement/infiltration into critical
US defense networks as well as their strong presence in social media.
I'd be surprised if there was an election in recent decades that they weren't involved
in.
If Trump campaign people were actually soliciting Israeli help, that would be newsworthy and
probably criminal. But Mueller throwing the book at Stone and Corsi over BS and covering what
could actually be serious? That's twisted.
Laura Rozen
@lrozen
Profile picture https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1255347751153434624.html
Apr 29th 2020, 5 tweets, 2 min read
Stone arranged for meeting, but said in later email that a "fiasco" ensued after the
associate brought a foreign military officer along
Unroll available on Thread Reader
On Aug.20, 2016, CORSI told STONE they
needed to meet w/[ ] to determine "what if anything Israel plans to do in
Oct"courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
huh courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
(One PM in Rome on June 27 2016 was Netanyahu) mfa.gov.il/MFA/PressRoom/
Mint Press has also reported on Israeli intelligence involvement/infiltration into
critical US defense networks as well as their strong presence in social media.
I'd be surprised if there was an election in recent decades that they weren't involved
in.
If Trump campaign people were actually soliciting Israeli help, that would be newsworthy
and probably criminal. But Mueller throwing the book at Stone and Corsi over BS and
covering what could actually be serious? That's twisted.
@leveymg is reposted below, for those who want to read for themselves:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
District of Columbia
In the Matter of the Search of
(Briefly describe the property to be searched
or identify the person by name and address)
INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE GOOGLE
ACCOUNT ,
)
Case: 1:18-sc-01518
Assigned To : Howell, Beryl A.
Assign. Date: 5/4/2018
Description: Search & Seizure Warrant
SEARCH AND SEIZURE WARRANT
To: Any authorized law enforcement officer
An application by a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government requests
the search
of the following person or property located in the Northern District of California
(identify the person or describe the property to be searched and give its location):
See Attachment A.
I find that the affidavit(s), or any recorded testimony, establish probable cause to search and
seize the person or property
described above, and that such search will reveal (identify the person or describe the property
to be seized):
See Attachment B.
YOU ARE COMMANDED to execute this warrant on or before May 18, 2018 (not to exceed 14 days)
';$ in the daytime 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 0 at any time in the day or night because good cause
has been established.
Unless delayed notice is authorized below, you must give a copy of the warrant and a receipt
for the property taken to the
person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was taken, or leave the copy and receipt
at the place where the
property was taken.
The officer executing this warrant, or an officer present during the execution of the warrant,
must prepare an inventory
as required by law and promptly return this warrant and inventory to Hon. Beryl A. Howell
(United States Magistrate Judge)
0 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3103a(b), I find that immediate notification may have an adverse
result listed in 18 U.S.C.
§ 2705 ( except for delay of trial), and authorize the officer executing this warrant to
delay notice to the person who, or whose
property, will be searched or seized (check the awropriate box)
0 for __ days (not to exceed 30) 0 until, the facts justifying, the later specific date of
Date and time issued:
Judge 's signature
City and state: Washington, DC Hon. Beryl A. Howell, Chief U.S. District Judge
Printed name and title
Case 1:19-mc-00029-CRC Document 29-7 Filed 04/28/20 Page 1 of 35
AO 93 (Rev 11/13) Search and Seizure Warrant (Page 2)
Return
Case No.: Date and time warrant executed: Copy of warrant and inventory left with:
Inventory made in the presence of :
Inventory of the property taken and name of any person(s) seized:
Certification
I declare under penalty of pe1jury that this inventory is correct and was returned along with
the original warrant to the
designated judge.
Date:
Executing officer's signature
Printed name and title
Case 1:19-mc-00029-CRC Document 29-7 Filed 04/28/20 Page 2 of 35
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Cf erk, U.S. District & Bankrupicy
Gourts for tirn District of Columbl&
IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH OF
INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH
THE GOOGLE ACCOUNT
ORDER
Case: 1: 18-sc-01518
Assigned To : Howell, Beryl A.
Assign. Date: 5/4/2018
Description: Search & Seizure Warrant
The United States has filed a motion to seal the above-captioned warrant and related
documents, including the application and affidavit in support thereof ( collectively the
"Warrant"),
and to require Google LLC, an electronic communication and/or remote computing services
with
headquarters in Mountain View, California, not to disclose the existence or contents of the
Warrant
pursuant to !8 U.S.C. § 2705(b).
The Court finds that the United States has established that a compelling governmental
interest exists to justify the requested sealing, and that there is reason to believe that
notification
of the existence of the Warrant will seriously jeopardize the investigation, including by
giving the
targets an opportunity to flee from prosecution, destroy or tamper with evidence, and
intimidate
witnesses. See 18 U.S.C. § 2705(b)(2)-(5).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion is hereby GRANTED, and that the
warrant, the application and affidavit in support thereof, all attachments thereto and other
related
materials, the instant motion to seal, and this Order be SEALED until further order of the
Court;
and
Page 1 of2
Case 1:19-mc-00029-CRC Document 29-7 Filed 04/28/20 Page 3 of 35
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2705(b), Google and its
employees shall not disclose the existence or content of the Warrant to any other person (
except
attorneys for Google for the purpose of receiving legal advice) for a period of one year
unless
otherwise ordered by the Court.
Date 41/Y>lf
THE HONORABLE BERYL A. HOWELL
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 2 of2
Case 1:19-mc-00029-CRC Document 29-7 Filed 04/28/20 Page 4 of 35
AO 106 (Rev. 04/10) Application for a Search Warrant
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
In the Matter of the Search of
(Briefly describe the property to be searched
or identify the person by name and address)
for the
District of Columbia
MA\t !,
•'II·\! • ·r 2018
,,t,c,rk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
C . ,,gurt~ lar 1hli-•D1strlctof Gollf/nh]•
ase.1:18-sc-01518 ·'
Ass!gned To: Howell, Beryl A
INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE GOOGLE
ACCOUNT
)
)
)
)
)
)
Assign. Date: 5;412018 ·
Description: Search & Seizure Warrant
APPLICATION FOR A SEARCH WARRANT
I, a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government, request a search
warrant and state under
penalty of perjury that I have reason to believe that on the following person or property
(identify the person or describe the
property to be searched and give ifs location):
See Attachment A.
located in the Northern District of _____ C,-_a-,.l"'if.=o,..rn~ia.._ __ , there is now
concealed (identijj, the
person or describe the property to be seized):
See Attachment B.
The basis for the search under Fed. R. Crim. P. 4 l(c) is (check one or more):
~ evidence of a crime;
ief contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed;
r'lf property designed for use, intended for use, or used in committing a crime;
D a person to be arrested or a person who is unlawfully restrained.
The search is related to a violation of:
Code Section
18 U.S.C. § 2
· et al.
The application is based on these facts:
See attached Affidavit.
r;/ Continued on the attached sheet.
Offense Description
aiding and abetting
see attached affidavit
D Delayed notice of __ days (give exact ending date if more than 30 days: ______ ) is
requested
under 18 U.S.C. § 3103a, the basis of which is set forth on the attached sheet.
~44 Reviewed by AUSA/SAUSA: Appbcant's signature
•Aaron Zelinsky (Special Counsel's Office) Andrew Mitchell, Supervisory Special Agent,
FBI
Printed name and title
Sworn to before me and signed in my presence.
Date:
City and state: Washington, D.C. Hon. Beryl A. Howell, Chief U.S. District Judge
Printed name and title
Case 1:19-mc-00029-CRC Document 29-7 Filed 04/28/20 Page 5 of 35
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MAY ·· ti 1018
Clerk, LLS. District & Bar1i
Laura Rozen
@lrozen
Profile picture https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1255347751153434624.html
Apr 29th 2020, 5 tweets, 2 min read
Stone arranged for meeting, but said in later email that a "fiasco" ensued after the
associate brought a foreign military officer along
Unroll available on Thread Reader
On Aug.20, 2016, CORSI told STONE they
needed to meet w/[ ] to determine "what if anything Israel plans to do in
Oct"courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
huh courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
(One PM in Rome on June 27 2016 was Netanyahu) mfa.gov.il/MFA/PressRoom/
@leveymg request for sealing of the record -- Case 1:19-mc-00029-CRC Document 29-7
Filed 04/28/20 Pages 3 to 35 for those who want to read for themselves:
Judge's signature
Hon. Bery[ A. Howell, Chief U.S. District Judge
Printed name and title
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Glcrk, LL$. District & Bar1kruptcy
Gourts tor tirn District of ColumtHa
IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH OF INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE GOOGLE ACCOUNT
Case: 1:18-sc-01518
Ass!gned To : Howell, BerylA Assign. Date : S/4/20 18
Description: Search & S izure Warrant
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION FOR A SEARCH WARRANT
I, Andrew Mitchell, having been first duly sworn, hereby depose and state as follows:
1. I make this affidavit in support of an application for a search warrant for
information associated with the following Google Account: (hereafter
the "Target Account 1"), that is stored at premises owned, maintained, controlled or
operated by Google, Inc., a social networking company headquartered in Mountain View,
California ("Google"). The information to be searched is described in the following paragraphs
and in Attachments A and B. This affidavit is made in support of an application for a search
warrant under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2703(a), 2703(b)(l)(A) and 2703(c)(l)(A)to require Google
to disclose to the government copies of the information (including the content of
communications) further described in Attachment A. Upon receipt of the information described.
in Attachment A, government"authorized persons will review that information to locate the items
described in Attachment B.
2. I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and have been since
2011. As a Special Agent of the FBI, I have received training and experience in investigating
criminal and national security matters.
3. The facts in this affidavit come from my personal observations, my training and experience,
and information obtained from other agents and witnesses. This affidavit is intended
to show merely that there is sufficient probable cause for the requested warrant and does
not set fotth all of my knowledge about this matter.
4. Based on my training and experience and the facts as set forth in this affidavit, there is
probable cause to believe that the Target Accounts contain communications relevant to
violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (aiding and abetting), 18 U.S.C. § 3 (accessory after the
fact), 18
U.S.C. § 4 (misprision of a felony), 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy), 18 U.S.C. §
1001 (making a
false statement); 18 U.S.C. §1651 (pe1jury); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (unauthodzed access
of a protected computer); 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud), 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (attempt
and conspiracy to commit wire fraud), , and 52 U.S.C. § 30121 (foreign contribution ban)
(the "Subject
Offenses"). 1
5. As set forth below, in May 2016, Jerome CORSI provided contact information for
that there was an "OCTOBER SURPRISE COMING" and that Trump, ''[i]s going to be defeated unless
we intervene. We have critical intel." In that same time period, STONE communicated directly
via Twitter with WikiLeaks, Julian ASSANGE, and Guccifer 2.0. On July 25, 2016, STONE emailed
instructions to Jerome CORSI to "Get to Assange" in person at the Ecuadorian Embassy and "get
pending WikiLeaks emails[.]" On August 2, 2016, CORSI emailed STONE back that,"Word is friend
in embassy plans 2 more dumps. One shortly after I1m back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be
very damaging." On August 20, 2016, CORSI told STONE that they
needed to meet o determine "what if anything Israel plans to do in Oct."
1 Federal law prohibits a foreign national from making, directly or indirectly, an
expenditure or independent expenditure in connection with federal elections. 52 U.S.C. §
3012l(a)(l)(C); see also id. § 30101(9) & (17) (defining the terms "expenditure" and
"independent expenditure").
(the Target Account) is le Account, which
sed to communicate with STONE and CORSI.
JURISDICTION
6. This Court has jurisdiction to issue the requested warrant because it is "a court of
competent jurisdiction" as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2711. Id. §§ 2703(a),
(b)(l)(A), & (c)(l)(A). Specifically, the Court is "a district court of the United State
(including a magistrate judge of such a court) ... that has jurisqiction over the offense being
investigated." 18 U.S.C.
§ 2711(3)(A)(i). The offense conduct included activities in Washington, D.C., as detailed
below, including in paragraph 8.
PROBABLE CAUSE
A. U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) Assessment of Russian Government Backed Hacking
Activity during the 2016 Presidential Election
7. On October 7, 2016, the U.S. Depa1tment of Homeland Security and the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence released a joint statement of an intelligence assessment of
Russian activities and intentions during the 2016 presidential election. In the report, the
USIC assessed the following, with emphasis added:
8. The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the
recent compromises of e mails frorri US persons and institutions, including from US political
organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and
WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and
motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures
Laura Rozen
@lrozen
Profile picture https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1255347751153434624.html
Apr 29th 2020, 5 tweets, 2 min read
Stone arranged for meeting, but said in later email that a "fiasco" ensued after the
associate brought a foreign military officer along
Unroll available on Thread Reader
On Aug.20, 2016, CORSI told STONE they
needed to meet w/[ ] to determine "what if anything Israel plans to do in
Oct"courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
huh courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
(One PM in Rome on June 27 2016 was Netanyahu) mfa.gov.il/MFA/PressRoom/
"... What is often forgotten is that at the same time, the Soviet society was oppressive, the corrupt and geriatric CPSU ran everything and was mostly hated, the Russian people were afraid of the KGB and could not enjoy the freedoms folks in the US or Europe had. In truth, it was a mixed bag, but it is easy to remember only the good stuff. ..."
"... The core of this opposition is formed of Communists and Communist sympathizers who absolutely hate Putin for his (quite outspoken) anti-Communism. Let's call them "new Communists" or "Neo-Communists". And here is what makes them much more dangerous than the "liberal" opposition: the Neo-Communists are often absolutely right. ..."
"... Under Putin the Russian foreign policy has been such a success that even the Russian liberals, very reluctantly, admit that he did a pretty good job. However, the internal, many financial, policies of Russia have been a disaster. Just one example, the fact that the major Russian banks are bloated with their immense revenues, did not prevent millions of Russians from living in poverty and many hundreds of thousands of Russian small/family businesses of going under due to the very high interest rates. ..."
"... First, Russia has been in a state of war against the US+EU+NATO since at least 2015. Yes, this war is 80% informational, 15% economic and only 5% kinetic. But it is a very real war nonetheless. ..."
"... The Neo-Communist Russian opposition steadfastly pretends like there is no war, like all the losses (economic and human) are only the result of corruption and incompetence. They forget that during the last war between Russia and the "United West" German tanks were at the outskirts of Moscow. ..."
"... if Putin decided to follow the advice of, say, Glaziev and his supporters, the Russian bankers would react with a "total war" against Putin. ..."
"... If you study Russian history, you will soon realize that Russia did superbly with military enemies, did very averagely with diplomatic efforts (which often negated military victories) and did terribly with what we could call the "internal opposition". ..."
"... I have always, and still do, consider that the real danger for Putin and those who share his views is the internal, often "insider", opposition in Russia. They were always the ones to present the biggest threat to any Russian ruler, from the Czars to Stalin. ..."
"... This new Neo-Communist 6th column is, however, a much more dangerous threat to the future of Russia than the pro-western 5th columnists. Some of their tactics are extremely devious. For example, one of the things you hear most often from these folks is this: "unless Putin does X, Y or Z, there is a risk of a bloody revolution". ..."
"... "Too often in our history we have seen that instead of an opposition to the government we are confronted with an opposition to Russia herself. And we know how this ends: with the destruction of the state as such". ..."
"... Now, if you think as a true patriot of Russia, you have to realize that Russia suffered from not one, but two, truly horrible revolutions: in 1917 and 1991. In each case the consequences of these revolutions (irrespective of how justified they might have appeared at the time) were absolutely horrible: both in 1917 and in 1991 Russia almost completely vanished as a country, and millions suffered terribly. I now hold is as axiomatic that nothing would be worse for Russia than *any* revolution, no matter what ideology feeds it or how bad the "regime in power" might appear to be. ..."
"... These Neo-Communists would very much disagree with me. They "warn" about a revolution, while in reality trying to create the conditions for one. ..."
"... There is a very vocal internal opposition to Putin in Russia which is most unlikely to ever get real popular support, but which could possibly unite enough of the nostalgics of the Soviet era to create a real crisis. This internal opposition clearly and objectively weakens the authority/reputation of Putin, which has been main goal of the western "alphabet soup" ever since Putin came to power. ..."
"... This internal opposition, being mostly nostalgics of the Soviet era, will get no official support from the West, but it will enjoy a maximal covert support from the western "alphabet soup". ..."
"... Finally, this Neo-Communist opposition will never seize power, but it might create a very real internal political crisis which will very much weaken Putin and the Eurasian Sovereignists. ..."
"... The bottom line is this: Putin represents something very unique and very precious: he is a true Russian patriot, but he is not one nostalgic for the days of the Soviet Union. Right now, he is the only (or one of very few) Russian politician which can claim this quality. He needs to preempt the crisis which the Neo-Communists could trigger not by silencing them, but by realizing that on some issues the Russian people do, in fact, agree with them (even if they are not willing to call for a revolution). ..."
"... That poll showing Putin on top of everybody else, tells me that he is the Single-Point-Failure. If he croaks, so does Russia. Very much like Jesus, or Nicholas the II, or Gorbachov, before him -- all obrazovanshchiki, educated past the point of their intelligence level ..."
For those of us who followed the Russian Internet there is a highly visible phenomenon
taking place which is quite startling: there are a lot of anti-Putin videos posted on YouTube
or its Russian equivalents. Not only that, but a flurry of channels has recently appeared which
seem to have made bashing Putin or Mishustin their full-time job. Of course, there have always
been anti-Putin and anti-Medvedev videos in the past, but what makes this new wave so different
from the old one is that they attack Putin and Mishustin not from pro-Western positions, but
from putatively Russian patriotic positions. Even the supposed (not true) "personal advisor" to
Putin and national-Bolshevik (true), Alexander Dugin has joined that movement (see
here if you understand
Russian).
This is a new, interesting and complex phenomenon, and I will try to unpack it here.
First, we have to remember that Putin was extremely successful at destroying the pro-Western
opposition which, while shown on a daily basis on Russian TV, represents something in the 3-5%
of the people at most. You might ask why they are so frequent on TV, and the reason is simple:
the more they talk, the more they are hated.
So far from silencing the opposition, the Kremlin not only gives it air time, it even pays
opposition figures top dollars to participate in the most popular talk shows. See here and
here for
more details
Truly, the reputation of the pro-Western "liberal" (in the Russian sense) opposition is now
roadkill in Russia. Yes, there is a core of Russophobic Russians who hate Russia with a passion
(they refer to it as "Rashka") and their hatred for everything Russian is so obvious that they
are universally despised all over the country (the one big exception being Moscow where there
is a much stronger "liberal" opposition which gets the support of all those who had a great
time pillaging Russia in the 1990s and who now hate Putin for putting an end to their
malfeasance).
As for the Duma opposition, it is an opposition only in name. They make noises, they bitch
here and there, they condemn this or that, but at the end of the day, they will not represent a
credible opposition at all.
The chart is in Russian, but it is also extremely simple to understand. On the Y axis, you
see the percentage of people who "totally trust" and "mostly trust" the six politicians, in
order: Putin, Mishustin, Zhirinovskii, Ziuganov, Mironov and Medvedev. The the X axis you see
the time frame going from July 2019 to April 2020.
The only thing which really matters is this: in spite all the objective and subjective
problems of Russia, in spite of a widely unpopular pension reform, in spite of all the western
sanctions and in spite of the pandemic, Putin still sits alone in a rock-solid position: he has
the overwhelming support of the Russian people. This single cause pretty much explains
everything else I will be talking about today.
As most of you probably remember, there were already several waves of anti-Putin PSYOPS in
the past, but they all failed for very simple reasons:
Most Russians remember the horrors of
the 1990s when the pro-Western "liberals" were in power. Second, the Russian people could
observe how the West put bona fide rabidly russophobic Nazis in power in Kiev.
The liberals expressed a great deal of sympathy for the Ukronazi regime. Few Russians doubt
that if the pro-western "liberals" got to power, they would turn Russia into something very
similar to today's Ukraine. Next, the Russians could follow, day after day, how the Ukraine
imploded, went through a bloody civil war, underwent a almost total de-industrialization and
ended up with a real buffoon as President (Zelenskii just appointed, I kid you not, Saakashvili
as Vice Prime Minister of the Ukraine, that is all you need to know to get the full measure of
what kind of clueless imbecile Zelenskii is!). Not only do the liberals blame Russia for what
happened to this poor country, they openly support Zelenskii. Most (all?) of the pro-western
"NGO" (I put that in quotation marks, because these putatively non-governmental organization
were entirely financed by western governments, mostly US and UK) were legally forced to reveal
their sources of financing and most of them got listed as "foreign agents". Others were simply
kicked out of Russia. Thus, it became impossible for the AngloZionists to trigger what appeared
to be "mass protests" under these condition. There is a solid "anti-Maidan" movement in Russia
(including in Moscow!) which is ready to "pounce" (politically) in case of any Maidan-like
movement in Russia. I strongly suspect that the FSB has a warm if unofficial collaboration with
them. The Russian internal security services (FSB, FSO, National Guard, etc.) saw a major
revival under Putin and they are now not only more powerful than in the past, but also much
better organized to deal with subversion. As for the armed forces are solidly behind Putin and
Shoigu. While in the 1990s Russia was basically defenseless, Russia today is a very tough nut
to crack for western subversion/PSYOP operations. Last, but not least, the Russian liberals are
so obviously from the class Alexander Solzhenitsyn referred to as " obrazovanshchina ", a word hard to
translate but which roughly means "pretend [to be] educated": these folks have always
considered themselves very superior to the vast majority of the Russian people and they simply
cannot hide their contempt for the "common man" (very similar to Hillary's "deporables"). The
common man fully realizes that and, quite logically, profoundly distrusts and even hates
"liberals".
There came a moment when the western curators of the Russian 5th column realized that
calling Putin names in the western press, or publicly accusing him of being a "bloody despot"
and a "KGB killer" might work with the gullible and brainwashed western audience, but it got
absolutely no traction whatsoever in Russia.
And then, somebody, somewhere (I don't know who, or where) came up with an truly brilliant
idea: accusing Putin of not being a patriot and declare that he is a puppet in the hands of the
AngloZionist Empire. This was nothing short of brilliant, I have to admit that.
First, they tried to sell the idea that Putin was about to "sell out" (or "trade")
Novorussia. One theory was that Russia would stand by and let the Ukronazis invade Novorussia.
Another one was that the US and Russia would make a secret deal and "give" Syria to Putin, if
he "gave" Novorussia to the Empire. Alternatively, there was the version that Russia would
"give" Syria to Trump and he would "give" Novorussia to Putin. The actual narrative does not
matter. What matters, A LOT, is that Putin was not presented as the "new Hitler" who would
invade Poland and the Baltics, who would poison the Skripals, who would hack DNC servers and
"put Trump into power". These plain stupid fairy tales had not credibility in Russia. But Putin
"selling out" Novorussia was much more credible, especially after it was clear that Russia did
not allow the DNR/LNR forces to seize Mariupol.
I remain convinced that this was the correct decision. Why? Because had the DNR/LNR forces
entered Mariupol their critical supply lines would have been cut off by an envelopment maneuver
by the Ukrainian forces. Yes, the DNR/LNR forces did have the power needed to take Mariupol,
but then they would end up surrounded by Ukronazi forces in a "cauldron/siege" kind of
situation which would then have forced Russia to openly intervene to either support these
forces. That was a no brainer in military terms, but in political terms this would have been a
disaster for Russia and a dream come true to the AngloZionists who could (finally!) "prove"
that Russia was involved all along. The folks in the Russian General Staff are clearly much
smarter than the couch-generals which were accusing Russia of treason for now letting Mariupol
be liberated.
Eventually, both the "sellout Syria" and the "sellout Novorussia" narratives lost their
traction and the PSYOPS specialists in the West tried another good one: Putin became the
obedient servant of Israel and, personally, Netanyahu. The arguments were very similar: Putin
did not allow Syrians (or Russians) to shoot down Israeli aircraft over the Mediterranean or
Lebanon, Putin did not use the famous S-400 to protect Syrian targets from Israeli strikes, and
Putin did not land an airborne division in Syria to deal with the Takfiris. And nevermind here
the fact that the officially declared Russian objectives in Syria were only to " stabilize the
legitimate authority and create conditions for a political compromise " (see here for
details). The simple truth is that Putin never said that he would liberate each square meter of
Syrian land from the Takfiris nor did he promise to defend Syria against Israel!
Still, for a while the Internet was inundated with articles claiming that Putin and
Netanyahu were closely coordinating their every step and that Putin was Israel's chum.
Eventually, this canard also lost a lot of credibility. After all, most folks are smart
enough to realize that if Putin wanted to help Israel, all he had to do is well exactly
*nothing*: the Takfiris would take Damascus and it would be "game over" for a civilized Syria
and the Israelis would have a perfect pretext to intervene.
As I have already mentioned in
a past article , these were the original Israeli goals for Syria:
Bring down a
strong secular Arab state along with its political structure, armed forces and security
services. Create total chaos and horror in Syria justifying the creation of a "security zone"
by Israel not only in the Golan, but further north. Trigger a civil war in Lebanon by
unleashing the Takfiri crazies against Hezbollah. Let the Takfiris and Hezbollah bleed each
other to death, then create a "security zone", but this time in Lebanon. Prevent the creation
of a Shia axis Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon. Breakup Syria along ethnic and religious lines. Create
a Kurdistan which could then be used against Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. Make it possible for
Israel to become the uncontested power broker in the Middle-East and forces the KSA, Qatar,
Oman, Kuwait and all others to have to go to Israel for any gas or oil pipeline project.
Gradually isolate, threaten, subvert and eventually attack Iran with a wide regional coalition
of forces. Eliminate all center of Shia power in the Middle-East.
It is quite easy nowadays to prove the two following theses: 1) Israel dismally failed to
achieve ANY of the above set goals and 2) the Russian intervention is the one single most
important factor which prevented Israel from achieving these goals (the 2nd most important one
was the heroic support given by Iran and Hezbollah who, quite literally, "saved the day",
especially during the early phases of the Russian intervention. Only an ignorant or dishonest
person could seriously claim that Russia and Israel are working together when Russia, in
reality, completely defeated Israel in Syria.
Still, while the first PSYOP (Putin the new Hitler) failed, and while the second PSYOP
(Putin the sellout) also failed, the PSYOP specialists in the West came up with a much more
potentially dangerous and effective PSYOP operation.
But first, they did something truly brilliant: they realized that their best allies in
Russia would not be the (frankly, clueless) "liberals" but that they would find a much more
powerful "ally" in those nostalgic of the Soviet Union. This I have to explain in some
detail.
First, there is one thing human psychology which I have observed all my life: we tend to
remember the good and forget the bad. Today, most of what I remember from boot-camp (and even
"survival week") sounds like fun times. The truth is that while in boot camp I hated almost
every day. In a similar way, a lot of Russian have developed a kind of nostalgia for the Soviet
era. I can understand that. After all, during the 50s the USSR achieved a truly miraculous
rebirth, then in the 60s and 70s there were a lot of true triumphs. Finally, even in the hated
80s the USSR did achieve absolutely spectacular things (in science, technology, etc.). This is
all true. What is often forgotten is that at the same time, the Soviet society was
oppressive, the corrupt and geriatric CPSU ran everything and was mostly hated, the Russian
people were afraid of the KGB and could not enjoy the freedoms folks in the US or Europe had.
In truth, it was a mixed bag, but it is easy to remember only the good stuff.
Furthermore, a lot of folks who had high positions during the Soviet era did lose it all.
And now that Russia is objectively undergoing various difficult trials, these folks have
"smelled blood" and they clearly hope that by some miracle Putin will be overthrown. He won't,
if only for the following very basic reasons:
The kind of state apparatus which protects
Putin today can easily deal with this new, pseudo (I will explain below why I say "pseudo")
patriotic opposition. In the ranks of this opposition there is absolutely no credible leader
(remember the chart above!) This opposition mostly complains, but offers no real solutions.
The core of this opposition is formed of Communists and Communist sympathizers who
absolutely hate Putin for his (quite outspoken) anti-Communism. Let's call them "new
Communists" or "Neo-Communists". And here is what makes them much more dangerous than the
"liberal" opposition: the Neo-Communists are often absolutely right.
The (in my opinion) sad reality is that, for all his immense qualities, Putin is indeed a
liberal, at least an economic sense. This manifests itself in two very different ways:
Putin
has still not removed all of the 5th columnists (aka "Atlantic Integrationists" aka "Washington
consensus" types) from power. Yes, he did ditch Medvedev, but others (Nabiulina, Siluanov,
etc.) are still there. Putin inherited a very bad system where almost all they key actors were
5th columnists. Not just a few (in)famous individuals, but an entire CLASS (in a Marxist sense
of the term) of people who hate anything "social" and who support "liberal" ideas just so they
can fill their pockets.
Here is the paradox: the USSR died in 1991-1993, Putin is an anti-Communist, but there STILL
is a (Soviet-style) Nomenklatura in Russia, except for now
they are often referred to as "oligarchs" (which is incorrect because, say, the Ukrainian
oligarch truly decide the fate of the nation whereas this new Russian Nomenklatura
does not decide the fate of Russia as a whole, but they have a major influence in the financial
sector, which is what they care mostly about).
So we have something of a, maybe not quite "perfect", but still very dangerous storm looming
over Russia. How? Consider this:
Under Putin the Russian foreign policy has been such a success that even the Russian
liberals, very reluctantly, admit that he did a pretty good job. However, the internal, many
financial, policies of Russia have been a disaster. Just one example, the fact that the major
Russian banks are bloated with their immense revenues, did not prevent millions of Russians
from living in poverty and many hundreds of thousands of Russian small/family businesses of
going under due to the very high interest rates.
One key problem in Russia is that both the Central Bank and the major commercial banks only
care about their profits. What Russia truly needs is a state-owed DEVELOPMENT bank whose goal
would not be millions and billions for the few, but making it possible for the creativity of
the Russian people to truly blossom. Today, we see the exact opposite in Russia.
So what is my beef with this social ( if not quite "Socialist") opposition?
They are so focused on their narrow complaints that they completely miss the big picture.
Let me explain.
First, Russia has been in a state of war against the US+EU+NATO since at least 2015.
Yes, this war is 80% informational, 15% economic and only 5% kinetic. But it is a very real war
nonetheless. The key characteristic of a real war is that victory is only achieved by one
side, the other is fully defeated. Which means that the war between the AngloZionist Empire is
an existential one: one party will win and survive, the other one will disappear and will be
replaced with a qualitatively new polity/society. The Neo-Communist Russian opposition
steadfastly pretends like there is no war, like all the losses (economic and human) are only
the result of corruption and incompetence. They forget that during the last war between Russia
and the "United West" German tanks were at the outskirts of Moscow.
Well, of course they know that. But they pretend not to. And this is why I think of them as
the 6th column (as opposed to the 5th, openly "liberal" and pro-Western one).
Second, while this opposition is, in my opinion, absolutely correct in deploring Putin's
apparent belief that following the advice of what I would call "IMF types" is safer than
following recommendations of what could be loosely called "opposition economists" (here I think
of Glaziev, whose views I personally fully support), they fail to realize the risks involved in
crushing the "IMF types". The sad truth is that Russian banks are very powerful and that in
many ways, the state cannot afford totally alienating them. Right now the banks support Putin
only because he supports them. But if Putin decided to follow the advice of, say, Glaziev
and his supporters, the Russian bankers would react with a "total war" against Putin.
If you study Russian history, you will soon realize that Russia did superbly with
military enemies, did very averagely with diplomatic efforts (which often negated military
victories) and did terribly with what we could call the "internal opposition".
So let me repeat it here: I do not consider NATO or the US as credible military threats to
Russia, unless they decide to use nuclear weapons, at which point both Russia and the West
would suffer terribly. But even in this scenario, Russia would prevail (Russia has a 10-15 year
advantage against the US in both civilian and military nuclear technologies and the Russian
society is far more survivable one -- if this topic is of interest to you, just read Dmitry
Orlov's books who explains it all better than I ever could). I have always, and still do,
consider that the real danger for Putin and those who share his views is the internal, often
"insider", opposition in Russia. They were always the ones to present the biggest threat to any
Russian ruler, from the Czars to Stalin.
This new Neo-Communist 6th column is, however, a much more dangerous threat to the
future of Russia than the pro-western 5th columnists. Some of their tactics are extremely
devious. For example, one of the things you hear most often from these folks is this: "unless
Putin does X, Y or Z, there is a risk of a bloody revolution". Having listened to many
tens of their videos, I can tell you with total security that far from fearing a bloody
revolution, these folks in reality dream of such a revolution.
"Too often in our history
we have seen that instead of an opposition to the government we are confronted with an
opposition to Russia herself. And we know how this ends: with the destruction of the state as
such".
Now, if you think as a true patriot of Russia, you have to realize that Russia suffered
from not one, but two, truly horrible revolutions: in 1917 and 1991. In each case the
consequences of these revolutions (irrespective of how justified they might have appeared at
the time) were absolutely horrible: both in 1917 and in 1991 Russia almost completely vanished
as a country, and millions suffered terribly. I now hold is as axiomatic that nothing would be
worse for Russia than *any* revolution, no matter what ideology feeds it or how bad the "regime
in power" might appear to be.
Putin is acutely aware of that (see image).
These Neo-Communists would very much disagree with me. They "warn" about a revolution,
while in reality trying to create the conditions for one.
Now let me be clear: I am absolutely convinced that NO revolution (Neo-Communist or other)
is possible in Russia. More accurately, while I do believe that an attempt for a revolution
could happen, I believe that any coup/revolution against Putin is bound to fail. Why? The
graphic above.
Even if by some (horrible) miracle, it was possible to defeat/neutralize the combined power
of the FSB+FSO+National Guard+Armed forces (which I find impossible), this "success" would be
limited to Moscow or, at most, the Moscow Oblast. Beyond that it is all "Putin territory". In
terms of firepower, the Moscow Oblast has a lot of first-rate units, but it does not even come
close to what the "rest of Russia" could engage (just the 58th Army in the south would be
unstoppable). But even that is not truly crucial. The truly crucial thing following any
coup/revolution would be the 70%+ of Russian people who, for the first time in centuries, truly
believe that Putin stands for their interest and that he is "their man". These people will
never accept any illegal attempt to remove Putin from power. That is the key reason why no
successful revolution is currently possible in Russia.
But while any revolution/coup would be bound to fail, it could very much result in a
bloodbath way bigger than what happened in 1993 (where the military was mostly not engaged in
the events).
Now lets add it all up.
There is a very vocal internal opposition to Putin in Russia which is most unlikely to
ever get real popular support, but which could possibly unite enough of the nostalgics of the
Soviet era to create a real crisis. This internal opposition clearly and objectively weakens
the authority/reputation of Putin, which has been main goal of the western "alphabet soup" ever
since Putin came to power.
This internal opposition, being mostly nostalgics of the Soviet era, will get no
official support from the West, but it will enjoy a maximal covert support from the western
"alphabet soup".
Finally, this Neo-Communist opposition will never seize power, but it might create a
very real internal political crisis which will very much weaken Putin and the Eurasian
Sovereignists.
So what is the solution?
Putin needs to preempt any civil unrest. Removing Medvedev and replacing him by Mishustin
was the correct move, but it was also too little too late. Frankly, I believe that it is high
time for Putin to finally openly break with the "Washington consensus types" and listen to
Glaziev who, at least, is no Communist.
Russia has always been a collectivistic society, and she needs to stop apologizing (even
just mentally) for this. Instead, she should openly and fully embrace her collectivistic
culture and traditions and show the "Washington consensus" types to the door.
Yes, the Moscow elites will be furious, but it is also high time to tell these folks that
they don't own Russia, and that while they could make a killing prostituting themselves to the
Empire, most Russian don't want to do that.
The bottom line is this: Putin represents something very unique and very precious: he is
a true Russian patriot, but he is not one nostalgic for the days of the Soviet Union. Right
now, he is the only (or one of very few) Russian politician which can claim this quality. He
needs to preempt the crisis which the Neo-Communists could trigger not by silencing them, but
by realizing that on some issues the Russian people do, in fact, agree with them (even if they
are not willing to call for a revolution).
Does that sound complicated or even convoluted? If it does, it is because it is. But for all
the nuances we can discern a bottom line: it is not worth prevailing (or even failing) if that
weakens/threatens Russia. Right now, the Neo-Communist opposition is, objectively, a threat to
the stability and prosperity of Russia. That does NOT, however, mean that these folks are
always wrong. They often are spot on, 100% correct.
Putin needs to prove them wrong by listening to them and do the right thing.
Difficult? Yes. Doable? Yes. Therefore he has to do it.
Russia needs to be strong for the sake of global civilization, human decency, religious
freedom, etc, not only for her own good. going back to communism and Godlessness should be
unthinkable. nor should we sell our souls for 30 kopeks of silver to become the dumping
ground for western filth and surplus.
Russia has the unique position, the space and resources, an intelligent population, Orthodox
tradition to show mankind that a decent, safe, compassionate, sound existence is
possible.
although great leaders are a gift from Above, the state also should make every effort to
identify and prepare Putin's successor while strengthening the institutions so that the
people will perceive them as their own and will not be tempted to support revolutionary
radicals again.
First of all, Russian electorate have much better sources and the grasp of the international
political scene than the American media's self-centered pseudo-trues.
Putin's obvious pros:
-Reclaimed Russian crucial energy industry from the pillaging by
Yeltsin oligarchs. Now babysat by the UK and Israel. -Russian voters' motto: "We vote for a
leader that is most criticized and slandered by our enemies and adversaries. Vote almost
never for their selected puppet a la Kasparov." -Putin's brilliant move to reclaimed Crimea
-- administratively attached to Ukraine in 1954 by a communist dictate after being centuries
part of Russia -- by a democratic mean. -Western sanctions are viewed by the Russian
electorate as a declaration of the "enemy status". Furthermore, they are also viewed as a
sinister attempt to slow down the Russian economic progress. -NATO backstabbing expansion to
Russian border. Continuation of Western military encircling Russia -- US military in Poland.
-Opposing Western clumsy interference in Ukraine or in Georgia. Liberating S. Ossetia from
the Georgia's lunatic who is now Ukraine deputy prime minister.
I have always seen Putin as a late, reluctant, and often only partially effective reacter to
a crisis, never someone who proactively acts to defuse one before it gets bad. I will repeat
what I've said many, many times: in 2014 Putin could have sent two battalions of Spetsnaz
into Kiev, routed the Ukranazi coup regime, reinstated Yanukovych, and withdrawn with the
warning that if there was ever again any attempt to stage another Maidan Russian troops would
be back and this time to stay. Instead he got Russia blamed for an invasion he should have
but did not carry out, and consequently sanctions that are still in effect to this day, not
to speak of a NATO proxy thrust against the Russian heartland. (That Russia needed the
sanctions and that they were good for Russia is another thing entirely; it isn't as though
Putin planned them to turn out like that.)
In Syria in 2015 Putin waited until the government was in desperate straits -- similar to
the final stages of the Libyan government forces' collapse in 2011 as Obama's terrorists
advanced on Tripoli -- before sending in small commando detachments and the air force. And
even then the failure to defend Syria, an ally of Russia, which has given Russia bases,
against zionazi bombing is inexcusable. For one thing it cost Russia a valuable
reconnaissance plane with priceless trained crew, after which Putin first rushed to absolve
Nazinyahu of blame before even calling the crew's families. For another the refusal to use
the S 400 merely gives the Amerikastanis an excuse to portray the S 400s as hyped,
ineffective weapons Russia does not dare to actually use. How is showing Putin's obvious
affinity to the zionazi pseudostate "anti Russian" in any way? It's the absolute and obvious
truth, from Putin's own record.
This is also why Putin will do nothing about the capitalist leeches still sucking Russia
dry (many of whom are zionazi citizens); he will have to be forced into it and then will try
to get away with cosmetic measures, leaving as much undone as he possibly can. That he has
not already eliminated the oligarchy is proof enough of that. No amount of Saker excuses is
enough to hide the fact; what could the banks do to harm Putin, given the popularity the
Saker keeps touting? You'll see that the Saker is very careful not to say anything about what
they could, he just says that they could. You'd almost think he just made it up.
I agree about the Moscow "liberals"; I met a few of them and they're always smartly
dressed, fluent in English -- with an inevitable American accent -- and they hate Russia more
than anything. I recall meeting a couple in this town in late 2014 or early 2015. I remember
saying that I support Russia's help to the Donbass freedom fighters. The woman's eyes went
round. "But why? This is a great burden for Russia, none of our business, we should never
have got involved " There is an excellent argument for shifting the capital from Moscow back
to St Petersburg, or, if that's too strategically vulnerable, to Volgograd or some other city
in the Russian interior.
By the way, as one of the "neo communists", as the Saker dismissively calls us -- in an
obvious effort to conflate us with the neo-nazis -- let me ask a question: let's suppose
everything the Saker says is correct. Well, then, is Putin immortal? No? So what happens when
he dies or retires? Who will take over? Will the "pro-Putin population" switch its loyalty to
a replacement from Putin's party, given that most of them are so despised that United Russia
keeps losing local elections from Moscow to Vladivostok? If not, what happens but either a
total change of course or .a bloody revolution?
I can certainly say that there are people in United Russia who quite openly work for the West
and push for western liberal projects in Russia, as well as attack patriotic forces.
What kind of joke is that to have people like this in the so called ruling party and in
various Duma comitees? Why is this even allowed? Why are they still there?
Russia needs a depositor credit union type local banking system. Only the local depositors
would own the bank. The bank's functioning management would be controlled by the
owners/depositors. One depositor -- one vote.
These banks would make loans only to local businesses and homeowners. They would have
nothing to do with Moscow. They would build honesty and stability.
That poll showing Putin on top of everybody else, tells me that he is the
Single-Point-Failure. If he croaks, so does Russia. Very much like Jesus, or Nicholas the II,
or Gorbachov, before him -- all obrazovanshchiki, educated past the point of their
intelligence level . The jerk already swallowed the virus-thing, hook and sinker. He's
gonna be reeled-in in no time.
As a citizen of one of the top ten nations on our Earth (US) -- I believe that Putin is the
savviest, most stable conscientious foreign policy leader of the lot.
He handled both the Ukraine and Syria without getting into all out wars. Both a
considerable achievement, considering Jews played major antagonistic roles in both
confrontations.
@Fiendly
Neighbourhood Terrorist He should have annexed East Ukraine with 12 mil Russians and its
historical Russian cities. When McCain and Biden's puppets were installed in Kiev they banned
the Russian language -- that was the right time to act and killings would have been avoided.
Russia and China deeply underestimate the extent and determination of the US and toadies to
have in place well funded campaigns to blacken those countries names, reputations and
standing. It's awful listening to Chinese or Russian officials making ritual formal protests.
And then doing nothing. Letting their country be undermined and infiltrated, allowing the
minds of the public elsewhere be poisoned. This is how the Colour Revolutions get their
traction.
It's the continual, weak, feeble and inept lack of action by Russia and China against the
western engines of smear. And this state of affairs seriously disheartens their allies and
supporters. Please stop being too reasonable, find your backbone and righteousness and FIGHT!
For Pete's sake.
@Passer
by Sad to say that Putin should have done more internally.
Saker 's point about a national bank is telling. Russia's Central Bank should have it's
neoliberals attrited. Russia's Anglo-zionists should have also been quietly & invisibly
defanged & sent into "outer-space". More actions against NGO's need to also be taken.
A nation in Russia's precarious position re: the West, can afford only so much internal
treachery .
This is not to suggest any of this would be easy. However, Putin has had & still has
considerable popular support -- political Capital capable of being used to take risky but
"right" reforms.
I'm an American living in Moscow for the last 5 years. I've also had the special privilege to
earn a masters degree in politics and economics at the Ministry of Foreign Affair's
university, MGIMO. I can say, as someone who has viewed this situation here from virtually
every angle possible as a foreigner; "Putin" has done nothing good for Russia domestically
that has not been an unplanned side effect of sanctions. And don't get me wrong, the
sanctions were the best thing that could have happened here. But all the official pro-Russia
grandstanding on the international stage aside, there are endless news stories of Russia
lobbying for readmission to the club, pleading with the US to cooperate and a return to the
status-quo. The people who make the policy here and run the institutions are all holdovers
from the 90's. Their overarching concern is that Russia -- ie the elites themselves -- are
"treated with respect" by the Western plutocracy.
But what has changed here since 2014? An explosion in traffic cameras and fines, more
restrictions (prescriptions and bans) on medicines, inflation, reforms (attacks) in pensions
and healthcare, skyrocketing housing costs and an simmering education crisis from preschool
to university where money increasingly buys limited space over need or merit. Now like a
rotten cherry on top, there is this quarantine which seems arbitrary except when you realize
the whole police force has been turned against the citizens to check QR code passes. Who is
deemed essential is also arbitrary and favors the government while bankrupting everyone else.
Gasterbyters, the backbone of the economy, are literally destitute. Russians also dislike
seeing the government luxuriously spend resources in the form of political-point scoring
coronavirus aid to the US and Italy, and then abruptly flip-flopping on the severity of the
pandemic at home. On tv its is Corona Vision 24/7 here, while families with small children
are forced out of work and cramped into tiny apartments in ugly neighborhoods, forbidden to
walk more than 10 meters from their door, their money and sanity running out. Russians who
are able, flout the quarantine at every opportunity, more concerned about being harassed by
police than getting sick.
There is a lot more I could say, but I will leave it at on this note; This new wave of
disillusionment is not coming from the West. The West has virtually no direct influence here
anymore. This is all homegrown.
Although I have admired President Putin for many years now, I have never agreed with his
economic policies. It was sad to read that he fired S. Glazyev as an adviser. When will
President Putin see that following western style economic policies is a tragedy waiting to
happen for Russia. As is happening now to most of the western countries, especially the US
and EU.
@Fiendly
Neighbourhood Terrorist Its a great mystery to me why Putin released Mikhail
Khodorkovsky. Maybe there was a good reason. No clue, it just seems odd especially when you
realize this freed oligarch was the power behind Browder's Magnitzky Act.
'Remembering only the good and forgetting the bad' is what every bad ruler, every bad
culture, demands of those it misleads.
The Anglo-Zionist Empire has been the master of that con game for its entire existence,
back to the start of English Reformation. Bolsheviks were clumsy brutes compared to
Anglo-Zionists even in their early days when they lacked sophistication and finesse.
Apr 19, 2020 US corporate takeover -- Biden 2020 Today, the U.S is living through a power
grab by lobbyists and moneyed interests in government -- the way Russia did after the Soviet
collapse of the 1990s.
Apr 2, 2020 Putin reveals KEY to political success: the poor man
Which is the bigger political influence on President Putin? Multinational corporations,
filthy rich oligarchs or financial institutions? He asserts -- it is the sentiment of 'the
common man' that is responsible for his popularity and long-standing political career.
Mar 12, 2020 Putin: The US Made A Colony Out Of Ukraine But They Want It Sustained By
Russian Money!
The 20 Questions with Vladimir Putin project is an interview with the President of Russia
on the most topical subjects of social and political life in Russia and the world.
I am afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you Saker on this issue. I just can't see how
a communist can be a traitor to their country. Some of the biggest patriots ever produced in
history have been communists. Not just in Russia, but in other countries like North Korea,
Vietnam, Cuba, China. They are willing to do anything for their country. Same thing with
modern communists, I don't see them betraying their country for personal gain.
My theory is like this: Patriotism is different in Capitalist countries (or as they like
to call themselves democracies) than in Communist countries. First of all, Capitalism has 2
types of elites -- real ones and political elites -- who are nothing more than domestic
servants, in other words nobodies. Communism usually has only one type of elites --
political. They are the only game in town.
I know that they ascribed terms such as cult of personalities to Communist leaders, but
the real megalomaniacs and narcissists can really be found among the 2 types of capitalist
elites. Those are the one that are really in love with themselves.
So how does patriotism work in communism vs. capitalism? Well, for one thing, patriotism
means love for one's country. As we all know, a country is a collection of dead rocks,
(hopefully) some arable land, few mountains and so on. Basically a country usually needs a
spokesperson. That's where the elites come in. They are the spokespersons for the needs of
the country.
I believe that communist elites are more honest spokespersons than capitalist ones. Why?
Well for one thing all communist elites were usually 1st generation elites, meaning they were
new on the job and they didn't have the span of few generations time to degenerate like the
capitalist elites. Communist elites for the most could still remember the time when they were
not elites but very ordinary people -- except maybe now the Kim dynasty in North Korea which
is in its 3rd generation of dynastic cycle.
But still, the flow of patriotism is very similar in both "communist" and capitalist
countries. Patriotism flows from the poor dumbos to the rich and powerful elites -- whether
they are political or economic elites. Patriotism whose intended recipient is the fatherland
always gets intercepted by the elites and then processed.
Basically, what that means is that when an ordinary person expresses love and affection
for their country -- it's usually ends up being manifested as love and affection for their
elites.
Remember, a country is just a pile of rocks and some other geological features, -- doesn't
know how to process affection from patriots. But the elites do, and they are the usual
beneficiaries of patriotism.
If love for your country is always a love for the elites, why do the stupid always fall
for the same trick? Well, I guess there are not too many options left, one of them being a
traitor. Still, I believe that communist elites were more honest brokers and managers of
patriotic love, because the managed to pass more of the patriotism to its intended target --
the homeland, than it was ever case with capitalist elites.
Sure, Stalin had few dachas and property that he would have been hard-pressed to explain
how he earned, but it was nothing compared to the spoils from patriotism that elites in
capitalism receive as a payout for being spokespersons for the needs of their countries.
I just don't see a communist doing something with personal benefit in mind first, and
putting the well-being of their country as a second consideration. It usually doesn't happen,
and hopefully the new generation of communists in Russia will keep up with that
tradition.
@Cyrano
Because he is one of those chronic complainers. We dont want him here because he will change
the words "Russia" and "Moscow" in his comment to "USA and Washington" and just reprint the
comment again. That comrade is all puffed up, no pun intended, with his dialogue.
@jbwilson24
I know what you mean, but you are splitting hairs -- a supremacist is a supremacist is a
supremacist. German supremacist, Anglo-Saxon supremacist, Jewish supremacist -- it all leads
to the same result.
Ukraine is dominated by supremacists. That all of Jewish supremacy, Nationalist Socialist
supremacy (the rank parts of the ideology mind you), ISIS, find themselves working and
cooperating in a historically alien land, shows that supremacists really don't mind working
with each other, before whatever the greater enemy they attack is destroyed.. Kinda like the
prelude to Highlander!
25.12. 2015 NATO: Seeking Russia's Destruction Since 1949
Baker told Gorbachev: "Look, if you remove your [300,000] troops [from east Germany] and
allow unification of Germany in NATO, NATO will not expand one inch to the east."
Saker's blind love for all things Putin, a faith in the man against all facts and logic, has
continually amazed me for years.
Putin is using Syria for Russia's advantage: 1.) a Mediterranean port at Tartus and
airfield at Kheimem; 2.) as a 'live fire' weapons testing and demonstration area, much as
Israel uses Gaza for same. Sales of Russian armaments have soared since entering Syria.
As I recall, Putin has allowed at least two Dunkirk moments, when he had ISIS on the ropes
and then agreed to a cease fire when his generals were furious at not being permitted to
finish the Takfiris off, once and for all. I, too, was furious at the time, predicting they
would simply re-trench, re-arm and continue to terrorize the hapless Syrians, which they did
for years, and may even make a comeback from Iraq (with America and Israel's help, of
course).
Same idiocy was applied, and is still being applied regarding Turkey's open and obvious
arming and supporting the terrorist scum of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in Idlib, as innocent
Syrians continue to suffer therefrom, and we daily read of the brave Syrian fighters' being
killed and maimed by these Al-Qaeda butchers .
He has let Syria's eastern oil fields fall into the hands of the US, and allowed the
Turds, excuse me, the Kurds far too much leeway in the north.
He even allows Israel to bomb Syrian territory with absolute impunity, killing countless
Syrian, Hezbollah and Iranian soldiers in the process, when a few freely operated S-300
batteries would allow the Syrians to smoke the Israeli's missiles with ease, and protect
their homeland from hundreds of brazen attacks by the Jews. Yet he denies the Syrians such
freedom, allowing the Israelis to continue their onslaught unabated.
Why? Why does he ignore the advice of his top generals to wipe out ISIS when the
opportunities arose years ago, and allow Israel to continually attack with high-precision
missiles Syrian/Hezbollah/Iranian fighters, just short of allowing the Jews to directly bomb
Assad and Damascus into the stone age, again, with complete impunity? Certainly, the existing
partition of Syria could have been easily avoided long ago, if he simply followed his
general's advice.
And why did he come out and endorse Netanyahu for PM last year, despite continually saying
Russia does not stick its nose into other countries' political affairs?
But to my mind, any world 'leader' who simply cannot control himself publicly and feels
compelled to forcibly lift a small child's t-shirt and slather the tot's bare stomach with
kisses, right in front of countless on-lookers and the international press, in Russia's most
famous public square, and then declare to the BBC thereafter that, "I wanted to cuddle him
like a kitten ", possibly reveals a great deal about why Putin seems to so frequently kiss
another offensive body part publicly, that being Israel's obnoxious, murderous butt ..
Well despite all the "well wishers" here and against saker's expert advice about what she
should be doing, Russia is still somehow alive and kicking and generally getting to be a
better place to live. Imagine that. While the countries the "well wishers" hail from are not
becoming better places to live and rather than alive and kicking are much better described as
zombiefied and twitching.
"Russia today is a very tough nut to crack for western subversion/PSYOP operations."
Correction, democratic Russia is still a tough nut to crack. But Putin cannot rule
forever, and so long as Russia is a democracy, and when there is no longer a strong and
charismatic leader, it is in considerable danger of subversion by the 'AngloZionists'. You
bet that they are waiting for this, the current situation being a preparation, to keep the
fire burning, but when and if Putin is gone, the Western trojan horses already inside will
unleash their puppets of disruption, and the AngloZionists and their Western puppets outside
will attack it vehemently, like a pack of wolves.
As one Russian joke puts it, lets' have cutlets separately and flies separately.
One thing is Youtube, FB, Wiki, and the rest of globohomo-controlled media. They would
host anything anti-Putin, because Putin is continuously stepping on the most sensitive part
of their anatomy: the wallet. If globohomo hates you, you must have done at least something
good.
The other thing is the feelings of Russians who actually live in the country. They
rightfully feel that oligarchs and the state that often acts as their cover are robbing them.
They clearly see that education is going down from Soviet levels (although it still has a
long way to go to become as dismal as the US education). They see that the best part of
healthcare is the holdover from Soviet times, whereas "progressive" paid medicine is fraud
and extortion. But that's exactly what "healthcare" is in the US, as current epidemic
demonstrated in no uncertain terms. They also see that recent pension "reform" was designed
to rob them yet again. What's more, they are at least 90% right.
So, maybe it's not the "6th column", after all? Maybe Russia is actually acquiring an
opposition worth the name? Patriotic opposition, in contrast to "liberal opposition"
consisting exclusively of traitors? If so, it's good, not bad, for the country. Nobody is
infallible, Putin included.
@Quartermaster
The US invaded Ukraine with Nuland's thugs during the Sochi Olympics
Crimea went back home. It did not want be part of Nulandistan.
Donbass does not want to be a US/Israel colony. This is the reason it revolted.
Notice the recent Ukrainegate nonsense. Why would USIsrael care so much about Ukraine if
Ukraine was really an independent nation? It is not, it is a USIsrael colony --
Nulandistan.
@ComradePuff
First I see you just parachuted into this website with this, your very first post
We usually have a welcoming ceremony for new trolls
We look at the cartoonish drivel they post and quickly point out glaring giveaways
Like 'Gasterbyters' which is not actually a word in any language
Your instructions from your troll room supervisor may have referred to the German word
'gastarbeiter' which means 'guest worker'
This expression is not a proper noun and does not get capitalized
And you're trying to tell us you have earned a master's degree from one of Moscow's most
prestigious universities..?
Yeah no, I don't think so cheeseball
Guest workers are 'crucial' to Russia..?
Again total bunk the only countries where guest workers might be 'essential' is in the
Gulf oil monarchies, where they often outnumber the natives
The US is not going to collapse if the Mexican workers take a beating neither will Germany
nor any industrial country with foreign workers why should Russia..?
And then your main whopper NOBODY in the Putin administration is 'begging' the west for
anything much less to be accepted back in some 'club'
Russia has moved on a long time ago they never cared about being in some sort of 'club' to
begin with international relations isn't junior high, which one would expect a 'graduate' of
international relations to know
All Russia ever cared about was having normal relations friendly if possible, but on equal
footing the entire tone of your fantasy is straight out of the '90s only deluded Washington
hacks still dream that we are living in the '90s
In case you haven't noticed Russia has much bigger fish to fry than to obsess over a
tottering empire
The partnership with China for instance the country with the most money, plus the country
with the most advanced military technology
I'd say it's not actually looking good for Exceptionalistan
@DererGeorgia's lunatic who is now Ukraine deputy prime minister
I think Saakashvili has not made it yet. He is being opposed by a lot of the Jews who
control this "country". Last week, the guy investigating "corruption" was sacked. His
replacement was a Jew. It is just so funny. Like a theater.
Almost all the oligarchs are Jewish -- courtesy of the World Bank and (((Western))) banks.
It is amazing that in a country of allegedly 42 million they cannot find an ethnic Slav to
get the job. I do not use the term Ukrainian as it is not really one country.
Forget the bluster. I suspect they want to bring in Saakashvili because he can bring in
more loans from the IMF. His backers are in the USA.
BTW, the new American ambassador to Ukraine is a retired US Army general. That should give
you some idea as to their line of thinking. However, I suspect that he is too knowledgeable
to want to start a war with Russia.
The departing ambassador is a female from the Ukrainian diaspora in Canada. A Ukrainian
"Nationalist" by descent. Incapable of thinking of the interests of this unfortunate
country.
In the UK, looks like Tom Tugendhat, chair of the foreign affairs committee, is spreading the
China-did-it propaganda, after his comments on the BBC last week. He can file it alongside
his promotion of the White Helmets and the Skripal affair.
Russian diplomats have slammed The New York Times' Pulitzer Prize-winning series articles
about Russia's covert activities abroad as examples of "Russophobia."
The New York Times won the Pulitzer for international
reporting Monday for six investigative articles and two videos that "expos[ed] the predations
of Vladimir Putin's regime" across Africa, the Middle East and Europe. news The Global
Footprints of 'Putin's Chef' Read more Russia's Embassy in the United States accused
the Pulitzer Prize Board of "highlighting anti-Russian materials with statements that have been
repeatedly refuted not only by Russian officials, but also by life itself."
"We consider this series of New York Times articles about Russia a wonderful collection of
undiluted Russophobic fabrications that can be studied as a guide to creating false facts," the
embassy said in a Facebook post.
Meanwhile, in a separate accusation, the editor of independent Russian investigative outlet
Proekt said at least two of The New York Times' Pulitzer-winning investigations repeated its
own previous reporting without citing it.
Congrats to @nytimes on the @PulitzerPrizes for article
series that echoes our „Master and Chef" series, which was written months before NYT.
It's a pity that there's no even a link to The Project's piece in the awarded publication.
https://t.co/MsgwqaMOn0
"[T]he winners did not put a single link to the English version of our article,"
Roman Badanin wrote on Facebook,
singling out its March 14, 2019,
deep dive into Putin-linked businessman Yevgeny Prigozhin's activities in Madagascar. The
New York Times' investigation on the subject was published six months later in November.
"I still don't know what is my attitude to this situation... It's probably nice, but a bit
weird," Badanin wrote in an English-language post. Sign up for our free weekly newsletters
covering News and Business.
The best of The Moscow Times, delivered to your inbox.
This anti-Chinese effort may be destined for internal US (anti-civil war) needs. To make the
US population look in one direction. Obviously the why part is another question - oil, dollar
collapse, lack of food etc? But I want to point out that there has been an uptick in
aggression in other sensitive areas as well.
Todays examples are; An attack east of Aleppo on a Syrian military research centre by
Israeli aircraft. Overflying Jordan and then Iraq.
A second band of mercenary bounty hunters were captured trying to infiltrate venezuela to
kill Maduro (A revolt made by 8 at a time hunters could take several years at that rate.
The presence of four Nato Aegis ships in the Baltic which coincides with the arrival of the
Russian pipelaying ship in Kalingrad.
One thing I was horrified with, during a "quick look at" the FT Story about Putin, was the
level of "Putin did it" hate in the comments section. I had thought that the "Putin did it"
tripe was a thing of the past. I could not have been more wrong.
It is interesting that the rubbish Pompeo says is getting some resistance from the
"intelligence" agencies themselves. It appears that not everyone wants to be forced into
supporting his accusations.
"... When the people who made fake claims about Iraq's WMD, about Russiagate, about Iran's danger, are claiming that the thing isn't manmade, then either it's not manmade or it's US-made and the claim is a lie (what we expect from US intelligence agencies) and a cover-up. ..."
In many Ways, Trump reminds me of a Hitler/Stalin admirer. He demands certain results; if you
don't supply them, at least Trump will just fire you instead of having you shot or sent to
the Gulag -- Evidence of the many IG firings as
this article notes .
The daily lies and bald-faced propaganda is at the point where many are aware but still
all too many remain oblivious or are Brown Shirts in all but outward appearance. Pompeo would
be a perfect example of a clone if Hitler had a PR spokesperson spewing lies daily for the
press & public to digest without any thinking. Imagine Hitler with Twitter.
None of the above is meant to denigrate; rather, it's to put them into proper perspective.
I invite barflies to click here
and just look at the headlines of the posted news items--that site's biggest failing was to
omit similar criticism of Obama, Clinton, and D-Party pukes in general, although that doesn't
render today's headlines false.
Will the coming Great Depression 2.0 be global or confined to NATO nations? As with the
first Great Depression, it will be restricted to being Trans-Atlantic for that's where the
dollar zone and Neoliberalism overlap. The emerging dollar-free Eurasian trade zone
Many of Goering's quotes are very accurate as to human nature. US took in Nazi and
Japanese scientists. It wouldn't have left the propaganda behind. Goering's quote about
taking people to war - nazi's were obviously very good at it as the Germans fought until the
very end. US peasants will likely do the same.
The anti China crap filling the MSM is anglosphere in origin. Five eyes, the anglosphere
intel and propaganda warriors will be in it up to their eyeballs.
When the people who made fake claims about Iraq's WMD, about Russiagate, about Iran's
danger, are claiming that the thing isn't manmade, then either it's not manmade or it's
US-made and the claim is a lie (what we expect from US intelligence agencies) and a
cover-up. That said, odds are on the former, as far as I'm concerned. The absolutely
sure thing is that it's not the Chinese who crafted it.
This is essentially variant of Russiagate with Trump and Pompeo playing the role of Muller
Notable quotes:
"... Any fool in the C19th could have told Trump and his fellow members of the political class what to do: make concessions!underwrite all wages! introduce immediately, free healthcare (abandon the powerful but in the scheme of things tiny Health Insurance industry)! ..."
"... Instead, as everything around them crumbles, they are trying to rally the people (divided into ethnic, social, racial, linguistic and pigmentary factions) into forgetting everything and blaming China. ..."
The script that Trump is following-confident that the Democrats can be counted upon to copy
it- is the one that, his mentor in politics and much else, Roy Cohn developed for the
unlamented Senator McCarthy.
But, and this will be news in Washington, it is not 1950 anymore. The conditions that made
it possible to push the red scare underlying the first Cold War, including rising living
standards and full employment for most of the working class, the rise of the suburbs, the GI
Bill allowing unprecedented social mobility and unchallenged (in reality if not in the
fevered brains on the right) hegemony of the United States, economically, financially,
militarily and culturally- all that has crumbled away.
Trump is trying the 'blame China, fear the reds' strategy because it is all that he can
think of and nobody else within miles of the White House has a clue what to do. Why should
they? None of them has the least interest in public policy, let alone the common welfare, the
political culture in the US is so corrupted by careerism, bribery, revolving doors,
oligarchical diktats and, above all, greed, greed and greed that nobody with any brains
spares a moment's thought on thinking matters through.
The US ruling class is in the position that the French Aristocracy had reached by 1789- it
has no conception that it will not rule forever, only a tiny minority thinks ahead in terms
of dealing with fundamental changes. And there is no understanding of the fragility of their
positions.
Any fool in the C19th could have told Trump and his fellow members of the political class
what to do: make concessions!underwrite all wages! introduce immediately, free healthcare
(abandon the powerful but in the scheme of things tiny Health Insurance industry)!
Instead, as everything around them crumbles, they are trying to rally the people (divided
into ethnic, social, racial, linguistic and pigmentary factions) into forgetting everything
and blaming China.
The first time it was a tragedy, leading to the deaths of millions, most of them in south
east Asia, this time it promises to be something much more amusing.
Yesterday was a rent day and a pay day- fear, frustration, anger and a justified sense of
being tricked again are mounting everywhere. Unless the US government takes a U turn it will
be a very long hot summer.
this was the main goal from the very beginning. I said that was the aim of USA the minute its
fake corporate owned media began to scream about the virus. I said that in The Faker's
site(The Saker). This virus was a God sent, exactly when USA needed to get the world to hate
China, because that was THE ONLY WAY to stop China's rise against the West. Make the world
hate China. This very fact alone proves to me the virus isnt natural but is a bio engineered
bio weapon. The mere coincidence is a proof.
I suppose that once in a while vital documentation (Apollo Moon missions, anyone?) goes
astray, slipping down the back of the couch or misfiled on the wrong shelf in the library
annexe. And occasionally the dog really did eat the homework.
Cretins like Steele openly flout the law, and are let away with it. There must be a law that
directs government personnel – and he was government – to take such steps as are
reasonable to preserve records they know or should know would constitute evidence, whether
condemnatory or exculpatory. Steele had to be well aware there was intense interest in this
material, and it is not difficult to imagine what the western reaction would be if some
pivotal Russian figure deleted all his records and then did the smiling palms-up thing in
court, so sorry, all gone.
It is likewise easy to imagine the information in the records was damning, because nobody
willfully wipes evidence they know will put them in the clear. And he will be allowed to get
away with it without any punishment because the people who would have to punish him are
likely the same people who told him to get rid of it.
Just like Hillary, and her self-appointed deletion of tens of thousands of emails she
deemed 'personal', although they were government property. No ordinary mook would be allowed
to get away with that. And they wonder – or pretend to – why the people are sick
to death of western corruption.
Uncle Volodya says, "Ignorance is always correctable.
But what shall we do if we take ignorance to be knowledge?"
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of
anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by
the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
―
Issac Asimov
There's a prejudice against making fun of the mad that spans all cultures, all ethnicities; mock the mentally ill
at your peril, for some fair-minded citizen will surely intervene. Possibly many, enough to make you take to your
heels, because those who were born without the ability to reason, or had it and lost it, are perhaps God's most
innocent children. There are few compensations for being born half-a-bubble off plumb, but one of them is
anti-mockery armor. Having a laugh at the expense of the lunatic is bad form; something only dicks do, because it's
cheap and easy.
That's what must be preventing Dmitry Rogozin from roaring with laughter; from falling helplessly to his knees and
collapsing, wheezing, onto his side. If someone smart says something stupid, they are fair game. But laughing when
someone whose openly-stated beliefs suggest they are suffering from dementia is inappropriate. His dilemma is both
obvious, and acute – what to do?
First, some background; who is Dmitry Rogozin? A former Deputy Prime Minister in charge of the Russian
Federation's defense industries, he also served as his country's Ambassador to NATO. He has degrees in philosophy and
technology, and currently serves as the Russian Federation's Special Representative on Missile Defense. He is also
the Director of Roscosmos, the Russian state's Space Industry. Some have talked him up as a possible replacement for
Vladimir Putin, as President of the Russian Federation, but it is in his latter capacity, head of Roscosmos, that we
are most interested today. He knows more about rockets than that they are pointy at one end and have fire at the
other, if you get my drift.
A bit more background, and then I promise we can begin to tie things together; I think I can also promise you are
going to laugh. Not because you're a dick. But I think you will find you do have to kind of snicker. Just be careful
who hears you, okay? It's not as much of an insult if people don't know.
Most who have any understanding of space or rockets or satellites have heard of the
RD-180
.
But in case there are some readers who have never heard of it, it is the Russian Federation's workhorse rocket
engine. Its first flight was 20 years ago, but it was built on the shoulders of the
RD-170
, which has been in service since 1985, making it a Soviet
project. The RD-180 is essentially a two-combustion-chamber RD-170, which has four and remains the most powerful
rocket engine in the world. The RD-180 is used by the United States in its Atlas space vehicles.
For some time, that was a fairly comfortable arrangement. The USA made fun of Russia whenever it wanted to feel
superior, just as it's always done, and made the occasional ideological stab at 'establishing freedom and democracy'
by changing out its leader, but the Russian people were not particularly cooperative, and there were some problems
getting a credible 'liberal opposition' started; even now, the best candidate still seems to be Alexey Navalny, who
is kind of the granite canoe of opposition figures – not particularly well-known, nasty rather than compelling,
spiteful as a balked four-year-old.
But then American ideologues in the US Department of State decided the time was ripe for a coup in Ukraine, and
almost overnight, the United States and Russia were overt enemies. The United States, under Barack Obama,
imposed
sanctions designed to wreck the Russian economy
, in the hope that despairing Russians would throw Putin out of
office. America's European allies went along for the ride, and trade between Russia and its former trade partners and
associates in Europe and the USA mostly dried up.
Not rocket engines, though. America made an exception for those, and continued to buy and stockpile RD-180's. The
very suggestion that RD-180 engines might go on the sanctions list – US Federal Claims Court Judge Susan Braden
postulated that funds used to purchase rocket engines
might end up in Rogozin's pocket
(he being head of the Space Program, and all), and he was under US sanctions – moved the Commander of the United
States Air Force's Space and Missile Systems Center to note that without RD-180 engines, the Atlas program
would have to be grounded
.
All this is by way of highlighting a certain vulnerability. Of course, observers remarked, the United States is a
major technological power – it could easily produce such engines itself. So, why didn't it, inquiring minds wanted to
know.
Enter United Launch Alliance (ULA) CEO Tony Bruno, with what reporters described as a 'novel explanation'. Thanks
much for the link, Patient Observer. The United States buys
Russian
rocket engines
to subsidize the Russian space industry
, so that fired rocket scientists will not pack up the wife and kiddies
and their few pitiful belongings, and depart for Iran or North Korea. You know; countries that
really
hate
the United States. I swear I am not making that up. Look:
"The United States is buying Russian rocket engines not because of any problems with its domestic engine
engineering programmes, but to subsidize Russian rocket scientists and to prevent them from seeking employment in
Iran or North Korea, United Launch Alliance CEO Tory Bruno has intimated.
"The [US government] asked us to buy [Russian engines] at the end of the Cold War in order to keep the Russian
Rocket Scientists from ending up in North Korea and Iran," Bruno tweeted, responding to a question about what
motivates ULA to continue buying the Russian-made RD-180s."
Sadly, I had no Rogozin-like qualms about being thought a dick. I snorted what I was drinking (chocolate milk, I
think) all over my hand, and gurgled with mirth for a good 20 seconds. Holy Moley – what a retarded explanation! How
long did he grope for that, spluttering like Joe Biden trying to remember what office he is currently running for?
Jeebus Cripes, the United States has
no control at all
over what rocket scientists are paid in the Russian
Federation – what do they imagine prevents Putin The Diktator from just pocketing all the money himself, or spending
it on sticky buns to feed to Rogozin, and throwing a few fish heads to the rocket scientists? Do they really believe
some sort of symbiotic relationship exists between Russia's rocket scientists and the US Treasury Department?
Really
? Have things actually gotten that far down the road to Simple? I tell you, I kind of felt a little sorry
for Tony 'Lightning Rod' Bruno. But more sorry for his family, who has to go out and find him when he's wandering in
the park with no pants on again, you know. Humanitarian concerns.
"Under RD AMROSS, Pratt & Whitney is licensed to produce the RD-180 in the United States. Originally,
production of the RD-180 in the US was scheduled to begin in 2008, but this did not happen. According to a 2005 GAO
Assessment of Selected Major Weapon Programs, Pratt & Whitney planned to start building the engine in the United
States with a first military launch by 2012. This, too, did not happen. In 2014, the Defense Department estimated
that it would require approximately $1 billion and five years to begin US domestic manufacture of the RD-180 engine."
Well, no wonder! It's a lot cheaper to slip some bucks to starving Russian rocket scientists than spend a Billion
simoleons on a Pratt & Whitney program that will take
five years
(!!!) minimum to set up before it even
starts producing an engine the Russians have been making for 20 years, and gave Pratt & Whitney the plans for. Seen
in that light, it makes a weird kind of sense, dunnit? Minus the altruism and violins, of course.
Right about then, I made a second discovery that shook the fuzz off my fundament.
Tony Bruno did not make that
shit up
. No, indeedy. It would have been simpler, and I have to say a bit more comforting, to assume Tony Bruno
is the locus of American retardation. But he isn't; the poor bastard was just repeating an American doctrinal
political talking-point.
Behold
!
"When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989, the US government worried about the possible consequences of lots of
Russian rocket designers getting fired. What if they ended up working for regimes like Iran or North Korea?"
Pretty much word-for-word what poor Tony Bruno said. And that was posted 5 years ago.
But who cares, right? Just some wiggy space-nerd site.
Oh, but wait.
Look at his reference
. It's from NASA.
And it does indeed include the paragraph he quoted.
"Moreover, several on the Space Council, as well as others in the Bush Administration, saw another reason to
engage the post-Soviets in a cooperative space venture: as a way to help hold the Russian nation together at a time
when the Russian economy was faltering and its society was reeling. In the words of Brian Dailey, Albrecht's
sucessor, "If we did not do something in this time of social chaos in Russia, then there would be potentially a
hemorrhaging of technology 'away from Russia' to countries who may not have a more peaceful intention behind the
use of those technologies."
I'm not sure how reliable that is – the Americans still insist, in it, that they landed on the moon, and it points
out that
Dan Quayle
was head of the National Space Council, dear Lord, have mercy. But it's NASA! There was
apparently a school of thought, prevalent in American politics, that America
had to support the Russian economy
,
for fear of its technological proteges high-siding it for Dangerville. Neither North Korea or Iran are mentioned by
name, but they would certainly be easy to infer from the description.
So we could draw one of two conclusions; either (1) Obama was a witless tool who did not read that historical
imperative (probably had his nose in a healthy-greens cookbook, some shit like that) and blundered ahead with a plan
to wreck the Russian economy, loosing a torrent of Russian rocket scientists into a cynical Murka-hatin' world, or
(2) Obama was a genius who applied sanctions with a surgeon's delicacy, avoiding sanctions on the Russian space
program. Although he did apply sanctions directly on its..umm director. Okay, let's go with (1).
Anyway, it's kind of odd, I guess you'd say, to hear that same Brian Dailey, he who blubbered sympathetically (or
so history records) "We have to do something in this time of social chaos in Russia"
say
this:
"The meeting was actually more or less a signing
ceremony, a large event, so to speak, but it was one that was obviously going to be reaching into some very hard
winds that would prevent us from really moving forward. That's a rather obtuse way of saying that we were having
serious problems with the Russians. They wanted a lot of money for doing these things. They wanted to charge us a lot
of money to hook up, and we didn't believe that since this was a government-to-government activity, that money should
be appropriately involved, and it was the intention of the two Presidents to put something together that would be
funded by their respective governments rather than us trying to fund something for Russia."
Say what? You had to do something for the Russian economy without money? Tell me more.
"
At that point, Dan had got very upset with the
Russians and proceeded to tell them that we were not going to do business with Semenov directly, but our opposite
number was Yuri Koptev, and that he ought to start learning how to work with U.S. industry, and that we were not
going to pay for this particular activity and we were not going to be blackmailed into paying them, so to speak, and
insisted that this be taken off the table and we proceed to find ways of making this happen, not ways to slow it down
or charge us for any kind of cooperative activities like this.
"
This all had to do with cooperation on some sort of docking system for the Mir Space Station, nothing to do with
the RD-180, but I think you can see why I would be a bit skeptical regarding Project Payola for the Russian rocket
scientists.
You might be getting a tingly feeling – call it a suspicion – that the USA is kind of pulling our leg on the idea
that it can make a superior multi-chamber rocket engine any time it feels like it, and is just buying the RD-180 on
long-ago government orders to cut the Russians a break. You might suspect the RD-180 is actually a pretty good
engine, but the United States can't make it for that kind of money, and perhaps can't make it at all. I know! Let's
ask
United Launch Alliance
, that company that Tony Bruno is the CEO of.
"The Atlas launch vehicle's main booster engine, the RD-180, has demonstrated consistent performance with
predictable environments over the past decade. The RD-180 has substantially contributed to the established a record
of high reliability on Atlas launch vehicles since its debut on the Atlas III in May of 2000."
You don't say. Tell me more.
"In the early 1990s the closed cycle, LOx rich, staged combustion technology rumored to exist in Russia was
originally sought out by General Dynamics because engines of this kind would be able to provide a dramatic
performance increase over available U.S. rocket technology. Unlike its rocket building counterparts in the United
States, Europe, China, and Japan, Russia was able to master a unique LOx rich closed cycle combustion technology
which delivered a 25% performance increase."
But but I read the George H.W. Bush administration urged America to buy Russian rocket engines because they heard
a rumor there was a suitcase sale on at the Energomash company store. And that, you know, the scientists might be
planning a little trip.
"NPO Energomash, the leading designer of engines in Russia, had gone through hundreds of designs, each an
improvement on the last, to harness the power of LOx rich combustion. This required a very careful approach to how
the fuel is burned in the preburner so that the temperature field is uniform. It also required improvements in
materials and production techniques. They found a way to take the chamber pressures to new limits while protecting
the internal components from fire risks. This required a new class of high temperature resistant stainless steel
invented to cope with the risks of the LOx rich environment."
Oh, seriously, c'mon – is it as good as all that?
"The demonstrated performance established during this process was beyond anything achieved in the United
States. The RD-180 reaches chamber pressures up to 3,722psia which was more than double the chamber pressures
achieved by comparable U.S. engines. Exposure to Russian design philosophy and the success of a high performance
engine made U.S. engine designers question their own methods. This dual sided cross-cultural engineering approach
which has persisted through the life of the RD-180 program adds depth to the understanding of engine capability and
operational characteristics."
Okay, thanks, company that Tony Bruno is the CEO of. Good to know it wasn't just charity.
The EU should reconsider its 'all or nothing' approach on sanctions imposed on Russia for
its role in the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine, as well as its annexation of Crimea, a
new report from the International Crisis Group suggests. The Brussels-based think tank calls
for the easing of certain sanctions in exchange for Russian progress towards peace in
Ukraine.
"Inflexible sanctions are less likely to change behaviour," said Olga Oliker, Europe
and Central Asia programme director. "Because of that, we urge considering an approach that
would allow for the lifting of some sanctions in exchange for some progress, with a clear
intent to reverse that rollback of sanctions if the progress itself is reversed."
.A major roadblock in the implementation of the Minsk deal has been the sequence of
events supposed to bring an end to the conflict that has so far claimed more than 13,000
lives.
Kyiv wants to first regain control over its border with Russia before local elections
in the war-torn region can be held, while Moscow believes that elections must come
first
####
Door. Horse. Barn. Bolted.
The Intentional Critics Grope is yet again a $/€ short in the reality department.
You would think the Editor Gotev (the last two paras by him) would mention that the Minsk
agreement clearly states elections come first and that Kiev has singularly refuse the other
conditions of the agreement, but that really would be asking too much. From a professional
journalist.
It's the same shit we got with the US-North Korea 4 point nuclear agreement where
de-nuclearization of the region is the final stage yet it didn't take Washington and
ball-licking corporate media to parrot 'denuclearization' as the first point as suddently
decided by the Ovum Orifice.*
They try it on again about every six months, just to see if the Russian negotiators have
changed and if the new ones are dimwitted. I'm sure it is crystal clear to the Kremlin that
if it gave Ukraine back exclusive control of the border, it would (a) call up troops and set
up a cordon to make it impossible for eastern Ukraine to be reinforced, and (b) launch an
all-out military push to re-take the breakaway regions. The west would then shout "Safe!!!",
and the game would be over – Ukraine is (almost) whole again, praise Jeebus. There
would be a propaganda storm that Russia was 'trying to meddle in the peace process' while
Kuh-yiv rooted out and either imprisoned or executed all the 'rebel' leaders, and the west
– probably the USA – would provide 'peacekeepers' to give Ukraine time to restore
its complete control over the DNR and LPR. Then, presto! no elections required, we are all
happy Ukrainians!
They knew 'inflexible sanctions were less likely to change behaviors' when they first
agreed to impose them – but they were showing their belly to Washington, and don't know
how to stop now. Serves them right if they are losing revenue and market share.
I don't think Russia is very interested, beyond polite diplomatic raising of the eyebrows, in
relaxing of sanctions under conditions the EU is careful to highlight could be reapplied in a
trice, as soon as anyone was upset with Russia's performance. Because that moment would be
literally only a moment away. The UK can be counted on to register blistering outrage at the
drop of a hat, and while its influence on the EU will soon be limited, dogs-in-the-manger
like Poland can always be relied upon to throw themselves about in an ecstasy of victimhood.
It would be impossible to set up any sort of dependable supply chain, as the interval between
orders would never be known with any degree of certainty. Fuck the EU. Russia is better off
to press on as it has been doing. The EU has to buy oil and gas from Russia because the
logistics and price of American supplies make them economically non-competitive, and best to
just leave it there. The EU will bitch, but it will continue to buy, whereas any other
commerce would be subject to theatrical hissy fits.
Narrative control is the name of the game in the Skripal case.
A couple of articles about a phenomenon which was thought to exist only in
pre-Revolutionary France – the lettre de cachet – but seems to have been given a
new lease of life:
I would love to see the British government and Porton Down nailed to the barn door for this.
There's no telling if that will ever happen, but just on general principles their collective
evasiveness speaks volumes. When the truth is on your side and you know it, you shout it from
the rooftops. You don't obfuscate and hide behind national security, and pretend like amazing
technical and spycraft secrets might be compromised if you reveal your evidence.
If anyone can make it happen, it's Helmer. I've never seen such a talent for detail and
cause-and-effect. Remarkable.
I wonder if the NHS staff that took care of the Skripals and who have been keeping stumm
about that hapless duo's alleged poisoning by the Orcs with the most deadly nerve agent known
to man have performed a dance routine yet on Tik-Tok?
This is yet another demonstration that Western intelligence services became influential
political players. As Chich Republic is a NATO country its intellignce services are partially
controlled by outsiders. They also might have their own home grown neocon in the high ranks.
Czech newspaper Respekt alleges a Russian agent carrying the poison ricin arrived in
the country three weeks ago.
Mayor Zdenek Hrib refused to say why he was under protection but said he had told
police he was being followed .
####
Plenty more bs at the link.
When does the national intelligence services leak to anything but national media? When it
needs suckers! Vis the Christopher Steel Dossier of Steaming Bullshit to the Steaming Pile of
Bullshit masquerading as journalism known as Buttfeed.
We must remember that the Czech Republic is the United States' intelligence hub for
Central and Eastern Europe. Even then, a large portion of Czech citizens don't buy the
'Russia threat' propaganda, coz they voted for Babis as PM who has been under investigation
since elected because his is not anti-Russian.
These investigations have turned up nothing apart from a possible conflict of ethics
according to Brussels, which is ironic considering the latters refusal to publish minutes of
its Trilogues (closed door meetings between heads of the European Parliament, Commission
& Council) to agree EU policy before it is voted on in the Parliament – i.e.
pre-baked in secret, it's failure to have a de facto register of lobbyists etc. etc. What is
happening in Czechia is an ongoing soft coup which will not stop until Babis and others that
don't sign on are out of power. It's the wrong kind of democracy , innit?
Now rogue academics, rogue journalists, rogue former officials – anyone, in fact
– can go online and discover a myriad of things that until recently no one outside a
small establishment circle was ever supposed to understand. If you know where to look, you can
even find some of this stuff on Wikipedia (see, for example, Operation Timber Sycamore ).
The effect of this information overload has been to disorientate the great majority of us
who lack the time, the knowledge and the analytical skills to sift through it all and make
sense of the world around us. It is hard to discriminate when there is so much information
– good and bad alike – to digest.
Nonetheless, we have got a sense from these online debates, reinforced by events in the
non-virtual world, that our politicians do not always tell the truth, that money – rather
than the public interest – sometimes wins out in decision-making processes, and that our
elites may be little better equipped than us – aside from their expensive educations
– to run our societies.
Two decades of lies
There has been a handful of staging posts over the past two decades to our current era of
the Great Disillusionment. They include:
lack of transparency in the US government's
investigation into the events surrounding 9/11 (obscured by a parallel online controversy
about what took place that day); the
documented lies told about the reasons for launching a disastrous and illegal war of
aggression against Iraq in 2003 that unleashed regional chaos, waves of destabilising
migration into Europe and new, exceptionally brutal forms of political Islam; the
astronomical bailouts after the 2008 crash of bankers whose criminal activities nearly
bankrupted the global economy (but who were never held to account) and instituted more
than a decade of austerity measures that had to be paid for by the public; the refusal by
western governments and global institutions to take any
leadership on tackling climate change , as not only the science but the weather itself
has made the urgency of that emergency clear, because it would mean taking on their corporate
sponsors; and now the criminal failures of our governments to
prepare for, and respond properly to, the Covid-19 pandemic, despite many years of warnings.
Anyone who still takes what our governments say at face value well, I have several bridges
to sell you.
Experts failed us
But it is not just governments to blame. The failings of experts, administrators and the
professional class have been all too visible to the public as well. Those officials who have
enjoyed easy access to prominent platforms in the state-corporate media have obediently
repeated what state and corporate interests wanted us to hear, often only for that information
to be exposed later as incomplete, misleading or downright fabricated.
In the run-up to the 2003 attack on Iraq, too many political scientists, journalists and
weapons experts kept their heads down, keen to preserve their careers and status, rather than
speak up in support of those rare experts like Scott Ritter and
the late David Kelly who
dared to sound the alarm that we were not being told the whole truth.
In 2008, only a handful of economists was prepared to break with corporate orthodoxy and
question whether throwing money at bankers exposed as financial criminals was wise, or to
demand that these bankers be prosecuted. The economists did not argue the case that there must
be a price for the banks to pay, such as a public stake in the banks that were bailed out, in
return for forcing taxpayers to massively invest in these discredited businesses. And the
economists did not propose overhauling our financial systems to make sure there was no
repetition of the economic crash. Instead, they kept their heads down as well, in the hope that
their large salaries continued and that they would not lose their esteemed positions in
think-tanks and universities.
... ... ...
And recently we have learnt, for example, that a series of Conservative governments in the
UK recklessly ran down the
supplies of hospital protective gear , even though they had more than a decade of warnings
of a coming pandemic. The question is why did no scientific advisers or health officials blow
the whistle earlier. Now it is too late to save the lives of many thousands, including dozens
of medical staff, who have fallen victim so far to the virus in the UK.
Lesser of two evils
Worse still, in the Anglosphere of the US and the UK, we have ended up with political
systems that offer a choice between one party that supports a brutal, unrestrained version of
neoliberalism and another party that supports a marginally less brutal, slightly mitigated
version of neoliberalism. (And we have recently discovered in the UK that, after the grassroots
membership of one of those twinned parties managed to choose a leader in Jeremy Corbyn who
rejected this orthodoxy, his own party machine conspired
to throw the election rather than let him near power.) As we are warned at each election, in
case we decide that elections are in fact futile, we enjoy a choice – between the lesser
of two evils.
Those who ignore or instinctively defend these glaring failings of the modern corporate
system are really in no position to sit smugly in judgment on those who wish to question the
safety of 5G, or vaccines, or the truth of 9/11, or the reality of a climate catastrophe, or
even of the presence of lizard overlords.
Because through their reflexive dismissal of doubt, of all critical thinking on anything
that has not been pre-approved by our governments and by the state-corporate media, they have
helped to disfigure the only yardsticks we have for measuring truth or falsehood. They have
forced on us a terrible choice: to blindly follow those who have repeatedly demonstrated they
are not worthy of being followed, or to trust nothing at all, to doubt everything. Neither
position is one a healthy, balanced individual would want to adopt. But that is where we are
today.
Big Brother regimes
It is therefore hardly surprising that those who have been so discredited by the current
explosion of information – the politicians, the corporations and the professional class
– are wondering how to fix things in the way most likely to maintain their power and
authority.
They face two, possibly complementary options.
ORDER IT NOW
One is to allow the information overload to continue, or even escalate. There is an argument
to be made that the more possible truths we are presented with, the more powerless
we feel and the more willing we are to defer to those most vocal in claiming authority.
Confused and hopeless, we will look to father figures, to the strongmen of old, to those who
have cultivated an aura of decisiveness and fearlessness, to those who look like down-to-earth
mavericks and rebels.
This approach will throw up more Donald Trumps, Boris Johnsons and Jair Bolsonaros. And
these men, while charming us with their supposed lack of orthodoxy, will still, of course, be
exceptionally accommodating to the most powerful corporate interests – the military-industrial complex
– that really run the show.
The other option, which has already been road-tested under the rubric of "fake news", will
be to treat us, the public, like irresponsible children, who need a firm, guiding hand. The
technocrats and professionals will try to re-establish their authority as though the last two
decades never occurred, as though we never saw through their hypocrisy and lies.
They will cite "conspiracy theories" – even the true ones – as proof that it is
time to
impose new curbs on internet freedoms, on the right to speak and to think. They will argue
that the social media experiment has run its course and proved itself a menace – because
we, the public, are a menace. They are already flying trial balloons for this new Big Brother
world, under cover of tackling the health threats posed by the Covid-19 epidemic.
Surveillance a price worth paying to beat coronavirus, says Blair thinktank https://t.co/AAb1nnv4pG
We should not be surprised that the "thought-leaders" for shutting down the cacophony of the
internet are those whose failures have been most exposed by our new freedoms to explore the
dark recesses of the recent past. They have included Tony Blair, the British prime minister who
lied western publics into the disastrous and illegal war on Iraq in 2003, and Jack Goldsmith,
rewarded as a Harvard law professor for his role – since whitewashed – in helping
the Bush administration legalise torture and step up warrantless surveillance programmes.
Fmr. Bush admin lawyer/current Harvard Law prof Jack Goldsmith goes full-Thomas Friedman,
credits China's enlightened authoritarian approach to information as "largely right" and
laments the US' provincial fealty to the First Amendment as "largely wrong." https://t.co/1WyQtgE8bK
pic.twitter.com/1M03ybxh0I
The only alternative to a future in which we are ruled by Big Brother technocrats like Tony
Blair, or by chummy authoritarians who brook no dissent, or a mix of the two, will require a
complete overhaul of our societies' approach to information. We will need fewer curbs on free
speech, not more.
The real test of our societies – and the only hope of surviving the coming
emergencies, economic and environmental – will be finding a way to hold our leaders truly
to account. Not based on whether they are secretly lizards, but on what they are doing to save
our planet from our all-too-human, self-destructive instinct for acquisition and our craving
for guarantees of security in an uncertain world.
That, in turn, will require a transformation of our relationship to information and debate.
We will need a new model of independent, pluralistic, responsive, questioning media that is
accountable to the public, not to billionaires and corporations. Precisely the kind of media we
do not have now. We will need media we can trust to represent the full range of credible,
intelligent, informed debate, not the narrow Overton window through which we get a highly
partisan, distorted view of the world that serves the 1 per cent – an elite so richly
rewarded by the current system that they are prepared to ignore the fact that they and we are
hurtling towards the abyss.
With that kind of media in place – one that truly holds politicians to account and
celebrates scientists for their contributions to collective knowledge, not their usefulness to
corporate enrichment – we would not need to worry about the safety of our communications
systems or medicines, we would not need to doubt the truth of events in the news or wonder
whether we have lizards for rulers, because in that kind of world no one would rule over us.
They would serve the public for the common good.
Sounds like a fantastical, improbable system of government? It has a name: democracy. Maybe
it is time for us finally to give it a go.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include
"Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East"
(Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair" (Zed Books).
His website is www.jonathan-cook.net .
The Trump administration has been desperately trying to kill the nuclear deal for the last two years after reneging on it. Now
they will try to kill it by
pretending to
be part of it again:
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is preparing a legal argument that the United States remains a participant in the Iran nuclear
accord that President Trump has renounced, part of an intricate strategy to pressure the United Nations Security Council to extend
an arms embargo on Tehran or see far more stringent sanctions reimposed on the country.
The administration's latest destructive ploy won't find any support on the Security Council. There is nothing "intricate" about
this idea. It is a crude, heavy-handed attempt to employ the JCPOA's own provisions to destroy it. It is just the latest in a series
of administration moves that tries to have things both ways. They want to renege on U.S. commitments while still refusing to allow
Iran to benefit from the agreement, and they ultimately hope to make things difficult enough for Iran that their government chooses
to give up on the agreement. It reeks of bad faith and contempt for international law, and all other governments will be able to
see right through it. Some of our European allies have already said as much:
European diplomats who have learned of the effort maintain that Mr. Trump and Mr. Pompeo are selectively choosing whether
they are still in the agreement to fit their agenda.
It is significant that the Trump administration feels compelled to go through this charade after telling everyone for years that
the U.S. is no longer in the deal. Until now, Trump administration officials have been unwavering in saying that the U.S. is out
of the deal and can't be considered a participant in it:
Can't wait to see the tortured memo out of State/L claiming that somehow the U.S. is still a participant in the JCPOA. The
May 8, 2018 announcement is literally titled "Ceasing U.S. Participation in the JCPOA ."
https://t.co/I5t8LaC7dN
"... These seeming paradoxes illustrate that the idea of totalitarianism is a useless tool in assessing the decency of governance in any twenty-first-century state. If we are to survive in this brave new world, in which technology makes it ever easier for governments to manipulate individual decisions, but in which we also demand that the state take an ever-larger role in ensuring our safety from ourselves, we must acknowledge that the Manichean worldview implied in the term totalitarianism is an outdated relic of the Cold War. ..."
Last Thursday, Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman issued a
warning in the New
York Times . "The pandemic will eventually end," he wrote, "but democracy, once lost, may never come back. And we're much closer
to losing our democracy than many people realize." Citing the Wisconsin election debacle -- the Supreme Court ruled that voters would
have to vote in person, risking their health -- Krugman argued that Donald Trump and the Republican Party are using the crisis for
their own, authoritarian ends.
This is the perennial critique of Trump: that he is a totalitarian at heart and, if given the chance, 'would want to establish
total control over society.'
Krugman is not alone. As early as last month, when cases of COVID-19 first began to surge in the United States, Masha Gessen
wrote in the New Yorker that the virus was fueling "Trump's autocratic instincts." They argued, "We have long known
that Trump has totalitarian instincts . . . the coronavirus has brought us a step closer." This is indeed the once and future critique
of the Trump presidency: that Trump is a totalitarian at heart and, if given the chance, "would want to establish total control over
a mobilized society." A few days ago, Salon
published an article arguing that the president is using the virus to prepare "the ground for a totalitarian dictatorship." Even
Meghan McCain, as unlikely a person as any to agree with Gessen,
indicated recently that Trump has "always been a sort of totalitarian president" and that he might use the virus to "play on
the American public's fears in a draconian way and possibly do something akin to the Patriot Act."
These critiques make ample use of the term totalitarianism -- "that most horrible of inventions of the twentieth century," in
Gessen's summation . They and other commentators also use it to describe Fidel Castro's Cuba to Vladimir Putin's Russia, which
Gessen left in 2013. As right-wing populism has surged around the world in recent years, the term has had something of a renaissance.
Hannah Arendt's 1951 classic The Origins of Totalitarianism became a best seller again after
Donald Trump's election in November 2016.
This uptick in the term's use runs counter to the trend among historians, for whom the idea of totalitarianism carries increasingly
little weight. Many of us see the term primarily as polemical, used more to discredit governments than to offer meaningful analyses
of them. Scholars often prefer the much broader term authoritarianism, which denotes any form of government that concentrates political
power in the hands of an unaccountable elite. But the fact that historians who study such governments eschew the term totalitarianism,
even as it enjoys wide public currency, points not only to a disconnect between the academy and the general public, but also to a
problem that Americans have in thinking about dictatorship. And it underscores our collective uncertainty about the proper role of
government in crises such as these.
Historians increasingly see the term totalitarian as polemical, used more to discredit governments than to offer meaningful
analyses of them.
The terms totalitarian and totalitarianism have a winding history. In 1922 King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy appointed Benito
Mussolini, leader of the Italian fascist party, as prime minister. In subsequent years, Mussolini established an authoritarian government
that provided a roadmap for other twentieth century dictators, including Adolf Hitler, and made the term fascist an enduring descriptor
of right-wing authoritarianism. A year after Mussolini's appointment, Giovanni Amendola, a journalist and politician opposed to fascism,
used the term totalitario , or totalitarian, to describe how the fascists presented two largely identical party lists at
a local election, thereby preserving the form of competitive democracy (i.e., offering voters a choice), while, in reality, gutting
it. Other writers soon took up the idea and it became a more generic descriptor of the fascist state's dictatorial powers. Mussolini
himself eventually adopted the term to characterize his government, writing that it described a regime of "all within the state,
none outside the state, none against the state." In the next two decades, the terms began to circulate internationally. Amendola
used them in 1925 to compare Mussolini's government and the young Soviet regime in Moscow. Academics in the English-speaking world
began to employ them in the 1920s and '30s in similar comparative contexts.
In a sign of how much the meaning of the words drifted, however, those who later adopted them into political philosophy did not
necessarily consider fascist Italy to have been totalitarian. Hannah Arendt, for instance, dismissed Mussolini's movement: "The true
goal of Fascism was only to seize power and establish the Fascist 'elite' as uncontested ruler over the country." Even now, scholars
point to the survival of pre-fascist government and bureaucratic structures, as well as lower levels of terror and violence directed
against the populace, as evidence that Mussolini's Italy was not genuinely totalitarian.
Instead, Arendt considered totalitarianism to be a way of understanding fundamental similarities between Stalinism and Hitlerism,
despite their diametrical opposition on the political spectrum. This archetypal comparison remains the bedrock of studies of totalitarian
dictatorship. In Origins of Totalitarianism , Arendt laid out what she saw as its internal dynamic:
Totalitarianism is never content to rule by external means, namely, through the state and a machinery of violence; thanks to
its peculiar ideology and the role assigned to it in this apparatus of coercion, totalitarianism has discovered a means of dominating
and terrorizing human beings from within.
This state of affairs, which Arendt diagnosed as the result of an increasingly atomized society, bears a striking resemblance
to the state described in George Orwell's 1984 (another bestseller in the Trump era). Airstrip One, as Orwell renamed Great
Britain, is dominated by an omniscient Big Brother who sees, hears, and knows all. Through a reform of language, Airstrip One even
tries to make it impossible to think illegal thoughts. Newspeak, it is hoped, "shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because
there will be no words in which to express it." Orwell and Arendt considered the obliteration of the private and internal life of
individuals to be the ne plus ultra of totalitarian rule.
Of course, what Arendt and Orwell described are systems of government that have never actually existed. Neither Nazism nor Stalinism
succeeded in controlling or dominating its citizens from within. Moreover, while later scholarship has partially borne out Arendt's
analysis of National Socialism, her understanding of Stalinist rule has proved less insightful.
The other classic account of totalitarianism is Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy , published in 1956 by Carl Friedrich
and Zbigniew Brzezinski. In it, the political scientists developed a six-point list of criteria by which to recognize totalitarianism:
it has an "elaborate ideology," relies on a mass party, uses terror, claims a monopoly on communication as well as on violence, and
controls the economy. Like Arendt, Friedrich and Brzezinski believed totalitarianism to be a new phenomenon -- to take Gessen's words,
an invention of the twentieth century. Their goal was to understand structural similarities between different modern dictatorships.
Even Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union -- the two archetypal examples -- were so different that historians wonder if their
comparison as totalitarian really yields interesting insights.
While scholars critiqued Friedrich and Brzezinski's model -- for example, its one-size-fits-all list fails to appreciate these
regimes' dynamism -- the debate over the usefulness of the term totalitarianism continued. In the decades since, historians and political
scientists have gone back and forth, defining the concept in new ways and showing how those definitions fail in one way or another.
But, at base, these definitions have typically assumed, in the words of historian Ian Kershaw, a "total claim" made on the part
of the totalitarian state over those it rules. That is, Arendt's basic characterization -- that totalitarian regimes aspire to total
control over the public, private, and internal lives of their citizens -- continues to inform scholarly debate.
Arendt's, I would venture, is also the term's folk definition: that is, in people's minds, totalitarianism distinguishes a subset
of authoritarian regimes that seek to (and perhaps even sometimes succeed at) dominating the individual in every conceivable way.
China's new social credit score, which curtails the rights of people who engage in so-called antisocial behaviors, is a current example
of this sort of thing. It is also a clear illustration of the role technology plays in totalitarian fantasies. But China's government
also has many other characteristics, such as a market economy, that traditional understandings of totalitarianism explicitly reject.
This pared-down definition of totalitarianism is still only of dubious utility. Even Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union --
the two archetypal examples -- were so different that historians wonder if their comparison as "totalitarian" really yields interesting
insights. Studies of everyday life in both countries have underscored the limits of the totalitarian model. These revisionist histories,
in the words of Soviet historian Sheila Fitzpatrick, "introduced into Soviet history the notions of bureaucratic and professional
interest groups and institutional and center-periphery conflict, and they were particularly successful at demonstrating inputs from
middle levels of the administrative hierarchy and professional groups. They were alert to what would now be called questions of agency."
Similarly nuanced approaches to Nazism have uncovered ways power worked within the regime that throw the totalitarian hypothesis
into doubt.
In my own area of research, Germany after World War II, totalitarianism plays a fraught role. During the Cold War and its immediate
aftermath, politicians, journalists, and scholars all painted East Germany as a totalitarian government on par with the Nazi state.
But that characterization is simply wrong. For instance, the East German and Nazi secret police forces, the Stasi and the Gestapo,
functioned in fundamentally different ways. The Gestapo was a relatively small organization that relied on thousands of spontaneous
denunciations. It practiced brutal torture and was embedded in a system of extralegal justice that was responsible for the murder
of hundreds of thousands of German citizens (not to mention the millions more killed in the Holocaust). The Stasi was quite different.
It employed a vast bureaucracy -- three times larger than the Gestapo in a population four times smaller -- and cultivated an even
larger network of collaborators. Around 5 percent of East Germans are estimated to have worked for the Stasi at some point, blurring
the lines between persecutors and persecuted. Against those unlucky enough to wind up in a Stasi prison, the secret police employed
methods of psychological torture. But it never induced the same level of terror as did the Gestapo. Nor was it responsible for anywhere
near the same number of deaths. For most East Germans, the Stasi's presence was more of a nuisance -- a "scratchy undershirt," historian
Paul Betts argues.
Of course, the Stasi's ubiquity and its vast surveillance apparatus have equally been taken as proof that the totalitarian hypothesis
does indeed apply to East Germany. But there is ample evidence that East Germans enjoyed robust private lives, along with a sense
of individual self. East Germans wrote millions of petitions to their government, for instance, complaining about everything from
vacations to apartments. They showed up to quiz members of parliament about government policy. When the regime tried to outlaw public
nudity in the 1950s, as historian Josie McLellan has described, East Germans disobeyed, protested, and eventually forced the government
to relent. Kristen Ghodsee, among others, has
contended
that in many ways life was better for women in Eastern Bloc countries than in the West. And the dictatorship never tried to bring
the Protestant Church, to which millions of East Germans belonged, under its full control. My
own research
reveals that gay liberation activists were able to pressure the dictatorship to make significant policy changes.
In short, whatever criteria one uses to define totalitarianism, East Germany does not fit. It was a dictatorship, but certainly
not a totalitarian one. In fact, the classification of East Germany has proved such a nettlesome problem, it has spawned a veritable
cottage industry of neologisms. Scholars describe it, variously, as a welfare dictatorship, a participatory dictatorship, a thoroughly
dominated society, a modern dictatorship, a tutelary state, and a late totalitarian patriarchal and surveillance state.
If the obliteration of the wall between public and private is the defining characteristic of totalitarianism, can any contemporary
society be described as other than totalitarian?
This brings us back to current usage. The problem is that the term totalitarian fulfills two quite different purposes. The first,
as just discussed, is taxonomic: for scholars, it has helped frame an effort to understand the nature of various twentieth-century
regimes. And in this function, it finally seems to be reaching the end of its useful life.
But the term's other purpose is ideological and pejorative, the outgrowth of a Cold War desire to classify fascist and communist
dictatorships as essentially the same phenomenon. To catalog a state as totalitarian it to say it is radically other, sealed off
from the liberal, capitalist, democratic order that we take to be normal. When we call a state totalitarian, we are saying that its
goals are of a categorically different sort than those of our own government -- that it seeks, as Gessen suggests, to destroy human
dignity.
The ideological work that the term totalitarian performs is significant, providing a sleight-of-hand by which to both condemn
foreign regimes and deflect criticism of the regime at home. By claiming that dictatorship and democracy are not simply opposed but
categorically different, it disables us from recognizing the democratic parts of dictatorial rule and the authoritarian aspects of
democratic rule, and thus renders us less capable of effectively diagnosing problems in our own society.
We love to denounce foreign dictatorships. George W. Bush invented the "
Axis of Evil ," for example, to provide a ready
supply of villains. These "totalitarian" regimes -- Iran, Iraq, and North Korea -- we were told, all threatened our freedoms. But
the grouping was always nonsensical, as the regimes bore few similarities to one another. While Iran, in particular, is authoritarian,
it also bears hallmarks of pluralistic democracy. Pointing out the latter does not diminish the former -- rather it helps us understand
how and why the Islamic Republic has shown such tenacity and staying power. To simply call such regimes totalitarian not only misses
the point, but also whitewashes American complicity in creating and propping up authoritarian regimes -- Iran not least of all. Indeed,
the United States supported a number of the past century's most brutal right-wing dictatorships.
Moreover, by thinking of totalitarianism as something that happens elsewhere, in illiberal, undemocratic places, we ignore the
ways in which our government can and has behaved in authoritarian ways within our own country. Black Americans experienced conditions
of dictatorial rule in the Jim Crow South and under slavery, to name but the most prominent examples.
The language of totalitarianism thus obscures how dictatorship and democracy exist on the same spectrum. It is imperative that
we come to a clearer understanding of the fact that hybrid forms of government exist which combine elements of both. These managed
democracies, to take political theorist Sheldon Wolin's term -- from Putin's Russia, to Viktor Orbán's Hungary, to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's
Turkey -- have hallmarks of democratic republics and use a combination of new and old methods to enforce something akin
to one-party rule. These states are certainly not totalitarian, but neither are they democracies.
Likewise, the Republican Party's efforts to manage U.S. democracy through gerrymandering and voter suppression is similar to Putin's,
Orbán's, and Erdoğan's tactics of securing political power. Its strategies push the republic further toward the authoritarian end
of the political spectrum. And, indeed, the sophisticated data-mining techniques of
Cambridge Analytica , which assisted
the 2016 Trump campaign to manipulate voter choices, would have made the Stasi, the Gestapo, or the NKVD green with envy.
In fact, if the obliteration of the wall between public and private is the defining characteristic of totalitarianism, can any
contemporary society be described as anything other than totalitarian? What, after all, does agency mean in a world in which Facebook
aspires to know what we want before we know it ourselves or in a country in which the NSA collects vast troves of data on our own
citizens? To my mind, totalitarianism's usefulness as a distinctive category of government simply evaporates when we begin to look
at all the ways in which technology has compromised individual privacy and agency in the twenty-first century.
Fear of totalitarianism gives the right cover to denounce measures to control the virus: if freedom means freedom from government,
then the worst government is one that makes a total claim on its citizens, even in the interest of saving them from a plague.
Use of the term also prevents us from thinking productively about COVID-19 and how governments ought to respond to it. For a state
of quarantine necessarily forces everyone to give up -- whether voluntarily or no -- their rights of movement, assembly, and, to
some extent, expression. It requires the private choices individuals make -- whether to have friends over for dinner, go on a morning
jog, or buy groceries -- to become public in painful and sometimes even embarrassing ways. Technology companies are
starting to employ their products' tracking features to trace the virus's spread, an application that many
worry
poses an unacceptable breach of privacy.
Yet, the destruction of the private sphere in the interest of the public good is precisely what theorists tell us lies at the
heart of totalitarianism. Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben made precisely this point,
arguing recently that the extraordinary
response to COVID-19 is totalitarian: "The disproportionate reaction . . . is quite blatant. It is almost as if with terrorism exhausted
as a cause for exceptional measures, the invention of an epidemic offered the ideal pretext for scaling them up beyond any limitation."
Of course, we now know the measures the Italian government introduced went neither far nor fast enough. Now there are over 160,000
confirmed cases in Italy and over 20,000 confirmed deaths from the virus.
The confusion the idea of totalitarianism sows over responses in the United States has also been evident since last month. On
March 22, right-wing commentator Andrew Napolitano
asserted
that measures to combat COVID-19 were motivated by "totalitarian impulses." Meanwhile, state officials have been busy
postponing primary
elections, a measure that under normal circumstances would undoubtedly be denounced as totalitarian in nature.
If we are going to arrive at a more sophisticated answer to the question of how to govern democratically in the twenty-first century,
we must begin by acknowledging that all modern governments attempt to control and influence the lives of their citizens, and all
governments make use of exceptional powers to combat crises. The problem with the idea of totalitarianism is that it makes no accommodation
for the reasons behind such exercise of coercive power.
It is, of course, quite right to worry about Donald Trump's response to the virus. His dilly-dallying, his narcissism, and his
inability to take responsibility for anything may
cost
one hundred thousand or more lives. Commentators like Krugman are correct, insofar as Trump and his cronies are indeed trying to
use the crisis to cement their authority. But the ways they are going about it are not totalitarian in any sense of the word. In
fact, the idea of totalitarianism, as commentators such as Napolitano reveal, gives the radical right cover to denounce measures
to control the virus. It is the last stage in the late-twentieth-century neoliberal critique of government: if freedom is only ever
freedom from government interference, then the worst form of government is that which makes a total claim on its citizens, even in
the interest of saving them from a plague. Thinking in terms of totalitarianism -- instead of the broader and more flexible term
authoritarianism -- leads one into such frustrating mental thickets, in which democratic policies can plausibly be denounced as totalitarian.
These seeming paradoxes illustrate that the idea of totalitarianism is a useless tool in assessing the decency of governance
in any twenty-first-century state. If we are to survive in this brave new world, in which technology makes it ever easier for governments
to manipulate individual decisions, but in which we also demand that the state take an ever-larger role in ensuring our safety from
ourselves, we must acknowledge that the Manichean worldview implied in the term totalitarianism is an outdated relic of the Cold
War.
I've become convinced the next major event that'll be used to further centralize power and
escalate domestic authoritarianism will center around U.S.-China tensions. We haven't
witnessed this "event" yet, but there's a good chance it'll occur within the next year or
two. Currently, the front runner appears to be a major aggressive move by China into Hong
Kong, but it could be anything really. Taiwan, the South China Sea, currency, economic or
cyber warfare; the flash points are numerous and growing by the day. Something is going to
snap and when it does we better be prepared to not act like mindless imbeciles for the fourth
time this century.
When that day arrives, and it's likely not too far off, certain factions will try to sell
you on the monstrous idea that we must become more like China to defeat China. We'll be told
we need more centralization, more authoritarianism, and less freedom and civil liberties or
China will win. Such talk is nonsense and the wise way to respond is to reject the worst
aspects of the Chinese system and head the other way.
As the clownish farce that is Russiagate slinks back into the psyop dumpster from which it
emerged, an even more destructive narrative has metastasized following the U.S. government's
incompetent response to covid-19.
It was clear to me from the start that Russiagate was a nonsensical narrative wildly
embraced by a variety of powerful people in the wake of Trump's election merely to serve their
own ends. For establishment Democrats, it was a way to pretend Hillary Clinton didn't actually
lose because she was a wretched status quo candidate with a destructive track record, but she
lost due to "foreign meddling." This allowed those involved in her campaign to deflect blame,
but it also short-circuited any discussion of the merits of populism and widespread voter
dissatisfaction (within both parties) percolating throughout the land. It was a fairytale
invented by people intentionally putting their heads in the sand in order to avoid
confrontation with political reality and to keep their cushy gravy-train of entrenched
corruption going.
Russiagate was likewise embraced by the national security state (imperial apparatus) for
similar reasons. Like establishment Democrats, the national security state also wanted to
prevent the narrative that the status quo was rejected in the 2016 election from spreading. It
was incentivized to pretend Hillary's loss was the result of gullible Americans being duped by
crafty Russians in order to manufacture the idea that U.S. society was healthy and normal if
not for some external enemy.
Another primary driver for the national security state was to punish Russia for acting like
a sovereign state as opposed to a colony of U.S. empire in recent years. Russia has been an
increasingly serious thorn in the side of unipolarism advocates over the past decade by
performing acts such as buying gold, providing safe harbor for Edward Snowden, and thwarting
the dreams of regime change in Syria. Such acts could not go unpunished.
So Russiagate served its purpose. It wasted our time for much of Trump's first term and it
helped prevent Bernie Sanders from winning the Democratic nomination. Now we get Chinagate.
When the premier empire on the planet starts blaming external enemies for its internal
problems, you know it's almost always an excuse to let your own elites off the hook and further
erode civil liberties. While it appears the novel coronavirus covid-19 did in fact come from
China, and China tried to discourage other countries from taking decisive action in the early
days, our internal political actors blaming China for their own lack of preparation and timely
reaction is patently ridiculous.
The entire world saw China shutdown the entire city of Wuhan shuttering factories and the
economy. Anyone with two eyes and half a brain could see they were ACTING as if this were
very serious. I bought masks, hand sanitizer, lysol wipes at the end of January. Why didn't
State? https://t.co/oECvvxbV0K
If Stacy and myself were able to see the situation clearly and respond early, why couldn't
our government? This isn't rocket science. The Chinese were acting as if the world had ended in
cities across the country and we're supposed to believe U.S. leaders simply listened to what
the CCP was saying as opposed to what they were doing? How does that make any sense?
It makes even less sense considering the Trump administration has been in an explicit cold
war with China for almost two years. This concept that the American national security state
just took China's word for what was going on in the early days is preposterous. So what's going
on here? Similar to Russiagate, the increased focus on directing our ten minutes of hate at the
Chinese provides cover for the elites, but Chinagate is far more dangerous because the
narrative will prove far more convincing for many Americans.
Although Russiagate was rapidly embraced by people with severe Trump Derangement Syndrome,
most people just didn't buy into it or care. Only the most dimwitted amongst us actually
believed the Russians were responsible for our major problems at home, but when it comes to
China the argument can be far more persuasive because many aspects of the economic relationship
between the U.S. and China are in fact problematic. Specifically, the U.S. transformed itself
from a nation of producers and builders into a nation of debt-driven consumption slaves over
the past five decades. While China played a key role in this process, it wasn't the driver.
Did China force the U.S. to abandon gold convertibility in 1971, thus beginning the
transition from an industrial empire into a financial one? Did China convince us to repeal
Glass-Steagall, or lie about WMD in Iraq? Did China put a gun to our manufacturing executives'
heads and force them to offshore manufacturing, or did the executives do that with greed filled
eyes while earning billions upon billions from labor arbitrage? China may have directly
benefited from five decades of avarice-driven policy crimes committed by American "elites," but
they didn't cause them. They are entirely homegrown.
Yep, the only people who benefit from the external enemy obsession are the people who
actually wrecked this country.
Chinagate is far more dangerous than Russiagate because very serious fundamental problems
within the U.S.-China economic relationship do exist. I don't deny this, and I'm in favor of
actual policies that would incentivize the American people to become producers and builders as
opposed to castrated debt zombies. The problem is many of the people ratcheting up the volume
on the evils of China (I don't deny the abundance of evil) aren't interested in bringing
liberty and production back to America. Rather, they're trying to take away more of your
freedoms, economically and politically.
Wall Street and the national security state (empire) ransacked and hollowed out this
country. It wasn't your neighbor, it wasn't immigrants and it wasn't an external enemy.
The same people who've been in charge of the country for the entire 21st century remain in
charge. Presidential politics is pure theater in an empire. Think about it, the same people who
brought you endless war, the surveillance panopticon and perpetual Wall Street crime and
bailouts are supposed to take on China? The same China that made so many of them fabulously
wealthy? Give me a fucking break.
The elitist agenda isn't to use anger at China to bring freedom and production to our
shores, but to use heightened emotional fear to tighten their domestic power grip. The idea is
to use Chinese authoritarianism as a model for the U.S.
The post covid-19 elitist wet dream here is pretty transparent. Convince everyone to be a
compliant farm animal on an imperial plantation.
Unsurprisingly, the usual suspects are already coming out of their snake holes to advocate
for exactly that. We saw this a few days ago when Harvard Law Professor and former George W.
Bush administration lawyer, Jack Goldsmith, explicitly
called for Chinese-like censorship of speech on the internet.
In the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network,
China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong. Significant monitoring and
speech control are inevitable components of a mature and flourishing internet, and
governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is
compatible with a society's norms and values.
By all means advocate for a reshuffling of the relationship between the U.S. and China that
will lead to more freedom, resilience and economic vitality at home and I'll support it, but
don't tell me we need to become China in order to defeat China. If we're dumb enough to fall
for that, we'll get exactly what we deserve. Good and hard.
* * *
Liberty Blitzkrieg is an ad-free website. If you enjoyed this post and my work in general,
visit the Support Page where you can
donate and contribute to my efforts.
"... I guess when an administration has shown over and over again that it does not respect, international law, domestic law, the US constitution, logic, meaning or the English Language then it can say anything and do anything. ..."
"... The power of the United States is rapidly fading. The country is on the eve of a massive social crisis, as its ruling class fails even to understand the extent of the system's failure. ..."
"... Israel is nobody's real need. Zionism is a philosophical oddity stranded by the tides of history, a mid Victorian nonsense entirely composed of racism and silly ideas about human inequality. ..."
... is that akin to the portion of a George Carlin comedy sketch ?
"From 1778 to 1871, the United States government
entered into more than 500 treaties with
the Native American tribes; all of these treaties have since been violated
in some way or outright broken by the US government,
while at least one treaty was violated
or broken by Native American tribes."
The EU rapprochement with Iran is all about the huge market the EU wants. Their interest in
the JCPOA was always about Iran developing, and the EU benefiting for its trade and
investment potential.
Crippling Iran again with snapback sanctions certainly would end Iran-EU relations for a
decade or longer.
With the EU economy in the toilet due to the pandemic, now more than ever the EU needs
Iran free of sanctions, not laden with crippling new ones.
Only one country benefits from the economic strangulation of Iran--Israel.
In these times of memory holes, sometimes it pays to remember:
As much as I'd like to be optimistic that justice might actually be served for both
Epstein and his myriad clients/co-conspirators, I think the powers-that-be will again
squash this - or liquidate Epstein - before things get out of hand for them.
The American justice system has been corrupted in much the same way the political
system has been, and it's primary objective is to protect the rulers from the common
folk, not to actually deliver true justice.
I'll watch with anticipation, but I haven't had any satisfaction from either a
political or justice perspective since at least the 2000 coup d'etat, so I won't hold my
breath this time.
Economist Michael Hudson explains how American imperialism has created a global free lunch,
where the US makes foreign countries pay for its wars, and even their own military
occupation.
This is part of Tom's description of the Article on Pompeo, Esper and the gang of 1986
(west pointers). They are well embedded. In fact, one class from West Point, that of 1986, from which both Secretary of Defense
Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo graduated, is essentially everywhere in a
distinctly militarized (if still officially civilian) and wildly hawkish Washington in the
Trumpian moment.
In case you missed it the first time, I repeat this link from the beginning of April,
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176686/tomgram%3A_danny_sjursen%2C_trump%27s_own_military_mafia_/
-----------------
Red Ryder | Apr 27 2020 17:07 utc | 14
One addition there. The EU lost "market share" in Iran due to US sanctions. (As
they did with Russia). What they would like to do is to get it back. (France was one
of the bigger losers)
Before any aggression, the United States want Iran to be hermetically sealed with sanction
just like Iraq was before our invasion. Everybody knows the US's intentions because we've
seen it before. There will be NO domestic support for war on Iran as Americans die due to
no public healthcare and massive unemployment and poverty. Iran and the Middle East view a
war on Iran as an Israeli wet dream. Israel is viewed as the intellectual author of
aggression against Iran, and Iran will respond appropriately. So, is AIPAC willing to get
Israel destroyed? Is AIPAC on a suicide mission? Looks that way.
Israel and Saudi Arabia are de facto allies aiming to carve up the entire Middle East
between them. Forget about Sunni / Shia / Hebrew, that is a manufactured excuse to war for
resources (oil first, then water).
Proof? Mutual "enemies" (oil-rich Iran and Syria, which is the nexus for pipelines) and
mutual ally (Uncle Sam). Also not a single complaint from Israel over the $100b US-Saudi
Arms deal. As to Palestine, that is a human rights issue and has no weight because water is
not recognized as a strategic resource (yet).
I guess when an administration has shown over and over again that it does not respect,
international law, domestic law, the US constitution, logic, meaning or the English
Language then it can say anything and do anything.
"The Iranians are not helping the Palestinians one iota. They are splitting the
opposition."
Glasshopper@29
Whoever has been helping Hezbollah has been helping the Palestinians. And whoever has
been holding Syria together, despite the pressure of the imperialists and their sunni-state
puppets, has also been helping the Palestinians by bringing some kind of balance into
regional power calculations.
It is imperative that Iran continues not only to provide political support to the
Palestinian cause but to democratise the Gulf, to the extent of bringing about the demise
of the autocracies, and the Arabian world generally.
Israel has already exerted its maximum influence. The power of the United States is
rapidly fading. The country is on the eve of a massive social crisis, as its ruling class
fails even to understand the extent of the system's failure. (There will be no war to
divert attention from the crisis.) And Israel will be left to solve its own problems as its
'allies' find themselves increasingly pre-occupied with real problems.
Supporting Israel and building it up as an imperialist base has been part of an era in
which the empire was hegemonic and thus able to define international events in terms of
domestic politics.
That era has ended. The USA is still powerful but it is no longer anything more than one
of the major participants in geopolitical competition. Even to maintain its position it is
going to have to do, what other powers have done and concentrate its resources on its real
needs.
Israel is nobody's real need. Zionism is a philosophical oddity stranded by the
tides of history, a mid Victorian nonsense entirely composed of racism and silly ideas
about human inequality. Israel has one choice, to divest itself of its fascist
government and its fascistic culture and seek accommodation within the neighbourhood or to
wither away as its population emigrates leaving only the committed fascists to play with
Armageddon.
Long before that happens the imperialists will have taken its weapons away from it.
It may very well be the case that the ordinary Iranian is no more committed to fighting
on behalf of Palestinians than the average American is committed to risking all, or
anything, for the sake of Israel. But Iran's commitment to Palestine is a powerful
political statement and one that counters the divisive tactics of the wahhabis and their
imperial friends. Iran has taken up the mantle that Nasser briefly wore, in the vanguard of
a muslim and Arab nationalist movement. This makes it very difficult for the sunni tyrants
actually to commit forces to defend Israel or attack Iran. Their duplicity is a measure of
their own weakness.
Does anyone imagine that the pro-Israeli policies pursued by the Sauds are actually
popular? The Gulf and Saudi policies of sucking up to Israel are far more damaging to them
than Iran's stance is to it.
The United States announced its withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(JCPOA), also known as the "Iran nuclear deal" or the "Iran deal", on May 8, 2018.
This document discusses the legal rationale for the US withdrawal from tje JCPOA in
detail:
Iran should sign a peace deal with the Israelis.
Posted by: Glasshopper | Apr 27 2020 16:42 utc | 8
Some people should stick to what they do well, like hopping on glass. A simple
observation: peace deal with "the Israelis" is not possible. Gulfie princes tried. No
cigar. They genuinely tried to be nice with Israel, out of "anti-Semitic delusion that Jews
control USA". I conjecture that Glasshopper made a similar assumption -- why would Iran
consider a "peace deal with the Israelis" if its direct conflict is with USA (and the
Gulfies)? How it would help them unless "Jews control USA"?
As a mental experiment, let Grasshopper sketch a putative "deal with Israelis". Kushner
plan?
@70 BraveNewWorld, you haven't added up the numbers correctly. Take China, Russia and Iran
out of the equation leaves you with five (including the EU as a whole, which is not a
given). Take the USA out as well and it doesn't matter how sycophantic the Europeans are,
Pompeo can only muster four votes.
And he needs five to refer the issue to the UNSC.
That's why Pompous wants to waddle his way back in: no matter which way he looks at
this, without the USA sitting at the table he is one-short.
Actually, I've just read the JCPOA and UNSC Resolution 2231 and neither has any mention of
a "majority vote" requirement for a referral to the UNSC for a vote on "snapping back"
sanctions. It appears that any one JCPOA participant can refer the issue of alleged
non-compliance to the UNSC, provided that they first exhaust the Joint Commission dispute
mechanism.
But I do note this in the JCPOA (my bold): "Upon receipt of the notification from the
complaining participant, as described above, including a description of the good-faith
efforts the participant made to exhaust the dispute resolution process specified in this
JCPOA , the UN Security Council, in accordance with its procedures, shall vote on a
resolution to continue the sanctions lifting"
Seems to me that there is a procedural "out" there for the UN Secretariat i.e. it may
use that highlighted section to decide that the participant is a vexatious litigant whose
participation in the Joint Commission was not in good faith, ergo, the UN can refuse to
even take receipt of the complaint.
Everything else then becomes moot.
The USA would raise merry-hell, sure, it would. But that would be no more outrageous a
ploy by the UN than was the USA's own argument that it can have its cake and eat it
too.
After all, if a participant to the JCPOA referred its complaint to the UNSC without
first going through the Joint Commission then it is a given that the UNSC is under no
obligation to receive that complaint. No question.
So why can't the UNSC also refuse to accept a complaint when it is clear that the
complainant has not gone through the Joint Commission process in "good faith"?
One for the lawyers and ambassadors to argue, I would suggest, but it is not a given
that the USA can ram this through even if everyone were to agree that it were still a
participant in the JCPOA.
@61 Arch: "This document discusses the legal rationale for the US withdrawal from tje JCPOA
in detail"
Arch, the crux of that CRS legal paper boils down to this:
.."under current domestic law, the President may possess authority to terminate U.S.
participation in the JCPOA and to re-impose U.S. sanctions on Iran, either through
executive order or by declining to renew statutory waivers"..
All the other fluff in that paper is inconsequential compared to this question posed by
that quote: can the US claim to be half-pregnant?
I suspect not.
Note that at the time the CRS paper was written (May 2018) it did have a valid point
i.e. while Trump *had* refused to re-certify Iranian compliance, he had *not* reimposed US
sanctions on Iran, and so the CRS paper could credibly argue that Trump wasn't pregnant, he
just talking dirty to the Congress.
But that was then, and this is now, and - as b points out - Executive Order 13846 is the
smoking gun because in it Trump is OFFICIALLY stating that he has decided to " cease the
participation of the United States in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action ".
That EO is clearly the killing blow to Pompeo's nonsense, and even the CRS legal paper
you linked to would agree.
As I see it, the historical problem with European fascism has been that when push comes to
shove the knife comes out and its either give in to enforced collaboration or take a
stabbing, it's your choice. Even if that means helping murder millions of your neighbours
or being murdered. As Celan said "Der Tod ist ein Meister aus Deutschland."
The US has been enforcing a morally sanitised Disney Adult version of this old world
order since at least the 2003 Supreme Crime of Aggression against Iraq. Sooner or later as
this global pandemic, political, and financial crisis unfolds, the US leaders will be
forced to choose whether or not the UN is a viable vehicle through which to continue the
elite lunatic project for planetary full spectrum dominance of 21st C financial and
military affairs.
So I reckon the Pentagon at some point either gets to finally execute the long awaited
'Operation Conquer Persia' or the politicians and their chickenhawk ideologues will back
off again and continue the death by a thousand cuts of the last 40 years. I'd probably bet
the latter but that's the trouble with genuine psychopaths, push comes to shove they will
go for it if they think they'll get away with it.
This last 2 decades has been like watching a reality TV series about a fat drunken
psychopath with a bloody knife going around and stabbing people at a party, but now the
psycho is starting to stagger and everyone in the house is watchful trying to keep their
distance. House rules are that anyone starts an actual fight to the death with the psycho
then everyone dies!
I more or less trust that if we ever get there, a multipolar world order won't collapse
into outright fascism but we're closer to collapse every year, especially from this year
on, and most especially in the Persian Gulf.
In current US political system, it is not necessary to propose a valid claim, or proposal
or argument - they intend to act from a position of authority. They know where you live.
Based on my reading of popular news outlets and essays, speeches, the current term "liberal
international order" was born out of anti-Russian propaganda. The Russians were not only out
to get a few enemy countries (and Hillary personally), but was a civilizational threat. The
term basically means the US and its European lackey allies. It is self promoting PR against
the anti-Western imperialist Slavic and now Asiatic East.
I believe that much of the anti-Russian propaganda has its echoes if not origins in German
Nazi propaganda. The Nazis (and indeed their current brethren spread across Europe and North
America) believed that the Jews were not only trying to destroy Germany (America), but also
trying destroy the entirety of European civilization (EU). Which in current terms is the
liberal international order. This term helps justify the hysterical anti-Russian rants in the
mass media of North America and the EU. This is an old anti-Semitic narrative updated.
THE SENATE Intelligence Committee has
released a bipartisan
report with a stark bottom line: What President Trump calls the " Russia hoax " isn't a hoax at all.
The fourth and latest installment in lawmakers' review of Moscow's meddling examines a
January 2017 assessment by the nation's spy agencies that Mr. Trump has repeatedly attempted to
discredit -- and confirms it, unanimously. Russia sought to subvert Americans' belief in our
democracy, bring down Hillary Clinton and bolster her rival. That these legislators from both
sides of the aisle are willing to say as much after three years of thorough investigation is an
encouraging sign of some independent thinking still left in government. It's also a reminder of
the peril this independence is in today. The Russia hoax was never a hoax. An encouraging
bipartisan report confirms it. - The Washington Post
The committee members conclude that the intelligence community produced a "coherent and
well-constructed . . . basis for the case of unprecedented Russian interference
in the 2016 U.S. presidential election" despite a tight time frame. The report also examines
two matters of particular contention: first, whether the salacious dossier compiled by former
British intelligence officer Christopher Steele played an inappropriate role in the finding of
interference; the senators say it did not. And second, whether former CIA director John O.
Brennan pressured colleagues into arriving at a stronger conclusion than the evidence
warranted.
This latter concern is also at the center of the broad probe Attorney General William P.
Barr has ordered into the origins of the Russia investigation. "There are a lot of things that
are unexplained," Mr. Barr has said
. "And we'll be able to sort out exactly what happened." Yet the senators have pursued the same
avenues of inquiry and come up with a clear answer: The differing levels of confidence among
agencies were "justified and properly represented," and the ultimate wording was reached
"openly and with sufficient exchanges of views."
"... I spotted Yahoo News carrying this NYT hit piece today and was tempted to respond. Then I saw the general run of comments that read like the target audience it was meant for, and figured I'd be wasting my time. It might have been worth squandering five minutes, though. ..."
"... It is a scary situation. A lot of people actually believe the New York Times. ..."
"... Did you see this one in today's NYTimes? The pot didn't just call the kettle black: With Selective Coronavirus Coverage, China Builds a Culture of Hate: The state propaganda machine highlights other countries' mistakes while suppressing China's, fueling anger toward foreigners and domestic critics alike. see: http://nytimes.com/2020/04/22/business/china-coronavirus-propaganda.html ..."
UPDATED: The paper of record is again laundering, without skepticism, U.S. intelligence
meant to ratchet up tensions with China, just as it did with Russia, writes Joe Lauria.
D uring the saga of Russiagate The New York Times was the main vehicle for unnamed
U.S. intelligence officials to filter uncorroborated allegations about Russia, presenting them
as proven fact.
Just as the Democratic Party attempted to shift the blame from its disastrous 2016 loss to
Donald Trump onto Russia, the Trump administration is now trying to shift the blame from
Trump's disastrous handling of the Coronavirus crisis onto China.
Robert Emmett , April 23, 2020 at 12:06
Yeah, wouldn't expect anything less than well-deserved acrimony for the Grey Hag on this
site. Some of us still remember how the so-called paper of record withheld the "smoking gun"
of King Geo the Younger's use of mass surveillance until after the 2004 election. Who do you
suppose is their target audience for this latest fake scoop? Could it be the newly woke crowd
who now raise the NYrag as their gold standard in all things considered Russia bashing? Talk
about fuddy-duddy.
Today's mass media is full of rope-a-dope tricks such as placing a tiny nugget of "truth"
within a massive hairball of innuendo, exaggeration, disinformation and lies to be extracted
at the exact right moment to gainsay those who would question the narrative du jour. Another
well-worn deception is to let the lowest common denominator source set the dodgy agenda and
then use that cue to follow the "news" as fits to serve their own agendas. Over the years,
that often involves skewing reactionary and "forgetting" how to connect dots.
You can see a prime example of this (also part of the current surge of anti-China
propaganda) at that other bastion of unnamed sources, the WaPo. Blumenthal lays out how it's
done at The Grayzone Project re: allegations that the Wuhan Biotech lab released the virus.
Funny though how there's a yawning gap in the story about the hows & whys &
wherefores of an actual shutdown of a similar Level 4 lab right in WaPo's own backyard at
Fort Detrick.
"Dodgy scoop" made me smile. Are those served on self-licking ice cream cones?
China and Russia had better be keeping their powder dry. No telling how far this lunacy is
going to go. With Pirro´s rant it looks like the crazies have been let out of the pen
and is just the thing to get the mentally challenged in an up roar and demanding military
action against China. I have no doubt that China can handle the American military in a
conventional confrontation but if it goes nuclear all bets are going to be off. The Better
Dead Than Reders seem to be riding high right now. Who knows they may just get their wish.
The Pirros et all do sound like the woman in a bar just itching to get a fight going, and
then screaming blue murder when her favorite gets the snot beat out of him. You just can
never get them to shut up before the fight gets going. but the Pirros of the world never can
quite get a grip around the fact that is proven over and over again, wars and fights are easy
to start, but hard to finish and no one knows how they aill turn out. And given the lack of
success of the American military in wars of choice since the Second World War I would be very
careful if I was her of what I was wishing for.
As I understand it, we (our intelligence people) were aware of the "potential" threat of
the virus before the Chinese leadership announced it to the world. China did announce it to
the world and people can argue they should have done it sooner. But the failure, if we decide
there is one, belongs to us in not acting on the intelligence. Why we didn't is a matter
worth investigating although what will be learned to prevent such future errors is
unclear.
Certainly, those who want to use this as a further wedge between us and China do not serve
anyone's interests other than the cui bono horde who benefits from such divisions.
As others have stated our most serious virus is the one that causes who to seek
confrontation with other governments whenever opportunity arises. It is a very destructive
virus.
DW Bartoo , April 23, 2020 at 10:38
It may be counted upon that ALL institutions in the U$ military empire will deliver the
worst possible outcomes.
The evidence for this assertion is voluminous and growing by the hour (quite as obscenely
as the "wealth" of Jeff Bezos grows at the rate of $11 thousand every second).
Frankly, one could hardly expect anything less from The NY Times.
Be it war-mongering, hysteria-building, or sycophantic "official" propagandizing [now
fully legal thanks to the sainted Obama, who also, it is alkedged, played a highly
significant role in destroying the (now obviously) pathetic campaign of Bernie Sander, that
Joe Biden, clearly suffering from dementia, and poster boy of the very neoliberal policies
which elevated Trump to power, will be the Dem "standard bearer seeking the same power while
promising to do nothing at all – about anything, which really IS the Standard Dem
policy, U$ politics being about nothing but controlling the spoils and keeping the
revolving-door/lobbying graving train rolling merrily along].
Yet the real Powers That Be, cannot only count upon all the vaunted institutions from a
pretend democracy and rigged political system, to a complacent, complicit, and criminally
compromised MSM to parrot absolute idiocy, they may also count on a thoroughly infantile
majority of the public to rally behind any war, of words, of weapons, even of nuclear
weapons, simply because the U$ is exceptional, beyond compare, and constitutionally unwilling
to learn anything from any other nation, society, or people.
It is not merely the MSM which inculcate these myths of superiority, it is the entire
educational system as well.
It is not, necessarily, a conspiracy, it is simply conveniently and comfortably profitable
to buy into the idiocy and pass it happily along.
Evidence?
Actual facts?
Not necessary.
And most inconvenient.
It might affect circulation.
U$ian Idiocy is quite as communicable as the "novel" coronavirus.
As my youngest daughter put it, "It's a long story."
Just to test my wits, she then asked me if I got the joke.
Yes, my dear, I got it.
At some point, it is possible that most of us will
Voice from Europe , April 23, 2020 at 08:37
The Chinese reports to the WHO are clear and transparent and date from the end of January.
Western MSM has no journalist worth that name !
Just like the new anti Hydrochloroquine study that was reported is full of potholes just
waiting for someone to be read.
People please check the published reprints of IHU mediterranee.
Hippocrates said: There are in fact two things, Science and Opinion. The former begets
Knowledge, the latter Ignorance.
Please people distinguish fact from opinion.
Mike from Jersey , April 22, 2020 at 18:39
The article states:
"Any reputable journalism school will teach its students that you hold off publishing
until you see the evidence underlying an assertion. "
But this was not a reputable newspaper.
So, what did you expect?
... ... ...
AnneR , April 23, 2020 at 14:04
Yastreb – Indeed worse, though less for the reality that propaganda, slanted
"reportage" is the common currency of the "news" organs of both the USA and Russia (not to
mention pretty much the rest of the world's MSM), than for the fact that while Russians, from
USSR days, knows to take everything in the media with some salt, to question the veracity of
unsupported, dubiously supported claims, here in the US of A unsubstantiated, or porously
backed, weakly supported "facts" usually expressed in Newspeak, slippery ways are very often
accepted by the target audience, hook, line and bloody sinker.
I mean – it's the NYT, or WaPo, or The Atlantic, CNN, MSDNC, PBS, NPR; they would
never try to mislead us. Would they? Gorblimey. One despairs, one really does.
And *not* as if the gullible readers, audiences (largely composed of the supporters of the
Dem face of the single-Janus party) have let Russiagate go, if what I hear on NPR (including
its BBC World Service broadcasts) is anything to go by.
China-gate – neither side of the single party can possibly let this opportunity to
prevent the rise of China, stop this ancient culture's challenging the "rightful,"
exceptional(ly barbaric) world hegemon, USA, from maintaining its proper position at the top
of the firmament however it is achieved.
Tobin Sterritt , April 22, 2020 at 17:03
I spotted Yahoo News carrying this NYT hit piece today and was tempted to respond. Then I
saw the general run of comments that read like the target audience it was meant for, and
figured I'd be wasting my time. It might have been worth squandering five minutes,
though.
Mike from Jersey , April 23, 2020 at 08:44
Tobin,
It is a scary situation. A lot of people actually believe the New York Times.
Did you see this one in today's NYTimes? The pot didn't just call the kettle black: With Selective Coronavirus Coverage, China Builds a Culture of Hate: The state propaganda
machine highlights other countries' mistakes while suppressing China's, fueling anger toward
foreigners and domestic critics alike. see:
http://nytimes.com/2020/04/22/business/china-coronavirus-propaganda.html
AnneR , April 23, 2020 at 14:08
O Society – well, bien sur. I mean we can blacken every people, culture, society,
government (except those we install – that we never do, unless they stray from their
[American] defined path) as much as we want, as often as we please and no one has the right
to call us out on that, complain. Heaven forfend – we'll bomb 'em, subject them to
siege warfare (via ever tightening economic sanctions no matter how many children we kill
doing this – "price is worth it" in'it?
Donald Duck , April 22, 2020 at 15:29
"Any reputable journalism school will teach its students that you hold off publishing
until you see the evidence underlying an assertion. This is especially true when quoting
anonymous sources. And it is doubly true when these sources are intelligence agents, who have
a long history of deception. It is part of their job description."
True enough, but we are not talking about 'reputable journalism' – such a
fuddy-duddy notion. We are talking about crude propaganda and a ruthless realpolitik.
Assertion, anonymous sources, smears, lies, calumny and dancing to the tune of whatever the
deep, state and national security play to us. We have entered a post-democratic age and we
would be well advised to bear this in mind. The ruling elites are blatantly bereft of any
type of moral scruples; Pompeo put it well, 'lie, cheat' an he might have added 'whack'
anyone who gets in the way of the grand project. 'Whack' being mafia terminology for murder
of ones opponents. Pompeo even looks like a mafia Godfather. Mafia ideology and methodology
have permeated the structure and institutions of American society.
bjd , April 22, 2020 at 17:00
Exactly.
And thus articles like these –premised on the idea that the NYT is reputable–
belong to the literary genre 'fiction'.
AnneR , April 23, 2020 at 14:17
Donnie – Pompeo claims (proudly? loudly?) to be a christian but somehow he missed
all of that stuff about helping your neighbor, turning the other cheek, taking care of the
stranger (Samaritan-wise). Or avoided it like the plague.
And given the really existing history of the USA – "mafia ideology and methodology"
deriving, backed by profound supremacist racism has permeated this country since the Brits
first landed and started grabbing the lands and killing the indigenous, then going to Africa
and buying the Africans in order to profit from their sale and their labor While overt
slavery has ended (the US Fed and State prisons continue to gain from such prisoner slave
labor) and theft of the remainder of Indigenous lands and resources is largely in the
shadows, the attitudes, beliefs and behaviors pretty much remain alive and ill-meaning.
JOHN CHUCKMAN , April 22, 2020 at 15:17
The New York Times: the house organ of America's establishment.
Sam F , April 22, 2020 at 14:35
The NYT story is also shaky because broadcasts to the US about a nationwide lockdown would
have been implausible, discredited by simple denial, and might well reduce virus panic. The
sources of such messages are easily counterfeited and therefore speculative, like the fake
"Russian" messages from Ukraine, and far more likely to originate from beneficiaries than the
MSM target du jour.
Bob Van Noy , April 23, 2020 at 12:10
Exactly Sam F and thank you Joe Lauria. We keep hearing the same scenario over and over
with different characters. I recently read "The Poisoner In Chief" by Stephen Kinzer and I
was stunned by the secret drug and mind control experiments of the 1950s and 1960s.
Certainly
it's not too much of a stretch to imagine that they continue. Also see the gray zone article
"How a Trump media dump mainstreamed Chinese lab corona virus conspiracy theory" by Max
Blumenthal and Ajit Singh.
Sam F , April 23, 2020 at 19:19
Good to see you back, Bob. The referenced article is indeed worthwhile.
jaycee , April 22, 2020 at 14:15
Provable links from lockdown protests to domestic right-wing astroturf organizations.
The fact-free claims of foreign interference seeking to exploit divisions or "sow chaos"
is itself a domestic program to exploit divisions and and direct projections onto "the
other". It is directed by the federal intelligence agencies in collaboration with the major
mainstream media outlets. The central "proof" of foreign perfidy is the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence's Report on alleged Russian measures to interfere with America
(released Nov 2018), which is one of the most vapid and factually barren "products" ever
produced. The New York Times has asserted the Report represents established fact. It's all,
ironically, very Soviet.
DavidH , April 22, 2020 at 20:19
I get your point, jaycee, I think. The stuff in the Times is all "very soviet"
(ironically) by the old Soviets' standards. That's if their old system had had, in
addition to domestic propaganda, an effective propaganda campaign abroad. Did they? I mean
all this projecting on Russia and China (meant to be digested by the homeland) is accompanied
by a considerable outlay for transmitted-outward propaganda. Did the old Soviet system really
have an outlay as big as ours is now? For sure they had spies, but so did we.
I'll have to listen again to Tuesday's Loud & Clear to know if Richard Wolff really
was as down on Putin as I seem to remember. Geopolitically Putin seems to me to have been
pretty much more fair than we have in the past, say, six or seven years. But, in terms of
oil, all energy hegemons it seems follow sort of the same patterns of behavior. They
want energy dominance for their group [they've got it], and in smaller theaters
individual members will attempt to attain it for themselves. But, yes, concomitant is that
they must agree some amongst each other just as crime syndicates must. This is a dimension of
hegemony it is sad to contemplate but real. One would like to think Russia is more fair, but
when it comes to oil Russia doesn't really seem to pay much lip service to any shade at all
of some global Green New Deal. And one would like to think China in general less
hypocritical, but then you have McKinsey and Prince and that whole mess [we see they had
things figured out better than us on SARS-CoV-2 but while as an American maybe I have no room
to talk Snowden probably had a point that civilization could have done even better
preparation than China's "pretty good" preparation]. So, in thinking about all this you have
to try I guess to name the overarching global paradigm and blame it. For sure the US
is in it up to its neck. Maybe even we invented it, or invented the things that morphed into
it. Everything Lauria wrote above makes sense, and once again we owe Consortium.
Glad to see this written (not just me that believes it) "The early view is that hardly
any government responded with the urgency required."
The amplification of messages – i.e. the re-transmission of memes and links –
is basically how Twitter is designed to work. The interpretation of normal processes as
something vaguely dangerous and sinister is itself a sort of psy-op. It seems to me a modern
version of old Bircher themes of impurification of fluids – and ultimately just as
wacky.
The notion that adversaries are intent on "sowing chaos" and division through the
transmission of memes seems to have developed from a realization that the Internet Research
Agency's ridiculous click-bait Facebook ads could not rationally be portrayed as a 'Vote
Trump" campaign, and so they were reinterpreted as a "Chaos" campaign based on a
pre-determined understanding that it was a deliberate program by an adversary state rather
than just simply an online marketing scheme.
All the evidence reveals and confirms that it was, in fact, simply an online marketing
scheme. The takeaway is that members of Congress and the mainstream media really do take us
all for easily manipulated idiots.
Tennegon , April 24, 2020 at 10:31
Regarding the so-called economic relief measures from Washington, there was this in a
local newspaper article about our local businesses struggles, and ultimate inability, to
access 'loans' to keep people employed, their enterprises viable:
"One reason the PPP ( Paycheck Protection Program) coffers emptied in 13 days is that
although the program was supposed to help small businesses, many larger companies received
the low-interest loans.
The Associated Press reported that at least 75 companies that have publicly traded stock
were given PPP loans, and some of those firms have market values exceeding $100 million.
Eight companies received the maximum $10 million loan, according to the AP, and 4,400
loans were for more than $5 million.
Aid wasn't limited to companies that strain the definition of "small business,"
either.
Harvard University received an $8.7 million loan."
DW Bartoo , April 23, 2020 at 21:09
Much appreciate that Consortium News has published this article, as have a number of other
sites.
This article has already sparked numerous conversations and may well serve to encourage
deeper and more conscientious thought which this nation desperately needs to embrace and
extend.
While the neoliberal and neoconservative "interests" fully intend to make use of this
pandemic to gain further choke-holds on the many, it is very possible that reason and
humanity might yet wrest compelling visions of possibility, of what a sane, humane, and
sustainable future could actually look and feel like, from this unfolding and continuing
crisis.
Many still assume that the pandemic and the political "response" to it are two
seperate things, that the clear failure of the U$ government to respond to the dire need of
the many, preferring to
"bailout" the wealthy and big corporations to the cost of the many now losing their jobs and
health insurance, is not connected to the intent of the few to position themselves such that
they may make the many even more desperate. The pandemic, is the excuse, the opportunity, for
the powerful and wealthy to fully establish a neofeudal "economy", as "normal".
It would be a true shame therefore, for the many, to waste this opportunity and settle for
either "more of the same", more viciously applied, or "nothing will change", more
hypocritically pursued, as the pretense of democracy now assumes it can foist on a public
instructed and coerced to "vote" for "lesser evilness", when lived experience (call it a
people's history) makes clear that systemic change is absolutely necessary, that principle
and human beings (not to mention life in general and the environment which permits and
sustains our very existence) matters very much more than "profit" and the pitiful "ambitions"
of the parasitic and pathological elite.
The pusillanimous political class, all a-pander to that money and power hungry elite, have
no useful solution or compassion on offer.
It is time to imagine and build a different human society in which the potential of all is
encouraged and, as well, to realize that there is enough to see that
every human being can receive, food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, worthwhile education and
meaningful endeavor, as basic rights of human existence.
What there is not enough of, is wealth and power sufficient to satisfy the pathologically
dis-eased amongst us.
They are the real plague, the real threat, the real danger to human existence, it is they
and their behavior that threaten extinction.
It is they who destroy through plunder, pillage, and war, the environment and the
wellbeing of the many.
It is they who embrace unreason, violence, propaganda, deceit, and the manipulation of
others.
It is they who make mock of the rule of law, of genuine democracy, and of human
decency.
It is they who threaten, terrorize, and tear down, "creative destruction", they term it,
as they pursue their pathological desire to control, to spy on, to frighten, and to diminish
the many, to set the many against each other, to herd and impoverish the many.
Who among us wishes that to be considered "normal"?
Who among us wishes to "return" to any such "normal"?
Only those who profit from such a vile and despicable "normal" want more of it.
JOHN CHUCKMAN , April 23, 2020 at 13:14
That Manhattan store sign is beautiful.
Had America more of that kind of spirit, our world would be a happier place, by far.
But it does not.
It has a trillion-dollar-a-year military-security state that kills and steals and
generates immense amounts of human misery.
"Evidence" means testimony, writings, material objects, or other things presented to the
senses that are offered to prove the existence or nonexistence of a fact. -- California
Evidence Code sec 140
Even the NYT acknowledged (before it erased the text in its story on Reade that noted
there were no other sexual misconduct charges pending against him other than that long
history of assaults and sniffing and hands-on, text removed by the Times at the instance of
the Biden campaign staff?
Here's the original text: " The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden,
beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable."
Waiting for the apologists to tell us why the edit to remove the last clause starting "beyond
" is just "Good journalism."
He and Trump are bad examples of the male part of the species. Nothing to choose that I
can see, other than who among the people that revise those bribes to them will be the first
in line at the MMT watering hole
i had a lengthy discussion about this with my brother and sil, it came down to her saying
I DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT re bidens history of being a ttl letch plus possible rapist and my
brother questioning what is obvious discomfort in multiple video evidence.
They said defeating trump was paramount to anything against biden. i simply give up at
this point.
Lots of partisan hackery and TDS going around in the last few years in once respectable
lefty publications. Mother Jones has gone completely to hell rather than raising any, as was
once their mission statement. I haven't read the Nation as much in recent years – I let
my subscription lapse a while ago as I found I just couldn't keep up with reading it.
Coincidentally I think that was about the time I started reading NC. The Nation has a history
of sheepdogging lefties to rally behind bad Dem candidates, which was another reason I didn't
feel bad letting my subscription go.
I do still have my subscription to Harper's but they were getting on my nerves quite a bit
to the point I considered cancelling them too. Rebecca Solnit wrote some truly cringe-worthy
editorials for them after Trump's election. They seem to have removed her from writing the
main editorial so maybe I wasn't the only one who felt she left a little to be desired. I'm
quite fond of the newer woman they have doing editorials, Lionel Shriver. She seems like
she'd fit in quite well here!
I left (pun intended) the Nation pub in the dust way back in the 1990's and buried it post
9/11. Used to be a real good alternative press pub 30-40 years ago. Somewhere along the line
it lost it's way and joined the wishy-washy "gatekeeper' society of "approved news."
RIP
The Nation was a sanity saviour back in late 70s and through 1980s; then something
happened. Not clear when or what, but I know I let my subscription lapse. Tried again later,
but it was never the same. It's mostly unbearable now, except for Stephen Cohen. Walsh has
been in the unbearable category for many years now.
Leonard Pitts just had an editorial in my local paper where he opined that even if Biden
had sexually assaulted Reade, it didn't really matter because we had to vote against
Trump.
I wrote this in reply:
So Leonard Pitts thinks that Biden's alleged sexual attack on Tara Reade isn't disqualifying,
even if true. Strange, he didn't think that way about Brett Kavanagh. I didn't want to attack
the columnist as a hypocrite without being sure, so I looked it up. Here is what he
wrote:
"It's a confluence of facts that speak painfully and pointedly to just how unseriously
America takes men's predations against women. You might disagree, noting that the Senate
Judiciary Committee has asked Ford to testify. But if history is any guide, that will prove
to be a mere formality – a sop to appearances – before the committee recommends
confirmation."
Looks very much like "Well, It's excusable when our guys do it."
Always had a crush on K v d Heuvel. (How's that for an opening to a post about misogyny
and sexual misconduct)?
But can't we disqualify Joe! as the craven proponent of the worst neo-lib policies that
got us exactly where we are today? Or, in polite company, ask politely whether he is even in
a mental state to hand over the keys to the to the family car, let alone the nuclear
football?
Let's take the Id out of IdPol, I don't care if the candidate has green skin and three
eyes if the policies they would enact come within smelling distance of benefiting the 99% (or
more precisely in Joe's case within hair smelling distance).
We can use his personal conduct as a component in our judgement but pleeease can we focus
on the stuff that would actually affect our lives. In his case, for the absolute worse.
(Note: I sincerely doubt whether Joe is currently allowed to drive a car, please oh please
Mr.God-Yahweh-Mohammed-Buddha-Obama can we not let him drive a nation).
Joe Biden's louche son Hunter -- known for his hearty indulgence in drugs and his sexual
adventures with strippers -- is a perfect specimen of humanity under this system. If he gets
more stimulation than others, everyone else should get enough. And if they don't, they mustn't
complain, they should ask for a program.
He is though [candidate of fear]. The absolute driving impulse behind Joe Biden is fear of
Trump. Who is electing Biden because of his ideas and policies? There are articles that
literally say - "Joe, just have a pulse by the time of the election, that's enough for us."
I think that one was in Atlantic.
I mean what is Russiagate, that's pure scaremongering - those Red Russkies are back with
vengeance. The idea of return to safe, secure "normalcy", the good old days of calm and
peace, if only Trump can be removed.
Beside some of the most hardened diehard China basher which were posted here by many MoA
and including Willy2, is SCMP (South China Morning Post) probably rank top two or three MSM
ant-China and bashers.
This morning SCMP Headline "Donald Trump's latest attack on China over coronavirus
'highlights challenge in repairing relations'"
Two reporters Kristin Huang and Cissy Zhou wrote the piece (bios below) if two or more
reporters wrote a story mean controversial stories: Hong Kong riots, Trade Wars, Covid19,
Xinjiang, Police brutality, Tibet, Freedom of Speech, etc...
SCMP reporters previously embedded with - CNN, BBC, MSNBC, Wall Street Journals,
WaPo , are biases. "Politico announced a content-sharing partnership with the Hong
Kong-based newspaper South China Morning Post (SCMP) " a fucking NeoLiberal hack. SCMP is
free, owner Alibaba, Jack Ma - a CCP party cadre. I don't subscribe commie ideology ,
but fair and balance reporting. Unlike CGTN, XinHua, Global Times or People Daily mainly
China and China bias.
Examines reporters' language spoken, (I'm NOT an anthropologist or Linguistics and
NOT 100% correct but most probable) if mainlanders, HKie, ABC (American Born Chinese),
OBC (Overseas born Chinese). OBC normally spoke Mandarin and/or Cantonese. ABC Chinese never
speak Cantonese and/or Mandarin, dialect and Bahasa Malayu or Indonesian, Tagalog. I speak
four dialects beside Bahasa Malayu.
Last year China barred Phila Siu into Macau, this year again kicked out 3 Wall
Street Reporters, even thought the three reporters didn't wrote the piece "China the Sick man
of Asia" and requested withdrew the articles...
"Two of the three mainland China-based Wall Street Journal reporters whose press
credentials were revoked last week due to the outlet publishing an opinion piece titled
"China Is the Real Sick Man of Asia" left the country on Monday..... Josh Chin and
reporter Chao Deng.... Philip Wen , an Australian national. All three had five days to
leave the country after the February 19 announcement."
More... "Phila Siu...barred from Macau's.....journalist since 2009. He has reported on
human rights, security, politics , and society in Hong Kong, mainland China and
Southeast Asia. He holds a bachelor's degree in journalism from Hong Kong Baptist University
and a human rights law master's degree from the University of Hong Kong.
Ultimately, these trash or Americunts must leave SCMP and HK, worked in US of A,
before 2047. More.... while CGTN Produced in Washington, DC., UK and Nairobi, Kenya,
correspondents and anchors mostly American (White, non ethnic Han or Chinese) based in US of
A. CGTN is smart and protect their arse.
Unless freaking US of A learn to respect China and treated China as equally like any
Nations on earth China will continue tit for tat
Kristin Huang is a senior China reporter, who focuses on diplomacy and defence. She joined
the Post in 2016 and previously reported for China Review News Agency. Kristin is interested
in security in northeast Asia and China's growing military might.
Areas of Expertise: International relations, diplomacy, defence
Languages Spoken: English, Mandarin, Cantonese
Cissy Zhou, Political Economy Reporter
Cissy joined the SCMP in 2019. Prior to that, she has been a producer at BBC News and
investigative reporter at CaiXin Media. She is interested in China's politics and
economy.
Areas of Expertise: Chinese politics, Chinese companies, Chinese economy
Languages Spoken: English, Mandarin
Disclaimer: Eng not my mother tongue, wish someone hijack and rewrite, correct Eng
mistakes etc. Finally SCMP is #2 anti-China media if ZeroHedge is #1. Thanks for
reading.
The coronavirus pandemic has upended the global economic system, and just as importantly,
cast out 40 years of neoliberal orthodoxy that dominated the industrialized world.
Forget about the " new
world order ." Offshoring and global supply chains are out; regional and local production
is in. Market fundamentalism is passé; regulation is the norm. Public health is now more
valuable than just-in-time supply systems. Stockpiling and industrial capacity suddenly make
more sense, which may have future implications in the recently revived
antitrust debate in the U.S.
Biodata will drive the next phase of social management and surveillance, with near-term
consequences for the way countries handle immigration and customs. Health care and education
will become digitally integrated the way newspapers and television were 10 years ago. Health
care itself will increasingly be seen as a necessary public good, rather than a private right,
until now in the U.S. predicated on age, employment or income levels. Each of these will
produce political tensions within their constituencies and in the society generally as they
adapt to the new normal.
This political sea change doesn't represent a sudden conversion to full-on socialism, but
simply a case of minimizing our future risks of infection by providing full-on universal
coverage. Beyond that, as Professor Michael Sandel
has argued , one has to query the "moral logic" of providing "coronavirus treatment for the
uninsured," while leaving "health coverage in ordinary times to the market" (especially when
our concept of what constitutes "ordinary times" has been upended).
Internationally, there will be many positive and substantial international shifts to address
overdue global public health needs and accords on mitigating climate change. And it is finally
dawning on Western-allied economic planners that the military price tag that made so-called
cheap oil and cheap labor possible is vastly higher than investment in advanced research and
next-generation manufacturing.
This also means that the old North (developed world) versus South (emerging world) division
that long preoccupied scholars and
policymakers in the post–World War II period will become increasingly stark again,
particularly for those emerging economies that have hitherto attracted investment largely on
the grounds of being repositories of low-cost labor. They will now find themselves picking
sides as they seek assistance in an increasingly divided and multipolar world.
The fault lines of the next economic era have already begun to surface, creating friction
with the previous international structure of banking and finance, trade and industry. There is
a force beyond elites and critical industries driving this: The proletariat has literally
become the "precariat."
In the U.S. and Europe, the staggering number of service economy workers are going to be
quickly politicized by the shortfalls: People have seen a collapse in income, and big failures
in education, and health care. Union-busting, pension fleecing, and austerity budgets and new
technologies that concentrate wealth away from labor have created a circumstance where
ownership and profit models must be revisited to sustain stability. The needs are too acute to
be distracted by the lies of Trump, or the inadequate responses in other parts of the
industrialized world. The current crisis will likely prompt geopolitical and economic shifts
and dislocations we haven't seen since World War II.
Death of Chimerica, the Rise of New Production Blocs
One of the biggest casualties of the current order is the breakdown of " Chimerica ,"
the decades-old nexus between the U.S. and Chinese economies, along with other leading
countries' partnerships with Chinese manufacturing. While the geopolitics of blame for the
origins of coronavirus continue to shake out, the process that saw a decrease in exports from
China to the U.S. from
$816 billion in 2018 to $757 billion in 2019 will accelerate and intensify over the next
decade.
While a decoupling is unlikely to lead to armed conflict, a Cold War style of competition
could emerge as a new global fault line. Much as the Cold War did not preclude some degree of
collaboration between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union, so too today there may still be
areas of cooperation between Washington and Beijing from climate to public health, advanced
research to weapons proliferation.
Nor does this shift necessarily spell the sudden collapse of Chinese power or influence --
it has a colossal and still-growing domestic market and is on the international leaderboard for
a wide range of advanced indicators. But its status as the world's most desirable offshore
manufacturing hub is a thing of the past, along with the economic stability that steady inflows
of foreign capital brought with it. It does show a susceptibility to domestic stress, with the
Hong Kong protests last year providing a hint of what is in store as the party leadership can't
pivot to new realities that include slower economic growth and declining foreign
investment.
As investment flows turn inward back to industrialized countries, there will likely be
corresponding diminution of the global labor arbitrage emanating from the emerging world. In
general, that's a negative for the global South, but potentially a positive factor for workers
elsewhere, whose wages and living standards have stagnated for decades as they lost jobs to
competing overseas low-cost manufacturing centers (the increase in inequality is
principally a product of 40 years of sustained attacks on unions). The jobs won't be the
same, but to be sure, manufacturing incomes exceed those of the service industry.
As each country adopts a " sauve-qui-peut " mentality, businesses and
investors are drawing the necessary conclusions. Coronavirus has been a wake-up call, as
countries trying to import medical goods from existing global supply chains face a
shortage of air and ocean freight options to ship goods back to home markets. Already, the
Japanese government has announced its plans "to spend over $2 billion to help its country's
firms move production out of China," according to the Spectator
Index . The EU leadership is publicly
indicating a policy of subsidy and state investment in companies to prevent Chinese buyouts or
undercutting prices.
Two billion dollars is small potatoes compared to what is likely to be spent by the U.S. and
other countries going forward. And it can't simply be done via research and development tax
credits. The state can and must drive this redomiciling process in other ways: via local content
requirements (LCRs) , tariffs, quotas and/or government procurement local sourcing
requirements. And with a $750-billion-plus budget, the U.S. military will likely play a role
here, as it
ponders disruptions from overseas supply sources .
Of course, if the U.S. does this, other parts of the world -- China, the EU, Japan -- will
likely do the same, which will accelerate the regionalization trends in trade. This may mean
that some U.S. firms will have to operate in foreign markets through local subsidiaries with
local content preferences and local workforces (that is how it worked in the 1920s -- Ford UK
was a mostly local British company, different from the U.S. Ford Motor Company, but with shared
profits).
An examination of U.S. planning for the post-1945 world reveals the emphasis was on free
trade in raw materials mostly, not finished goods. (The U.S. only adopted one-way "free trade"
with its Asian and European allies later as a Cold War measure to accelerate their development
and keep them in the American orbit.)
Domestically within the U.S., as
Dalia Marin writes , the coming declines in interest rates will accelerate "robot adoption"
by 75.7 percent, with concentration "in the sectors that are most exposed to global value
chains. In Germany, that means autos and transport equipment, electronics, and textiles --
industries that import around 12 percent of their inputs from low-wage countries. Globally, the
industries where the most reshoring activity is taking place are chemicals, metal products, and
electrical products and electronics."
As the coronavirus pandemic is illustrating, a viable industrial ecosystem cannot work
effectively if it is dispersed to too many geographic extremities or there are insufficient
redundancies built into the transportation of goods back into the home market (rail, highway,
etc.). Proximity has become a significant competitive advantage for manufacturers, and a
strategic advantage for governments. But the U.S. government must play an expanded role in the
planning process. The U.S. is still a leader in many high-tech areas, but is suffering the
consequences of a generation-long effort to undermine the government's natural role as an
economic planner.
In the form of the regionalized blocs that are being sketched, in the Americas, Mexico is
likely to be one of the leading recipients of American foreign direct investment (FDI). It
already has a
$17 billion medical device industry and is sure to absorb much more capacity from China.
This has
already started to happen as a result of the U.S.–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA,
or new NAFTA) . Furthermore, the
Washington Post reports that "[a]s demand soars for medical devices and personal protective
equipment in the fight against the coronavirus, the United States has turned to the phalanx of
factories south of the border that are now the outfitters of many U.S. hospitals." This is in
addition to the
thousands of assembly plants already in place in Mexico since the establishment of NAFTA.
Indeed, if the jobs that had moved to China move to Mexico, Central America, and South America,
this likely addresses many long-standing social tensions in regard to immigration management,
currency imbalances and corresponding black market industries (ironically, it also likely means
the end of Trump's wall, as the industrial ecosystem of the Americas becomes more cohesive and
widespread).
Big Business Is Good Business
But this will also have significant impacts closer to home: Much as Franklin Delano
Roosevelt ultimately prioritized domestic
ramp-ups in wartime production over trust-busting , so too national champions are likely to
feature more prominently today, as domestic scale and balance sheet strength are given
precedence to accommodate the drive to revive employment quickly,
and work collaboratively to halt the spread of the coronavirus . The scale of companies
will not be regarded as a political problem if they can both deliver for consumers and show the
capacity of following political direction for what the public's needs are. Tech companies like
Apple and Google are stepping up to fill the void left by
massive federal government dysfunction . The " break up Big
Tech " voices are nowhere to be heard at the moment.
We still need a more robust form of regulation for these corporate behemoths, but via a
system of regulation that is "function-centric," rather than size-centric. As co-author
Marshall Auerback has written
before , this kind of regulation "restricts the range of corporate activities (e.g.,
structural separation so as to prevent companies like Amazon and Google from owning both the
platform as well as participating as a seller on that platform), or the prices such companies
can charge (as regulators often do for utilities or railways). These considerations would be
'size neutral': they would apply independently of corporate size per se."
Capitalism has always had its plutocrats, but scaling back America's overly financialized
model (by preventing stock buybacks, to cite one example) would represent a useful reform and
prevent a lot of economic waste. Instead of going to enrich executives and shareholders beyond
the dreams of Croesus ,
that measure might help to ensure that the profits of these companies will be directed to the
workers' wages (which also means supporting increased unionization), or plowed back into
investment (e.g., increased robotics).
Biodata, Privacy, and an End to Pandemic Profiteering
And there are fault lines in the business world. The pharmaceutical and medical research
industries face immense pressure from other businesses to end the pandemic so they can get back
to profitability. That means temporarily setting aside profits and pooling intellectual
property to encourage collaborative efforts on the part of biotech and pharmaceutical companies
to find proper treatments for COVID-19, and make them freely available, especially if
governments were to waive antitrust scrutiny in exchange for all of the data Big Pharma
companies collectively hold. As the
Guardian reports , "[t]here is a precedent. Last June, 10 of the world's largest
pharmaceutical companies -- including Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline --
announced they would pool data for an AI-based search for new antibiotics, which are
urgently needed as antibiotic-resistant bacteria have proliferated across the world,
threatening the growth of untreatable disease."
Privacy
advocates are already expressing concerns about a growing and overweening medical
surveillance state. These surveillance concerns lack historical context: From the 19th century
on, serious health problems were met by hardline government policies to reduce them. Policies
ranging from quarantine to vaccine were not always mandatory, but there was an understanding
that personal concessions had to be made to manage a huge population and an advanced society;
the Constitution was not a suicide pact. We can further alleviate those concerns today by
ensuring that the information uncovered does not become a precondition or additional cost of
receiving insurance coverage. In light of coronavirus, cost savings of incorporating biodata
into immigration and customs are a no-brainer for governments, and are certain to cause
friction with individuals who may not want to give blood or saliva to get a visa or work
permit, and agribusiness leaders who know that safety measures cut into profitability. But the
scales have tipped in the other direction.
North Versus South
What about the other countries in the developing world that don't have close geographic
proximity to a home market, or abundant supplies of key commodities required for 21st-century
manufacturing needs, or even a well-developed manufacturing base (in other words, the countries
that have hitherto been large recipients of investment solely on the grounds of cheap labor)?
Many of them have faced immediate pressure with the collapse in global trade, unprecedented
capital flight that is sure to grow as the coronavirus spreads, all the while coping with
COVID-19 with highly inadequate health systems.
In the meantime, the
multi-trillion-dollar market for emerging market debt , both sovereign bonds and commercial
paper, has collapsed. Many of these countries, via their state pension funds and sovereign
wealth funds, have become the ultimate endpoint for many of the newer asset-backed securities
that finally revived years after the 2008 financial crisis. This has become the potential new
stress point in the $52 trillion "
shadow banking " market. The U.S. Federal Reserve has sought to ease the funding stresses
of much of the developing economies by offering central bank swap lines. It has also broadened
prime dealer collateral acceptance rules, and set up commercial paper swap facilities, all of
which have eased short-term funding pressures in these economies that have incurred substantial
dollar liabilities.
As the emerging world central banks then start to lend on those lines to their own banks, it
should start to alleviate the shortage of dollars in the offshore dollar funding markets. We
are starting to see some easing of stresses, notably in
Indonesia -- because it's an exporter of resources more than a cheap labor price
economy.
But whereas in previous emerging markets crises, China was able to buttress these economies
via initiatives such as the " Belt and Road Initiative ,"
Beijing itself is likely to be buffeted by the twin shocks of declining global trade and a
reversal of foreign direct investment, which declined 8.6 percent in the first
two months of this year .
Longer-term, many other countries face comparable challenges to China: Capital controls,
collapsing domestic currencies, and widespread debt defaults are likely to become the norm.
That's already
happened to serial defaulter Argentina again . South Africa has been
downgraded to junk status . Turkey remains vulnerable. The so-called "BRICS" economies --
Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa -- are all sinking like bricks. The problem is
exacerbated by the fact that coronavirus and likely future pandemics will create additional
stresses on developing economies that depend on their labor price advantage in the
international marketplace to survive.
By contrast, countries like South Korea and Taiwan have had a "good crisis." Both have
vibrant manufacturing sectors and created successful multiparty democracies. Foreign investment in South Korea continued to grow in
the first quarter of this year, as it rapidly moved to contain the spread of COVID-19 through
an extensive testing regime (while keeping its economy open). Similarly in Taiwan, by
activating a national emergency response system launched in 2004 (following the SARS virus),
that country has mounted a thoroughly competent coronavirus
intervention of unprecedented effectiveness . The results speak for themselves: as of April
15, in South Korea, a mere 225
deaths , while in Taiwan, an astonishingly low total
of six deaths in a country of 24 million people -- this despite far more exposure to
infected Chinese visitors than Italy, Spain or the U.S.
Of course, the very success of Taiwan's response revives another potential fault line,
namely the tension underlying the "One China" policy. Before COVID-19, it is
noteworthy that the WHO "even refused to publicly report Taiwan's cases of SARS until public
pressure prompted numbers to be published under the label of 'Taiwan, province of China,'"
according to Dr. Anish Koka . At the very least, Taiwan's divergent approach and success at
fighting the pandemic will bolster its pro-independence factions.
The question of foreign nations upholding Taiwan's sovereignty with regard to China is
increasingly thorny, given Beijing's growing military capacities. This will present an ongoing
diplomatic challenge to Western parties who seek to increase engagement with Taipei without
heightening tensions in the region.
A Recalculation of 'Economic Value'
We have outlined many fault lines likely to be exposed or exacerbated as a consequence of
COVID-19. Happily, there is one fault line likely to be slammed shut: namely, the false
dichotomy that has long existed between economic growth and environmentalism. The Global Assessment from
the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
reports that "land degradation has reduced the productivity of 23 percent of the global land
surface, up to US$577 billion in annual global crops are at risk from pollinator loss and
100-300 million people are at increased risk of floods and hurricanes because of loss of
coastal habitats and protection." Likewise, the study cites the fact that as of 2015, 33
percent of marine fish stocks "were being harvested at unsustainable levels," and notes the
rise of plastic pollution (which "has increased tenfold since 1980 "),
both of which play a key role in degrading ecosystems in a manner that ultimately destroys
economic growth.
Finally, repeated pandemics over the past few decades have shown these are not blips, but
recurrent features of today's world. Hence, there is an increasing public appetite for
regulation to deal with this ongoing problem. Some industries, such as agribusinesses, won't
like this, but the concerns are well-founded. According to
expert Josh Balk , 75 percent of new diseases start in domestic and wild-caught animals,
and 2.2 million people die each year from illnesses transferred from animals. The majority of
these are transferred from poorly regulated factory farm chickens, cows and pigs; still, the "
wet markets" of Asia and Africa, and the trade in potential " transfer species ," such as
pangolins, a major driver of the $19
billion-a-year global trade in illegal wildlife, must also be addressed. Beijing has
suggested it will
ban trade in illegal wildlife and seek tighter regulation of the wet markets . The latter
in particular may be easier said than done, according to Dr. Zhenzhong
Si , a research associate at Canada's University of Waterloo who specializes in Chinese
food security, sustainability, and rural development. Dr. Si
argued that "[b]anning wet markets is not only going to be impossible, but will also be
destructive for urban food security in China as they play such a pivotal role in ensuring urban
residents' access to affordable and healthy food."
To be fair, this isn't the first time that the sacred tenets of the global economic
framework have dealt with a crisis that seemed to usher in a new era. The same thing happened
in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008. But that was largely seen as a financial
crisis, a product of faulty global financial plumbing that nobody truly understood, as opposed
to a widespread social collapse closely approximating the conditions of the Great Depression as
we have today.
Not only has the current lockdown put the entire global economy into deep freeze, but it
also came amidst a backdrop of widespread political and social upheaval, and a faux recovery
whose fruits were largely restricted to the top tier. A collateralized debt obligation is not
intuitively easy to grasp. By contrast, being forced to stay at home, deprived of vital income
and isolated from loved ones, while health care workers perish from overwork and lack of
protective gear, is a different order of magnitude.
Even as we re-integrate, it is hard to envisage a return to the "old normal." Trade patterns
will change. Self-sufficiency and geographic proximity will be prioritized over global
integration. There will be new winners and losers, but it is worth noting that the model of
capitalism we are describing -- one that does not feature obscenely overcompensated CEO pay
co-existing with serf labor and the widespread offshoring of manufacturing -- has existed in
different forms in the U.S. from 1945 into the 1980s, and still exists in parts of Europe
(Germany) and East Asia (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan) to this day.
Our everyday lives will be impacted as selective quarantines and some forms of social
distancing become the new normal (much as they were when we dealt with tuberculosis epidemics).
All of this has implications for a multitude of industries: restaurants, leisure, travel,
tourism, sporting events, entertainment, and media, as well as our evolving definition of
"essential" industries. Even our concept of personal privacy will likely have to be amended,
especially in regard to medical matters. Concerns about medical surveillance -- stigma (STDs,
alcoholism, mental illness) and denial of insurance -- can be alleviated if everyone is
guaranteed treatment regardless of ability to pay, which will mean greater government intrusion
into the lives of citizens and activities of businesses as the public sector seeks to socialize
costs.
Taken in aggregate, we are about to experience the most profound social, economic and
political changes since World War II.
This article was produced byEconomy for All, a
project of the Independent Media Institute.
The Times long ago abandoned journalism the way it's supposed to be. All the news it claims
fit to print isn't fit to read.
Its daily editions feature state-approved managed news misinformation and disinformation --
notably against sovereign independent nations on the US target list for regime change.
Russia notably has been a prime target since its 1917 revolution, ending its czarist
dictatorship.
Except during WW II and Boris Yeltsin's 1990s rule, Times anti-Russia propaganda was and
remains relentless, notably throughout the Vladimir Putin era, the nation's most distinguished
ever political leader.
When Yeltsin died in April 2007, the Times shamefully called him "a Soviet-era reformer the
country's democratic father and later a towering figure of his time as the first freely elected
leader of Russia, presiding over the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the demise of the
Communist Party (sic)."
He presided over Russia's lost decade. Under him, over half the population became
impoverished.
His adoption of US shock therapy produced economic genocide. GDP plunged 50%. Life
expectancy fell sharply.
Democratic freedoms died. An oligarch class accumulated enormous wealth.
Western interests profited at the expense of millions of exploited Russians.
Yeltsin let corruption and criminality flourish. One scandal followed others. Grand theft
became sport. So did money laundering.
Billions in stolen wealth were secreted in Western banks and offshore tax havens.
A critic reviled him, saying throughout much of his tenure, he "slept, drank, was ill,
relaxed, didn't show his face before the people and simply did nothing," adding:
"Despised by the majority of (Russians, he'll) go down in history as the first president of
Russia, having corrupted (the country) to the breaking point, not by his virtues and or by his
defects, but rather by his dullness, primitiveness, and unbridled power lust of a
hooligan."
He was a Western/establishment media favorite, notably by the Times, mindless of the human
misery and economic wreckage he caused.
Putin is a preeminent world leader, towering over his inferior Western counterparts,
especially in the US, why the Times reviles him.
On Monday, its propaganda machine falsely accused him of waging a long war on US science,
claiming he's promoting disinformation to "encourage the spread of deadly illnesses (sic)."
Not a shred of evidence was presented because none exists. The Times' disinformation report
was slammed in a preceding article.
On Wednesday, the self-styled newspaper of record was at it again -- reactivating the Big
Lie that won't die, saying with no corroborating evidence that "Russia may have sown
disinformation in a dossier used to investigate a former Trump campaign aide (sic),"
adding:
"Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide with numerous links to Russia was probably a
Russian agent (sic)."
Disinformation the Times cited came from former UK intelligence agent Christopher Steele's
dodgy dossier, financed by the DNC and Hillary campaign.
Its spurious accusations were exposed as fake news, notably phony accusations of Russian US
election interference that didn't happened.
Probes by Robert Mueller, House and Senate committees found no credible evidence of an
illegal or improper Trump campaign connection to Russia or election interference by the Kremlin
-- because there was none of either.
According to the Times, Steele's dodgy dossier "was potentially influenced by a 'Russian
disinformation campaign to denigrate US foreign relations,' " citing FBI Big Lies as its
source.
Another article on Russia this week claimed "many people who don't work for the government
or in deep-pocketed state enterprises face economic devastation," adding:
Domestic violence increased because of social distancing and sheltering in place.
Not mentioned in the article is that mass unemployment and other COVID-19 fallout affect
Western and other countries adversely.
Putin was slammed for sending COVID-19 aid to the US, calling it "a propaganda coup for the
Kremlin -- tempered by an intensifying epidemic at home."
Outbreaks in Russia are a small fraction of US numbers, around 21,000 through Wednesday --
compared to nearly 650,000 in the US and over 28,000 deaths.
Spain, Italy, France, Germany and Britain have five-to-eightfold more outbreaks than
Russia.
NYC has over 110,000 cases. In the NY, NJ, CT tristate area, around 300,000 cases were
reported, almost as many COVID-19 deaths as outbreaks in Russia -- through Wednesday.
Putin is dealing with what's going on responsibly, stressing "we certainly must not relax,
as long as outbreaks occur.
A paid holiday is in effect through end of April for Russian workers, likely to be extended
if needed.
Essential workers continue on the job -- at home if able, otherwise operating as before.
National efforts continue to control outbreaks, aid ordinary Russians at a time of duress,
and work to restore more normal conditions.
While dealing with outbreaks at home, Russia supplied Italy, Serbia, and the US with aid to
combat the virus.
Yet Pompeo falsely accused Russia, China, and Iran with spreading disinformation about
COVID-19.
Gratitude and good will aren't US attributes, just the opposite.
During a conference call with reporters, Lavrov dismissed Western claims that the Kremlin
provided the assistance hoping it would help persuade the European Union to lift sanctions
against Russia.
The U.S. and EU sanctions, imposed in response to Russia's 2014 annexation of Ukraine's
Crimea and support for a separatist insurgency in eastern Ukraine, have limited Russia's access
to global financial markets and blocked transfers of Western technologies. Russia responded by
banning imports of most Western agricultural products.
Asked if Moscow would push the EU to lift the restrictions, Lavrov said that Russia wouldn't
ask for it. "If the EU realizes that this method has exhausted itself and renounces the
decisions that were made in 2014, we will be ready to respond in kind," he added.
Lavrov also criticized those in the West who suggested that China should pay compensation
for allegedly failing to provide early enough warnings about the country's virus cases, which
were reported in December.
"The claims that China must pay everyone for the outbreak and the alleged failure to give
timely information about it cross all limits and go beyond any norms of decency," Lavrov said,
emphasizing that China has offered assistance to many nations. "My hair stands on end when I
hear that."
Without mentioning the United States by name, Russia's top diplomat also countered
Washington's criticism of the World Health Organization.
"... Authored by Sara Carter via SaraACarter.com, ..."
"... "Having reviewed the matter, and having consulted the heads of the relevant Intelligence Community elements, I have declassified the enclosed footnotes." ..."
"... , and that they were the product of RIS (Russian Intelligence Services) ..."
Systemic FBI Effort To Legitimize Steele and Use His Information To Target POTUS
Newly declassified footnotes from Department of Justice Inspector General
Michael Horowitz's December FBI report reveals that senior Obama officials, including
members of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane team knew the dossier compiled by a former British spy
during the 2016 election was Russian disinformation to target President Donald Trump.
Further, the partially declassified footnotes reveal that those senior intelligence
officials were aware of the disinformation when they included the dossier in the Obama
administration's Intelligence Communities Assessment (ICA).
As important, the footnotes reveal that there had been a request to validate information
collected by British spy Christopher
Steele as far back as 2015, and that there was concern among members of the FBI and
intelligence community about his reliability. Those concerns were brushed aside by members of
the Crossfire Hurricane team in their pursuit against the Trump campaign officials, according
to sources who spoke to this reporter and the footnotes.
The explosive footnotes were partially declassified and made public Wednesday, after a
lengthy review by the Director of National Intelligence Richard
Grenell's office. Grenell sent the letter Wednesday releasing the documents to Sen. Chuck
Grassley, R-Iowa and Sen. Ron Johnson, R- Wisconsin, both who requested the
declassification.
"Having reviewed the matter, and having consulted the heads of the relevant
Intelligence Community elements, I have declassified the enclosed footnotes." Grenell
consulted with DOJ Attorney General William Barr on the declassification of the
documents.
Grassley and Johnson released a statement late Wednesday stating "as we can see from these
now-declassified footnotes in the IG's report, Russian intelligence was aware of the dossier
before the FBI even began its investigation and the FBI had reports in hand that their central
piece of evidence was most likely tainted with Russian disinformation."
"Thanks to Attorney General Barr's and Acting Director Grenell's declassification of the
footnotes, we know the FBI's justification to target an American Citizen was riddled with
significant flaws," the Senator stated. "Inspector General Michael Horowitz and his team did
what neither the FBI nor Special Counsel Mueller cared to do: examine and investigate
corruption at the FBI, the sources of the Steele dossier, how it was disseminated, and
reporting that it contained Russian disinformation."
The Footnotes
A U.S. Official familiar with the investigation into the FBI told this reporter that the
footnotes "clearly show that the FBI team was or should have had been aware that the Russian
Intelligence Services was trying to influence Steele's reporting in the summer of 2016, and
that there were some preferences for Hillary; and that this RIS [Russian Intelligence Services]
sourced information being fed to Steele was designed to hurt Trump."
The official noted these new revelations also "undermines the ICA on Russian Interference
and the intent to help Trump. It undermines the FISA warrants and there should not have been a
Mueller investigation."
The footnotes also reveal a startling fact that go against Brennan's assessment that Russia
was vying for Trump, when in fact, the Russians appeared to be hopeful of a Clinton
presidency.
"The FBI received information in June, 2017 which revealed that, among other things, there
were personal and business ties between the sub-source and Steele's Primary Sub-source,
contacts between the sub-source and an individual in the Russian Presidential Administration
in June/July 2016 [redacted] and the sub source voicing strong support for candidate Clinton
in the 2016 U.S. election. The Supervisory Intel Analyst told us that the FBI did not have a
Section 702 vicarage on any other Steele sub-source."
Steele's Lies
The complete four pages of the partially redacted footnotes paint a clear picture of the
alleged malfeasance committed by former FBI Director James Comey, former DNI James Clapper and
former CIA Director John Brennan, who were all aware of the concerns regarding the information
supplied by former British spy Christopher Steele in the dossier. Steele, who was hired by the
private embattled research firm Fusion GPS, was paid for his work through the Hillary Clinton
campaign and Democratic National Committee. The FBI also paid for Steele's work before ending
its confidential source relationship with him but then used Obama DOJ Official Bruce Ohr as a
go between to continue obtaining information from the former spy.
In footnote 205, for instance, payment documents show that Steele lied about not being a
Confidential Human Source.
"During his time as an FBI CHS, Steele received a total of $95,000 from the FBI," the
footnote states. "We reviewed the FBI paperwork for those payments, each of which required
Steele's Signed acknowledgement. On each document, of which there were eight, was the caption
'CHS payment' and 'CHS Payment Name.' A signature page was missing for one of the
payments."
Footnote 350
In footnote 350, Horowitz describes the questionable Russian disinformation and the FBI's
reliance on the information to target the Trump campaign as an attempt to build a narrative
that campaign officials colluded with Russia. Further, the timeline reveals that Comey, Brennan
and Clapper were aware of the disinformation by Russian intelligence when they briefed then
President-elect Trump in January, 2017 on the Steele dossier.
"[redacted] In addition to the information in Steele's Delta file documenting Steele's
frequent contacts with representatives for multiple Russian oligarchs, we identified
reporting the Crossfire Hurricane team received from [redacted] indicating the potential for
Russian disinformation influencing Steele' election reporting," stated the partially
declassified footnote 350. "A January 12, 2017 report relayed information from [redacted]
outlining an inaccuracy in a limited subset of Steele's reporting about the activities of
Michael Cohen. The [redacted] stated that it did not have high confidence in this subset of
Steele's reporting and assessed that the referenced subset was part of a Russian
disinformation campaign to denigrate U.S. foreign relations.
A second report from the same [redacted] five days later stated that a person named in the
limited subset of Steele's reporting had denied representations in the reporting and the
[redacted] assessed that the person's denials were truthful. A USIC report dated February 27,
2017, contained information about an individual with reported connections to Trump and Russia
who claimed that the public reporting about the details of Trump's sexual activities in Moscow
during a trip in 2013 were false , and that they were the product of RIS (Russian
Intelligence Services) 'infiltrate[ing] a source into the network' of a [redacted] who
compiled a dossier of that individual on Trump's activities. The [redacted] noted that it had
no information indicating that the individual had special access to RIS activities or
information," according to the partially declassified footnote.
Looming Questions
Another concern regarding Steele's unusual activity is found in footnote 210, which states
"as we discuss in Chapter Six, members of the Crossfire Hurricane Team were unaware of Steele's
connections to Russian Oligarch 1."
The question remains that "Steele's unusual activity with 10 oligarch's led the FBI to seek
a validation review in 2015 but one was not started until 2017," said the U.S. Official to this
reporter. "Why not? Was Crossfire Hurricane aware of these concerns? Was the court made aware
of these concerns? Didn't the numerous notes about sub sources and sources having links or
close ties to Russian intelligence so why didn't this set off alarm bells?"
More alarming, it's clear, Supervisory Intelligence Agent Jonathan Moffa says in June 17,
that he was not aware of reports that Russian Intelligence Services was aware of Steele's
election reporting and influence efforts.
"However, he should have been given the reporting by UCIS" which the U.S. Official says,
goes back to summer 2016.
Footnote 342 makes it clear that "in late January, 2017, a member of the Crossfire Hurricane
team received information [redacted] that RIS [Russian Intelligence Services] may have targeted
Orbis."
AMERICA-HYSTERICA. US Attorney General
Barr just said the Russia collusion probe was a travesty, had no basis and was intended to
sabotage Trump . All true of course. May we take this as a sign that at last (at last!)
Durham is ready to go with indictments? Or will it prove to be another false alarm? There's
certainly a lot to reveal: A recent
investigation showed that every FISA application (warrant to spy on US citizens) examined
had egregious deficiencies. It's not just Trump.
MEANINGLESSNESS. Remember the Steele dossier? Now it's being spun as Russian
disinformation . So we're now supposed to believe that Putin smeared Trump because he
really wanted Clinton to win? Gosh, that Putin guy is so clever that it's impossible to figure
out what he's doing!
The recovery will NOT be, but Trump will distract all Americans by screaming against China
and how China is responsible for everything. Expect Americans to fall in line and the anti
Russia hysteria to now turn into super anti China hysteria. Expect attacks against Asians in
USA
And all because the Chinese were greedy bastards eager to make money and they quickly forgot
history and how the Ango Saxon treated them just merely 150 years ago.
As somebody who grew up in Communist Eastern Europe it the 70s, I vividly remember how we
were warned how the Americans will try to hurt us by spreading bio weapons. This was grilled
into us over and over. The Communists knew. China better gt prepared, the West will try to
rip them a brand new assholes. And they got nobody to blame but themselves!
"Sergey Lavrov: Of course, the pandemic has created very serious problems, the most
important of which is saving people's lives, ensuring their security, biomedical safety and
the preservation of the human environment, which should be comfortable and pose no threats to
life and health."
Thanks for the link. Russia has the best leadership in the world right now. I have read
transcripts from lavrov and putin on many occasions, I seem to recall listening to putin
speak a few times in english; these guys are always level headed, competent, rational; and
first and foremost, taking care of their people.
As an american, I am jealous. Just compare them to any of our leaders in my lifetime
(50yrs), and for that matter, I haven't even read about too many of our leaders being real
statesmen, absolutely no comparison.
Lavrov is an artist cloaked in diplomatic disguise. I find him very pleasurable to read.
Yes, he said a great many things in answer to a wide variety of questions. Aside from the
quote cited @38, for me there were two important points. The first was the Outlaw US Empire's
offer to resume discussions on arms control and outer space, although I suspect the upcoming
election is tied to the offer. Second relates to my thesis that nations can be seen as
Nurturing or Parasitic based on their behavior during this crisis. One of the attributes of
Nurturing nations is the collective aspect of their socio-cultural composition:
Question: "However, there is a lack of global unity and joint efforts to fight the
pandemic. In addition, the existing alliances have proven ineffective in these conditions. In
your opinion, how will all this affect the future world order? What will it look like after
the pandemic?
"Sergey Lavrov: In my response to one of the first questions I said that apart from
fighting the pandemic and resolving economic problems at the national and global levels the
third greatest challenge is to understand what lies ahead for multilateral institutions, what
role they will play in the future and whether they will remain relevant. The outcome of the
fight against the coronavirus will show which countries and multilateral structures have
withstood the test of this horrible threat, this crisis. I understand your concern that
the egoistic aspirations we are currently witnessing in the behaviour of some countries could
prevail, leading to future attempts to self-insulate from the outside world . We are
already witnessing anxious debates about Schengen Area countries on their shared future and
neighbourly relations. In the end, I think that a collective approach will prevail. It may
take some time though. It will require meetings and persuasion. However, this is the only
possible way forward ." [My Emphasis]
The unilateral, Rugged Individual, Herd Immunity, Neoliberal approach has failed bigtime
despite frantic efforts to keep them afloat--note that such approaches were opposed by the
publics of those nations whose "leaders" trod that path. I recall the aim of The Man in
the Wilderness was to return to his collective--his family--and the fear that gripped the
collective that abandoned him. (There's a very big lesson there if people think upon it while
watching the film.) The attempt to glorify the Rugged Individual is unique, began in the
1820s with the popular writings of James Fenimore Cooper, and solely belongs to the Outlaw US
Empire and its attempt to cultivate the myth of Manifest Destiny and American
Exceptionalism.
It appears the only collectivism to be allowed within the Outlaw US Empire is that of the
Money Power; all others are to be atomized, restricted in their ability to act together
except when laboring to feed the Money Power. Something like Orwell's description of the
Proles in 1984 --joyfully ignorant and powerless. The only way to thwart the Money
Power's plan for ongoing dominance and pauperization of the Outlaw US Empire's masses is for
those masses to discover how to act collectively. Yes, it's been done before but the effort
was abandoned prior to the final goal being attained in 1900. There was another attempt to
establish a mass collective during the early 1930s, but that too was thwarted and its memory
washed away by War and the pseudo war that followed--do note the concerted attack on
collective effort made from 1946-1964. The one major collective organization that remained in
1972--the draft-based civilian military--was then disbanded, and nothing has arisen to
replace it. Even the mass politicking that had grown during the 1960s withered to where only
a ghost remains.
An ongoing discourse here at MoA deals with the question of how to get people to
again come together as a collective to create the change that's so badly needed to preserve
our own wellbeing, which is in the collective interest of 330+ million people, as well as
that of the planet's populous. IMO, the answer lies in seizing advantage of the obvious
failure of the unilateral go-it-alone, damn the torpedoes, approach to COVID-19 that
deliberately omitted the needs of 330+ million people and directly threatened their
wellbeing.
If there was ever a teachable moment to educate an entire nation, that time is upon us.
Fortunately, part of the message is already there and just needs to be spread further along
with its associated rationale: Not Me, US! The formula for success isn't Top->Down it's
Bottom->Up since it's decentralized and very hard to defuse.
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed
is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness.
For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children.
And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my
brothers.
And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you."
"We have a few clips that we're just going to put up, we could just turn the lights down
lower, I think you'll find them interesting," Trump said. "And then we'll answer some
questions, I'll ask you some questions because you're so guilty, but forget it."
The president played the video on the screens at the White House press briefing
room.
White House
"The media minimized the risk from the start," the text of the video read, prior to
featuring a series of flashback clips to prominent media professionals downplaying the threat
posed by the virus.
The clip then featured a timeline of the president's actions to defend the country from the
virus, while partisan media and some Democrats criticized him at every step.
Other clips featured audio from New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman talking about the
president's "effective" attempt to stop the spread of the virus with the travel ban on
China.
The clip also highlighted praise that the president received from Democrat governors.
Reporters appeared taken aback by the video, prompting questions about its source. White
House reporter Jonathan Karl questioned why the president would use White House staff to
complete a "campaign-style" video.
The president said that the clip was produced by White House staff in just a couple of hours
to show the media their reporting errors.
"We could have given you hundreds just like that," Trump said. "We have them. We didn't want
this to go on too long."
I've said some stupid things in my time, but up there with the best of them was a comment I
uttered to my wife on the morning of Tuesday 6 th March 2018. The previous night the
news had broken that an ex-spy by the name of Sergei Skripal had apparently been one of two
people hospitalised on the Sunday afternoon on a bench in The Maltings in Salisbury. At that
time the opioid, Fentanyl, was thought to be connected to it. Was this about to be a huge
international story? Or was it going to soon be forgotten about? I was decidedly of the latter
opinion. "Don't worry," I told her. "Probably just a drug overdose. It'll soon blow
over."
Two years later
Actually, two years on and most people have pretty much forgotten about it. Yes, they
remember that it happened; yes, they remember that it was a mighty odd occurrence with a number
of peculiarities about it; and for the people of Salisbury, I'm quite sure they will recall the
police, the cordons, the helicopters, the place swarming with international media, and of
course let's not forget the baby wipes. But by and large, it happened, it's done with, and the
case was solved a long while ago.
Except that it wasn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination. The fact is that two of
the many Russians who were in Salisbury on 3 rd and 4 th March, and who
were charged with the incident -- Petrov and Boshirov -- have never been charged with the
subsequent incident in Amesbury. This is very important. If the British authorities' case
against the two men in Salisbury is to be believed, there must be a clear link between them and
the second case in Amesbury. And yet it is impossible to reasonably connect the two cases based
on the British authorities' explanation of the Salisbury event. Unless, that is, you believe
that the two suspects were carrying a cellophane-wrapping machine with them with which to wrap
the bottle of lethal nerve agent they had apparently just used before dumping it in a bin. But
nobody could be daft enough to believe that, could they? Which leads to the question: if the
cases cannot be linked using the British authorities' explanation of the first incident --
which they can't (hence the reason the two men have not been charged for the second) -- then
how can we accept their explanation for the first? The answer is that we cannot, and for a
whole host of reasons, as I hope to show in a moment.
For those who have accepted The Met's and Government's account of the case, I am struck by a
couple of things. Firstly, their claims that those who haven't accepted it are conspiracy
theorists is really quite funny when you begin to count the number of absurd, implausible and
sometimes downright impossible things that one has to believe to accept that official account
(of which more below). But secondly, I am struck by their remarkable apathy and complacency,
given what they claim to believe. Let me put it this way: if I truly believed that agents of a
foreign power had come to my country and had entered my home city carrying, using and
discarding enough deadly nerve agent to kill thousands of people in my neighbourhood, I would
not only be livid at that foreign Government; I would be absolutely furious with the British
authorities for their pathetic, feeble response. Two dozen diplomats expelled in response to
the use of the (apparently) deadliest nerve agent known to man, which could have wiped out half
the population of Salisbury? It's the equivalent of sentencing an attempted murderer to a
£100 fine. Of course, while I accept that a declaration of war in response to such a
reckless act would have been a step too far, given that Russia is a nuclear-armed country with
a hugely powerful military, I would certainly want a response that was far closer to that than
the paltry expelling of a few diplomats. However, the fact that those who bark the loudest
about the alleged use of a nerve agent that could have killed 10,000 people are prepared to
accept the expulsion of a few diplomats as an adequate response, suggests that many of them are
not nearly as convinced as they make out that a lethal nerve agent was indeed used.
Either that or they're just a bit wet!
I am, however, livid at the British authorities for an entirely different reason. And
it is this: I really don't like being lied to. I really don't like handing over hard-earned
money in taxation, only to see it squandered away by people who devise the most elaborate
deceptions to divert attention away from what really happened. Nothing personal, you
understand. I don't like the fact that anyone has their hard-earned cash frittered away in this
way.
That's a big claim I just made. Elaborate deceptions are not accusations I bandy about
lightly. But as I hope to show below, I can see no other explanation for the many absurdities,
implausibilities and downright impossibilities in the case put forward by the Government and
Metropolitan Police (The Met) for what took place in Salisbury.
Let's begin with the case against the two Russians who have been charged over the Salisbury
incident. Whenever I have been involved in a discussion on this case with folks on Twitter,
invariably someone pops up to say that the case is closed, and the guilt of this pair has been
shown to be true. Incontrovertibly. Yet when examined carefully, the evidence of the apparent
guilt of this pair turns out to be incredibly threadbare. There are three basic parts to
it:
That they were in the vicinity of Mr Skripal's house on 4 th March, as seen on
footage taken outside a Shell garage on Salisbury's Wilton Road That "Novichok" was found in
the hotel room they stayed in the night before That they were/are agents of the GU (Russian
military police)
On that first point, the fact is that the Shell garage is approximately 500 yards from 47
Christie Miller Road. Whilst this may be "in the vicinity" in a very general sense, it is
nothing like "the vicinity" that would be needed to convince a juror that they actually went
there, much less that they daubed the door handle with a substance, and needless to say, one
cannot simply daub a door handle from 500 yards away.
Furthermore, in the footage shown of them, they were seen walking on the opposite side of
the road to the two routes (a path or a road) which they would have to have taken to reach the
house. If I had been going to Christie Miller Road along that route, I would either have
crossed the road before then, or I would have crossed at the small traffic island opposite the
garage, which can just be seen on the footage. Yet they did not appear to cross or to be about
to cross.
However, there is more. Although The Met showed these few seconds from this camera, what
they failed to inform the public is that there is a second camera just after the first, one
which does cover both routes to chez Skripal. And so if the men had taken either of
these routes that they would have needed to take to get to Christie Miller Road, this second
camera would have shown it. Why was it not shown then? That's probably more a question for The
Met than for me, but if I was a juror in the case, I should most definitely want to see the
footage from that second camera in order to confirm or deny whether they did indeed cross the
road to use those routes. In short: the footage from the first camera is certainly not proof
that they actually went to Mr Skripal's house; the refusal to use footage from the second
camera casts serious doubts that they did.
And of course given who Mr Skripal was, his house and front door would have been covered by
CCTV. In which case, if the men actually did go there, The Met could show it. But they never
have.
The second point is even flimsier. It was claimed that the tiniest trace of "Novichok" was
found in the hotel room they were staying in. However, a second swab apparently turned up
nothing. In other words, you need to trust The Met and Porton Down on this. Right? Er no.
Firstly, we are talking about the same people that allegedly found the "Novichok" at the
beginning of May 2018, yet failed to inform the hotel owner until September of that year of
their finding in his hotel (I'm not into suing, but he should have sued). Not only this, but
they also failed to trace those who had stayed at the hotel from 4th March to May. Not exactly
convincing, is it?
But in any case, the idea is self-evidently ludicrous. Why would there have been a tiny
trace of the stuff in the hotel room? If there was a leak, why wasn't the hotel closed, and the
trains the men travelled on decontaminated? Or are we supposed to believe that the guys took it
out to have a sniff the night before, and spilled just enough for one, but not two swabs? Yep,
that's what we're asked to believe. Fine, believe it, if it gives you pleasure. But to those
with more discerning minds, it does sound suspiciously like a detail made up by people who make
stuff up, doesn't it?
The third point -- that the two suspects were agents of the GU (Russian military
intelligence) -- is by far the most serious. I accept that they probably were, although I do so
with the caveat that one of the most strikingly odd things about this case is that this has
never been officially confirmed. Sure, an organisation that rhymes with Smellingrat has
stated this, and so too have numerous politicians, but it has not actually been stated on the
official charges against them. To this day, the Crown Prosecution Service's charges against
them still use their apparent pseudonyms -- Petrov and Boshirov -- and do not mention their
apparent true identities. I find that very odd.
Nonetheless, as I say I accept that they probably were agents of Russian Military
Intelligence. It is this which is enough for many to confirm their guilt as attempted
assassins. Well, if their actions comported with how military intelligence officers on
assassination missions act, I would be inclined to agree. But they don't. Not even remotely.
There is nothing about their actions, as shown by The Met, that in any way convince that they
were on a state-sanctioned assassination mission. They travelled together. They operated in
broad daylight. They made no attempt to evade detection by CCTV. They cavorted with a
prostitute the night before. They smoked dope and attracted attention in their hotel room the
night before. After allegedly finishing their top-secret mission, they strolled into town. They
took pictures. They went window shopping. Nerve agent assassins? I think not!
"Oh," comes the scoffing reply, "so you believe their story about being tourists come to
see the cathedral and Old Sarum? Idiot."
"No," comes my equally scoffing reply. "Why should I? But why would I limit myself to two
possibilities -- tourists or deadly assassins -- neither of which actually fit their actions?
Have we not imagination enough to think of more than two options? Goodness, what do they
teach them in these schools!?"
How about this: Yes, they were in Salisbury on a mission from the Russian state, but no it
was not an assassination attempt -- not unless Vladimir Putin has taken to employing muppets to
carry out highly sensitive and dangerous missions of the Russian state. But seriously, does he
strike you as someone who would tend to give the most highly sensitive missions to a couple of
pot-smoking, prostitute-cavorting, picture-snapping, CCTV-friendly, window-shopping dudes?
Hardly!
Yet they were almost certainly doing something there other than tourism, as they claimed,
and my guess is that it was connected to where they went on the Saturday 3 rd March,
which The Met laughably tried to tell us was a reconnaissance mission to check out Mr Skripal's
house. A reconnaissance mission? Ha ha! Reminder: this is Salisbury, not Afghanistan or Idlib.
You can walk about unhindered, unmolested, and you can even locate 47 Christie Miller Road
using Google Maps. So why would they have needed to do reconnaissance on a house that they
allegedly walked up to in broad daylight the following day?
But even more than this, if they went to check out the house on the Saturday, why did they
not daub the door handle then? The Skripals were out at the time. It would have been the ideal
time to do it, if that was what they were intending. But no, The Met wants you to believe that
they came to Salisbury, secretly made their way to Mr Skripal's house, saw it, noted that no
one was at home, decided not to "Novichok" the door handle there and then, but instead go back
to London (where they had apparently left their "Novichok" all day long in their hotel room),
and come back the following day to do it when -- according to The Met -- the Skripals were at
home and their car in the drive!
It really is such an utterly stupid and preposterous proposition, that I have no doubt this
is why The Met decided to give no timeline of where and when they went in Salisbury on the
Saturday; to present no footage; and to show no pictures, save for one at the train station.
For had they shown such footage, I am quite sure that far from it showing them going out of
the town towards Mr Skripal's house for reconnaissance, it would show them going into
town for reconnaissance, probably near The Mill pub and the Maltings, where the following
day they just happened to be in the vicinity of the Skripals at about 1:45 -- far closer than
the Shell garage footage shows them in the vicinity of the house.
None of the above evidence would pass muster in a courtroom. It is flimsy, it's pathetic and
it's full of holes.
But talking of holes, let's now set this all in the context of the entire story presented by
The Met and the Government. I mentioned above the number of absurd, implausible and sometimes
downright impossible things that one has to believe to accept their account. Below, I've
recounted 40 of the most glaring, although I'm sure regular readers here can think of many,
many more. In case of doubt, I have annexed a comment next to each point, depending on whether
it fits into the absurd, implausible or impossible category, although I understand that some
readers may well think it remiss of me not to have given some of them more than one of those
descriptions:
That two men put themselves and everyone on their flight in jeopardy, by
boarding a plane with at least one, possibly two, bottles of the World's Deadliest Nerve Agent
(WDNA) in their luggage. (ABSURD) That the two suspects dropped an unused package of the
WDNA in a bin somewhere, whilst taking the used bottle of nerve agent back to Moscow with them.
(ABSURD) Or alternatively, that they only had one package of WDNA with them, but brought
a cellophane wrapping machine to Salisbury to wrap the used box up in, before discarding it.
(ABSURD) That the two men sprayed WDNA in an open space, without wearing any protective
clothing. (ABSURD) That after they had done this, rather than legging it, they decided
to spend an hour in the city centre window-shopping and taking pictures. (ABSURD) That
Mr Skripal and his daughter both somehow managed to touch the door handle of his front door on
their way out (try it with someone next time you exit your house). (IMPLAUSIBLE) That
despite being contaminated with WDNA, they showed no effects for hours afterwards.
(IMPLAUSIBLE) That when they did show effects hours later, it was at precisely the same time,
despite their very different heights, weights and metabolisms. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That despite being
contaminated with WDNA, they went into town, fed ducks, went for a meal, then went to a pub for
a drink. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That despite having hands contaminated with WDNA, Mr Skripal
handed a piece of bread to a local boy who ate it without becoming contaminated. (IMPLAUSIBLE)
That despite having hands that were contaminated with WDNA, Mr Skripal somehow managed to
contaminate the table in Zizzis, but not the door or door handle on the way in. (IMPLAUSIBLE)
That despite having hands that were contaminated with WDNA, Mr Skripal somehow managed not to
contaminate the manager of Zizzis when he shook hands with him (confirmed to me by a local
source). (IMPLAUSIBLE) That after becoming extremely aggressive in Zizzis, which some assume
was the effects of poisoning with WDNA, Mr Skripal wolfed down a plate of seafood
risotto before sauntering over to the pub for a drink. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That no CCTV of Mr Skripal
or his daughter on 4 th March could be shown to the public to jog their memories,
because of something called "National Security". (ABSURD) That no CCTV could be shown of The
Maltings, on the grounds of National Security, even though according to the official story no
crime took place there. (ABSURD) That the Russian couple who were filmed on CCTV camera at
15:47 in Market Walk (confirmed by a reliable source in the comment section on this blog), were
not in any way connected with the case. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That the only CCTV the public were
allowed to see of this pair was an absurd, blurred, fuzzy image taken second hand on a mobile
phone, when they could have shown crystal clear footage from the CCTV camera at the other end
of Market Walk. (ABSURD) That the Skripals were somehow in Zizzis at the same time that they
were actually in the Mill pub (The Met's timeline shows them to have been in Zizzis from 14:20
and 15:35,
which is demonstrably untrue ). (IMPOSSIBLE) That the Metropolitan Police are unable to put
out correct timelines. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That WDNA deteriorated so much after an hour on a door
handle, that it was too weak to kill the Skripals. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That this same WDNA, which
allegedly deteriorated in an hour, was then found three weeks later after exposure to the
elements and after being touched by many human hands, to be in a state of "high purity,
persistent and weather resistant". (IMPOSSIBLE) That WDNA, which was allegedly sprayed on a
door handle, somehow managed to spread to the roof of the house, meaning that it had to be
replaced. (IMPOSSIBLE) Yet that same WDNA, 2mg of which is apparently enough to kill a person
(according to BBC Panorama), and which causes whole roofs to have to be replaced and cars to be
destroyed, can be cleansed by members of the public using baby wipes. (ABSURD) That the police
cars which attended the Maltings needed to be destroyed, yet the ones that attended Mr
Skripal's house, where the poison was apparently most concentrated, did not. (ABSURD) That
Detective Sergeant Nicholas Bailey managed to be a first responder at the bench when the two
Russians were on it, at the same time as not being at the bench when the two Russians were on
it. (IMPOSSIBLE) That Mr Bailey entered Mr Skripal's house via the back door, because he
couldn't open the front door; but also managed to enter the house via the front door because he
was able to open it. (IMPOSSIBLE) That he was wearing a forensic suit to enter the house of
someone who had apparently overdosed in a park on Fentanyl. (ABSURD) That he managed to get
contaminated by WDNA despite wearing a forensic suit. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That the numerous police
officers not wearing forensic suits, who went in and out of the house on 4 th and 5
th March, did not become contaminated by WDNA, even though it was allegedly found to
be most concentrated there three weeks later, and in a state of "high purity". (IMPOSSIBLE)
That the police somehow managed to miss all four of Mr Skripal's pets (two cats and two guinea
pigs), so leaving them to starve to death. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That an air ambulance was called for
what looked like a drug overdose on a park bench, when a land ambulance can get to the hospital
just as quickly, if not quicker given where the helicopter had to land. (ABSURD) That the chief
nurse of the British Army just happened to be shopping near the bench when the two Russians
were on it. (ABSURD) That there just happened to be two Porton Down trained doctors at
Salisbury District Hospital. (ABSURD) That despite The Met, the Government and the media
referring to the substance used as "Novichok", in their only official statement to a court of
law, Porton Down were unable to confirm this, instead referring to it as "a nerve agent or
related compound" and "a Novichok class nerve agent or closely related agent." (ABSURD) That
Porton Down were able to identify a substance within 36 hours that apparently no other country
on earth makes, has made, or can make. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That "Novichok" can only be made in
Russia, despite variants of it having been synthesised or stocked in numerous countries
including Czechia, Sweden, Germany, Iran, the US, and Britain (Boris Johnson having unwittingly
confirmed this when he blurted out that they had samples of it at Porton Down). (IMPOSSIBLE)
That after she and her father were allegedly poisoned by the Russian state, Yulia Skripal said
she wanted to return there. (ABSURD) That Mr Skripal and his daughter have never been seen
together since -- not even in a single photo. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That nothing has ever been heard
from Mr Skripal since (national security won't wash – his daughter was able to appear in
a video). (ABSURD) That Salisbury had its first case of Fentanyl poisoning on the same day, at
the same time, and in the same shopping centre apparently involving another couple.
(IMPLAUSIBLE)
Remember, this list of the absurd, the implausible, and the downright impossible is not a
bunch of lunacy that I or anyone else looking into the case has concocted. No, they are
things that the Government of Great Britain, and The Metropolitan Police have concocted. It's
their story, not mine, and I'm just pointing it out and saying, "Hey, come look at this. No
clothes and all that!" That being said, it is of course those who point out this absurd,
implausible and impossible folly who are called conspiracy theorists by the keepers of the
narrative and their devotees, which is rather like being called a scruffbag by Dominic
Cummings. But no matter, better to be called a conspiracy theorist for pointing out patent
absurdities and things which are impossible than to be a Believer in Patent Absurdities and
Impossible Things.
Speculation Corner
Having cleared that Stuff and Nonsense out of the way, what did happen on 4 th
March 2018 in Salisbury? I am bound to disappoint people looking for the answer, as I simply
don't know. I don't know because the keepers of the keys of the Stuff and Nonsense have not
only done their utmost to keep the truth away from the light (such as refusing to release even
a jot of CCTV footage of the Skripals that day), but the sheer number of absurdities and
conflicting stories they have put out make it impossible for those watching from afar to be
sure about which things happened on that day, and which things were subsequently added to
obscure the truth. All we can say, for sure, is what didn't happen (see above).
Nevertheless, there are a couple of big clues that allow us to speculate as to something of
the nature of the thing. These are The Mill Pub and Detective Sergeant Nicholas Bailey. They
are not clues in the sense of us being able to know what role they played. But they are clues
in the sense of the authorities never being able to come out with a straight answer about the
location and the man, thereby giving rise to speculation that the bizarre and conflicting tales
about them are extremely important.
Take Mr Bailey, for instance. Where exactly was he on that evening and where exactly did he
succumb to poisoning? As hinted at above, he has been placed in multiple places, depending on
who has been telling the story and when they've been telling it. He has been:
A first
responder to the incident at the bench Not a first responder to the incident at the bench Not
at the bench when the two Russians were there At the bench after the incident happened At the
house at midnight entering by the front door At the house at midnight but unable to enter the
front door Admitted to Salisbury District Hospital on the Monday morning Not admitted to
Salisbury District hospital on the Monday morning, but on the Tuesday Morning Admitted to
Salisbury District Hospital on the Monday morning, discharged but readmitted on the Tuesday
How can it have been so difficult to establish where he was? His movements would have been
easy to trace. Why were they not and why have so many different stories been mooted? As I wrote
back
here :
"I would submit that the most reasonable view to take -- until evidence confirms otherwise
-- is that Detective Sergeant Bailey was poisoned neither at the bench nor the house, but
somewhere else altogether."
Actually, I think that there is some evidence for this. Here is what a
Freedom of Information request revealed about how The Met were to deal with questions posed
by the media about Mr Bailey. Note that this was on 9 th March, two weeks before the
door handle claim was first made:
"IF ASKED: Why was a detective sergeant (Nick Bailey) a first responder?
ANSWER: He attended the initial scene in the town centre.
IF ASKED: It's been suggested DS Bailey was contaminated at Skripal's house. Did he go to
the house? Can you confirm he definitely went to the Maltings?
ANSWER: He was a first responder to the initial scene in the town centre. We are
not discussing further [my italics]."
So he was a first responder to the "initial scene" in the town centre. Okay, but according
to Mr Bailey himself, on the BBC Panorama Programme, he was not a first responder at the bench
when the Russian pair were there. He claimed to have wandered down there sometime after it had
all finished, which means that he was not a first responder at that scene. Which means what?
It means thatthere was another scene . That is implied in the phrase "initial
scene". Clearly, if there was an initial scene, there must have also been a subsequent scene.
And equally clearly, it cannot have been anything to do with the house or the door handle,
because on 9 th March, when this instruction was given, there was officially only
one scene -- that is, the bench. The door handle story had not yet emerged.
Put all that together and what is the inescapable conclusion? Mr Bailey was indeed injured,
but it was at an initial scene -- that is at a scene that occurred prior to whatever
happened at the bench .
Let's come back to that after looking at the other big clue, The Mill. In the aftermath of 4
th March, the back of the Mill was closed off and the chaps in HazMats were busy
doing their thing there. But hang on a minute. Why was this? That area was never any part of
the official story. There was never any suggestion whatsoever that Mr Skripal or his daughter
had been there, and so why would it have needed cleaning up? From what?
In addition, we know that the then Manager of the Mill, Greg Townsend was interviewed
intensively by investigators from The Met, no less than eight times in the week after 4
th March. According to Mr Townsend, he felt like he was being treated as "
a terror suspect ". Again, why? According to the official story, what did Mr Skripal and
his daughter do there? They went in. They had a drink. They left. Big deal. Why on earth would
the most intense questioning and focus be at that location then?
But thirdly, and most crucially, is the incorrect timeline put out by The Met about the
Skripals' visit to this pub. Here's what they said:
13:40 – Sergei and Yulia arrive at the Sainsbury's upper level car park in The
Maltings
The pair go to The Mill pub in Salisbury
Approximately 14.20 – The father and daughter eat at Zizzi restaurant on Castle
Street
15:35 – They leave the restaurant
This is simply wrong. They did not go to The Mill pub before Zizzis. They went to Zizzis
between about 2:00pm and 2:45pm, and then on to the Mill from around 3:00pm to 3:30pm. Every
single one of the original witness statements in the early days of the case confirms this, and
I have also had independent corroboration locally that this was the case (
see here for details ). So why did The Met put out a timeline saying that the Skripals were
in Zizzis between 3:00pm and 3:30pm, when in fact they were in The Mill? Unfortunately, the
only conclusion I can draw from this is that it was done deliberately, with the purpose of
drawing attention away from that location as being the place the Skripals visited before the
bench incident.
Put that together with the oddities around the location of the poisoning of Detective
Sergeant Nicholas Bailey, and it seems to me -- and I admit this is highly speculative -- that
there was an incident prior to the bench incident, that it most probably occurred at the back
of The Mill, and it was there -- not the bench or the house -- that Mr Bailey became
contaminated. Let me stress that this is speculation, and it may well be incorrect, yet it
seems to me to be the most plausible explanation for the extremely strange ambiguity
surrounding Mr Bailey's movements, the claim that he was injured as a first responder to "the
initial scene", and the bait and switch between Zizzis and The Mill given in The Met's
timeline.
I would add one further element that may hint at this, which is this extraordinary claim in
an article on 6 th March 2018 in
The Sun (also carried in The
Mail ):
"As emergency crews cleared the substance left near the bench, others were called to
decontaminate the hospital. First reports suggested traces of the opiate fentanyl -- a
synthetic toxin many times stronger than heroin -- had been detected at the scene. But that
was later linked to unconnected incident involving another couple coincidentally in the
shopping centre."
That really is extraordinary. Another incident, this time a Fentanyl poisoning, the first of
its kind in Salisbury, on the same day, around the same time, and in the same shopping centre
as a nerve agent incident. That's about as likely as the British Army's Chief Nurse happening
to be there at that exact same moment, isn't it? Did it really happen? I have no idea. But if
it did, was this something to do with the " initial scene" -- the one that saw Mr Bailey
and two of his colleagues taken to hospital ( here is a link to BBC article confirming that two
police officers were contaminated, as well as a third member of the emergency services, who was
clearly Mr Bailey)?
Questions, questions, questions. To which there must be answers, answers, answers.
Unfortunately, those controlling the narrative are not about to give them any time soon, and
they will no doubt continue to perpetuate the absurd, the implausible, and the impossible,
rather than coming clean with the truth.
This is the kind of country we are becoming. This is the kind of society that those behind
this riddle, wrapped in a cover up, inside a hoax, are leading us to. A national security
state, where the truth is buried underneath an avalanche of deception, and where those who try
to honestly get to the bottom of it are labelled enemies of the state, treated shamefully, so
that others are deterred from following suit. It rather minds me of this, from one of the early
church fathers, St. Anthony:
"A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they
will attack him, saying, 'You are mad; you are not like us.'"
It's not the kind of society I hoped to see when I was growing up. It's not the kind of
society I hoped my children would grow up in. My guess is that it's not even the kind of
society that those who are playing these elaborate games wanted to grow up in. Yet it is what
it is, and I am persuaded that those who have brought us to this point have more trouble
sleeping than I do. I would urge them to consider this, before it is too late:
"For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will
not be known and come to light." – Jesus Christ (Luke 8:17)
POSTSCRIPT
I just wanted to say thanks once again for all the many wonderful commenters and their
thoughtful analysis of this case over the last couple of years. Your contributions are much
appreciated. Once again, it is my intention to write about other things, and my sincere hope is
that I don't find myself writing a 3rd anniversary piece.
I also wanted to draw your attention to a new book on the subject, Skripal in Prison
, by John Helmer. I regret that I would have liked to be in a position to be able to make one
or two comments on the book, but unfortunately I have not had the time to read it myself yet.
But given John's pieces on the subject on his blog, I have no doubt that it will be a most
interesting and enlightening read. You can get a copy of it here:
An interesting connection between Skripal false flag and Syria false flag.
Notable quotes:
"... Main Stream Media ..."
"... "The same people who assured you Saddam Hussein had WMDs now assure you Russian 'Novichok' nerve agents are being wielded by Vladimir Putin to attack people on British soil." [4] ..."
Hamish
de Bretton-Gordon is the pretentious name used by a fellow who seems to have been a
lieutenant colonel in the British Army and a chemical weapons expert. He has
access to the media and markets the Party Line . Whose? The Foreign Office's version of
truth, one that denies the very active role of the Israel Lobby in using American forces to make war
in the Middle East.
de Bretton Gordon's public position is that chemical weapons are nasty dangerous things
being used by Bashar al
Assad , the president of Syria
to attack innocent civilians. Before believing this story look at what Seymour Hersh has to
say; that the Syria Gas Attack Carried Out
By America .
... ... ...
Civilians were under fire, he went on. He failed to mention that Al-Nusra might be holding
them as human shields, as they did in Eastern Aleppo. The Syrian army liberated that area in
December twenty-sixteen.
For the first time in five years the city's Christians were able to celebrate Christmas
free from constant bombardment from the Al-Nusra terrorists in the east.
Celebrating Christmas in Aleppo December 2016.
The US and UK Governments and the mainstream media hated the liberation of Eastern Aleppo.
They will equally bewail the liberation of Eastern Ghouta, when it comes.
Indeed, during the BBC interview, Hamish de Bretton-Gordon came across as nothing more
than a UK government sock-puppet. He confirmed this when he commended what he said were 'the
peace talks in Geneva'. We shall come to that below.
Doctors Under Fire
Mr David Nott is a respected surgeon but blames 'Assad' for everything.
But what of this man, and what of 'Doctors Under Fire'? Well, the latter has apparently
just two members, De Bretton Gordon and one David Nott, a surgeon who has been in war-torn
areas. Mr Nott similarly finds no good word to say about the Syrian government.
Oddly, in a video on Vimeo from
2016 he says Doctors Under Fire will be a charity. The Charity Commission has no record
of it, nor of 'Medics under Fire' which is what the Doctors Under Fire website is called.
When you go to the website , at
this time of writing, you're invited to a rally on 7th May. On further investigation, that is
7th May 2016. Their website is two years out of date. Of course hospitals should not be
attacked in war zones, but
the Doctors Under Fire platform gives Messrs De B-G and Nott credibility to advance
another agenda.
Hospital bombing scam
Furthermore, this
astonishing video collated all the times the 'last hospital' in eastern Aleppo was put
out of action by 'Syrian regime airstrikes'. Can you guess how many it was? And how do the
mainstream media source their footage of sick children, hospitals, and dare we add, 'doctors
under fire'? They are entirely dependent on the terrorists. No western journalist can venture
into their areas. Why? For fear of being kidnapped and held for ransom by the very people
they champion.
De Bretton Gordon also claimed on the BBC a hospital in eastern Ghouta had been hit. That
was why they gave him a platform under his 'Doctors Under Fire' persona. But again, it was
second-hand terrorist propaganda.
Here, the impressive 'Off-Guardian' website exposes the Syrian totem head of the 'White
Helmets', which was a British Foreign Office creation, as we
investigated here . This relentless
tugging at western heart-strings is a scam and the msm [ Main Stream Media ] know it.
Hamish de
Bretton-Gordon
SecureBio spun off from Hamish De Bretton-Gordon's time in the British Army
Hamish de Bretton-Gordon is a retired Colonel with an OBE. He commanded NATO's Rapid
Reaction Chemical Biological Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Battalion. He ran a company
called SecureBio with, we read on this
'military speakers' website , 'an impressive list of blue chip clients globally.'
However, Companies House says
SecureBio resolved to go into liquidation in June 2015.
The Colonel now apparently works for a company which makes breathing masks, Avon Protection . His LinkedIn
profile claims he is 'Managing Director CBRN' of Avon, despite not actually being a
director. He also claims still to be director of SecureBio. He does not mention that company
was dissolved in August 2017 with debts over £715,000.
Call for France to drop
bombs on Syria
De Bretton-Gordon has teamed up with Avon Protection which makes breathing masks.
De Bretton-Gordon no longer has any connection with military field-work. Nevertheless, he
has continued access to the world's media when subjects like Syria and alleged chemical
weapons come up.
Securebio's YouTube channel is
still online and has a number of videos of the colonel calling for 'safe havens' for
terrorists. He has appeared frequently on Sunni-Muslim Qatar's Al Jazeera TV channel.
Finally, why did the Colonel's promotion of the Geneva peace talks raise the alarm?
Because this is a UK-driven political view. In reality the Geneva talks stalled in February
twenty-seventeen. The Kurds took against the inconsequential opposition in exile pompously
called the High Negotiations Committee.
The Geneva talks finally collapsed in November when the Syrians would not agree to
President Assad stepping aside, a key, but stupid, UK and US demand.
The Guardian's highly-respected Patrick Wintour says the talks De Bretton Gordon extols
are 'perilously shorn of credibility'.
Meanwhile, the real peace talks, unmentioned by the Colonel, have been held in Astana,
capital of Kazakhstan. They are brokered by Russia, so the UK wants them to fail.
But the UN's Staffan de Mistura says the Astana talks are making small but 'clear
progress' to reducing violence in Syria.
They have now moved to Sochi on the Black Sea and we need to pray for
them.
They need to lay down their arms. But don't expect the Colonel to agree. The Bible says in
Psalm 120:7:
I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war.
Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon will keep ringing the UK Government bell. A knighthood
cannot be far away. But we must take what he and the rest of the BBC's pro-Foreign Office
pundits say with a very large pinch of salt.
De Bretton-Gordon is Managing Director CBRN at Avon
Protection , the recognised global market leader in respiratory protection system
technology specialising primarily in Military, Law Enforcement, Firefighting, and Industrial.
[2]
Novichok
nerve agent
On 4 March 2018, a Russian double agent Sergei Skripal was reported to have been
poisoned in Salisbury with a nerve agent which British authorities
identified as Novichok .
Theresa May told
Parliament that she held Russia responsible for Skripal's attempted
murder.
According to Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, Novichok was allegedly developed in the Soviet Union at a laboratory
complex in Shikhany, in central Russia. Vil
Mirzayanov , a Russian chemist involved in the development of Novichok, who later
defected to the United
States , said the Novichok was tested at Nukus, in Uzbekistan . [3]
Former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray , who visited the site at Nukus,
said it had been dismantled with US help. He is among those advocating scepticism about the
UK placing blame on Russia for the poisoning of Sergei Skripal. In a blog post, Murray
wrote:
"The same people who assured you Saddam Hussein had WMDs now assure you Russian 'Novichok' nerve
agents are being wielded by Vladimir Putin to attack people on British
soil." [4]
Deployments
Hamish de Bretton-Gordon's operational deployments included the 1st Gulf War , Cyprus , Bosnia , Kosovo , Iraq (multiple tours) and Afghanistan (2 tours) and has been in
Syria & Iraq frequently in the last 3 years.
This considerable experience in the field places Hamish de Bretton-Gordon as one of the
world's leading and most current experts in chemical and biological counter terrorism and
warfare.
Doctors
Under Fire
In December 2017, Hamish de Bretton-Gordon and fellow director David Nott of Doctors
Under Fire highlighted the case of seven children with curable cancer who were said to be
dying in Ghouta, Syria, for want of drugs and nourishment. They claimed
Union of Syrian Medical Care and Relief Organisations (UOSSM) hospitals in Ghouta were on
their knees with very few medicines left, and that kind words for the dying children were the
only palliative care available. [6]
UNQUOTE
This Christian has been abused; he does not approve of Homosexuality or abortion. In other words, he is
not a heretic.
The United States designated Jabhat al-Nusra as a foreign terrorist organization, followed
by the United Nations Security
Council and many other countries. [38] It was the
official Syrian branch of al-Qaeda until July 2016, when it ostensibly
split. [39][40]
In early 2015, the group became one of the major components of the powerful jihadist joint operations room
named the Army of
Conquest , which took over large territories in Northwestern Syria . It also operates in neighbouring Lebanon . [41] In November
2012, The
Washington Post described al-Nusra as the most successful arm of the rebel forces.
[[42]
In July 2016, al-Nusra formally separated from al-Qaeda and
re-branded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham ("Front for the Conquest of the Levant"). [39]
On 28 January 2017, following violent clashes with
Ahrar al-Sham and
other rebel groups, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham merged with four other groups to become Their al-Sham .
Christian
Voice ex Wiki
Christian Voice (CV) is a Christian advocacy group based in the
United Kingdom .
[1] Its stated
objective is "to uphold Christianity as the Faith of the United Kingdom, to be a voice for
Biblical values
in law and public policy, and to defend and support traditional family life." [2]
It is independent of religious, denominational, or political parties. [3]
CV is led by Stephen Green, with Lord Ashburn as its patron.
[3] Green
is the group's spokesperson, producing scores of press releases from 2005 to 2010. According
to Green, Christian Voice had in excess of 600 members in 2005. [4]
The group has been criticised for its positions. David Peel, leader of the United Reformed
Church called Christian Voice "a disgrace" [4] and
described their "claim to represent Christians" in the UK as "absurd". [[5]
Leadership Stephen Green
The leader, and sole staff member, of Christian Voice is Stephen Green [6]
, a former Chairman of the Conservative Family Campaign, who attends an Assemblies of
God Church. In the early 1990s, Green was a prominent campaigner against homosexuality through the
Conservative Family Campaign, and wrote a book called The Sexual Dead-End .
Medics Under Fire - org
Anti-Syrian government [ of 2016 ]
The repeated targeting of healthcare workers and hospitals by the Russian and Syrian
governments are war crimes. We call on you to give Syria's heroic healthcare workers and the
communities they serve a zone free from bombing to ensure their protection. The international
community has agreed the bombs need to stop. The resolutions are in place. They simply need
to be enforced.
Secure Bio
Limited ex Companies House
Registered office address
Bell Advisory, Tenth Floor 3 Hardman Street, Spinningfields, Manchester, M3 3H
Company status
Dissolved
Dissolved on
17 August 2017
Company type
Private limited Company
Incorporated on
29 June 2011
Last accounts made up to 31 December 2013
Nature of business (SIC)
82990 - Other business support service activities not elsewhere classified
Appointment of Hamish De Bretton-Gordon as a director
Over the last week, there have, to my knowledge, been three big claims of 'Russian
disinformation' and 'Russian trolls/bots' on social media.
1. Last week, Russian equipment and support sent to Italy to help fight Covid-19. Nato
stenographers claim and spread the disinformation that '80% of the equipment was useless',
citing one anonymous source. Total lies.
2. Swedish minister claims social media campaign against a 5G network in Sweden is run by
russian trolls. Turns out it is a 64 year old grandmother living in Stockholm who is behind
the campaign.
3. Yesterday afternoon, russia media report, according to a National Health Service
source, Boris Johnson is on a ventilator in hospital. Utter nonsense say MSM, Russian
disinformation. Overnight headlines in British media – Boris in intensive care.
The western media are so totally venally corrupt in serving the 1% yet get found out in
their lies time after time and yet carry on. I try to read as many different media as
possible, but have no doubt, which are more credible, and it aint NATO stenographers
AnneR , April 7, 2020 at 14:33
Yes, John A. Truly there is something warped about the western ruling elites' mindset. But
I guess they have to have a bugaboo and Russia (then China, sometimes Iran and others) is the
primary, western created, go-to one. Even among those who did not grow up, or were only
young, during the cold war.
I am only thankful that, despite my father's Tory politics (all but regarding the land,
which he believed should be nationalized and 50 acres given to every male [well, he was
sexist]; an curious, decidedly not Tory viewpoint) the USSR as was then never was on either
his or my mother's agenda. Indeed, we used to watch with much pleasure the Red Army choir,
once we got a television (not till 1958, when I was 10), which toured the UK, I *think*
No ducking under school desks. Nor any other weird thing
Permanent/long term expats are usually not your best source of information about a
country. Being informed of something concerning China by a Chinese-American friend isn't
necessarily authoritative. Consider someone in China asking an expat from New England about
eating habits in Mississippi: "It's disgusting! They eat opossums! Road kill raccoons that
they find on the side of the highway! Raccoon balloons! People from America's South are
filthy!"
Perhaps people in America's South do not always eat road kill, but people from other parts
of the US believe they do. You have the same kinds of beliefs in China about peoples in
different regions.
Anyway,
here is what the insufferably jingoistic and national chauvinistic
Washington Bezos Post has to say about China's wet markets reopening:
"The prevalence of food-borne microbial illness in developing East Asia suggests that far
from being cesspits of disease, wet markets do a good job of providing households with clean,
fresh produce."
Sending top shelf ventilators made by a Russian firm under U.S. sanctions? I wonder if
this is some sort of ironic Russian humor, besides being a bridge-building gesture, of
course. If it's a troll, we richly deserve it, IMHO.
Remind me again why we are not working collegially with this talented nation of
Russia.
I will give you 100% TrueUkrainian (the new plucky "democratic" friends of the Great West,
remember?) answer - of course not!
As everybody knows (tm), Russian help is not just useless, but promotes this dreadful,
aggressive "Russki Mir", that stands for everything wrong, compared to the bright* genderless
globalist and eco-friendly progressive future.
Western countries and their populations, that have become the subject of the brutal and
aggressive Russian humanitarian help (that's Italy and US of A) in order to maintain
ideological integrity and robust correct-think, have to adopt a few simple measures, already
tried and tested by the great patriots of the Ukraine:
1) Ask any Russian doctor and member of the medical personnel, that might try to treat
you, about their attitude towards Putin, war in Syria and to whom really belongs the Crimea
(optional for the Westerners – also ask about gays and representation quotas). If the
answer is not 156% ideologically pure, refuse to be treated by such violent satrap of the
Regime!
2) Stage a raid on a warehouse with the medical masks from Russia, and expropriate every
single one of them! In order to prevent innocent bystanders from ever using such vile tools
of Russian propaganda in their daily life, find a new and creative way to dispose of them.
One such use is beloved by all truly patriotic members of the Ukrainian civil society (like
C14 and "UPA-UNSO") – use them to make torches for your next rally!
3) Be proactive citizen – refuse to use Russian lung ventilators! Die a free
person!
_______
*) But not too bright as not to offend epileptics.
US sidestepped OWN SANCTIONS against Russia to save American lives from Covid-19... If only it cared as much about Iranian
lives
Scott Ritter
is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer. He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General
Schwarzkopf's staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter
@RealScottRitter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer.
He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf's staff during the Gulf War, and
from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector.
When it comes to saving American lives, sanctions are not an
obstacle to the provision of life-saving medical equipment. Ramping up sanctions on struggling Iran is okay however – which goes
to show the US price tag on human life. It was a sight that warmed the heart of even the most cynical American opponent of Vladimir
Putin's Russia -- a giant An-124 aircraft, loaded with boxes of desperately needed medical supplies, being offloaded at JFK Airport.
When President Trump spoke on the phone with his Russian counterpart on March 31, he mentioned America's need for life-saving medical
supplies, including ventilators and personal protective equipment. Two days later the AN-124 arrived in New York.
As the aircraft was being unloaded, however, it became clear that at least some of the equipment being offloaded had been delivered
in violation of existing US sanctions. Boxes clearly marked as containing Aventa-M ventilators, produced by the Ural Instrument Engineering
Plant (UPZ), could be seen. For weeks now President Trump has made an issue about the need for ventilators in the US to provide life-saving
care for stricken Americans.
There was just one problem -- the manufacturer of the Aventa-M, UPZ, is a subsidiary of Concern Radio-Electronic Technologies
(KRET) which, along with its parent holding company ROSTEC, has been under US sanctions since 2014. Complicating matters further
is the fact that the shipment of medical supplies was paid in part by the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), a Russian sovereign
wealth fund which, like ROSTEC, was placed on the US lending blacklist in 2014 following Russia's intervention in Crimea. Half of
the Russian aid shipment was paid for by the US State Department, and the other half by RDIF.
According to a State Department spokesperson, the sanctions against RDIF do not apply to purchases of medical equipment. KRET,
however, is in the strictest SDN (Specially Designated Persons) sanctions
list , which means US citizens and permanent residents
are prohibited from doing business with it. So while the letter of the sanctions may not have been violated, the spirit certainly
has been.
One only need talk to the embattled Governor of New York State, Andrew Cuomo, to understand the difficulty in trying to purchase
much-needed medical equipment during a global pandemic where everyone else is trying to do the same. New York has been competing
with several other states to purchase much-needed ventilators from China. "It's like being on eBay" , Cuomo recently told
the press, with 50 states bidding against one another, driving the price up. The issue became even more complicated when the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, entered the bidding war. "They big-footed us" , Cuomo said, driving the price per ventilator
up to $25,000. "We're going broke."
Cuomo estimates that New York will need upwards of 40,000 ventilators to be able to handle the influx of stricken patients when
the outbreak hits its peak. At the moment, New York has 17,000 ventilators available -- including 2,500 on order from China -- and
Cuomo doesn't expect any more. "We're on our own." Plans are in place to begin imposing a triage system to prioritize ventilator
availability if and when the current stockpile is exhausted. These plans include the issuance of an emergency waiver that permits
health care providers to take a patient off a ventilator to make it available for another patient deemed to be more "viable"
-- that is, who has a greater expectation of surviving the disease.
Cuomo's predicament is being played out around the world, in places like Italy, Spain -- and Iran, where the outbreak of coronavirus
has hit particularly hard. The difference, however, is that while the US, Italy and Spain are able to scour the global market in
search of life-saving medical supplies, Iran is not. US sanctions targeting the Iranian financial system, ostensibly imposed to prevent
"money laundering" by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command, which has been heavily sanctioned by the US over the years,
have made it virtually impossible for Iran to pay for humanitarian supplies needed to fight the coronavirus outbreak.
As bad as it is for Governor Cuomo, at least he can enter a bidding war for medical supplies. Iran can't even get its foot in
the door, and it is costing lives. Making matters worse, at a time when the international community is pleading for the US to ease
sanctions so Iran can better cope with an outbreak that is taking a life every ten minutes, the US instead doubled down, further
tightening its death grip on the Iranian economy.
The global coronavirus pandemic will eventually end, and when it does there will be an accounting for how nations behaved. Nations
like Russia and China have been repeatedly vilified in the US media for any number of reasons -- even the Russian aid shipment containing
the sanctioned ventilators has been dismissed as a "propaganda ploy." What, then, do you call the US' blatant disregard
for select human lives?
The callous indifference displayed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other officials to the suffering of the Iranian people
by increasing sanctions at a time when the situation cries out for them to be lifted in order to save lives, when contrasted to the
ease in which US sanctions on Russia are ignored when life-saving medical equipment is needed, drives home the point that, as far
as the US is concerned, human life only matters when it is an American one. That might play well among American voters (it shouldn't),
but for the rest of the world it is a clear sign that hypocrisy, not humanitarianism, is the word that will define the US going forward.
EDITOR'S NOTE: A previous version of this article erroneously stated that entering a financial relationship with RDIF is prosecutable
under the US sanctions regime. In reality, RDIF is under sectoral sanctions that only apply to certain interactions, which, according
to a State Department spokesperson, do not include purchases of medical equipment. The article has been changed accordingly.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
I realise few will since amerikans are 100% exceptionalist right up to their last breath but
please read the best article by far on masks & respirators cleaning issues esp such ones
as 'steam' cleaning are on this link I posted earlier.
It is written by Dr John Campbell who has been writing on this virus for several months.
My brother the retired journo recommended him to me in early February, so naturally I have
been assiduous in ignoring the bloke for that reason, combined with the fact Campbell is an
englander, but he has put together an excellent piece on masks & respirators, one which
uses y'know those pesky fact things to support his statements about assorted items efficacy,
longevity and ability to be cleaned. With respirators 95% & above he recommends having
several and rotating them so that they cop 4-5 days down time which should be enough time for
the virus to kark it of its own accord.
I don't believe for a moment that will stop the continual spouting of uninformed claptrap,
but I tried.
There is no conspiracy, they didn't make up false documents to start a Russian investigation,
oh wait they did.. I just read that Bloomberg spent north of $500,000,000.00 to become
president and you want me to believe the Russians spent 1% of that and got better results..
You have to be a special kind of stupid.
US Politicians never forget that for the past seventy years russophobia and sinophobic
racism- both of which have deep roots in the culture- formed the bases of the ideology of
anti-communism.
The Democrats, totally discredited by the 2016 Election campaign and decades of
Clinton/Obama swings towards the right and away from the old New Deal constituencies, began
by accusing Trump of colluding with the Russians- who most of the DNC deliberately suggested,
and probably genuinely thought, were Communists.
Trump's response is now to revive the anti-Peoples Republic witch-hunts of the past to use
against the Democrats.
We have two discredited old parties, incapable of dealing with the crises facing them,
attempting to revive the only ideas that have ever galvanised the US public in their
lifetimes: opposition to communism and the racism which underlay just about every US military
adventure since 1945 - the all purpose anti-gook racism that saw them through the wars
against Japan, Korea, IndoChina and the People's Republic.
It is going to make the spectacle of two monkeys throwing shit at each other seem
positively restrained - the Democrats howling about Russia and the Republicans, reverting to
type, starting up lynch mobs against China.
I stopped listening to npr after returning to the US after living overseas for more than a
decade. I was struck by how narrow their perspective was. Very constricted range of
"approved" thought and no room for dissenting opinions or independent thinkers there. It
almost seemed that its listeners were actually afraid to hear anything other than the
approved orthodoxy of the left. Almost as if they feared they might be won over to a
different way of thinking ;)
And now, enough of politics for me and I wish you a good night.
People don't hate media itself. People hate it, when corporate media becomes propagandists
for political parties. This is like saying - "why do people hate Germany, ever since Hitler
came to power". Maybe people don't hate Germany - mabye Hitler part is the problem.
It is one of the ironies of life that single-party polities often have more objective media
than frenetic democracies. Pravda was always less propagandistic than the New
York Times . In a totalitarian system, the ruling party benefits from taking hits as
they come; the effects diffuse faster that way. There's no need to omit facts that may
later become well known, or bury key information to a later page in the paper. Credibility
of the ruling party is paramount.
In democracies on the other hand, there's always a chance that kicking the can down the
road results in the consequences never having to be faced. So the whole nation becomes one
of bucket-kickers. Credibility of the ruling party is irrelevant, all to be forgotten in
the next (soon) cycle of elections.
One of the most significant aspects of the COV19 pandemic is that the Chinese government
lied to its citizenry about many facets of the disease, and that citizenry has discovered
the lie (for example, the true death tolls in Wuhan). The Communist Party has generally
never done that; what's to gain by taking the risk? And now they have and are paying for it
in credibility.
U.S. MSM is the most dishonest enterprise I read regularly. There's more truth in spam
e-mail from a marketing machine.
Of course, "Congress" includes the Republican Senate as well as the Democratic House;
there's every bit as much dislike out there for Moscow Mitch as there is for Nancy Pelosi.
And by the same token, "the media" is not just the New York Times , the
Washington Post , NPR, and the TV networks other than FOX. It's also FOX, the vast
apparatus of right-wing talk radio, the Wall Street Journal , goodness knows how
many local rags, Daily Caller, Breitbart, and the rest.
The thing about rating the press - some of the people have been trained to hate CNN, so
they rate the press low thinking that is what they are commenting on, while some of the
people have been trained to hate FOX News, so they rate the press low thinking that is what
they are commenting on. Meanwhile, ALL of the people have total faith in 'their' media.
Same way that Congress gets super low approval ratings, yet 94% of them get re-elected.
Congress may stink, but 'MY' congresscritter is the bestest...
First, "Media" is not the same thing as 'news media', just as 'news media' is not the same
thing as 'journalism'.
Second, the facts prove what a growing number of people think of the 'news media',
whores and sycophants for partisan politics. For example, Gannett, which has become the
biggest financial train wreck in recent memory. The reason is simple: fewer and fewer
people trust Gannett, so fewer and fewer people subscribe to and advertise in Gannett
publications, so the revenues continue to erode.
The late Patrick Caddell who worked for George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart, Joe Biden
and Jerry Brown called the media an enemy of the American people. Play Hide
Why does the left hate Jordan Peterson? An excerpt below from the excellent Atlantic
article by Caitlin Flanagan.
"It is because the left, while it currently seems ascendant in our houses of culture and
art, has in fact entered its decadent late phase, and it is deeply vulnerable. The left is
afraid not of Peterson, but of the ideas he promotes, which are completely inconsistent
with identity politics of any kind."
Why the Left Is So Afraid of Jordan Peterson?
The Canadian psychology professor's stardom is evidence that leftism is on the decline- and
is deeply vulnerable.
By Caitlin Flanagan, The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com...
, Trump
gave his speech on 11 March . It should come as no surprise that Putin's speech framing and
proposals were far superior to Trump's, who employed the Big Lie at the top of his speech:
"Because of the economic policies that we have put into place over the last three years, we
have the greatest economy anywhere in the world, by far.
"Our banks and financial institutions are fully capitalized and incredibly strong. Our
unemployment is at a historic low. This vast economic prosperity gives us flexibility,
reserves, and resources to handle any threat that comes our way.
"This is not a financial crisis, this is just a temporary moment of time that we will
overcome together as a nation and as a world."
Absolutely nothing he said above is true and in many cases he was immediately proved wrong.
In stark contrast, Putin chose the following to begin his speech:
"By taking precautionary measures, we have been largely able to prevent the infection from
rapidly spreading and limit the incidence rate. However, we have to understand that Russia
cannot insulate itself from this threat, simply considering its geography. There are countries
along our borders that have already been seriously affected by the epidemic, which means that
in all objectivity it is impossible to stop it from spilling over into Russia.
"That said, being professional, well organised and proactive is what we can do and are
already doing. The lives and health of our citizens is our top priority .
"We have mobilised all the capabilities and resources for deploying a system of timely
prevention and treatment. I would like to specially address doctors, paramedics, nurses, staff
at hospitals, outpatient clinics, rural paramedic centres, ambulance services, and researchers:
you are at the forefront of dealing with this situation. My heartfelt gratitude to you for your
dedicated efforts." [My Emphasis]
We must also consider the numerous gaffs Trump committed prior to his speech, his earlier
gleeful gloating over China's troubles in January, and his politicizing of the crisis along
with that of Pompeo. Then there's his escalation of the illegal attacks on Iran and Venezuela
specifically, which are crimes against humanity. Yes, I readily admit my anti-Trump bias, but
I'm not blinded like those who applaud him. Putin had immediate proposals for aid to his people
that they can count on, while Trump did next to nothing by comparison. But do please read them
both and make your own determination as to which nation and leader you'd rather have during
this sort of crisis.
As a Russian I don't approve of this aid that Putin sent to Italy. That's Soviet-slyle
showmanship, when our country objectively cannot afford it. Stalin was sending grain to East
Germany, when Russia was starving. Now Putin is doing something similar.
At the very least he should have extracted some payment for it – Italy is a rich
country, has bigger GDP than Russia, and can totally pay.
@Felix Keverich I would have to disagree with you on this, my friend. Italy is famous for
being one of the most communist friendly countries in the western world. During "communism"
Italy's Fiat gave the license to build their cars to many Eastern block countries: Poland,
Yugoslavia, and yes USSR.
The original Lada was nothing else but Fiat 124 model. As a sign of gratitude the Russians
even renamed the city where the Lada was being made into Togliatti – after an Italian
communist. I think the friendship and respect between Italy and Russia goes way back, and now
the Russians are just trying to continue that tradition by helping as much as they can Italy
in these difficult times.
@Felix Keverich Soft power is much. much cheaper than hard power. Russia has been
constantly demonised in the West and a show of compassion of this magnitude reveals the lies
for what they are. It will be much more difficult to garner support for harsh measures
against Russians when people everywhere see them as being "just like us". This is especially
true of Europe whose support is very much needed by the US and it's minions like the UK,
Poland and the usual flunkies.
Why did you label Cyrano's response to you to be trolling? It was polite and sincere, I
thought.
@Felix Keverich If a Russian military gaining experience against an unknown enemy ,
isn't
that a form of payment ?
I am not a Russian , but I am sure your president knows what he is doing.
@Cyrano As a Russian I do support this action, despite it obviously will have no positive
changes in Italy's policy.
Not all Russians are like Felix (if he's really Russian, which I'm not sure).
By a clever move of the US intelligence agencies they are left without a choice as to support Trump in 2020 election is as idiotic
as to support Biden.
U.S. intelligence community, through its preferred propaganda sheet the New York Times, is
now reporting that
Russia is taking advantage of the coronavirus crisis to spread disinformation through Europe and also in the U.S.
In particular, Putin has escalated a campaign-by-innuendo to reduce confidence in the outcome of the upcoming 2020 presidential
election.
In any event, the Russians are too late as the Democratic and Republican parties' behavior has already convinced many Americans
that voting in November will be a waste of time.
As RT UK launches, attacks on the channel in the British media have stepped up
The latest is a piece by Mr. Cyril Waugh-Monger, a very important newspaper columnist for the NeoCon Daily, a patron of the Senator
Joe McCarthy Appreciation Society and author of 'Why the Iraq War was a Brilliant Idea' and 'The Humanitarian Case for Bombing Syria.'
Dear socially inferior person reading this article. My name is Cyril Waugh-Monger (I'm called 'Mr Terribly Pompous Neo-Con' by
my friends) and I'm here to tell you why on no account should you watch RT and why you should be making complaints to Ofcom (a British
bureacracy which regulates TV) about this dreadful channel so that in the interests of 'free speech' and 'democracy' we can get it
off air.
1. RT doesn't peddle Russophobia
Outrageously, RT doesn't compare Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler. It doesn't join in with the demonization of Russia and its leader.
How can we have a channel which is watched by people in Britain, which doesn't do that? We neocons say that demonization of Russia
and its leader is compulsory. How dare RT not do as we say!
RT is more vocally in support of Russia than western media
2. RT is sometimes rude to bankers
There's a man on RT called Max Keiser and he is often very rude to bankers. Why, he has even called for them to face the death
penalty. Such disrespect to our financial elites is shocking and should not be allowed in a free society.
3. Its coverage of the MH17 crash
Shockingly, RT commentators didn't rush to blame Vladimir Putin for the air disaster within seconds of the news breaking. Some
even said that we should wait for the forensic evidence before any statements apportioning guilt were made. Others said that we couldn't
rule out that the plane was downed by an another aircraft. This failure to come and say loud and clear "Putin personally shot down
the plane with a missile he made and fired with his own hands" within minutes of the crash is clear evidence of RT's bias and why
it must be taken off the air.
4. RT's 'pundits' include people who aren't neocons and 'liberal interventionists'
This is truly scandalous: RT gives airtime to people who don't support the West's policy of endless war and who opposed airstrikes
on Syria last year. Why, it's even broadcast interviews with the convener of the Stop the War coalition – and has a regular weekly
show fronted by George Galloway! This is unconscionable. Only people who support Western foreign policy should be allowed to express
their views on international affairs on television, not 'cranks' and 'fanatics' who oppose attacking a sovereign state in the Middle
East on deceitful grounds every couple of years. Why, if RT had been around in 2003, it would no doubt have given airtime to anti-war
'conspiracy theorists' who would have told viewers that Iraq had no WMDs – and claimed, fantastically – that Bush and Blair were
making it all up.
5. RT provides airtime to genuine socialists and genuine conservatives
This is really terrible: RT interviews people who oppose neo-liberalism and globalization, from both the left and the right. It's
given the microphone to socialists, communists, greens, and 'extremists' on the right, like Ron Paul. These people should not be
allowed to express their views on television; they are 'cranks' and should be totally marginalized. Only those who support the hegemonic
consensus should be allowed on TV. It's very important that in order to protect free speech and democracy, alternative opinions are
not heard.
6. RT pundits have 'extremist' links
I monitor the people who appear on RT very, very closely and I can tell you that there was once a case of an RT interviewee who
had a link on his website to another website which had a link to another website which had a link to another website – which denied
the Holocaust and said that little green men from Mars were ruling the US.
After considerable research, I also found that another RT pundit once attended a conference where a fellow invitee had once sat
at a restaurant table, a few days after another person who had actually praised Adolf Hitler, Chairman Mao, and Josef Stalin in a
magazine article published in North Korea in 1962.
7. RT is anti-semitic
Ok, I've got no evidence of this, but I'll bung it in anyway as it sounds good.
8. RT has broadcast documentaries on the wars in Yugoslavia which don't blame the Serbs for everything
This is totally unacceptable.
9. RT has had 'experts' on its programs who have made some very strong criticisms of Israel
This too is totally unacceptable. Anyone with a theory or definition that differs from Western minded politicians is demonized
for voicing their opinion.
10. RT pundits have often ridiculed leading American policymakers
For instance, when the US Secretary of State John Kerry said that "you just don't in the 21st century" invade another country
on "completely trumped up pretext," some people on RT had the audacity to say "What about Iraq?" This lack of respect towards a leading
American politician is appalling, and in a free society ought not to be allowed. The correct procedure whenever a leading US political
figure speaks is to tug one's forelock.
11. RT's coverage of the conflict in Syria
In 2011-13, we had so-called 'experts' on Syria telling us on RT that some of the freedom-fighting pro-democracy rebels were actually
fanatical terrorists who were guilty of committing atrocities. This was obviously a clear lie. Islamist terrorists like ISIS have
only been active in Syria since 2014 and of course, it's all the fault of President Assad and Russia.
12. RT interviews lots of people whose views I do not share
It ought not to be allowed! Aren't we supposed to live in a democracy?
13. The most important reason: RT is a threat
More and more people are watching it – which is why me and my little group of neocons and 'liberal interventionists' are so worried
and stepping up our attacks on the station and denigrating those people who appear on it.
The next big war is going to be much harder for us to 'sell' to the plebs, because we are no longer in control of the narrative
as we were in 2003, before the Iraq war. Oh, what happy days those were!
Don't watch RT because we really don't want you to 'question more.' We want you to question less. It's much easier for us that
way.
@niteranger
"For example, New York Times Columnist Nicholas Kristof on Sunday reported the disheartening analysis of Dr. Neil Ferguson of
Britain, one of the world's leading epidemiologists."
Nicholas Kristoff has the bad habit of falling for falling for frauds and making them famous. "Three cups of tea" for starters.
He's got a long track record of peddling fake stuff.
As RT UK launches, attacks on the channel in the British media have stepped up
The latest is a piece by Mr. Cyril Waugh-Monger, a very important newspaper columnist for the NeoCon Daily, a
patron of the Senator Joe McCarthy Appreciation Society and author of 'Why the Iraq War was a Brilliant Idea' and
'The Humanitarian Case for Bombing Syria.'
Dear socially inferior person reading this article. My name is Cyril Waugh-Monger (I'm called 'Mr Terribly
Pompous Neo-Con' by my friends) and I'm here to tell you why on no account should you watch RT and why you should
be making complaints to Ofcom (a British bureacracy which regulates TV) about this dreadful channel so that in the
interests of 'free speech' and 'democracy' we can get it off air.
1. RT doesn't peddle Russophobia
Outrageously, RT doesn't compare Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler. It doesn't join in with the demonization of
Russia and its leader. How can we have a channel which is watched by people in Britain, which doesn't do that? We
neocons say that demonization of Russia and its leader is compulsory. How dare RT not do as we say!
RT is more vocally in support of Russia than western media
2. RT is sometimes rude to bankers
There's a man on RT called Max Keiser and he is often very rude to bankers. Why, he has even called for them to
face the death penalty. Such disrespect to our financial elites is shocking and should not be allowed in a free
society.
Former CEO of HSX Holdings/Hollywood Stock Exchange and host of RT''s 'Keiser Report' Max Keiser
3. Its coverage of the MH17 crash
Shockingly, RT commentators didn't rush to blame Vladimir Putin for the air disaster within seconds of the news
breaking. Some even said that we should wait for the forensic evidence before any statements apportioning guilt
were made. Others said that we couldn't rule out that the plane was downed by an another aircraft. This failure to
come and say loud and clear "Putin personally shot down the plane with a missile he made and fired with his own
hands" within minutes of the crash is clear evidence of RT's bias and why it must be taken off the air.
Segment of the shot down plane
4. RT's 'pundits' include people who aren't neocons and 'liberal interventionists'
This is truly scandalous: RT gives airtime to people who don't support the West's policy of endless war and who
opposed airstrikes on Syria last year. Why, it's even broadcast interviews with the convener of the Stop the War
coalition – and has a regular weekly show fronted by George Galloway! This is unconscionable. Only people who
support Western foreign policy should be allowed to express their views on international affairs on television,
not 'cranks' and 'fanatics' who oppose attacking a sovereign state in the Middle East on deceitful grounds every
couple of years. Why, if RT had been around in 2003, it would no doubt have given airtime to anti-war 'conspiracy
theorists' who would have told viewers that Iraq had no WMDs – and claimed, fantastically – that Bush and Blair
were making it all up.
British politician, broadcaster, and writer George Galloway often speaks out against western foreign policy
5. RT provides airtime to genuine socialists and genuine conservatives
This is really terrible: RT interviews people who oppose neo-liberalism and globalization, from both the
left and the right. It's given the microphone to socialists, communists, greens, and 'extremists' on the right,
like Ron Paul. These people should not be allowed to express their views on television; they are 'cranks' and
should be totally marginalized. Only those who support the hegemonic consensus should be allowed on TV. It's
very important that in order to protect free speech and democracy, alternative opinions are not heard.
Former Republican presidential candidate, Representative Ron Paul
6. RT pundits have 'extremist' links
I monitor the people who appear on RT very, very closely and I can tell you that there was once a case of an
RT interviewee who had a link on his website to another website which had a link to another website which had a
link to another website – which denied the Holocaust and said that little green men from Mars were ruling the
US.
After considerable research, I also found that another RT pundit once attended a conference where a fellow
invitee had once sat at a restaurant table, a few days after another person who had actually praised Adolf
Hitler, Chairman Mao, and Josef Stalin in a magazine article published in North Korea in 1962.
7. RT is anti-semitic
Ok, I've got no evidence of this, but I'll bung it in anyway as it sounds good.
8. RT has broadcast documentaries on the wars in Yugoslavia which don't blame the Serbs for everything
This is totally unacceptable.
An elderly woman carries her belongings November 22 in Sarajevo's war shattered airport settlement.
(Reuters)
9. RT has had 'experts' on its programs who have made some very strong criticisms of Israel
This too is totally unacceptable. Anyone with a theory or definition that differs from Western minded
politicians is demonized for voicing their opinion.
Israel's annexed Golan Heights is hosting pop up hospitals to tend to ISIS fighters
10. RT pundits have often ridiculed leading American policymakers
For instance, when the US Secretary of State John Kerry said that "you just don't in the 21st century"
invade another country on "completely trumped up pretext," some people on RT had the audacity to say "What
about Iraq?" This lack of respect towards a leading American politician is appalling, and in a free society
ought not to be allowed. The correct procedure whenever a leading US political figure speaks is to tug one's
forelock.
11. RT's coverage of the conflict in Syria
In 2011-13, we had so-called 'experts' on Syria telling us on RT that some of the freedom-fighting
pro-democracy rebels were actually fanatical terrorists who were guilty of committing atrocities. This was
obviously a clear lie. Islamist terrorists like ISIS have only been active in Syria since 2014 and of course,
it's all the fault of President Assad and Russia.
Intense shelling destroys buildings in the Damascus suburb of Jobar October 28
12. RT interviews lots of people whose views I do not share
It ought not to be allowed! Aren't we supposed to live in a democracy?
13. The most important reason: RT is a threat
More and more people are watching it – which is why me and my little group of neocons and 'liberal
interventionists' are so worried and stepping up our attacks on the station and denigrating those people who
appear on it.
The next big war is going to be much harder for us to 'sell' to the plebs, because we are no longer in
control of the narrative as we were in 2003, before the Iraq war. Oh, what happy days those were!
Don't watch RT because we really don't want you to 'question more.' We want you to question less. It's much
easier for us that way.
This weaponizing of random indignation is a classic tool of the Western propaganda. In
Romania, we heard for a decade how the national-populists masquerading as socialists are to
blame for the lack of highways. It's been a few years since idiot Romanians gather in random
cities to complain that their city is not yet hooked to the Austro-Hungarian highway system,
despite the lack of traffic between their city and Austro-Hungary.
It is my understanding that, once highway construction will start, there will be protests
about natural or archeological treasures presumably endangered by the construction. It has
been decently working in Russia, with that Khimki forest.
Anything that can be thrown at a government threatening to leave the NWO will be used.
It's even worse for governments that are already one foot out, like Russia / China, or
completely out, like Iran / North Korea. Putin will be blamed for epidemics, earthquakes,
tsunamis, and even eclipses. If an earthquake would kill only a few, we will hear about
"failure to respond". If the earthquake doesn't kill anybody. we will be told that Putin
exploited it for propaganda.
One of the ways that CIA and Soros use, in order to weaponize Romania's presumed lack of
highways, is to pay some useful idiots, who call themselves "The Association for the
Betterment of Highways", "The Pro-Infrastructura Brigade", and so on. Most of these NGOs
consist of a single person, who posts videos of them ranting next to a construction site.
Using the model that BoJo used for the upcoming marriage (three men and one dog), the more
Soros/CIA-resistant types call them "The One-Incel-And-His-Drone Association".
By that same standard, I suspect we call this Doctors' Alliance
"Vasilievna-and-her-thermometer Association". Whatever she says about Moscow hospitals is
probably informed by her thermometer anyway. I doubt you can tell how things are in a
10-million city, especially if you are a marginal clown.
Is she an ophthalmologist, like The Part-Time Virologist Martyr of Wuhan? Dentist,
perhaps?
the scenario that China and Russia become extremely hostile with each other in the near
future (possibly even distant future) is extremely unlikely
I don't believe this is as unlikely as some might think, although not in a way most would
expect. And changing demographics in the United States could be a key catalyst in such a turn
of events. To clarify, I don't think there will be an overtly anti-Russian sentiment running
through mainland China in the near future, but I could see ethnic Asian -- particularly
Chinese -- demographics in the United States turning that country against Russia, and later
the whole of Europe, as a means of deflecting away from the CCP globally and ethnic Chinese
domestically.
Much of the current anti-Russian sentiment promoted by the left is just thinly veiled
anti-white animus. A key element of coalition building is having a common enemy. The common
enemy of POC is the white American demographic. Russia is the ruling class's whipping boy, a
stand in for their white Christian domestic rivals. That's why you see racist identitarians
like the South African Trevor Noah obsessing about Russia and Putin even though neither has
anything to do with any American's living standard (and never mind the hypocrisy of having so
many autocratic non-white allies -- a fact which is strangely omitted from their rhetoric
about Russian strongmen).
When considering past conflicts, most people falsely assume there wasn't a more base
motive -- ethnic antipathy. Children in the United States, for instance, are taught that
their country entered the Second World War because Hitler was bad and the imperial Japanese
were bad. Perhaps, but that isn't really the true reason. The United States government and
significant portions of the population lobbied for entry into both world wars due mostly to
ethnic allegiances; Britain spoke English and so did an American white population descended
largely from that same group. It's not a coincidence that the most anti-war sections of the
country were also the most German. Charles Lindbergh, a noted anti-war celebrity, was German,
IIRC; Jewish activists have spent decades trying to destroy his image.
It's also probably not a coincidence that many Americans who opposed entry into these wars
were fairly recent descendants of ethnic groups with a history of anti-Anglo sentiment. FDR's
Irish ambassador, for example, to the Court of St. James's made it clear to the British Royal
Family that the American public opposed entry into the war (true, but the government was
working hard behind the scenes to make it happen). An enraged WASP FDR eventually sacked him.
In that light, it's not inconceivable to think that had the U.S. accepted 2 or 3 times the
number of German and Irish immigrants the country might have remained neutral or even joined
the Axis. In contrast, the strongest supporters of these wars were WASP celebrities,
politicians, and voting demographics.
In the present, the U.S. supports Israel mainly because it has a powerful Jewish lobby
that influences it to do so, even against its wider interests. The same is true of Cuba where
the country sacrifices its national image in order to appeal to a small demographic of Cuban
expats in southern Florida. Over in Europe, the UK -- flooded with Indian immigrants -- is
now unnaturally friendly to India, even reorienting its recent domestic culture to include
far more Indian history, subjects, and characters in shows like Dr. Who (a show that now no
longer has a traditional Christmas episode as it went POC woke). Demography is destiny, it
would seem. Immigration without assimilation is equivalent to conquest.
Polls in the United States show Asians have the most positive opinion of the Chinese
government by a fairly wide margin, and there have been numerous stories lately of Chinese
ethnics protesting in favor of the interests of that country -- against the Hong Kong
protests (Disney's Mulan actress, a nationalized American), against college events and
monuments they deem against China, and against any description of corona as a "China virus",
not that I endorse the description myself. Other demographics show a more mixed opinion.
Regardless, I expect there will continue to be a steady flow of Asian immigrants to the
United States with predictable consequences.
I think it is possible that the American system could be co-opted with a concerted effort
and repurposed to serve the interests of China, an effective coup similar to Israel's
domination of the current establishment by means of diaspora activists. A few diversity
programs, a set of prominent politicians, some money thrown around, the founding and
infiltration of a few lobby groups, and a few unscrupulous people put in charge of the
entertainment and news industries could see a situation where sympathetic Chinese ethnics
seize control. We've already seen this several times before in United States history --
protestant then catholic then Jewish. And with few common bonds or any sense of patriotism
left to deter such a thing*, this will be all the easier. Consider the recent mass arrests of
American academics found to be working for the Chinese government. It was stunning,
really.
In such an event, you'll likely see coalition building against the white demographic by
domestic Asian-led minority groups. This will also apply to alliances involving other
countries and demographics -- all in an effort to deflect from China and Asians domestically
while enhancing their power. This will involve the promotion of various propaganda and even
extend to rewriting history. The media will demonize Russia and then Europe. They'll employ
rhetoric involving colonialism and various events from European history, such as the
Inquisition, to attack Europeans and ally rival racial groups against them for personal
gain.
Jews did something similar previously; they were at the forefront of "civil rights" in the
United States and immigration reforms aimed at weakening the electoral strength of their WASP
rivals. They've also rewritten history to paint themselves and their allies as the victims of
their ethnic rival's hateful machinations -- continually digging up and exaggerating past
events. For instance (one among many), you're told as an American that anti-Semitic
Southerners murdered an innocent Jewish Leo Frank because they hated Jews for no reason. What
you won't be told (because Jewish groups have banned the book that told the tale from Amazon)
is that Jews in the South were generally well integrated and not persecuted to any real
extent. The same book I'm referencing has tables of prominent Jewish politicians in the South
and corrected much of the propaganda surrounding Frank's trial. Why would the history books
lie about such a thing? Easy, because the people who wrote them saw the trial as an
opportunity to build an inroad with the black demographic against the common enemy, white
Christians. **
Unz has an article on the Leo Frank trial if you're interested. It's worth a read. If
anything, it understates the evidence presented in the book as it is quite compelling. No
wonder Amazon banned it. BTW, the book does not promote violence, so there was no legitimate
reason to ban it other than the fact that it damaged domestic Jewish ethnic interests.
You've already seen some of this deflection in the democratic presidential primary debates
with candidate Andrew Yang, an ethnic Chinese. He claimed in the second debate that Russia
was the nation's greatest threat. That's nonsense. China in the near future will easily be
10x the strategic, economic and cultural competitor that Russia will ever be. It was an
obvious and uncomfortable deflection away from his ethnic group to another. Expect that trend
to potentially accelerate after the democrats seize permanent control of the government and
ruling class sometime after 2020. What mechanism is there to stop them?
I know Anatoly has speculated that the current China / USA rivalry is likely now
permanent, but I don't see it that way. The democrats have repeatedly signaled a willingness
to go back to business as usual. In the second democratic debate last year, nearly all the
candidates opposed trade tariffs on China and deflected away to Russia on foreign policy.
These people have one loyalty -- to their bank accounts. I expect the Democrats, spurred on
by a donor class that shares practically no loyalty to the working class, to largely reverse
the tensions Trump has ratcheted up. That means more economic policies that enrich the
corrupt ruling class to the nation's geopolitical detriment -- more outsourcing, and
particularly in critical industries that relate to national defense and the economy *** .
The Chinese could easily exploit this vulnerability to affect a coup against their main
rival. Perhaps there will be a counter-coup before 2040 or so by the American military to
prevent this, but I think that is unlikely considering just how corrupt, inept, and
politically correct it is.
*Unlike other countries quarantined under Corona, the US has seen no similar patriotic
singing or the like. A few celebrities tried creating a viral moment by posting themselves
singing a classic John Lennon song, but it was widely mocked. The media has used every
opportunity to undermine their implied ethnic enemies, the white republicans. The democrats
are busy stuffing the aid bill with giveaways to their ethnic coalition like "diversity"
requirements from companies in exchange for aid. The United States is a fragile domestic
empire filled with various groups having practically no loyalty to each other and who take
every opportunity to screw the other side over. Even in a time of relative crisis, they
couldn't come together. It will only get worse.
** For a glimpse of the future, consider the extraordinary number of holocaust movies and
books, along with media, depicting whites and their history as bad. I couldn't even begin to
list it all here. It's extraordinary, and it disproportionately comes from the usual
demographics.
*** The United States is currently beholden to China for much of its pharmaceuticals,
almost all the rare earth elements used in its tech industry, and many of the chemicals used
in its military machine -- 100% in some cases. If a war starts in the near future, the U.S.
will find that it has so many shortages that it cannot be sustained. They will lose or give
up. What will the democrats do about this? Probably nothing. Only under Trump has the U.S.
funded domestic rare earth mining efforts to create an alternate supply chain, but that
effort could easily be shelved in the next Biden administration. The man has already proved
himself corrupt over the years by receiving large amounts of corporate campaign contributions
and being connected to shady Ukraine deals.
@Divine
Right American conflicts with Russia are based partly on self-serving fictions of the
military industrial complex that need an enemy for their continued existence, as well as some
more realistic conflicts involving Eastern Europe and rival interests over oil prices. The US
need for hegemony, which is highly tied to the value of the dollar as a reserve currency,
further thrusts this forward and center(and indeed, into conflict with China as well). This
all is interminged with a generalized rejection of "authoritarian" governments.
China, on the other hand, has no real current conflicts with Russia – most conflicts
involve sales of weaponry and political influence over central Asian states, nothing of vast
importance at least compared to being their the target of an enormous world-spanning
sanctions order or a dedicated trade war.
Your argument has the weird self-contradiction that the CCP both is supposedly the
mind-controlling alien brain of all Asians, while at the same time, not actually benefiting
from any specific conflict with Russia. This also ignores the fact that Asians tend to
assimilate the highest by any population(at nearly 40% intermarriage
in some segments, that Chinese students in particularly no longer tend to stay in the US(
only
20% by 2017 ), and that a overwhelming part of the demographic increase by
immigration is
Indian with long historical and cultural rivalries with China. And far more than Chinese
Americans, who often engage in racial masochism(witness Gordan Chang ), Indian Americans are vastly
more active and influential in American
politics both due to cultural reasons as well as higher verbal IQ. This isn't even
hypothetical: Indian American political writers dominate National Interest articles stressing
for more hawkish Chinese attitudes and were directly contributory to renaming the South China
Seas conflict to the "Indo-Pacific region."
I do agree that the US has long since crippled its resource base. But there's no evidence
that Trump, or anyone else, is demonstrating the barest inkling of trying to resolve it(or
that it is even possible, given the bueaucratic overload and red tape of regulations). Gould
once described evolution as a "drunkard's walk" between complexity, where organisms sometimes
fall trapped inside rail tracks, unable to stumble out.
Indian American political writers dominate National Interest articles stressing for more
hawkish Chinese attitudes and were directly contributory to renaming the South China Seas
conflict to the "Indo-Pacific region."
@Divine
Right American conflicts with Russia are based partly on self-serving fictions of the
military industrial complex that need an enemy for their continued existence, as well as some
more realistic conflicts involving Eastern Europe and rival interests over oil prices. The US
need for hegemony, which is highly tied to the value of the dollar as a reserve currency,
further thrusts this forward and center(and indeed, into conflict with China as well). This
all is intermingled with a [fake and hypocritical] generalized rejection of "authoritarian"
governments.
China, on the other hand, has no real current conflicts with Russia – most conflicts
involve sales of weaponry and political influence over central Asian states, nothing of vast
importance at least compared to being their the target of an enormous world-spanning
sanctions order or a dedicated trade war.
Your argument has the weird self-contradiction that the CCP both is supposedly the
mind-controlling alien brain of all Asians, while at the same time, not actually benefiting
from any specific conflict with Russia. This also ignores the fact that Asians tend to
assimilate the highest by any population(at nearly 40% intermarriage
in some segments, that Chinese students in particularly no longer tend to stay in the US(
only
20% by 2017 ), and that a overwhelming part of the demographic increase by
immigration is
Indian with long historical and cultural rivalries with China. And far more than Chinese
Americans, who often engage in racial masochism(witness Gordan Chang ), Indian Americans are vastly
more active and influential in American
politics both due to cultural reasons as well as higher verbal IQ. This isn't even
hypothetical: Indian American political writers dominate National Interest articles stressing
for more hawkish Chinese attitudes and were directly contributory to renaming the South China
Seas conflict to the "Indo-Pacific region."
I do agree that the US has long since crippled its resource base. But there's no evidence
that Trump, or anyone else, is demonstrating the barest inkling of trying to resolve it(or
that it is even possible, given the bueaucratic overload and red tape of regulations). Gould
once described evolution as a "drunkard's walk" between complexity, where organisms sometimes
fall trapped inside rail tracks, unable to stumble out.
Indian American political writers dominate National Interest articles stressing for more
hawkish Chinese attitudes and were directly contributory to renaming the South China Seas
conflict to the "Indo-Pacific region."
Let's take a look at that last article ,
written by FT's Henry Foy today, and one of the more balanced (read: less PDS-afflicted)
journalists doing the Russia beat (not to mention the most prominent in the above sample,
having scored an exclusive interview
with Putin in 2019).
"The present number of patients with coronavirus will be hidden from us," said Anastasia
Vasilieva, chairman of Doctors' Alliance, a Russian lobby group affiliated with opposition
politician Alexei Navalny.
Now Foy, to his credit, at least has the journalistic integrity to acknowledge that this
doctors' group (which I have never heard of before now) is affiliated with Navalny, whose
entire shtick is to oppose everything and anything the Kremlin does.
A political tilt that its chairwoman helpfully confirms:
"The value of human life for our president is nil . . . We
don't want to admit to any pandemic," said Ms Vasilieva. "We know of hospitals that are
completely full and nurses who are asked to sew face masks from gauze."
***
But otherwise it follows the usual template on Russia COVID-19 coverage.
She claimed Moscow was instead classifying cases of the virus as pneumonia, the incidence
of which increased by almost 40 per cent in January compared with a year previously,
government data showed.
The aim here is to insinuate that there was a raging coronavirus epidemic camouflaged as the
flu from as early as January 2020.
Oh Corona, where to start.
1. Flu mortality fluctuates wildly season to season by a factor of as high as 4x . So this is a
perfectly meaningless fact from the outset.
2. Even China's epidemic only broke 1,000 cases in January 25. Where were Russians getting
infected??
3. If this was true, it is Russia, not Italy, that would be the center of the COVID-19
epidemic now -- something that would certainly be noticed, e.g. in overflowing hospitals (no
sign of that to date) or in exported cases (but that was all
China in February, and predominantly Italy, Iran, and other EU nations now). It is Britons that
Vietnam has started
barring ten days ago, not Russians.
Here's what I guess happened. People got agitated by reports from China, and were more
likely to consult doctors, producing more flu diagnoses. Even though the actual chance of
Russians having COVID-19 in January if they hadn't been to Wuhan was on the order of a
meteorite hitting them on the head.
While other foreign leaders have steeled their citizens for a long crisis and have spoken
of a "war" against the pandemic, Mr Putin has played down the threat and urged citizens to
remain calm in an effort to minimise panic -- and ensure the nationwide ballot on April 22
takes place.
"The virus is a challenge and comes at a very bad moment for him," said Tatiana Stanovaya,
founder of R. Politik, a political analyst. "Putin doesn't want to postpone and is insisting
that the referendum takes place as soon as possible . . . The
longer they wait, the more risks will appear."
The US epidemic (22k cases) is about two orders of magnitude more advanced than Russia's
(306 cases), but most states have continued to hold primaries for the Dem nomination.
And in any case Putin has allowed the possibility
that the April 22 Constitutional Referendum may be postponed. There's no indication it's a
hard, immovable date.
At the same time, Mr Putin has sought to project an image of control, continuing with his
diary of local visits and meetings with senior officials, shaking hands and never wearing a
face mask.
Although it would be nice for Putin to set a better example, this is the rule,
internationally -- not the exception. Stressing this is so petty, LOL.
"No matter what happens in the next 35 days, they have to lie, hush up, and deny. It
doesn't matter at all what really will happen to coronavirus in Russia, whether there will be
a moderate outbreak or tens of thousands are killed," said Igor Pitsyn, a doctor in
Yaroslavl, a city 250km north-east of Moscow.
"By Putin's decree all information about this is declared a state secret until April
22 . . . This 'nationwide vote' will be held at all costs."
First time I hear of this. Searching "путин
коронавирус
гостайна" doesn't produce any relevant results.
This doctor must have some very high placed sources.
Or perhaps Foy had to travel all the way to Yaroslavl to get a sufficiently juicy quote.
While officials have cited the low number as proof of the success of swiftly closing its
border with China in January and steadily cutting flights to affected countries, experts have
questioned how the country has proved far more immune than almost any other. Neighbouring
Belarus has five times more infections per capita than Russia, and France, which has roughly
half Russia's population, has more than 50 times the number of cases.
Russia doesn't have large numbers of Gastarbeiters in the EU, unlike Belarus. Our
Belorussian commenters also tell us
that there are next to no control measures in place.
But Ukraine has perhaps 20x more Gastarbeiters in the EU than Belarus, and yet 2 days ago
reported only 1/3 as many Corona cases (16 vs. 51). Which suggests where Western journalists
covering Eastern Europe should really focus their
attention .
If they, you know, cared about the Corona situation in Eastern Europe. As opposed to
promoting the US line that Russia bad and China bad.
***
Incidentally, an update on Ukraine, two days after my alarm-raising article , in
which I suggested that it's likely there's a big cluster developing undetected in Ukraine.
Even though testing in Ukraine remains extremely patchy -- even in per capita terms, its
~500 tests are two orders of magnitude lower than Russia's ~150k, or for that matter Belarus'
~16k -- the past two days have seen a surge of new cases from 16 to 41. The majority of those
cases, some 25 of them, are concentrated in Chernivtsi oblast, which also saw the death of a 33
year old woman from existing problems magnified by the coronavirus.
The unlikelihood of such a mortality profile, coupled with the flood of new cases despite
continued low testing rates, strongly suggests that this is just the tip of the iceberg, and
that a cluster is developing in Chernivtsi oblast.
There's a reason Chernivtsi has so many cases -- large # of people go to Italy for
work.
An acquaintance of mine from there confirmed his business partner just tested positive for
the virus.
But just in case you think I am piling on to Ukraine because of my own political obsessions
you would be mistaken.
I will say that after Ukraine, probably the second biggest undetected Corona timebomb in
Europe may be Serbia. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia page on COVID-19 testing doesn't have
information for Serbia. However, one of my Serbian friends on Thursday wrote me that:
We are still testing around 50 per day, with 1/5 being positive
So both the intensity of testing and the rate of positives is similar to Ukraine.
This Friday, he continued:
We still have competent health care workers (the decision not to test the wider population
is purely political, as was the decision no to close schools until 5 days ago), relatively
functioning health care system, about 1500 respirators on a population that is 7+
million.
On the other hand, we have the second lowest reported total test volume anywhere in the
world, after Malorossiya :), at 545 total as of this morning, one of the highest positive
rates per 1000 tests (after Italy, Spain, Ecuador and the Philippines). We have seen an
influx of over 250 000 gastarbeiters from Western Europe in the past 10 days Many people are
breaking the 14 day mandatory self isolation. When I say many, I'm talking about thousands
every day
We have 3 things potentially on our side. God, warmth, and Sun. Or it's all just God?
And to think that Serbia was one of the first countries in the world to eradicate smallpox
in the 1830s Under the lifelong illiterate knyaz Miloš
The large number of Gastarbeiters in Western Europe, most of whom are now going to be let
go, is another similarity that Serbia shares with Ukraine. And is something that will be a very
problematic issue going forwards.
Fortunately, it appears that China (and Russia ) are going to bail Serbia
out with test kits.
Extraordinary address the president of Serbia, the largest #EU membership
candidate now banned from importing medical kit. "European solidarity does not exist. It was
a fairy-tale the only country who can help us out of this difficult situation is China."
#coronavirus
https://t.co/JTbtPCS6NK
Despite their rather different geopolitical viewpoints, European attitudes to both Serbia
and the Ukraine are quite similar. They are to be exploited to the extent they are useful;
otherwise discarded as needed. It's a lesson they should mull over.
Why are you sensitive about what some article said in an American newspaper about Russia? Who
cares? Half of articles in Russian websites are often ten times more stupid than even
articles in American websites (which are already stupid), and people in America don't care
about that.
Also, I read only CNN's article on the topic, and I notice it follows the pattern that CNN
report more accurately outside America, than they do in America. I.e. They are more objective
(like most people) writing about things which are far away from them https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/21/europe/putin-coronavirus-russia-intl/index.html
Business Insider: Doctors in Russia are accusing the government of covering up its
coronavirus outbreak and denying them protective equipment
I have to say that on reddit this kind of conspiratorial crap gets a LOT of interest and
upvotes, an order of magnitude more upvotes than the factual Russian news. It seems that a
large chunk of Western public feels better about themselves and their situation, "knowing"
that there is terrible epidemic going on in Russia.
So these articles are actually having therapeutic effect on Western societies: ordinary
people in West take comfort in [imaginary] Russian suffering.
Serbia and Ukraine should have less developed epidemic of coronavirus, compared to most
European countries, as they are one of the minority of European countries which is not in the
EU.
As a result, they should have less per capita connectivity to Northern Italy, that is the
"staging point" for the coronavirus epidemic's invasion into Europe.
Well, perhaps I am wrong about Serbia, as it is a neighbouring country to Italy. But the
EU has a very intense labour mobility and incredibly amount of flights between themselves, if
we would look at flightradar on a normal week.
But EU is still covered by flights. While planes are generally avoiding Serbia and
Ukraine. Russia is almost disconnected from Europe now by planes (except for cargo planes).
However, even in normal, pre-Coronavirus times, Russia (as well as Ukraine) is far more
disconnected than any EU country, and is never blanketed by flights on flightradar in the
same way as Europe.
Perhaps Serbia still receives a lot of entry by people in buses and cars.
Wishing the virus to hit hard Russia is a way Westerners try to cover their incompetence.
There is an explosion of new cases in the USA but the American MSM keeps its Russophobe
obsession.
Today new cases in USA reached the numbers of Italy
https://www.rt.com/russia/483744-russia-doctor-coronavirus-holiday/
" A leading infectious diseases specialist in Russia's southern Stavropol region
endangered the lives of dozens of her colleagues and students by failing to self-quarantine
after a holiday in Spain, where she contracted coronavirus."
Just read the headline and thought, "Western journalists really want there to be a huge
corona epidemic in America ."
We all remember Bill Maher, to his credit, admitting to wanting what so many Progressives
pray for -- a brutal recession that would sink Tump's chances of reelection -- but I am
continually astounded by the fact that the MSM's hysterical, cult-like fervor for destroying
Trump, even to the tragic detriment of the American people, simply will not exhaust itself.
It is, if you will, a virus that keeps mutating into more and more virulent strains.
I think American-journalist-as-suicide-bomber is the number one potential threat to the
United States, and preventing this should be the FBI's number one priority. Thx.
@yakushimaru The Chinese
economy has at least one good thing going for it. They are the world's manufacturing floor.
Ultimately they can still make things unlike the US which has hollowed itself out. Refilling
the world supply chain gives them an advantage in recovering faster than the US will.
@Dmitry Don't be silly,
there are entire organizations in the West dedicated to fact checking Russian news agencies
and publishing their mistakes. So Anatoly's counterparts in the West do seem to care, they
seem to care very much. Furthermore, there is the asymmetry between the geopolitical power of
the two countries which makes what Americans write about Russia much more important than the
inverse.
AK has been covering this topic for years, so it may not be interesting to you, but it is
to him. And we come here, partly, because he writes about what he wants to, not what others
want him to. You, yourself, pointed this out.
Western media openly wishing that a plague strikes Russia is very low class. It has a minor
therapeutic role for the West to show that the evil ones are also suffering. But it is
basically a continuing descent into hysteria. Next we will hear that Putin was spotted
poisoning wells in Italy. (Sneaky bastard, probably used a face-mask, he is after all a
trained KGB spy.)
Regarding facts: it is a truism that all numbers are understated. There must be at this
point millions of people around the world who have been exposed and most will never know
about it. Corona hurts the old and the sick, most other people probably wouldn't know it was
happening without the media. In a preventive way it might actually benefit young, healthy
people to be exposed when their bodies can develop immunity -- you don't in general get the
same virus twice.
But a decision was made to protect our elders and it is a humane thing to do. And the
usual suspects can't avoid their low class ideological manias, attacking China, Russia and/or
Trump. These days they mostly work in the Western media. One wonders how that happened.
@utu
This was actually going to be the subject of my next post. She is the chief infectious
disease doctor for Stavropol!
She went to Madrid , from March 6th- March 9th- the exact period when cases in Spain
started ballooning up (420 went to 1200)
She has infected 11 other people, at least, in Stavropol and also taken part in a
conference there where about 1000 people attended.
I don't know if it was definitely a holiday -- sure, those are weekend dates and Madrid is
a wonderful place but infections there then still exceeded
the number in Russia now.
This weaponizing of random indignation is a classic tool of the Western propaganda. In
Romania, we heard for a decade how the national-populists masquerading as socialists are to
blame for the lack of highways. It's been a few years since idiot Romanians gather in random
cities to complain that their city is not yet hooked to the Austro-Hungarian highway system,
despite the lack of traffic between their city and Austro-Hungary.
It is my understanding that, once highway construction will start, there will be protests
about natural or archeological treasures presumably endangered by the construction. It has
been decently working in Russia, with that Khimki forest.
Anything that can be thrown at a government threatening to leave the NWO will be used.
It's even worse for governments that are already one foot out, like Russia / China, or
completely out, like Iran / North Korea. Putin will be blamed for epidemics, earthquakes,
tsunamis, and even eclipses. If an earthquake would kill only a few, we will hear about
"failure to respond". If the earthquake doesn't kill anybody. we will be told that Putin
exploited it for propaganda.
One of the ways that CIA and Soros use, in order to weaponize Romania's presumed lack of
highways, is to pay some useful idiots, who call themselves "The Association for the
Betterment of Highways", "The Pro-Infrastructura Brigade", and so on. Most of these NGOs
consist of a single person, who posts videos of them ranting next to a construction site.
Using the model that BoJo used for the upcoming marriage (three men and one dog), the more
Soros/CIA-resistant types call them "The One-Incel-And-His-Drone Association".
By that same standard, I suspect we call this Doctors' Alliance
"Vasilievna-and-her-thermometer Association". Whatever she says about Moscow hospitals is
probably informed by her thermometer anyway. I doubt you can tell how things are in a
10-million city, especially if you are a marginal clown.
Is she an ophthalmologist, like The Part-Time Virologist Martyr of Wuhan? Dentist,
perhaps?
@Dmitry Can you show me even
ONE article or report from Izvestiya, life, kp. Vz, RBK, vesti, Channel 1 etc that is stupid
about the west? I can't because most of them are extremely well written.
The inverse situation? . I have just read 3 cretinous western lie reports about
Russia/coronavirus in the last half an hour! Each one born out of jealousy or CIA psyops
There is no comparison to make at all. You are doing false equivalence.
Gayropa DOES exist. It is a thing, an ideology
Your premise is absurd-50 % because Russian journalists are a lot more intellectual than
their western counterparts . and the other 50 % is quite naturally because millions of
Russians have closely admired or studied or been influenced by western practises and popular
culture in the last 30 years .. than vice versa.
Kiselyov has had an American wife, speaks English, family in Germany and has done many
excellent reports on western countries.
Brilyev speaks perfect English and is a British citizen.
Solovyov knows Italy and the US very well and on his talk shows he has done many
objective, constructive/positive comments about American business climate and bureaucracy,
for instance.
Can you compare any of those guys to their dumb as f ** k western counterparts trying to
do a report on Russia?
Different matter if you are talking about RT – that is lowest of the low,
anti-russian, garbage.
who cares? Half of Russian articles are 10 times more stupid than US ones
Who cares ? Because the culmination of these deceitful idiot scumbag stories is what
creates the momentum to ban Russia from the Olympics based on "collective" not individual
punishment , pull Ukraine away from Russia, make a friend of mine be too scared to come to
Russia on holiday because "the police will arrest you there for no reason" BS.,dissuade
investors from billions in investment because of PR, not practical reasons. create the
conditions so that self-discrediting freaks like Browder and Rodchenkov can say any BS as a
pretext to sanction russia with zero chance of getting refuted because of the "they will get
killed" by Russian agents if they go into the public (whilst going to the public) theory- a
hypothesis based on other lie reporting.
Russian media will make clear that its a disgrace the number of people the US police shoot
dead each year- but they won't say or imply that Russian tourists will get shot by US police
or dissuade them from going on holiday there.
But she sees this China-bashing as mostly a political reaction:
In reality these people are rallying behind the campaign to blame China for the health
crisis they're now facing because they understand that otherwise the blame will land
squarely on the shoulders of their president, who's running for re-election this year.
instead of a deliberate Deep-State strategy (which is my view).
We can argue who created the virus (I'm still looking for any rebuttal to the Chinese
claim that USA must be the source because it has all five strains of the virus), but the
Empire's gaming of the virus outbreak seems very clear to me.
When reading any article concerning current events (ie. Ukraine, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, or Coronavirus) consider how the The
Seven Principles of Propaganda may apply. (repost):
Avoid abstract ideas - appeal to the emotions. When we think emotionally, we are more prone to be irrational and
less critical in our thinking. I can remember several instances where this has been employed by the US to prepare the public
with a justification of their actions. Here are four examples:
The Invasion of Grenada during the Reagan administration was said to be necessary to rescue American students being held
hostage by Grenadian coup authorities after a coup that overthrew the government. I had a friend in the 82nd airborne division
that participated in the rescue. He told me the students said they were hiding in the school to avoid the fighting by the US
military, and had never been threatened by any Grenadian authority and were only hiding in the school to avoid all the fighting.
Film of the actual rescue broadcast on the mainstream media was taken out of context; the students were never in danger.
The invasion of Panama in the late 80's was supposedly to capture the dictator Manual Noriega for international crimes related
to drugs and weapons. I remember a headline covered by all the media where a Navy lieutenant and his wife were detained by
the police. His wife was sexually assaulted while in custody, according to the story. Unfortunately, it never happened. It
was intended to get the public emotionally involved to support the action.
The invasion of Iraq in the early 90's was preceded by a speech by a girl describing the Iraqi army throwing babies out
of incubators so the equipment could be transferred to Iraq. It turns out the girl was the daughter of one of the Kuwait's
ruling sheiks and the event never occurred. However, it served its purpose by getting the American public involved emotionally
supporting the war.
During the build up to the bombing campaign by NATO against Libya, a woman entered a hotel where reporters were staying
claiming she was raped by several police officers of the Gaddafi security services. The report was carried by most media outlets
as representative of the brutality of the Gaddafi regime. I was not able to verify if this story was true or not, but it fits
the usual method employed to gain public support through propaganda for military interventions.
The greatest emotion in us is fear and fear is used extensively to make us think irrationally. I remember growing up during
the cold war having the fear of nuclear war or 'The Russians are coming!' After the cold war without an obvious enemy, it was
Al Qaeda even before 911, so we had 'Al Qaeda is coming!' Now we have 'ISIS is coming!' with media blasting us with terrorist
fears. Whenever I hear a government promoting an emotional issue or fear mongering, I ignore them knowing there is a hidden
Truth behind the issue.
Constantly repeat just a few ideas. Use stereotyped phrases. This could be stated more plainly as 'Keep it simple,
stupid!' The most notorious use of this technique recently was the Bush administration. Everyone can remember 'We must fight
them over there rather than over here' or my favourite 'They hate us for our freedoms'. Neither of these phrases made any rational
sense despite 911. The last thing Muslims in the Middle East care about is American's freedoms, maybe it was all the bombs
the US was dropping on them.
Give only one side of the argument and obscure history. Watching mainstream media in the US,
you can see all the news is biased to the American view as an example. This is prevalent within Australian commercial media
and newspapers giving only a western view, but fortunately, we have the SBS and the ABC that are very good, certainly not perfect,
at providing both sides of a story. In addition, any historical perspective is ignored keeping the citizenry focused on the
here and now. Can any of you remember any news organisation giving an in depth history of Ukraine or Palestine? I cannot.
Demonize the enemy or pick out one special "enemy" for special vilification. This is obvious in politics where politicians
continuously criticise their opponents. Of course, demonization is more productively applied to international figures or nations
such as Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Gaddafi in Libya, Assad in Syria, the Taliban and just recently Vladimir Putin over
the Ukraine, Crimea and Syria. It establishes a negative emotional view of either a nation (i.e. Iran) or a known figure (i.e.
Putin) making us again think emotionally, rather than rationally, making it easier to promote evil acts upon a nation or a
known figure. Certainly some of these groups or individuals were less than benign, but not necessarily demons as depicted in
the west.
Appear humanitarian in work and motivations. The US has used this technique often to validate foreign interventions
or ongoing conflicts where the term 'Right to Protect' is used for justification. Everyone should remember the many stories
about the abuse of women in Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein's supposed brutality toward his people. The recent attack on Syria
by the US, UK, and France was depicted as an Humanitarian intervention by the UK Government, which was far from the truth.
One thing that always amazes me is when the US sends humanitarian aid to a country it is accompanied by the US military. In
Haiti some years back, the US sent troops with no other country doing so. The recent Ebola outbreak in Africa saw US troops
sent to the area. How are troops going to fight a medical outbreak? No doubt, they are there for other reasons.
Obscure one's economic interests. Who believes the invasion of Iraq was for weapons of mass destruction? Or the
constant threats against Iran are for their nuclear program? Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no one has presented
firm evidence Iran intends to produce nuclear weapons. The West has been interfering in the Middle East since the British in
the late 19th century. It is all about oil and the control over the resources. In fact, if one researches the cause of wars
over the last hundred years, you will always find economics was a major component driving the rush to war for most of them.
Monopolize the flow of information. This is the most important principle and mainly entails setting the narrative
by which all subsequent events can be based upon or interpreted in such a way as to reinforce the narrative. The narrative
does not need to be true; in fact, it can be anything that suits the monopoliser as long as it is based loosely on some event.
It is critical to have at least majority control of media and the ability to control the message so the flow of information
is consistent with the narrative. This has been played out on mainstream media concerning the Ukrainian conflict, Syrian conflict,
and the Skirpal affair. Just over the last couple of years, we have all been subjected to propaganda in one form or another.
Remember the US wanting to bomb Syria because of the sarin gas attack, it was later determined to be false (see Seymour Hersh
'Whose Sarin'). The shoot down of MH17 was immediately blamed on Russia by the west without any convincing proof (setting the
narrative). It amazes me just how fast the story died after the initial saturation in the media. When I awoke that morning
in July, I heard on the news PM Tony Abbot blaming Russia for the incident only hours afterward. How could he know Russia shot
down the plane? The investigation into the incident had not even begun, so I suspect he was singing from the West's hymnbook
in a standard setting the narrative scenario.
Richard Burr, chair of the US Senate Intelligence Committee, has been accused of deceiving
the public about the coronavirus outbreak and seeking to profit from it by dumping stocks that
are crashing due to the pandemic. Burr (R-North Carolina) found himself under attack from two
directions on Thursday. Early in the day, National Public Radio ran a story based on "secret
recordings" from a speech he gave in North Carolina in late February, when he gave oddly
specific warnings about Covid-19 to an elite group of donors, while keeping the rest of the
American public in the dark.
SCOOP: Secret recording obtained by NPR shows that Senate Intel Chairman Richard Burr
raised alarms about Coronavirus weeks ago in private meeting with well-connected constituents
-- concerns he never shared with the public https://t.co/afyvzaMyXK
The North Carolina Republican struck back later in the day,
accusing NPR on Twitter of "journalistic malpractice" for "knowingly and
irresponsibly" misrepresenting the speech, calling the article a "tabloid-style hit
piece."
By then, however, he was taking flanking fire from a different position. Open Secrets, a
"nonpartisan, independent and nonprofit" research group tracking money in politics
– with George Soros' Open Society Foundation as one of their biggest donors , mind you – published
his financial disclosures, showing that Burr and his wife sold over $1 million worth of stocks
in corporations that took it on the chin as the Covid-19 pandemic tanked the US stock
markets.
SCOOP: NC's GOP Senator Richard Burr told the public he was confident the govt can fight
off COVID-19 the same time he & his wife sold up to ~$1.5 million stock in major
corporations that ended up losing most of their value during the coronavirus pandemic
https://t.co/JsXkaxb2Pw
pic.twitter.com/lMnnbBfoNZ
Much of the outraged responses to both the NPR and Open Secrets, praising their revelations
and demanding Burr be imprisoned – along with the rest of the Republican Party, President
Donald Trump, and who knows who else – have been the usual suspects promoting the
'Russiagate' conspiracy theory over the past four years.
NPR's article was authored by Tim Mak, a Daily Beast alum who famously co-authored a
fake
Russiagate bombshell in December 2018, accusing the president's son Donald Trump Jr of
lying to Congress based on misquoting the publicly available transcript.
To make the irony even greater, Burr has been extremely helpful to the 'Russiagate' gang
while chairing the Senate Intelligence Committee. For example, he endorsed the infamous
"intelligence community assessment" based on wishful thinking . He
has also treated the ranking minority member, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Virginia) as
"co-chair," covering for him even when it emerged that Warner was trying to secretly
communicate with the British spy who wrote the debunked anti-Trump "Steele
dossier."
None of it availed Burr one bit when they came for his head, of course – the
"R" next to his name automatically made him a Trump supporter in the minds of the woke
mob. If it turns out to be true that he knew far more about the dangers of the pandemic but
chose to keep silent and profit from it, that would indeed be a colossal dereliction of duty.
But as his prior record in overseeing the US spy community indicates, it wouldn't have been the
first time.
"... "promotes neither the interests of justice nor the nation's security," ..."
"... "recent events and a change in the balance of the government's proof due to a classification determination, ..."
"... "information warfare against the United States of America ..."
"... The DOJ rationalizes the motion to dismiss by arguing that Concord is "a Russian company with no presence in the United States and no exposure to meaningful punishment in the event of a conviction." That has always been the case, however. What really changed since the indictment was filed is the complete implosion of Mueller's case, helped in part by Concord fighting the case in court. ..."
"... The motion inadvertently reveals that Mueller's prosecutors never intended the case against Concord, two other entities and 13 individuals to actually go to trial, otherwise they would have anticipated what ended up happening: Concord's lawyers demanding discovery documents from the DOJ, which the US authorities say risks "exposure of law enforcement's tools and techniques." ..."
"... Mueller's team tried to fight the discovery proceedings by arguing in January 2019 that Concord was leaking them to "discredit " the investigation. Within two months, however, the investigation discredited itself, by having to admit there was no "collusion " between US President Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election. ..."
The US is dropping the much-hyped indictment for 'election
meddling' against a company supposedly behind the so-called Russian troll farm, closing the opening chapter of special counsel Robert
Mueller's Russiagate investigation. Further pursuing the case against Concord Management & Consulting LLC, "promotes neither
the interests of justice nor the nation's security," the Department of Justice wrote to the federal judge overseeing the case
on Monday, in a
motion to drop the charges.
DOJ lawyers cited "recent events and a change in the balance of the government's proof due to a classification determination,
" saying only that they submitted further details in a classified addendum.
Wow.The DOJ moves to dismiss the charges against the Russian Company (Concord) who conducted the alleged "information warfare
against the US"The troll case will be dismissed w/ prejudice.How embarrassing for Team Mueller.
pic.twitter.com/wfZ78EWgKc
Concord was one of the three companies – the Internet Research Agency is another – and 13 individuals charged in February 2018
with waging "information warfare against the United States of America " using social media.
The DOJ rationalizes the motion to dismiss by arguing that Concord is "a Russian company with no presence in the United States
and no exposure to meaningful punishment in the event of a conviction." That has always been the case, however. What really
changed since the indictment was filed is the complete implosion of Mueller's case, helped in part by Concord fighting the case in
court.
The motion inadvertently reveals that Mueller's prosecutors never intended the case against Concord, two other entities and 13
individuals to actually go to trial, otherwise they would have anticipated what ended up happening: Concord's lawyers demanding discovery
documents from the DOJ, which the US authorities say risks "exposure of law enforcement's tools and techniques."
But the Russians *did* show up, got to claim they were innocent until proven guilty, availed themselves of discovery, tied
up the court in time, cost hundreds of thousands of $ in legal bills for DOJ, and gave Mueller a few black eyes in the process,
and ended up victorious
Mueller's team tried to fight the discovery proceedings by arguing
in January 2019 that Concord was leaking
them to "discredit " the investigation. Within two months, however, the investigation discredited itself, by having to admit
there was no "collusion " between US President Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election.
They still insisted that Russia had "meddled " in the election, but there too the case proved a problem. Concord successfully
petitioned Judge Dabney L. Friedrich in May last year to rebuke the prosecutors for presenting their allegations as facts.
This is not to say that the DOJ is ready to disavow 'Russiagate' as a debunked conspiracy theory, however. Though the Concord
case was dropped, the charges against the Internet Research Agency and the 13 Russian individuals were not. Given that none of them
have a presence in the US, and have not dignified the indictment with a response, it is unclear how – if at all – the DOJ intends
to proceed with the case.
Keeping it on the books may keep the flames of 'Russiagate' alive, though, which is very convenient for the media and others heavily
invested in the narrative of Moscow somehow menacing US elections, despite not a shred of actual evidence being presented to back
it up.
For a snapshot in time, this was the NYT homepage after the Russian troll farm indictment back in February 2018. Russia, we
were told, "is engaged in a virtual war against the United States." pic.twitter.com/Z0xXCZoT9P
R ussia and Saudi Arabia are engaged in an oil price war that has sent shockwaves around
the world, causing the price of oil to tumble and threatening the financial stability, and even
viability, of major international oil companies.
On the surface, this conflict appears to be a fight between two of the world's largest
producers of oil over market share. This may, in fact, be the motive driving Saudi Arabia,
which reacted to Russia's refusal to reduce its level of oil production by slashing the price
it charged per barrel of oil and threatening to increase its oil production, thereby flooding
the global market with cheap oil in an effort to attract customers away from competitors.
Russia's motives appear to be far different -- its target isn't Saudi Arabia, but rather
American shale oil. After absorbing American sanctions that targeted the Russian energy sector,
and working with global partners (including Saudi Arabia) to keep oil prices stable by reducing
oil production even as the United States increased the amount of shale oil it sold on the world
market, Russia had had enough. The advent of the Coronavirus global pandemic had significantly
reduced the demand for oil around the world, stressing the American shale producers.
Russia had been preparing for the eventuality of oil-based economic warfare with the United
States. With U.S. shale producers knocked back on their heels, Russia viewed the time as being
ripe to strike back. Russia's goal is simple: to make American shale oil producers "
share the pain ".
The United States has been slapping sanctions on Russia for more
than six years, ever since Russia took control (and later annexed) the Crimean Peninsula and
threw its weight behind Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine. The first sanctions were issued
on March 6, 2014, through Executive
Order 13660 , targeting "persons who have asserted governmental authority in the Crimean
region without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine that undermine democratic
processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty,
and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets."
The most
recent round of sanctions was announced by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on February 18,
2020, by sanctioning Rosneft Trading S.A., a Swiss-incorporated, Russian-owned oil brokerage
firm, for operating in Venezuela's oil sector. The U.S. also recently targeted the Russian
Nord Stream 2
and
Turk Stream gas pipeline projects.
Russia had been signaling its displeasure over U.S. sanctions from the very beginning. In
July 2014, Russian President Vladimir
Putin warned that U.S. sanctions were "driving into a corner" relations between the two
countries, threatening the "the long-term national interests of the U.S. government and
people." Russia opted to ride out U.S. sanctions, in hopes that there might be a change of
administrations following the 2016 U.S. Presidential elections. Russian President Vladimir
Putin made it clear that he hoped the U.S. might elect someone whose policies would be more
friendly toward Russia, and that once the field of candidates narrowed down to a choice between
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Putin favored
Trump .
"Yes, I did," Putin remarked after the election, during a joint press conference with
President Trump following a summit in Helsinki in July 2018. "Yes, I did. Because he talked
about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal."
Putin's comments only reinforced the opinions of those who embraced allegations of Russian
interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election as fact and concluded that Putin had some
sort of hold over Trump. Trump's continuous praise of Putin's leadership style only reinforced
these concerns.
Even before he was inaugurated, Trump singled out Putin's refusal to respond in kind to
President Obama's levying of sanctions based upon the assessment of the U.S. intelligence
community that Russia had interfered in the election. "Great move on delay (by V. Putin)
– I always knew he was very smart!"
Trump Tweeted . Trump viewed the Obama sanctions as an effort
to sabotage any chance of a Trump administration repairing relations with Russia, and
interpreted Putin's refusal to engage, despite being pressured to do so by the Russian
Parliament and Foreign Ministry, as a recognition of the same.
This sense of providing political space in the face of domestic pressure worked both ways.
In January 2018, Putin tried to shield his relationship with President Trump by calling the
release of a list containing some 200 names of persons close to the Russian government by the
U.S. Treasury Department as a hostile and "stupid"
move .
"Ordinary Russian citizens, employees and entire industries are behind each of those people
and companies," Putin remarked. "So all 146 million people have essentially been put on this
list. What is the point of this? I don't understand."
From the Russian perspective, the list highlighted the reality that the U.S. viewed the
entire Russian government as an enemy and is a byproduct of the "political paranoia" on the
part of U.S. lawmakers. The consequences of this, senior Russian officials warned, "will be
toxic and undermine prospects for cooperation for years ahead."
While President Trump entered office fully intending to "
get along with Russia ," including the possibility of
relaxing the Obama-era sanctions , the reality of U.S.-Russian relations, especially as
viewed from Congress, has been the strengthening of the Obama sanctions regime. These
sanctions, strengthened over time by new measures signed off by Trump, have had a negative
impact on the Russian economy,
slowing growth and
driving away foreign investment .
While Putin continued to show constraint in the face of these mounting sanctions, the recent
targeting of Russia's energy sector represented a bridge too far. When Saudi pressure to cut
oil production rates coincided with a global reduction in the demand for oil brought on by the
Coronavirus crisis, Russia struck.
The timing of the Russian action is curious, especially given the amount of speculation that
there was some sort of personal relationship between Trump and Putin that the Russian leader
sought to preserve and carry over into a potential second term. But Putin had, for some
time now, been signaling that his patience with Trump had run its course. When speaking to
the press in June 2019 about the state of U.S.-Russian relations, Putin noted that "They
(our relations) are going downhill, they are getting worse and worse," adding that "The current
[i.e., Trump] administration has approved, in my opinion, several dozen decisions on sanctions
against Russia in recent years."
By launching an oil price war on the eve of the American Presidential campaign season, Putin
has sent as strong a signal as possible that he no longer views Trump as an asset, if in fact
he ever did. Putin had hoped Trump could usher in positive change in the trajectory of
relations between the two nations; this clearly had not happened. Instead, in the words of
close Putin ally Igor Sechin , the chief executive of Russian oil giant Rosneft, the U.S.
was using its considerable energy resources as a political weapon, ushering in an era of "power
colonialism" that sought to expand U.S. oil production and market share at the expense of other
nations.
From Russia's perspective, the growth in U.S. oil production -- which doubled in output from
2011 until 2019 -- and the emergence of the U.S. as a net exporter of oil, was directly linked
to the suppression of oil export capability in nations such as Venezuela and Iran through the
imposition of sanctions. While this could be tolerated when the target was a third party, once
the U.S. set its sanctioning practices on Russian energy, the die was cast.
If the goal of the Russian-driven price war is to make U.S. shale companies "share the
pain," they have already succeeded. A similar price war, initiated by Saudi Arabia in 2014 for
the express purpose of suppressing U.S. shale oil production, failed, but only because
investors were willing to prop up the stricken shale producers with massive loans and infusion
of capital. For shale oil producers, who use an expensive methodology of extraction known as
"fracking," to be economically viable, the breakeven price of oil
per barrel needs to be between $40 and $60 dollars. This was the price range the Saudi's
were hoping to sustain when they proposed the cuts in oil production that Russia rejected.
The U.S. shale oil producers, saddled by massive debt and high operational expenses, will
suffer greatly in any sustained oil price war. Already, with the price of oil down to below $35
per barrel,
there is talk of bankruptcy and massive job layoffs -- none of which bode well for Trump in
the coming election.
It's clear that Russia has no intention of backing off anytime soon. According to
the Russian Finance Ministry , said on Russia could weather oil prices of $25-30 per barrel
for between six and ten years. One thing is for certain -- U.S. shale oil companies cannot.
In a sign that the Trump administration might be waking up to the reality of the predicament
it faces, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin quietly met with Russia's Ambassador to the U.S.,
Anatoly Antonov. According to a read out from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
the two discussed economic sanctions, the Venezuelan economy, and the potential for "trade
and investment." Mnuchin, the Russians noted, emphasized the "importance of orderly energy
markets."
Russia is unlikely to fold anytime soon. As Admiral Josh Painter, a character in Tom
Clancy's "The Hunt for Red October," famously said , "Russians don't take a dump without
a plan."
Russia didn't enter its current course of action on a whim. Its goals are clearly stated --
to defeat U.S. shale oil -- and the costs of this effort, both economically and politically (up
to and including having Trump lose the 2020 Presidential election) have all been calculated and
considered in advance. The Russian Bear can only be toyed with for so long without generating a
response. We now know what that response is; when the Empire strikes back, it hits hard.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former
Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert
Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of several books,
including his forthcoming, Scorpion King:
America's Embrace of Nuclear Weapons From FDR to Trump (2020).
Moon of Alabama regurgitating the New York Times and National Public Radio. Sad!
You are an idiot.
It is true that the MSM serves up a lot of bullshit but people with a functioning brain
are usually able to differentiate between the garbage and the stories that have validity.
Only an utter fool with no reasoning abilities would categorically dismiss every
single article that appears in a mainstream publication. People like you that need a big
daddy authority figure to tell them what they are allowed to read and how to think are truly
messed up. Sad indeed...
"... The computer used to create the original Warren Document (dated 2008) was a US Government computer issued to the Obama Presidential
Transition Team by the General Services Administration. ..."
"... The Warren Document and the 1.DOC were created in the United States using Microsoft Word software (2007) that is registered
to the GSA. ..."
"... The author of both 1.doc and the PDF version is identified as "WARREN FLOOD." ..."
"... "Russian" fingerprints were deliberately inserted into the text and the meta data of "1.doc." ..."
"... This begs a very important question. Did Warren Flood actually create these documents or was someone masquerading as Warren
Flood? Unfortunately, neither the Intelligence Community nor the Mueller Special Counsel investigators provided any evidence to show
they examined this forensic data. More troubling is the fact that the Microsoft Word processing software being used is listed as a GSA
product. ..."
"... If this was truly a Russian GRU operation (as claimed by Mueller), why was the cyber spy tradecraft so sloppy? ..."
"... The name of Warren Flood, an Obama Democrat activist and Joe Biden's former Director of Information Technology, appears in
at least three iterations of these documents. Did he actually masquerade as Guccifer 2.0? If so, did he do it on his own or was he hired
by someone else? These remain open questions that deserve to be investigated by John Durham, the prosecutor investigating the attempted
coup against Donald Trump, and/or relevant committees of the Congress. ..."
"... There are other critical unanswered questions. Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, sent a letter to James come on July
26, 2016 about the the DNC hack. Lynch wrote concerning press reports that Russia attacked the DNC: ..."
"... A genuine investigation of the DNC hack/leak should have included interviews with all DNC staff, John Podesta, Warren Flood
and Ellen Nakashima, The Washington Post reporter who broke the story of the DNC hack. Based on what is now in the public record, the
FBI failed to do a proper investigation. ..."
"... Resolving who was behind Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks seems to me to be a rather simple investigative exercise. That is, somebody
registered and bought the names of G2 and DCL. One can't have a Wordpress blog without purchasing a url. So, there is a record of this
registration, right? Simply subpoena the company who sold/rented the url. ..."
"... It's now obvious that we don't have a functioning intel/justice apparatus in the U.S. This is the message sent and received
by the intel/justice shops over and again. They no longer work for Americans rather they work against us. ..."
Why does the name of Joe Biden's former Internet Technology guru, Warren Flood, appear in the meta data of documents posted on
the internet by Guccifer 2.0? In case you do not recall, Guccifer 2.0 was identified as someone tied to Russian intelligence who
played a direct role in stealing emails from John Podesta. The meta data in question indicates the name of the person who actually
copied the original document. We have this irrefutable fact in the documents unveiled by Guccifer 2.0--Warren Flood's name appears
prominently in the meta data of several documents attributed to "Guccifer 2.0." When this transpired, Flood was working as the CEO
of his own company, BRIGHT BLUE DATA. (brightbluedata.com). Was Flood tasked to masquerade as a Russian operative?
Give Flood some props if that is true--he fooled our Intelligence Community and the entire team of Mueller prosecutors into believing
that Guccifer was part of a Russian military intelligence cyber attack. But a careful examination of the documents shows that it
is highly unlikely that this was an official Russian cyber operation. Here's what the U.S. Intelligence Community wrote about Guccifer
2.0 in their very flawed January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment:
We assess with high confidence that the GRU used the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and WikiLeaks to release US victim data
obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets.
Guccifer 2.0, who claimed to be an independent Romanian hacker, made multiple contradictory statements and false claims about
his likely Russian identity throughout the election. Press reporting suggests more than one person claiming to be Guccifer 2.0
interacted with journalists.
Content that we assess was taken from e-mail accounts targeted by the GRU in March 2016 appeared on DCLeaks.com starting in
June.
The laxity of the Intelligence Community in dealing with empirical evidence was matched by a disturbing lack of curiosity on the
part of the Mueller investigators and prosecutors. Here's the tall tale they spun about Guccifer 2.0:
On June 14, 2016, the DNC and its cyber-response team announced the breach of the DNC network and suspected theft of DNC documents.
In the statements, the cyber-response team alleged that Russian state-sponsored actors (which they referred to as "Fancy Bear") were
responsible for the breach. Apparently in response to that announcement, on June 15, 2016, GRU officers using the persona Guccifer
2.0 created a WordPress blog. In the hours leading up to the launch of that WordPress blog, GRU officers logged into a Moscow-based
server used and managed by Unit 74455 and searched for a number of specific words and phrases in English, including "some hundred
sheets," "illuminati," and "worldwide known." Approximately two hours after the last of those searches, Guccifer 2.0 published its
first post, attributing the DNC server hack to a lone Romanian hacker and using several of the unique English words and phrases that
the GRU officers had searched for that day.
[Apelbaum note--According to Crowdstrike and Special Counsel Mueller, both were present, APT28 AKA "Fancy Bear" and APT29 AKA
"Cozy Bear".]
The claims by both the Intelligence Community and the Mueller team about Guccifer 2.0 are an astounding, incredible denial of
critical evidence pointing to a U.S. actor, not a Russian or Romanian. No one in this "august" group took the time to examine the
metadata on the documents posted by "Guccifer 2.0" to his website on June 15, 2016.
I wish I could claim credit for the following forensic analysis, but the honors are due to Yaacov Apelbaum. While there are many
documents in the Podesta haul that match the following pattern, this analysis focuses only on a document originally created by the
DNC's Director of Research, Lauren Dillon. This document is the Trump Opposition Report document.
According to Apelbaum , the Trump Opposition
Report document, which was "published" by Guccifer 2.0, shows clear evidence of digital manipulation:
A US based user (hereafter referred to as G2 ) operating initially from the West coast and then, subsequently, from the East
coast, changes the MS Word 2007 and Operating System language settings to Russian.
G2 opens and saves a document with the file name, "12192015 Trump Report - for dist-4.docx". The document bears the title,
"Donald Trump Report" (which was originally composed by Lauren Dillon aka DILLON REPORT) as an RTF file and opens it again.
G2 opens a second document that was attached to an email sent on December 21, 2008 to John Podesta from [email protected].
This WORD document lists prospective nominees for posts in the Department of Agriculture for the upcoming Obama Administration.
It was generated by User--Warren Flood--on a computer registered to the General Services Administration (aka GSA) named "Slate_-_Domestic_-_USDA_-_2008-12-20-3.doc",
which was kept by Podesta on his private Gmail account. (I refer to this as the "WARREN DOCUMENT" in this analysis.)
G2 deletes the content of the 2008 Warren Document and saves the empty file as a RTF, and opens it again.
G2 copies the content of the 'Dillon Report' (which is an RTF document) and pastes it into the 2008 Warren Document template,
i.e. the empty RTF document.
G2 user makes several modifications to the content of this document. For example, the Warren Document contained the watermark--"CONFIDENTIAL
DRAFT". G2 deleted the word "DRAFT" but kept the "CONFIDENTIAL" watermark.
G2 saves this document into a file called "1.doc". This document now contains the text of the original Lauren Dillon "Donald
Trump Report" document, but also contains Russian language URL links that generate error messages.
G2's 1.DOC (the Word version of the document) shows the following meta data authors:
Created at 6/15/2016 at 1:38pm by "WARREN FLOOD"
Last Modified at 6/15/2016 at 1:45pm by "Феликс Эдмундович" (Felix Edmundovich, the first and middle name of Dzerzhinsky,
the creator of the predecessor of the KGB. It is assumed the Felix Edmundovich refers to Dzerzhinsky.)
G2 also produces a pdf version of this document almost four hours later. It is created at 6/15/201`6 at 5:54:15pm by "WARREN
FLOOD."
G2 first publishes "1.doc" to various media outlets and then uploads a copy to the Guccifer 2.0 WordPress website (which is
hosted in the United States).
There are several critical facts from the metadata that destroy the claim that Guccifer 2.0 was a Romanian or a Russian.
The computer used to create the original Warren Document (dated 2008) was a US Government computer issued to the Obama
Presidential Transition Team by the General Services Administration.
The Warren Document and the 1.DOC were created in the United States using Microsoft Word software (2007) that is registered
to the GSA.
The author of both 1.doc and the PDF version is identified as "WARREN FLOOD."
The copy of "1.doc" was uploaded to a server hosted in the United States.
"Russian" fingerprints were deliberately inserted into the text and the meta data of "1.doc."
This begs a very important question. Did Warren Flood actually create these documents or was someone masquerading as Warren
Flood? Unfortunately, neither the Intelligence Community nor the Mueller Special Counsel investigators provided any evidence to show
they examined this forensic data. More troubling is the fact that the Microsoft Word processing software being used is listed as
a GSA product.
If this was truly a Russian GRU operation (as claimed by Mueller), why was the cyber spy tradecraft so sloppy? A covert
cyber operation is no different from a conventional human covert operation, which means the first and guiding principle is to not
leave any fingerprints that would point to the origin of the operation. In other words, you do not mistakenly leave flagrant Russian
fingerprints in the document text or metadata. A good cyber spy also will not use computers and servers based in the United States
and then claim it is the work of a hacker ostensibly in Romania.
None of the Russians indicted by Mueller in his case stand accused of doing the Russian hacking while physically in the United
States. No intelligence or evidence has been cited to indicate that the Russians stole a U.S. Government computer or used a GSA supplied
copy of Microsoft Word to produce the G2 documents.
The name of Warren Flood, an Obama Democrat activist and Joe Biden's former Director of Information Technology, appears in
at least three iterations of these documents. Did he actually masquerade as Guccifer 2.0? If so, did he do it on his own or was he
hired by someone else? These remain open questions that deserve to be investigated by John Durham, the prosecutor investigating the
attempted coup against Donald Trump, and/or relevant committees of the Congress.
If foreign intelligence agencies are attempting to undermine that process, the U.S. government should treat such efforts even
more seriously than standard espionage. These types ofcyberattacks are significant and pernicious crimes. Our government must do
all that it can to stop such attacks and to seek justice for the attacks that have already occurred.
We are writing to request more information on this cyberattack in particular and more information in general on how the Justice
Department, FBI, and NCIJTF attempt to prevent and punish these types ofcyberattacks. Accordingly, please respond to the following
by August 9, 2016:
When did the Department of Justice, FBI, and NCIJTF first learn of the DNC hack? Was the government aware ofthe intrusion
prior to the media reporting it?
Has the FBI deployed its Cyber Action Team to determine who hacked the DNC?
Has the FBI determined whether the Russian government, or any other foreign
government, was involved in the hack?
In general, what actions, if any, do the Justice Department, FBI, and NCIJTF take to prevent cyberattacks on non-governmental
political organizations in the U.S., such as campaigns and political parties? Does the government consult or otherwise communicate
with the organizations to inform them ofpotential threats, relay best practices, or inform them ofdetected cyber intrusions.
Does the Justice Department believe that existing statutes provide an adequate basis for addressing hacking crimes of this
nature, in which foreign governments hack seemingly in order to affect our electoral processes?
So far no document from Comey to Lynch has been made available to the public detailing the FBI's response to Lynch's questions.
Why was the Cyber Action Team not deployed to determine who hacked the DNC? A genuine investigation of the DNC hack/leak should
have included interviews with all DNC staff, John Podesta, Warren Flood and Ellen Nakashima, The Washington Post reporter who broke
the story of the DNC hack. Based on what is now in the public record, the FBI failed to do a proper investigation.
Of course sleepy Joe was in on the overall RussiaGate operation. And now another reasonable question by sleuth extraordinaire
will fall into the memory hole b/c no one who has the authority and the power in DC is ever going to address, let alone, clean
up and hold accountable any who created this awful mess.
Resolving who was behind Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks seems to me to be a rather simple investigative exercise. That is, somebody
registered and bought the names of G2 and DCL. One can't have a Wordpress blog without purchasing a url. So, there is a record
of this registration, right? Simply subpoena the company who sold/rented the url.
What's troubling to me is that even the most simplest investigative acts to find answers never seems to happen. Instead, more
than three years later we're playing 'Whodunit.'
It's been over 3 years now and if we had a truly functioning intel/justice apparatus this simple act would have been done long
ago and then made public. Yet, here we are more than three years later trying to unravel, figure out or resolve the trail of clues
via metadata the pranksters left behind.
It's now obvious that we don't have a functioning intel/justice apparatus in the U.S. This is the message sent and received
by the intel/justice shops over and again. They no longer work for Americans rather they work against us.
Second of all yesterday I seem to remember finding a post at MoA which detailed wikipedia
changing the mortality rate of spanish flu.The post included wayback links which showed up
the deceit. I'm staying with a relative who is a recently retired journo defending his
professi8on & want to show him the piece as an example of exactly how perfidious what is
now called 'the communications industry' has become. I cannot find that post so if anyone
could point me to it I would appreciate that.
Off-Guardian has posted two articles on Freakipedia
and
The Fraudian changing or using misleading data concerning the case fatality rate for the
Spanish flu epidemic in 1918. Each article also has links to sources you can follow, if you
want to back up your argument. Good luck!
"... Creating Russophobia: From the Great Religious Schism to Anti-Putin Hysteria ..."
"... Mettan defines Russophobia as the promotion of negative stereotypes about Russia that associate the country with despotism, treachery, expansion, oppression and other negative character traits. In his view, it is "not linked to specific historical events" but "exists first in the head of the one who looks, not in the victim's alleged behavior or characteristics." ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Russophobia in the United States has been advanced most insidiously by the nation's foreign policy elite who have envisioned themselves as grand chess-masters seeking to checkmate their Russian adversary in order to control the Eurasian heartland. ..."
"... This view is little different than European colonial strategists who had learned of the importance of molding public opinion through disinformation campaigns that depicted the Russian bear as a menace to Western civilization. ..."
For
the last five years, the American media has been filled with scurrilous articles demonizing
Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Putin has been accused of every crime imaginable, from shooting down airplanes, to
assassinating opponents, to invading neighboring countries, to stealing money to manipulating
the U.S. president and helping to rig the 2016 election.
Few of the accusations directed against Putin have ever been substantiated and the quality
of journalism has been at the level of "yellow journalism."
In a desperate attempt to sustain their political careers, centrist Democrats like Joe Biden
and Hillary Clinton accused their adversaries of being Russian agents – again without
proof.
And even the progressive hero Bernie Sanders – himself a victim of red-baiting –
has engaged in Russia bashing and unsubstantiated accusations for which he offers no proof.
Mettan is a Swiss journalist and member of parliament who learned about the corruption of
the media business when his reporting on the world anticommunist league rankled his newspapers'
shareholders, and when he realized that he was serving as a paid stenographer for the Bosnian
Islamist leader Alija Izetbegovic in the early 1990s.
Mettan defines Russophobia as the promotion of negative stereotypes about Russia that
associate the country with despotism, treachery, expansion, oppression and other negative
character traits. In his view, it is "not linked to specific historical events" but "exists
first in the head of the one who looks, not in the victim's alleged behavior or
characteristics."
Like anti-semitism, Mettan writes, "Russophobia is a way of turning specific pseudo-facts
into essential one-dimensional values, barbarity, despotism, and expansionism in the Russian
case in order to justify stigmatization and ostracism."
The origins of Russophobic discourse date back to a schism in the Church during the Middle
Ages when Charlemagne was crowned emperor of the Roman empire and modified the Christian
liturgy to introduce reforms execrated by the Eastern Orthodox Churches of the Byzantine
empire.
Mettan writes that "the Europe of Charlemagne and of the year 1000 was in need of a foil in
the East to rebuild herself, just as the Europe of the 2000s needs Russia to consolidate her
union."
Before the schism, European rulers had no negative opinions of Russia. When Capetian King
Henri I found himself a widower, he turned towards the prestigious Kiev kingdom two thousand
miles away and married Vladimir's granddaughter, Princess Ann.
A main goal of the new liturgy adopted by Charlemagne was to undermine any Byzantine
influence in Italy and Western Europe.
Over the next century, the schism evolved from a religious into a political one.
The Pope and the top Roman administration made documents disappear and truncated others in
order to blame the Easterners.
Byzantium and Russia were in turn rebuked for their "caesaropapism," or "Oriental style
despotism," which could be contrasted which the supposedly enlightened, democratic governing
system in the West.
Russia was particularly hated because it had defied efforts of Western European countries to
submit to their authority and impose Catholicism.
In the 1760s, French diplomats working with a variety of Ukrainian, Hungarian and Polish
political figures produced a forged testament of Peter 1 ["The Great"] purporting to reveal
Russia's 'grand design' to conquer most of Europe.
This document was still taken seriously by governments during the Napoleanic wars; and as
late as the Cold War, President Harry Truman found it helpful in explaining Stalin.
In Britain, the Whigs, who represented the liberal bourgeois opposition to the Tory
government and its program of free-trade imperialism, were the most virulent Russophobes, much
like today's Democrats in the United States.
The British media also enflamed public opinion by taking hysterical positions against Russia
– often on the eve of major military expeditions.
The London Times during the 1820s Greek Independence war editorialized that no
"sane person" could "look with satisfaction at the immense and rapid overgrowth of Russian
power." The same thing was being written in The New York Times in the 2010s.
A great example of the Orientalist stereotype was Bram Stoker's novel Dracula ,
whose main character was modeled after Russian ruler, Ivan the Terrible. As if no English ruler
in history was cruel either.
The Nazis took Russo-phobic discourse to new heights during the 1930s and 1940s, combining
it with a virulent anti-bolshevism and anti-semitism.
A survey of German high school texts in the 1960s found little change in the image of
Russia. The Russians were still depicted as "primitive, simple, very violent, cruel, mean,
inhuman, cupid and very stubborn."
The same stereotypes were displayed in many Hollywood films during the Cold War, where KGB
figures were particularly maligned. No wonder that when a former KGB agent, Vladimir Putin,
took power, people went insane. Russophobia in the United States has been advanced most
insidiously by the nation's foreign policy elite who have envisioned themselves as grand
chess-masters seeking to checkmate their Russian adversary in order to control the Eurasian
heartland.
This view is little different than European colonial strategists who had learned of the
importance of molding public opinion through disinformation campaigns that depicted the Russian
bear as a menace to Western civilization.
Guy Mettan has written a thought-provoking book that provides badly needed historical
context for the anti-Russian delirium gripping our society.
Breaking the taboo on Russophobia is of vital importance in laying the groundwork for a more
peaceful world order and genuinely progressive movement in the United States. Unfortunately,
recent developments don't inspire much confidence that history will be transcended. Join the debate
on Facebook More articles by: Jeremy KuzmarovJeremy
Kuzmarov is the author of The Russians are Coming,
Again: The First Cold War as Tragedy, the Second as Farce (Monthly Review Press, 2018) and
Obama's Unending Wars: Fronting for the Foreign Policy of the Permanent Warfare State (Atlanta:
Clarity Press, 2019).
New article from John Helmer "MI6 & BBC REVEAL OPERATION MINCEPIE – SKRIPAL
BLOOD-TESTS AT SALISBURY HOSPITAL FAILED TO SHOW NERVE AGENT UNTIL PORTON DOWN ADDED IT FOR
THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT TO ANNOUNCE".
"The evidence of the Salisbury hospital personnel has been reviewed by a sharp-eyed
English analyst who prefers anonymity and an internet handle called Twiki. He has discovered
that the blood testing of the Skripals for at least 36 hours after their hospitalisation
– that is between their admission on Sunday afternoon March 4, and the following
Tuesday morning March 6 – did not (repeat not) reveal a marker for organo-phosphate
nerve agent poisoning; that is, the level of acetylcholinesterase (ACE) in the
bloodstream.*"
It seems to me that HMG fiction writers need to up their game. HMG novel on what happened
to the Skripal's is unbelievable. Has the quality of modern day Agatha Christie's
deteriorated that much? It seems that the events on March 4th in Salisbury were not
anticipated and a clusterfuck of the coverup has no clothes on it.
The importance of getting to the factual roots of what happened to put humanity on this
epidemiological trajectory should be especially clear after the debacle of September 11, 2001.
Without any sustained investigation of the 9/11 crimes, Americans were rushed into cycles of
seemingly perpetual warfare abroad, police state and surveillance state interventions at home.
This cycle of fast responses began within a month of 9/11 with a full-fledge military invasion
of Afghanistan, an invasion that continues yet.
When two US Senators, Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle, sought to slow the rush of the US
executive into emergency measures and war, they and the US Congress they served were hit hard
by a military grade bioweapon, anthrax. The violent tactic of the saboteurs proved effective in
easing aside close scrutiny that might have slowed down the fast approval by the end of October
of Congress's massive Patriot Act.
Since then a seemingly endless cycle of military invasions has been pushed forward in the
Middle East and Eurasia. The emergency measure powers claimed by the executive branch of the US
government extended to widespread illegal torture, domestic spying, media censorship and a
meteoric rise in extrajudicial murders especially by drones. This list is far from
complete.
All of these crimes against humanity were justified on the basis of an unproven official
explanation of 9/11. Subsequent scholarly investigations have demonstrated unequivocally for
the attentive that officialdom's explanations of what transpired on the fateful day in
September were wrong, severely wrong. The
initial interpretations are strongly at variance with the evidentiary record available on
the public record.
We must not allow ourselves to be hoodwinked in the same manner once again. The stakes are
too large, maybe even larger than was the case in 2001. The misinterpreted and misrepresented
events of 9/11 were exploited in conformity with the " Shock Doctrine ," a strategy for instituting
litanies of invasive state actions that the public would not otherwise have accepted.
The conscientious portion of humanity, many of whose members have done independent homework
of their own on the events of 9/11, will well understand the importance of identifying the
actual originating source of the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic.
No less than in the wake of the 9/11 debacle , there are grave
dangers entailed in being too quick or too naïve or too trustful in immediately accepting
as gospel fact the Chinese government's initial explanations of the COVID-19 outbreak. Why not
take the time to investigate and test the current interpretations of the authorities that
proved themselves to be so wrong in their decision to reprimand Dr. Li?
Especially when the stakes are extremely high, the need is great for objective, third-party
adjudication to establish what really happened irrespective of official interpretations.
History provides abundant evidence to demonstrate that official interpretations of
transformative events often veer away from the truth in order to serve and protect the
interests of entrenched power.
All semblance of due process and the rule of law can quickly evaporate when powerful
institutions advance interpretations of catastrophic events used to justify their own
open-ended invocation of unlimited emergency measure powers. The well-documented examples of
the misrepresentation and exploitation of the 9/11 debacle demonstrate well the severity of the
current danger. The origins of the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic have yet to be adequately
addressed and explained by a panel of genuinely independent investigators.
The Chinese Ambassador to the United States, Cui Tiankai, acknowledged on Feb. 9 on CBS's
Face the Nation
that there is no certainty about the origins of COVID-19. When asked by CBS's Margaret Brennan
where the virus came from, the Chinese Ambassador responded, "We still don't know yet."
Well they signed the agreement with the Taliban and two days later the DOD was bombing
them again so who knows what happens there.
Trump has declared all sorts of deals that ultimately turned into puffs of smoke -- the
non-deal with North Korea comes to mind. I consider pulling out of the TPP and tariffs
against China more indicative of bucking the consensus, but those can be reversed by Trump or
any other president whenever they feel like it.
@Bill If you view China as a Han ethnic construct, antipathy to it (in the West) is very
low compared to most other ethnic constructs: such as core-Americans, European nationalists,
or worse still, Russia.
I've heard people evoke Russia in conspiracies, in real life. Not just on the
internet.
The only large, noteworthy, homogeneous country with lessor antipathy in the West is
Japan. But it is something of a double-edged sword, as Japan is nowhere near as praised as
China because it doesn't have the same power and has been stagnating.
"... Under Trump, NATO has strengthened and held its largest war games since the cold war. The Trump administration withdrew from the Reagan-era nuclear arms treaty, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), an arms control agreement that prohibited Russia and the US from developing medium-range nuclear and ballistic missiles. Shortly after tearing up the treaty, the Pentagon began developing and testing missiles that were banned under the INF. ..."
"... Despite all the drama over military aid to Ukraine, Trump never actually delayed it, and the new National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes $300 million in lethal aid to Ukraine , $50 million more than the previous year. The NDAA also calls for mandatory sanctions against any companies working on completing the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, a natural gas pipeline that connects Russia and Germany. Of all Trump's hawkish policies, his effort to kill the Nord Stream 2 and the pressure he puts on Germany not to buy gas from Russia can do the most damage to Russia's economy. ..."
"... The policies listed above are just a few examples of Trump's hostility towards Russia. Others include attempting to overthrow Russia's ally in Venezuela, maintaining a troop presence in Syria to "secure the oil," sanctioning Russian officials and businessman, and much more . ..."
"... Despite all these provocations towards Russia, Trump is still accused of being a "puppet" of Vladimir Putin. No matter how much the president moves the US closer to direct confrontation with Russia, the talking heads and pundits of the mainstream media take superficial examples – like the 2018 Helsinki conference – as proof of Trump's loyalty to Putin. Trump's words are put under a microscope, while his policies that make nuclear war more possible are largely ignored. ..."
Another presidential election year is upon us, and the
intelligence agencies are hard at work stoking fears of Russian meddling. This time it looks
like the Russians do not only like the incumbent president but also favor who appears to be
the Democratic front-runner, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.
On Thursday, The New York Timesran
a story titled , "Lawmakers Are Warned That Russia Is Meddling to Re-elect Trump." The
story says that on February 13 th US lawmakers from the House were briefed by
intelligence officials who warned them, "Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try
to get President Trump re-elected."
The story provides little detail into the briefing and gives no evidence to back up the
intelligence officials' claims. It mostly rehashes old claims from the 2016 election, such as
Russians are trying to "stir controversy" and "stoke division." The intelligence officials
also said the Russians are looking to interfere with the 2020 Democratic primaries.
It looks like other intelligence officials are already undermining the leaked briefing.
CNN ran a story on Sunday titled "US intelligence briefer appears to have overstated
assessment of 2020 Russian interference." The CNN article reads, "The US intelligence
community has assessed that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election and has separately
assessed that Russia views Trump as a leader they can work with. But the US does not have
evidence that Russia's interference this cycle is aimed at re-electing Trump, the officials
said."
According to The Times, President Trump was upset with acting Director of National
Intelligence Joseph Maguire for letting the briefing happen, and Republican lawmakers did not
agree with the conclusion since Trump has been "tough" on Russia. In his three years in
office, Trump certainly has been tough on Russia, and it is hard to believe that Putin would
work to reelect such a Russia hawk.
Under Trump, NATO has strengthened and held its
largest war games since the cold war. The Trump administration withdrew from the
Reagan-era nuclear arms treaty, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), an arms
control agreement that prohibited Russia and the US from developing medium-range nuclear and
ballistic missiles. Shortly after tearing up the treaty, the Pentagon began
developing and testing missiles that were banned under the INF.
The Trump Administration might let another nuclear arms treaty lapse. The New Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) limits the number of nuclear warheads that Russia and the
US can have deployed. The US does not want to re-sign the treaty and is using the excuse that
it wants to include China in the deal. China's nuclear arsenal is
estimated to be around 300 warheads , which is just one-fifth of the amount that Russia
and the US are allowed to have deployed under the New START. It makes no sense for China to
limit its deployment of nuclear warheads when its arsenal is nothing compared to the other
two superpowers. China appears to be a scapegoat for the US to blame if the treaty does not
get renewed. Without the New START, there will be nothing limiting the number of nukes the US
and Russia can deploy, making the world a much more dangerous place.
Despite all the drama over military aid to Ukraine, Trump never actually delayed it,
and the new National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes $300
million in lethal aid to Ukraine , $50 million more than the previous year. The NDAA also
calls for mandatory sanctions against any companies working on completing the Nord Stream 2
pipeline, a natural gas pipeline that connects Russia and Germany. Of all Trump's hawkish
policies, his effort to kill the Nord Stream 2 and the pressure he puts on Germany not to buy
gas from Russia can do the most damage to Russia's economy.
The policies listed above are just a few examples of Trump's hostility towards Russia.
Others include attempting to overthrow Russia's ally in Venezuela, maintaining a troop
presence in Syria to "secure the oil," sanctioning Russian officials and businessman, and
much more .
Despite all these provocations towards Russia, Trump is still accused of being a
"puppet" of Vladimir Putin. No matter how much the president moves the US closer to direct
confrontation with Russia, the talking heads and pundits of the mainstream media take
superficial examples – like the 2018 Helsinki conference – as proof of Trump's
loyalty to Putin. Trump's words are put under a microscope, while his policies that make
nuclear war more possible are largely ignored.
The leaked briefing harkens back to an intelligence assessment that came out in January
2017 during the last days of the Obama administration. The assessment concluded that Vladimir
Putin himself ordered the election interference to help Trump get elected. At first,
a falsehood
spread through the media that all 17 US intelligence agencies agreed with the conclusion.
But later testimony from Obama-era intelligence officials revealed the assessment was
prepared by hand-picked analysts from the CIA, FBI, and NSA. The assessment offered no
evidence for the claim and mostly focused on media coverage of the presidential candidates on
Russian state-funded media.
On Friday, The Washington Post piled on to the Russia hysteria and ran a story titled "Bernie Sanders briefed by
US officials that Russia is trying to help his campaign." The story says Sanders received a
briefing on Russian efforts to boost his campaign. The details are again scant and The
Post admits that "It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken."
The few progressive journalists that have been right on Russiagate all along had the
foresight to see how accusations of Russian meddling would ultimately be used to hurt
Sanders' campaign. Unfortunately, Sanders did not have that same foresight and frequently
played into the Russiagate narrative.
Last week, during a Democratic primary debate in Las Vegas, when criticized for his
supporters' behavior on social media, Sanders pointed the finger at Russia . "All of us remember
2016, and what we remember is efforts by Russians and others to try to interfere in our
elections and divide us up. I'm not saying that's happening, but it would not shock me,"
Sanders said.
In
comments after The Post story was published, Sanders said he was briefed on
Russian interference "about a month ago." Sanders raised the issue with the timing of the
story, having been published on the eve of the Nevada caucus. But the story did not slow down
Sanders' momentum in the polls, and he came out the clear victor of the Nevada caucus.
Sanders' victory seemed to rattle the Democratic establishment, and some wild accusations
were thrown around during coverage of the caucus.
Political analyst James Carville
appeared on MSNBC as Sanders took an early and substantial lead in Nevada. Carville said,
"Right now, it's about 1:15 Moscow time. This thing is going very well for Vladimir Putin. I
promise you. He's probably staying up watching this right now." What could be played off as a
joke was followed up with some serious accusations from Carville, "I don't think the Sanders
campaign in any way is collusion or collaboration. I think they don't like this story, but
the story is a fact, and the reason that the story is a fact is Putin is doing everything
that he can to help Trump, including trying to get Sanders the Democratic nomination."
This delusional attitude about the Russians rigging the Democratic primary is underpinned
by claims of meddling from the 2016 election. Central to
Robert Mueller's claim that Russia engaged in "multiple, systematic efforts to interfere
in our election" is the St. Petersburg based company, the Internet Research Agency (IRA).
The IRA is accused of running a troll farm that sought to interfere in the 2016 election
in favor of Trump over Hillary Clinton. Mueller failed to tie the IRA directly to the
Kremlin, and further research into their social media campaign shows most of the posts had
nothing to do with the election. A study on the
IRA by the firm New Knowledge found just "11 percent" of the IRA's content "was related
to the election."
Many believe the Russian government is responsible for hacking the DNC email server and
providing the emails to WikiLeaks. But there are many holes in Mueller's story to support
this claim. And WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange – who Mueller did not interview
–
has said the Russian government was not the source of the emails.
Regardless of who leaked the DNC emails to WikiLeaks, they show that DNC leadership had a
clear bias against Bernie Sanders back in 2016. The emails' contents were never disputed, and
Democratic voters had every right to see the corruption within the DNC. With the release of
the DNC emails, and later the Podesta emails, the American people were able to make a more
informed choice in the presidential election. This type of transparency provided by WikiLeaks
would be celebrated in a healthy democracy, not portrayed as the work of a foreign power.
Sanders would be wise to keep a watchful eye on how the DNC operates over the next few
months. The debacle that was the Iowa caucus shows the Democrats can "stoke division" and
"stir controversy" just fine on their own.
These claims of Russian meddling will continue throughout the election season. President
Trump's defense that he is "tough" on Russia is nothing to be proud of, but that is
inevitably where these accusations lead. Trump is encouraged to be more hawkish towards
Russia in an effort to quiet the claims of Putin's preference for him. And if Bernie Sanders
plays into this narrative now, can we believe that he will make any real foreign policy
change towards Russia if he gets the nomination and beats Trump?
Dave DeCamp is assistant editor at Antiwar.com and a freelance journalist based in
Brooklyn NY, focusing on US foreign policy and wars. He is on Twitter at @decampdave .
There has been considerable scholarly scrutiny of the anthrax attacks targeting the US Congress and
some media organizations in early October of 2001. The anthrax attacks constitute the most serious
assault ever on the operations of the US Congress, the primary interface between law and politics in
the United States.
These attacks have come to be understood as an integral part of the large body of
crimes committed in Manhattan and Washington DC on 9/11. The anthrax attacks killed five people
including two postal workers. Seventeen people were injured and Congress was shut down for a few days.
Anthrax-laden letter attacks were specifically directed at two Democratic Party Senators,
Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle. When they received the contaminated letters both lawmakers were engaged
in questioning provisions of the post-9/11 emergency measures legislation known as the Patriot Act.
Both Senators Leahy and Daschle were hesitant to rubber stamp the enactment that was seemingly
instantly drafted and put before Congress within three weeks of the 9/11 debacle.
The anthrax attacks took place just as the US Armed Forces began invading Afghanistan where the
culprits of the 9/11 crimes were supposed to be hiding out. The perpetrators of the anthrax attack,
who we were supposed to imagine at the time as al-Qaeda terrorists, succeeded in easing aside the
major locus of opposition to the Patriot Act's speedy passage in late October. Why, one might
legitimately ask, ask, would Islamic jihadists want the Patriot Act to be rushed through Congress. In
early October the US Armed Forces invaded Afghanistan at the same time that the US executive branch
was seeking with the Patriot a license to kill and torture and steal without any checks of
accountability.
Once the US Armed Forces went to war with Afghanistan on the basis of a fraudulent explanation of
9/11's genesis, there was basically no chance that a genuine and legitimate evidence-based
investigation of the September 11 crimes would ever take place. To this day the Global War on Terror
continues to unfold on a foundation of lies and illusions that have had devastating consequences for
the quality of life for average people throughout the United States and the world.
In his 2005 book,
Biowarfare and Terrorism
,
Prof.
Boyle's analysis
pointed to major problems in the FBI's investigation of the anthrax attacks
including the agency's destruction of relevant evidence. To Prof. Boyle, the highly refined
military-grade quality of the anthrax made it almost certain that the anthrax bioweapon was produced
within the US Armed Forces at the lab in Fort Detrick Maryland. Anthrax, or
Bacillus anthracis
,
is a rod-shaped bacteria found naturally in soil.
Looking back at the episode Dr. Boyle
observed
,
"The Pentagon and the C.I.A. are ready, willing, and able to launch biowarfare when it suits their
interests. They already attacked the American People and Congress and disabled our Republic with
super-weapons-grade anthrax in October 2001."
Prof. Boyle's interpretation was later verified and expanded upon in a book by Canadian Prof.
Graeme MacQueen. Prof. Boyle acknowledges the veracity of Prof. MacQueen's study of the anthrax
deception as part of a "domestic conspiracy." He sees
The
2001 Anthrax Deception
as the most advanced finding of academic research on the topic so far.
Prof. MacQueen is prominent among a very large group of academics and public officials who condemn
the official narrative of 9/11 for its dramatic inconsistencies with the available evidence. Those who
share this understanding include former Italian Prime Minister Francesco Cossiga, former German
Defence Minister Andreas von Bülow, former UK Minister of the Environment Michael Meacher, former
Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, former Director of the US Star Wars Missile
Defense Program Lt. Col. Bob Bowman, Princeton International Law Professor Richard Falk, and the
author of ten academic books on different aspects of the 9/11 debacle, Claremont Graduate University
Professor David Ray Griffin.
Prof. Francis Boyle shared the 9/11 skepticism of many when he
asked
,
Could the real culprits behind the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, and the
immediately-following terrorist anthrax attacks upon Congress ultimately prove to be the same
people? Could it truly be coincidental that two of the primary intended victims of the terrorist
anthrax attacks - Senators Daschle and Leahy - were holding up the speedy passage of the
pre-planned USA Patriot Act ... an act which provided the federal government with unprecedented
powers in relation to US citizens and institutions?
In his coverage of the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic, Spiro Skouras highlighted the proceedings known
as Event 201. Event 201 brought together in New York on October 18, 2019 an assembly of delegates
hosted by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum and the Johns Hopkins Center
for Health Security. The gathering anticipated the COVID-19 crisis by just a few weeks. I retrospect
it is almost as if Event 201 announced many of the controversies about to arise with the outbreak of
the real epidemic in Wuhan China. Event 201 performed functions similar to those of the drills that
frequently mimic the engineered scenarios animating false flag terror events but especially those of
9/11.
A major subject of the meeting highlighted the perceived need to control communications during an
epidemic. Levan Thiru of the Monetary Authority of Singapore went as far as to call for "a step up on
the part of governments to take action against Fake News." Thiru called for recriminatory litigation
aimed at criminalizing "bad actors." Cautioning against this kind of censorship, Skouras asked, Who is
going to decide what constitutes "Fake News"? If fact checkers are to be employed, "who will fact
check the fact checkers"?
Hasti Taghi, a media executive with NBC Universal in New York, was especially outspoken in
condemning the activities of "conspiracy theorists" that have organized themselves to question the
motives and methods of the complex of agencies involved in developing and disseminating vaccines.
She
frequently condemned
the role of "conspiracy theories" in energizing public distrust of the role
of pharmaceutical companies and media conglomerates in their interactions with government.
Tom Ingelsby of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security injected an interesting twist into the
discussion. He asked,
"How much control of information should there be? By whom should control
of information be exercised? How can false information be effectively challenged?" Ingelsby then
added, "What happens if the false information is coming from companies and governments?"
https://www.youtube.com/embed/AoLw-Q8X174
This final question encapsulates a major problem for conscientious citizens trying to find
their way through the corruption and disinformation that often permeates our key institutions.
Those that try to counter the problem that governments and corporations sometimes peddle false
information can pretty much expect to face accusations that they are "conspiracy theorists." Too often
the calculations involved in deciding whom or what is credible (or not) depends primarily on simple
arithmetic favouring the preponderance of wealth and power.
Spiro Skouras gives careful consideration to the possibility that the United States
instigated the COVID-19 epidemic starting in Wuhan China.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/WE8m309gKVE
https://www.youtube.com/embed/p0DDXsPKGHw
He notes the precedent set in 1945 on the atomic attacks by the US government on the
civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Skouras points out that there is proof that since the
Second World War, the US government has conducted at least 239 experiments, secretly deploying toxic
chemical and biological agents against portions of its own population.
On the history of US involvement in biological warfare see
here
,
here
and
here
.
Skouras highlights the window presented for a covert US bioweapon attack at the World Military
Games in Wuhan China in the second half of October of 2019. He notes that 300 US soldiers participated
as athletes in the Wuhan Military Games together with a large contingent of American support
personnel. The timing and the circumstances of the event were more or less ideal to open up a new
pathogenic front in the US government's informal
"hybrid
war" against China
.
On Feb. 15 at the Munich Security Conference, US Defence Secretary, Mark T. Esper, developed a
highly critical characterization of Chinese wrongdoing in order to seemingly justify recriminatory
actions.
Esper
asserted
, "China's growth over the years has been remarkable, but in many ways it is fuelled by
theft, coercion, and exploitation of free market economies, private companies, and colleges and
universities Huawei and 5G are today's poster child for this nefarious activity.
The US antagonism to Huawei's leadership in the design and worldwide dissemination of 5 G
technology might well be a factor in the scandal generated by the Chinese connection to intertwined
research in microbiology at the level 4 labs in Winnipeg and Wuhan.
Back in 2000 the
notorious
report
entitled
Rebuilding America's Defenses
, a publication brought forward by the
neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC), proposed that the US government should
refurbish and invoke its capacity to wage biological warfare. PNAC was the think tank that anticipated
the events of September 11, 2001 by outlining a strategic scheme that could only be realized by
mobilizing American public opinion with "a catalytic event like a New Pearl Harbor."
After 9/11, the PNAC Team of related neoconservative activists and Zionist organizations pretty
much took over the governance of the United States along with the build up and deployment of its
formidable war machine. PNAC called for the invocation of "advanced forms of biological warfare that
can 'target' specific genotypes." In this fashion "biological warfare might be transformed into a
politically useful tool."
The relationship of this pandemic to internal disagreements within China has been put on
full display in Steve Bannon's coverage of the crisis entitled
War Room: Pandemic
.
A
prominent member of US President Donald Trump's
inner
circle
, Steve Bannon is often accompanied on the daily show by Chinese billionaire dissident,
Miles Guo (aka Guo Wengui, Miles Haoyun, Miles Kwok).
Guo is an
outspoken Chinese refugee
. He is a
persistent critic of virtually every facet of the policies and actions of the Chinese Communist Party.
Guo regularly condemns those who dominate China's one-party system, a system run by an elite who,
he alleges, are corrupt, incompetent and inveterate liars. Guo regularly asserts that all of the
Chinese government's numbers on the pandemic, including death rates and infection rates, can probably
be multiplied by 10X or even 100X to get closer to accuracy.
[On the 10X guestimate of mortality and infection see
this
.]
Clearly Bannon and Guo would like to see the emergency conditions created by the pandemic as a
wedge of division, protest and regime change within China. One of the subjects they regularly raise,
as do others who accuse the Chinese government of systematic lying and deception, is that the
crematoriums in Wuhan and nearby Chongqing are burning corpses of dead people at a rate far higher
than official death figures. Some reports indicated that portable incinerators were being brought into
the most infected core of the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic.
It is troubling, to say the least, that some reports indicate dead people are being
cremated far faster and at far higher rates than the Chinese government and the World Health
Organization are reporting. Some reckoning with the apparent disparity between reported and actual
deaths has led to widespread suspicions about what is actually going in the scenes of violent and
angry exchanges between people in the Wuhan area.
Many of these videos show brutal confrontations between Chinese civilians and Chinese security
police. The displays of desperation by some of those trying to escape apprehensions by uniformed
officials seem sometimes to suggest the
severity
of a life or death struggle
. It is made to seem that those seeking to escape the grip of
authorities are aware that their failure to do so might lead to a quick death and a quick exit by
incineration.
These
reflections
are, of course, speculative rather than definitive.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/yvouHwAEYCk
Questions concerning who we are supposed to believe or not in this crisis are becoming ever more
pressing and volatile. One of the emerging themes in the discourse developed at
War Room: Pandemic
is
the
propensity of some of the core agencies of mainstream media in the United States to accept
at face value the reports they receive from official media outlets answering to the Chinese Communist
Party.
To Banning and Guo this pattern makes media organizations like the
New York Times
,
The
Washington Post
, and
CNN
essentially propaganda extensions of the Chinese government.
The Chinese people themselves are clearly grappling in new ways with the problem of how to
understand the information and directives given them by the governing apparatus of the Chinese
Communist Party.
Clearly the Party initially failed the people by not intervening early and
decisively enough after the first cases of Coronavirus illness began to show up. The exit from Wuhan
of almost five million people in prior to the Chinese Lunar New Year celebrations had huge
implications for spreading the contagion.
As noted in the introduction,
the death in Wuhan of Dr. Li Wenliang on 7 February has
become a flash point for popular criticism of the Chinese Communist Party led by General Secretary Xi
Jinping.
Dr. Li wrote to members of his medical school alumnus group suggesting that some
significant action should be taken in response to the appearance of SARS-like symptoms that suddenly
afflicted his patients.
For sending out this unauthorized communication, Dr. Li was summoned along with seven other
supposed offenders to the Public Security Bureau. There
he was warned by police to stop
"making false statements." He was ordered to cease and desist "spreading rumors," and "acting
illegally to disturb social order."
Dr. Li signed a form indicating he would refrain from continuing to do what he had been accused of
doing. The chastised professional returned to his medical practice. He took his own advice and began
treating patients exhibiting signs of the new illness. He himself soon
died
from COVID-19
when it was still known as 19-nCoV.
Is Twitter's permanent
deplatforming
of the Zero Hedge web site a North
American version of the police intervention in China with the goal of silencing Dr. Li? Is the
censorship of the Internet in the name of opposing
"conspiracy theorists"
repeating
the Chinese Communist Party's effort to silence Dr. Li?
Is Dr. Li to be appropriately understood as a Chinese version of a "conspiracy
theorist"?
How different was his treatment for allegedly "spreading rumours" and "acting
illegally to disturb social order" from the treatment of those in the Occident who have been
deplatformed, smeared and professionally defrocked for attempting to speak truth to power?
I have developed responses to these incursions based on hard-won experiences facing the propaganda
blows of an especially powerful political lobby able to seize control of the governing board of my
university.
These professional lobbyists seek to discredit academic analysis of their own
violations of law, ethics and civility by labelling critics of their zealotry as "conspiracy
theorists" or worse.
More recently I have been grappling against a variation on this process in trying to counter the
censorious attacks on the
American
Herald Tribune
.
These assaults on free expression and open debate began with the machinations
of military hawks whose hit job instructions were passed along to the disinformation specialists at
CNN
and
the
Washington Post
.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/1MXdLwZ6spE
No one can say for sure where the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic is taking the world. Wherever
we are headed, however, we are leaving behind an era that can never be recreated.
Whatever
happened to originate the contagion, this crisis is forcing us to take stock of the framework of
biological warfare as it has been developing in China, Russia, Israel and probably many other
countries.
Nowhere, however, is biological warfare being more expansively and expensively developed and
probably deployed than by the US Armed Forces.
The death and destruction that humanity is
presently experiencing should signal to us that it is time to get much more serious about inspecting
military facilities and enforcing the terms of the Biological Warfare Convention of 1972.
It
is, in fact, time to get much more serious about enforcing all aspects of international criminal law
in balanced ways that transcend the biases of Victors' Justice.
It is time to throw off the weight of the pseudo-laws introduced after 9/11 through
abhorrent tactics like the inside-job military anthrax attack on Congress.
Most certainly, it
is time to draw a clear distinction between research in the field of public health and research in the
development of lethal bioweapons. Better yet, we should work towards putting an end altogether to
militarization through the massive expansion of the "death sciences."
The vile activities of
fallen practitioners of the endangered life sciences are, for starters, undermining the integrity of
our besieged institutions of higher learning.
Without any proof, The New York Times and Washington Post run "Russia
helping Sanders" stories, and Sanders responds by bashing Russia, writes Joe Lauria.
W ith Democratic frontrunner Bernie Sanders spooking the Democratic establishment, The
Washington Post Friday reported damaging information from intelligence sources against
Sanders by saying that Russia is trying to help his campaign.
If the story is true and if intelligence agencies are truly committed to protecting U.S.
citizens, the Sanders campaign would have been quietly informed and shown evidence to back up
the claims.
Instead the story wound up on the front page of the Post , "according to people
familiar with the matter." Zero evidence was produced to back up the intelligence agencies'
assertion.
"It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken," the Post reported.
That would tell any traditional news editor that there was no story until it is known.
Instead major U.S. media are again playing the role of laundering totally unverified
"information" just because it comes from an intelligence source. Reporting such assertions
without proof amounts to an abdication of journalistic responsibility. It shows total trust in
U.S. intelligence despite decades of deception and skullduggery from these agencies.
Centrist Democratic Party leaders have expressed extreme unease with Sanders leading the
Democratic pack. Politicoreported
Friday that former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg's entry into the race is explicitly to stop
Sanders from winning on the first ballot at the party convention.
A day after The New York Times
reported , also without evidence, that Russia is again trying to help Donald Trump win in
November, the Post reports Moscow is trying to help Sanders too, again without
substance. Both candidates whom the establishment loathes were smeared on successive days.
In a Tough Spot
The Times followed the Post report Friday by making it appear that Sanders
himself had chosen to make public the intelligence assessment about "Russian interference" in
his campaign.
But Sanders had known for a month about this assessment and only issued a statement after
the Post asked him for comment before publishing its uncorroborated story based on
anonymous sources.
Sanders was put in a difficult spot. If he said, "Show me the proof that Russia is trying to
help me," he ran the risk of being attacked for disbelieving (even disloyalty to) U.S.
intelligence, and, by default, defending the Kremlin.
So politician that he is, and one who is trying to win the White House, Sanders told the
Post :
"I don't care, frankly, who Putin wants to be president. My message to Putin is clear:
Stay out of American elections, and as president I will make sure that you do. In 2016,
Russia used Internet propaganda to sow division in our country, and my understanding is that
they are doing it again in 2020."
The Times quoted Sanders as calling Russian President Vladimir Putin an "autocratic
thug." The paper reported Sanders saying in a statement: "Let's be clear, the Russians want to
undermine American democracy by dividing us up and, unlike the current president, I stand
firmly against their efforts and any other foreign power that wants to interfere in our
election."
Responding to a cacophony of criticism that Sanders' supporters are especially vicious
online, as opposed to the millions of other vicious people online, Sanders attempted to use
Russia as a scapegoat, the way the Clinton campaign did in 2016. He said: "Some of the ugly
stuff on the Internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real
supporters."
But no matter how strong Sander's denunciations of Russia, his opponents will now target him
as being a tool of the Kremlin.
Mission accomplished.
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent
forThe Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe,Sunday Timesof London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached at[email protected]and
followed on Twitter @unjoe .
Let`s face it,even though Bernie is a moderate Social Democrat,at best.He`s the only one
capable of beating "the Orange"version of Hitler.But he sounds as if the DNC,big wigs,decide
to deny him the nomination;he`d go along with it.Just like before;when he even campaigned for
the"Crooked One(Hillary).I guess we`ll see.
Kim Dixon , February 24, 2020 at 04:31
The most-important element missed in this piece is this: Sanders is helping the DNC and
the MIC gin up fear of, and hatred for, the only other nuclear superpower on earth.
If you were around during the McCarthy years, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the '73
Arab/Israeli war, and all the other almost-Armageddon crises of Cold War One, you know that
nothing could be stupider and more-dangerous than that. The missiles still sit in their
silos, waiting for the next early-warning misunderstanding or proxy-war miscalculation to
send them flying.
Sanders lived through it all. He's supposed to be the furthest-Left pol in Congress. So
how can he possibly advocate for anything but detente and disarmament?
SteveK9 , February 24, 2020 at 20:18
I would really like to support Bernie, but statements like this make me shake my head.
It's more a reflection of America today I guess. Politicians believe to a man (or woman) that
they must put the hate on Putin and Russia or they have no chance. It doesn't matter that the
Russia garbage is 100% false. And, I don't mean they 'interfered' only a little there was
nothing, nothing at all. Even Trump has to go along with this propaganda. I don't know how
anyone can believe this idiotic (and incredibly dangerous, as you point out) rubbish at this
point. But you can't call your friends blanking morons.
J Gray , February 25, 2020 at 02:55
I think he successfully dodged a bullet but set himself up to offer comprehensive election
reform if he pulls out a victory .
or it is an early sign that he, the DNC & MIC are coming to terms. It doesn't have
that ring to it to me, like when Trump called for regime-change war in Venezuela &
defunding schools to build a space army. That was a clear on-the-record sell-out & got
him off the Impeachment hook the next day. Similar to when the Clinton signed the Telecom Act
to get off his.
They are still coming after Sanders too hard w/their McCarthiast attacks to feel like he
is siding with them. I think he has to do this because they are bundling his movement,
Venezuela and Russia into the new Red Scare.
"#JoeLauria's piece in #ConsortiumNews is excellent. He calmly sets out #Sanders'
political dilemma. The latest line from US intelligence agency stenographer media like
#NYTimes is that #Russians are helping both #Trump and Sanders because they simply want to
sow discord and cynicism about US democracy , they do not care who wins. #CaitlinJohnstone
neatly satirises this by writing a spoof article claiming that US intelligence agencies have
discovered #Bloomberg is being helped by Russians because he has two Russian
grandfathers.
It has reached the point , as Lauria shows, where any criticism of such US MSM nonsense
leaves the speaker open to the allegation that he is soft on/ naive about/complicit in
Russian election meddling. Without being a Trump supporter, one can understand Trump's rage
and contempt for what is going on .
Justin Glyn. Consortium News. Joe Lauria. Tony Kevin"
Tony Kevin , February 23, 2020 at 21:32
Sanders and Trump will survive this Deep State manipulation and attempted blackmail . They
will see off the Clintonistas and Deep State moles, and will go on to fight a tough but fair
election. Americans are sick of Russophobia.
jack , February 24, 2020 at 15:25
agreed – the Russiagate psyop is past its shelf life – BUT Deep State will
carry on – it's a global entity and they're into literally everything – no idea
how any known, normal governing structure can deal with it
Enough with the "Russia" BS already! It is clear to me the wealthy corporate Dems and the
MSM are behind all of the smear tactics against Bernie and anyone else who serves the
people
Enough with the "Russia" BS already! It is clear to me the wealthy corporate Dems and the
MSM are behind all of the smear tactics against Bernie and anyone else who serves the
people
Dfnslblty , February 23, 2020 at 09:07
Front page drama plus zero evidence began long ago with 'anonymous sources said "!
Complete lack of accountability on the part of the sources and on the part of the
reporters.
Thus we receive a "reality teevee " potus , and we are pleased to be hypnotised and
titillated.
A true revolution would demand CN-quality reportage and reject msm pablum.
JohnDoe , February 23, 2020 at 03:43
It's enough to look at the news on mainstream media to understand who's, as usual,
meddling in the elections. In the latest period for the first time I saw a lot of
enthusiastic comments and articles about Bernie Sanders. It's clear they are pushing him. But
why those who isolated him in during the primaries against Clinton are now supporting him?
It's obvious, that they want to get rid of Elizabeth Warren, first push ahead the weaker
candidates, then they'll switch their support towards another candidate, probably
Bloomberg.
delia ruhe , February 23, 2020 at 00:14
Well, thank you Joe Lauria! I am in trouble in several comment threads for suggesting that
the intel community is at it again, trying to ruin two campaigns by identifying the
candidates with Putin and the Kremlin. Now I can quote you. Excellent piece, as usual.
Deniz , February 22, 2020 at 22:44
Imagine Sanders and Trump, putting their differences aside and declaring war on the deep
state during a debate. They have the same enemies.
The same people who planted Steele's dirty dosier are going to try to steal Sanders
election from him. It wont be Trump and the Republicans who rigs the election against
Sanders.
SteveK9 , February 24, 2020 at 20:21
Trump actually seemed to want to help Bernie a bit (well, he keeps calling him 'Crazy
Bernie as well). He put out some tweet calling this latest rubbish, Hoax #7. But Bernie would
rather say something stupid, like 'I'm not a friend of Putin he is' talk about 5-year
olds.
Deniz , February 25, 2020 at 00:49
Its disappointing. Sanders heart seems to be in the right place, but when it comes time to
face the sinister forces that run the country for their own benefit, he will be absolutely
crushed.
This will never end.
No president will ever change anything.
The deep state tentacles will eventually kill us all.
I am going to go and enjoy what's left.
Marko , February 22, 2020 at 20:24
" But Sanders had known for a month about this assessment and only issued a statement
after the Post asked him for comment before publishing its uncorroborated story based on
anonymous sources Sanders was put in a difficult spot. If he said, "Show me the proof that
Russia is trying to help me," he ran the risk of being attacked for disbelieving (even
disloyalty to) U.S. intelligence, and, by default, defending the Kremlin. "
I suspect that Sanders was given a classified briefing a month ago , which he couldn't
disclose to the public. If so , and given that he didn't make this clear immediately after
being accused of withholding this information , he has only himself to blame for the
resulting "bad look".
JWalters , February 22, 2020 at 19:06
The corporate media has revealed itself to be a monopoly behind the scenes, working in
unison to trash Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. Even though Gabbard is only at a few
percent in the polls, her message is potentially devastating to the war profiteers who own
America's Vichy MSM.
"Congressman Oscar Callaway lost his Congressional election for opposing US entry into WW
1. Before he left office, he demanded investigation into JP Morgan & Co for purchasing
control over America's leading 25 newspapers in order to propagandize US public opinion in
favor of his corporate and banking interests, including profits from US participation in the
war."
war * profiteerstory. * blogspot. * com/p/war-profiteers-and-israels-bank.html
Thankfully, there is still a free American press, of which Consortium News is a stellar
example.
elmerfudzie , February 22, 2020 at 13:25
The CIA and DIA (it has about a dozen agencies under it and is much larger than any other
Intel agency) are supposed to monitor threats to our national security, that originate
abroad. Aside from a few closed door sessions with a select group of congresspersons, our
Intel agencies have practically no real democratic oversight and remain, for all intents and
purposes, a parallel government(s) well hidden from public view. In particular how they are
financed and what their actual annual budgets really are. How these agencies every managed to
seep into any electioneering process what so ever, is beyond me, since they are all
intentionally very surreptitious- by design. We ask questions and these Intel agencies are
quick to tout the usual phrase; that subject area is secret and needs to be addressed in
closed session, blah, blah, blah. Of course "secrecy" translates into, we do what we want
when we want and use information any way we want because our parallel governments represent
the best example(s) of a perpetual motion machine that does not require outside monitoring.
The origins of these "parallel entities" can be traced to the Rockefeller brothers and their
associated international corporations. There's the rub folks. Our citizens at large will
never overtake for the purposes of real monitoring, this empire and elephant in the room,
directly. However we do have one avenue left and it requires a rank and file demand from the
people to their state representatives demanding two long standing issues, they remain
unresolved and until a solution is found, will permit dark powers to side step every level of
democratic governments-anywhere.
The first is true campaign finance reform and the second is assigning, or rather, removing
the status of person-hood to corporate entities. The Rockefeller's used their corporate power
and wealth to influence legislative, judicial and executive bodies. They cannot help but do
as the puppet master commands! Be it some form of, corporatism, fascism, feudalism, monarchy,
oligarchy, even bankster-ism or any other "ism We as citizens at large must make every effort
to again, obtain true campaign finance reform and remove the lobbying presence inside the
beltway. Today, the corporate entity has risen to a level that completely overtakes and
smothers any authentic democratic representation, of and by the people. Originally (circa the
early1800's) American corporations were permitted to exist and papers were drawn based on the
specific duties they were about to perform, this for the benefit of the local community for
example, building a bridge. Once the job was completed, the incorporation was either
liquidated or remanded over to the relevant governing body for the purposes of reevaluating
the necessity of re-certifying the original incorporation papers. Old man Rockefeller changed
the governance and oversight privilege by forcing and promulgating legislation(s) such as
limited liability clauses, strategies to oppose competition, tax evasion schemes and
(eventually) assigning person-hood to corporate entities, thus creating a parallel government
within the government. It all began in Delaware and until we clear our heads and assign names
to the actual problems, as I've itemized here, our citizenry will never experience the
freedom to fashion our destiny. Please visit TUC radio's two part expose' by Richard
Grossman. It will help CONSORTIUMNEWS readers to understand just what a monumental task is
ahead for all of us. Work for a fair and equitable future in America, demand campaign finance
reform and kick the hustling lobbyists out of our government. Voters being choked to death
with senseless debates and useless candidates.
Jeff Harrison , February 22, 2020 at 12:36
The real threats to our democracy are our unaccountable surveillance state and the craven
politicians in Washington, DC. And, no, Ben, we can't keep our republic because we don't have
a sufficient mass of critical thinkers to run it. If we did, this kind of BS, having been
shot full of holes once, wouldn't get any air.
Alan Ross , February 22, 2020 at 10:37
Sanders may win the nomination and the election but he cannot get a break from some
purists on the left. His reaction may have been quite astute. When Sanders says that we
should station troops on the borders of Russia or arm the Ukrainians, then you can say he
really is anti-Russian. I have not heard all that he has said, but what I have heard sounds
so much like hot air put out by a left politician trying to deal with the ages-old
establishment and right wing smear that he is a pawn of the commies, a fellow traveler, a
pinko, and now an agent of a foreign power, a Russian asset and so on. There is real
criticism of Sanders, but his statements about Putin and Russia do not add up to much.
Skip Scott , February 22, 2020 at 09:51
Anyone who is still under the influence of the MSM hypnosis of RussiaGate, led by Rachel
Madcow, needs to think long and hard about this latest propaganda campaign. The real message
here is unless you support corporate sponsored warmonger from column A or B, you are a tool
of the "evil Rooskies". And the funny thing is, Sanders is "weak tea" when it comes to issues
of war and peace, and the feeding of the war machine at the government trough with no
limits.
The purpose of this BIG LIE of the "Intelligence" agencies is to make it impossible for
someone to be against the Forever War without being tarred as a "Foreign Agent", or at least
a "useful idiot", of the "EVIL ROOSKIES". To simply want peaceful coexistence on its own
merits is impossible.
Imagine if Sanders dared to mention that Putin enjoys substantial majority support inside
Russia, and seeks peaceful coexistence in a multi-polar world, instead of calling him an
"autocratic thug". Often for politicians, speaking the truth is a "bridge too far". I wonder
if Sanders (like Hillary) finds it necessary to hold "private" positions that differ from his
"public" positions? Or does he really believe his own BS?
I had not seen Mr Joe Lauria's article when I commented on Mr Ben Norton's story, but my
reply could fit here as well.
The idiot American public dismays me. To them, the "MSM news" and "celebrity gossip reports"
are equal and both to be wholeheartedly believed.
There is no point in trying to educate a resistant public in the differences between data and
gossip -- public doesn't care.
I weep for what we have lost -- a Constitution, a nation of free thinkers. My heart breaks
for the world's people, and what my country tries to do to them, with only a few resistant
other countries confronting and challenging America.
It is so difficult to know the truth of a situation and yet to know that almost no one
(statistically speaking) believes you.
Jim Hartz , February 23, 2020 at 12:04
A better distinction might be, concerning the intelligence of the American public, the one
Chomsky has used, rooted in Ancient Greek culture, that between KNOWLEDGE and OPINION.
Americans, of course, have OPINIONS about everything, but little KNOWLEDGE about much of
anything. And it seems their idea of FREEDOM is related to, bound up with, their having
OPINIONS about virtually EVERYTHING.
So much for our being a HIGHER life form.
We're in the process of destroying EVERYTHING, not just HIGHER LIFE FORMS [us], but all
flora and fauna, water and air on the planet–as I said, EVERYTHING. To paraphrase from
memory a citation by Perry Anderson from the work of heterodox Italian Marxist, Sebastiano
Timpanaro, "What we are witnessing is not the triumph of man over history, but the victory of
nature over man."
Tony , February 22, 2020 at 07:40
The Trump administration has pulled out of the INF missile treaty citing totally unproven
claims of Russian violations.
It also looks like allowing the START treaty on strategic nuclear missiles to lapse if we do
not stop it.
And so, in what sense would Putin want Trump to get re-elected?
Van Jones of CNN once described the original allegations of Russian meddling in US
elections as a 'great big nothing burger'.
Sounds right to me.
Sam F , February 22, 2020 at 07:24
When the secret agencies and mass media stop manipulating public opinion, despite their
oligarchy masters' ability to control election results anyway, we will know that they no
longer need deception to control the People. Simple force will do the job, with a few
marketing claims to assist in hiring goons to suppress any popular movement. Democracy is
completely lost, and the pretense of democracy will soon follow.
michael , February 22, 2020 at 07:03
Another foray into domestic politics by the CIA, with anonymous sources and no evidence
shown (as no evidence exists). Perhaps the CIA (which probably works for Putin, or Bloomberg,
or anyone who pays them best, but they are loyal to the US dollar only; and maybe heroin?) is
even now making up another Chris Steele/ Fusion GPS/ CrowdStrike dossier, getting that
Russian caterer to the Kremlin to pump out clickbait and sink both Trump and Sanders. Because
RUSSIANS!!! are "genetically driven" to interfere in American democracy. Next we'll have the
DNC (CIA) pushing Superpredator tropes such as "this enormous cohort of black and Latino
males" who "don't know how to behave in the workplace" and "don't have any prospects." With
this Clintonian (and Biden and Bloomberg) mindset, America will be increasing incarceration
once again. That $500,000 bribe the Clintons took from Putin in 2010 when Hillary was
Secretary of State probably plays a role.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Mark Esper have surprisingly noted that China,
not Russia, is America's #1 concern: "America's concerns about Beijing's commercial and
military expansion should be your concerns as well." Since Bill Clinton's Chinagate fiasco in
1996, Communist China, for a measly $million or so in illegal campaign donations, gained
permanent trade status, took millions of American jobs, and suddenly were allowed access to
advanced, even military technologies. This was the impetus for China's rise to be the
strongest nation in the world. There are no doubt statues of the Clintons all over China, and
soon to Hunter Biden, if his Chinese backed hedge funds do well. There are some rumors that
Bloomberg has transacted business with China, although doubtful he tried to build a hotel in
Beijing or Moscow, or the CIA would be all over it (for a cut)!
Realist , February 24, 2020 at 00:22
Esper is a dangerously deranged man who seems, at least to me, to be telegraphing his
intent, and certainly his desire, to get into a kinetic war with both Russia and China
(Washington already has most of the hybrid war tactics already fully operational), unless
English usage has changed so drastically that insults, overt threats and unrestrained bombast
are now part of calm, rational cordial diplomacy. I would not be surprised if neocon
mouthpieces like Esper are not secretly honing their rhetorical style to emulate the
exaggerated volume and enunciation of der ursprüngliche Führer.
Ma Laoshi , February 22, 2020 at 06:04
"So politician that he is" -- isn't this already on the slippery slope towards double
standards, that is, would say Hillary get a similar pass for making McCarthyite statements
like this? Isn't a dispassionate reading of the situation that Bernie is an inveterate
liar , and moreover specializing in the particular brand of lies that could get us all
into nuclear war? Whether it's character or merely age, haven't we seen enough to conclude
that Mr. Sanders would be much weaker still vis-a-vis the Deep State than Donald Trump turned
out to be?
For those without a dog in this fight, shouldn't it cause great merriment if the various
RussiaGaters devour each other? Mr. Sanders has seen for years that the "muh Putin" hoax will
be turned against him whenever needed. If he nonetheless persists, doesn't that show his
resignation that his role in this election circus is a very temporary one, like in '16? How
was that definition of insanity again?
If you want to fix America, then the Empire and Zionism are your enemies; so is the Dem
party that is inextricably wedded to these forces. Play along with them and–well what
can you expect.
aNanyMouse , February 22, 2020 at 13:29
Yeah, and Bernie sucked up to the Dem brass on the impeachment crap, even tho Tulsi had
the stones to at least abstain. How sad.
GMCasey , February 21, 2020 at 22:33
Dear DNC:
KNOCK IT OFF! The only person I am voting for President is the only one who is capable -- and
that is Bernie Sanders.
And really, with NATO breaking the agreement where they agreed to NOT go up to Russia's
border : it is getting very sad and embarrassing to be an American because the elected ones
make agreements and yet break so many. What with Turkey and Israel and Saudi Arabia trying to
disrupt the area, I am sure that Russia is too busy to bother disrupting America . Lately
America seems to disrupt itself for many ridiculous reasons. I am sorry that the gossip rags,
which used to be important newspapers have failed in supporting their First Amendment right
of Free speech . I just finished reading "ALL the Presidents Men. " What has happened to you,
Washington Post, because as a newspaper, you really used to be somebody. Please review your
past and become what you once were, a real genuine news source.
Sam F , February 23, 2020 at 09:18
Wikipedia: "In October 2013, the paper's longtime controlling family, the Graham family,
sold the newspaper to Nash Holdings, a holding company established by Jeff Bezos, for $250
million in cash."
Jim Hartz , February 23, 2020 at 12:37
One of the craziest ongoing media phenomena, prevalent in the Impeachment Hearings, is the
repeated claim that RUSSIA IS AT WAR WITH UKRAINE.
What kind of "Higher Life Form" enthusiastically EATS IT'S OWN SHIT?
Sam F , February 21, 2020 at 22:10
Mass media denouncing politicians based upon "information" from secret agencies are
propaganda operations, and should be sued for proof of their claims. But of course the
judiciary are tools of oligarchy as much as the mass media. No one has constitutional rights
in the US under our utterly corrupt judiciary, only paid party privileges.
Eddie S , February 21, 2020 at 21:55
Hmmm.. so those oh-so-clever Russkies (I mean they MUST-BE if they were able to outwit ALL
the US politicos -- who are immersed in the US political culture 24/7 as well as having
grown-up in this country and having billions of $ to spend -- in 2016 with a mere $100k of
Facebook ads) messed-up this time! They're supporting OPPOSING candidates, effectively
canceling-out their efforts ? Kinda strange, unless that whole 'Russia meddling' thing was a
vastly exaggerated distraction by a losing hawkish candidate and her party, further inflated
by a sensationalistic media and a predictably antagonistic military & intelligence
community??
There is NO "intel"; plenty of un-intel, shameless mendacity from these info=dictators
zionazi NYT and Wapoop drivel; hopefully the insouciant public is starting to see what a sham
these rats are. Hearst outdistanced.
Daniel , February 22, 2020 at 10:45
"Kinda strange, unless that whole 'Russia meddling' thing was a vastly exaggerated
distraction by a losing hawkish candidate and her party, further inflated by a
sensationalistic media and a predictably antagonistic military & intelligence
community??"
Exactly. Shame on Hillary Clinton and all who view the electorate with such disdain as to
have pushed this propaganda on us for the last three years, and continue to do so, obviously.
If either Hillary Clinton or the "sensationalistic media and a predictably antagonistic
military & intelligence community" had any integrity at all, they would have beaten Trump
handily in 2016, just as they condescendingly told us they would. They did not, though, and
have been outraged to have been exposed as the frauds they are ever since.
When your political party is nothing more than a marketing scheme designed to fool the
population, that population will turn on you. Imagine that. And no amount of Russia-gating
will save you. Shame on all who would continue this charade.
John Drake , February 21, 2020 at 21:33
Gosh I wish those so called intel people could make up their mind about whom the big bad
Ruskies are trying to help. One week its Trump, the next it is Sanders. Frankly on the face,
it sounds like bad intel to me.
But fortunately I am a regular reader of this site and Ray McGovern; and know it's all, to
put it politely , disinformation; or less politely a pile of diarrhea invented by Hillarybots
after a really really bad election day three years ago.
The only thing that disturbs me is the way Bernie buys into this Russiagate thing himself.
Maybe you all could send him a trove of articles debunking the whole mess, especially Ray and
Bill's forensics.
Fred Dean , February 23, 2020 at 03:52
When Durham starts indicting people and the story of the Deep State coup against the
President becomes common knowledge, Bernie's statements on Russiagate will be a liability.
Trump's people are digging up whatever videos they can of Bernie talking smack about
Trump/Russia. It is a crack in Bernie's armor and we can expect Trump to exploit. Bernie has
been such a toadie to the DNC. He cowers to the Democratic establishment because he fears
they will pull his credentials to run as a Democrat.
OlyaPola , February 23, 2020 at 08:08
"Gosh I wish those so called intel people could make up their mind about whom the big bad
Ruskies are trying to help."
Output is a function of framing and consequently the intelligence community/opponents are
helping others including the Russians who encourage such help by doing nothing.
KiwiAntz , February 21, 2020 at 21:26
What a shambolic mess of a Nation that America is! Nothing more than a Billionaire's
Banana Republic? A International laughingstock ruled by a Oligarchy, masquerading as a
Democracy? And if all else fails to get rid of Bernie Saunders by vote rigging or
gerrymandering or other nefarious acts of sabotage with Superdelegates stealing the
nominations then resurrect the bogus Russiagate Conspiracy, a ridiculous failed & faked
experiment to gaslight, spook & confuse the population again? Wouldn't it be delicious if
Russiagate was actually TRUE, it would be payback for the USA, a Nation that meddles in the
affairs & politics of every other Country on Earth, overthrowing & regime changing
everyone who doesn't "bend the knee" to America, the most corrupt & evil Nation on Earth
since Nazi Germany! I've never seen a more propagandised or mindf**ked People on Earth than
the American people! It must be soul destroying to live in this Country & have to put up
with this nonsense, day in, day out?
Ian , February 22, 2020 at 02:47
Yes, it is. Living with the infuriating unreality and militaristic worldview that is so
cultivated here takes a personal emotional and intellectual toll. No place is perfect, but
when I travel to Europe I feel a weight lifted.
Broompilot , February 22, 2020 at 03:50
Kiwi you may have a point.
ML , February 22, 2020 at 09:19
Yep. But for those of us with our critical thinking skills intact, we won't let it be soul
destroying, Kiwi. Still, the daily crapload of bs we are fed in the "legacy" press is
aggravating beyond the beyonds. Cheers, fellow Earthling.
Daniel , February 22, 2020 at 11:09
I hear you, KiwiAntz. It IS soul destroying to withstand this onslaught of disinformation
each and every day. There is a rhythm to it that is undeniable, too. One can almost predict
when the next propaganda hit will come, as here – after their latest would-be savior,
Mike Bloomberg, imploded on live TV, and with Bernie looking more and more inevitable.
Our reality in the US today is that we have to fight against our own media to approach
anything resembling a reasonable discussion about what is important to vast majorities (mean
tweets and fake memes aren't it) or to champion candidates who display even the slightest
integrity. But, of course, it is not 'our' media. It is 'theirs.' And they will continue to
abuse us with it until we reject it completely.
robert e williamson jr , February 23, 2020 at 20:31
I see things pretty clearly for what they are and the billionaire democrats are heading
for a train wreck and I hate to admit I cannot look away.
Trump is just another self serving U.S. president leaving a stain in America's underwear
adding to the humongous pile of America's dirty laundry.
When the demographics finally dictate it change will come and likely not before. On that
note I wold like to reach out here. Justin King, who goes as Beau on the net runs a site
called the Fifth Column News and does a ton of informative and educational videos on many
various topics. .
If you go to youtube, search and watch each of the videos I'm about to list here you stand
to learn quite a lot about how Americans got screwed by the two party system without really
realizing it. Plenty of blame to go around , no doubt though. You will also learn of the
changing demographics in American politics. Many of the poor, minorities and youth of the
country are coming into politics for they stand to lose everything if they don't change the
status quo.
Feb 11 2020 runs 6:21 minutes and seconds- Search terms, Beau Lets talk about the parties
switching and the party of trump
Feb 15 2020 runs 4:11 Search terms, Beau Lets talk about dancing left and dancing
right
Feb 20 2020 runs 10:44 Search terms, Beau Lets talk about misunderstanding Bernie's
supporters
This last video is a long video by Justin's standards. Most of his videos are under 7
minutes.
Much thanks to CN this site and the Fifth Column New site give me strength and bolster my
courage by allowing me to know that there are those of us who know what gong on and know
things must change.
NY Times is citing "people familiar with the situation." How the mighty have fallen. What
about Shadow, and the Iowa caucuses, and Buttigieg? That was real. This is absolute
horseshit.
> Apparent US Intel Meddling in US Election With 'Report' Russia is Aiding Sanders
It looks like the CIA is short of ideas on how to meddle in the elections. Trump had a
very similar briefing on January 6, 2017 -- with Brennan, Clapper, Rogers, and Comey -- on
Russia allegedly aiding his campaign. As well without any evidence.
Charlene Richards , February 22, 2020 at 14:47
Russia couldn't possibly do the damage to Sanders that the DNC and Democrat Establishment
elites are doing out in the open every day with the MSM as their prime propagandists.
As they say in wrestling, it's all "a work".
richard baker , February 22, 2020 at 10:55
Bart Hansen , February 22, 2020 at 18:27
Looking at the comments at the Post and Times, I'd say you are on target. Oh, for the Kool
Aid contract at those organs of misinformation and omission.
(newatlas.com)BeauHD on Monday June 17,
2019 @09:25PM from the easier-than-it-should-be dept. It is now possible to take a talking-head
style video, and add, delete or edit the speaker's
words as simply as you'd edit text in a word processor . A new deepfake algorithm can
process the audio and video into a new file in which the speaker says more or less whatever you
want them to. New Atlas reports: It's the work of a collaborative team from Stanford
University, Max Planck Institute for Informatics, Princeton University and Adobe Research, who
say that in a perfect world the technology would be used to cut down on expensive re-shoots
when an actor gets something wrong, or a script needs to be changed. In order to learn the face
movements of a speaker, the algorithm requires about 40 minutes of training video, and a
transcript of what's being said, so it's not something that can be thrown onto a short video
snippet and run if you want good results. That 40 minutes of video gives the algorithm the
chance to work out exactly what face shapes the subject is making for each phonetic syllable in
the original script.
From there, once you edit the script, the algorithm can then create a 3D model of the
face making the new shapes required. And from there, a machine learning technique called Neural
Rendering can paint the 3D model over with photo-realistic textures to make it look basically
indistinguishable from the real thing. Other software such as VoCo can be used if you wish to
generate the speaker's audio as well as video, and it takes the same approach, by breaking down
a heap of training audio into phonemes and then using that dataset to generate new words in a
familiar voice.
Adobe's Experimental AI Tool Can Tell If Something's Been Photoshopped (theinquirer.net) 65
Posted by BeauHD on Monday June 17,
2019 @07:20PM from the ctrl-z dept. Adobe and UC Berkeley researchers are
working on tool that
can tell if a photo has been manipulated in Adobe Photoshop . The goal is to cut down on
fake content and "to increase trust and authority in digital media." TheINQUIRER reports: A
bunch of images were created using Photoshop's "Face Aware
Liquify" tool , and mixed with a set of expertly human-doctored photographs. When humans
were shown the original image and the doctored version, they spotted the fakes 53 percent of
the time, but the artificial intelligence hit 99 percent. That's pretty good -- changing a coin
toss guess into near certainty, but the AI isn't quite done showboating. As well as being able
to point out what areas might have been changed, the AI can also predict what methods have been
used to change the image.
Better still, it'll have a stab at undoing the vandalism, and returning the image to its
former untampered glory. Not perfectly, but well enough to impress the researchers all the
same: it's like having an undo button on someone else's work, and who hasn't always wanted one
of those? "It might sound impossible because there are so many variations of facial geometry
possible," said Professor Alexei A. Efros of UC Berkeley. "But, in this case, because deep
learning can look at a combination of low-level image data, such as warping artifacts, as well
as higher level cues such as layout, it seems to work."
Forget Where's Wally, what we really want to know is where are the Skripals? It's exactly two years to
the day since the Russian spy and his daughter were novichoked in Salisbury, and we've still not seen
hide nor hair of them.
Former double agent Sergei has been completely off-grid, while Yulia Skripal was seen in a highly
staged video in 2018, filmed in an anonymous but pleasant leafy glade shortly after recovering from
her poisoning ordeal; but, apart from that, there has been no statements or updates about them at all.
The most recent piece of 'information', and I use that term loosely, to leak out about their whereabouts came this weekend
from Britain's Mail on Sunday, courtesy of a source which became ubiquitous throughout the Skripal
saga, the reliably unreliable
"security insiders."
It's always amazing how willing these
apparent insiders are to release top-level secrets to the home of the
"sidebar of shame."
The latest speculation from 'security insiders' is that the Skripals are hoping to head for a new
life down under in Australia after
"effectively living under house arrest since the attack."
This means either those insiders are the leakiest spies in the world, or the Skripals are going to be
nowhere near
Australia
anytime soon.
The house arrest must be at Julian Assange in Belmarsh levels of security, because even the
Skripals' family in Russia say they haven't heard from them in months.
So all quiet on the Skripal front and, frankly speaking, it's all quiet on the geopolitical front,
too, and in the media. The disputed events of March 4, 2018, over poisoned spies and their aftermath
formed the biggest story on the planet, and not just because the whole world finally started paying
attention to the majesty of Salisbury cathedral's glorious 123-metre spire.
This incident seemed like it might have genuine life-changing political consequences. Britain
entered the phrase
"highly likely"
into the lexicon of geopolitics, and [then-PM] Theresa
May's declaration that it was
"highly likely"
that the Kremlin was to blame was deemed strong
enough to see the West turn en masse against Moscow, and Russian diplomats and 'diplomats' were
expelled by the dozen, by London and its allies across the world. It seemed the bar for state-to-state
accusations had been lowered.
Russia to this day denies involvement in what happened in Salisbury.
So what has changed? If anything, all that has changed over the last two years is a desire to get
back to business, to rebuild ties and move on. Some of those expelled diplomats have reportedly moved
back
.
French leader Emmanuel Macron is pushing hard for relations between the West and Moscow to be
repaired, something Germany needs little encouragement for.
The Brexit dividend (for Russia)... In 2019, British imports of Russian
oil jumped by a whopping 57% compared to the previous year, as Boris Johnson's government
unleashed the potential of their country.
https://t.co/ZSIJGvpFif
Britain is still pretending to be in a huff, but British imports of Russian oil were up 57 percent
last year, so realpolitik reigns supreme in London, as ever.
Boris Johnson is now the prime minister and with a thumping majority doesn't need to use bogeyman
Russia as a tool to look strong quite as much as his predecessor did. Johnson and Putin even met in
January and there are reports the prime minister is considering an invitation to attend a second world
war commemoration
parade
in Moscow this May.
And as for the media, it's all gone quiet there, too. Skripal coverage is about as common in the
mainstream now as coverage of Julian Assange's imprisonment. He's a journalist whose supporters say is
'highly likely' a victim of a demonstrable state campaign against him because he attempted to uncover
the misdeed of power. However, a boring attack on free speech is nowhere near as exciting as a
poisoned spy, is it?!
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Simon Rite
is a writer based in London for RT, in charge of several projects including the political
satire group #ICYMI. Follow him on Twitter
@SiWrites
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
"... I tried to sorta warm people on other sites that while they were looking for Russians at the front door, the gop was coming in the bad door for some rather nasty election interference. ..."
"... Of course what we are seeing now is democrats cheating other democrats. But that reality will never be acknowledged because, hey, it never happened before. Just unintentional mistakes like in Iowa (farm folk cheating -- no way) or Brooklyn. ..."
What you describe is probably why Russiagate spread so easily to so many people. Nothing
happened in previous elections? Everything you describe never happened as you point out. The
American electoral system was and is pristine and virginal.
Until the Russians came and destroyed American democracy through social media themes,
memes, and retweets.
The American electoral system was never brutally corrupted by rigged votes, voter
suppression on the scale of hundreds of thousands, deliberately miscounted votes, voter
fraud, etc. Americans never did to each other anything as bad as what the Russians did to
Americans.
Of course, for me never worked as I worked in primaries of a democratic machine dominated
city. I tried to sorta warm people on other sites that while they were looking for
Russians at the front door, the gop was coming in the bad door for some rather nasty election
interference.
Of course what we are seeing now is democrats cheating other democrats. But that
reality will never be acknowledged because, hey, it never happened before. Just unintentional
mistakes like in Iowa (farm folk cheating -- no way) or Brooklyn.
This is simply pretty dirty and pretty effective propaganda trick. And it make intelligence agencies the third political party
participating in the USA elections. With the right of veto.
Based on the tone of Tuesday's Democratic debate, you would think the Kremlin has already
determined the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Former Vice President Joe Biden said
Russians are "engaged now, as I speak, in interfering in our election." Billionaire Tom Steyer
said there is "an attack by a hostile foreign power on our democracy right now." Former New
York Mayor Mike Bloomberg charged that
Russia was backing Sen. Bernie Sanders , I-Vt., to ensure a Trump victory in November.
But the Russian interference narrative has become entrenched. When intelligence community
election expert Shelby Pierson speculated to the House Intelligence Committee in a closed-door
meeting that Russia was trying to help President Trump get reelected, it quickly leaked, became
a front-page story in The New York Times and precipitated the usual outrage. It took a few days
for the less dramatic truth to catch up -- that there was
no evidence for the "misleading" supposition that the Kremlin is pro-Trump; at best Russia
may have a "preference" for a "deal-maker."
An alternative view that has been circulating for several years suggests that it was not a
hack at all, that it was a deliberate whistleblower-style
leak of information carried out by an as yet unknown party, possibly Rich, that may have
been provided to WikiLeaks for possible political reasons, i.e. to express disgust with the DNC
manipulation of the nominating process to damage Bernie Sanders and favor Hillary Clinton.
There are, of course, still other equally non-mainstream explanations for how the bundle of
information got from point A to point B, including that the intrusion into the DNC server was
carried out by the CIA which then made it look like it had been the Russians as
perpetrators. And then there is the hybrid point of view, which is essentially that the
Russians or a surrogate did indeed intrude into the DNC computers but it was all part of normal
intelligence agency probing and did not lead to anything. Meanwhile and independently, someone
else who had access to the server was downloading the information, which in some fashion made
its way from there to WikiLeaks.
Both the hack vs. leak viewpoints have marshaled considerable technical analysis in the
media to bolster their arguments, but the analysis suffers from the decidedly strange fact that
the FBI never even examined the DNC servers that may have been involved. The hack school of
thought has stressed that Russia had both the ability and motive to interfere in the election
by exposing the stolen material while the leakers have recently asserted that the sheer volume of
material downloaded indicates that something like a higher speed thumb drive was used,
meaning that it had to be done by someone with actual physical direct access to the DNC system.
Someone like Seth Rich.
... ... ...
Given all of that back story, it would be odd to find Trump making an offer that focuses
only on one issue and does not actually refute the broader claims of Russian interference,
which are based on a number of pieces of admittedly often dubious evidence, not just the
Clinton and Podesta emails.
Which brings the tale back to Seth Rich. If Rich was indeed responsible for the theft of the
information and was possibly killed for his treachery, it most materially impacts on the
Democratic Party as it reminds everyone of what the Clintons and their allies are capable
of.
It will also serve as a warning of what might be coming at the Democratic National
Convention in Milwaukee in July as the party establishment uses fair means or foul to stop
Bernie Sanders. How this will all play out is anyone's guess, but many of those who pause to
observe the process will be thinking of Seth Rich.
I don't ascribe to the idea that the intel agencies kill American citizens without a great
deal of thought, but in Rich's case, they probably felt like they had no choice. Think about
it: The DNC had already rigged the primary against Bernie, the Podesta emails had already
been sent to Wikileaks, and if Rich's cover was blown, then he would publicly identify
himself as the culprit (which would undermine the Russiagate narrative) which would split the
Democratic party in two leaving Hillary with no chance to win the election.
I can imagine Hillary and her intel connections looking for an alternative to whacking
Rich but eventually realizing that there was no other way to deflect responsibility for the
emails while paving the way for an election victory.
If Seth Rich went public, then Hillary would certainly lose.
I imagine this is what they were thinking when they decided there was really only one
option.
"I have watched incredulous as the CIA's blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story
– blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is
no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton's corruption." https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/
@plantman It's more than Hillary losing. It would have been easy to connect the dots of
the entire plot to get Trump. Furthermore, it would have linked Obama and his cohorts in ways
that the country might have exploded. This was the beginning of a Coup De'tat that would have
shown the American political process is a complete joke.
To understand why the DNC mobsters and the Deep State hate him, watch this great 2016
interview where Assange calmly explains the massive corruption that patriotic FBI agents
refer to as the "Clinton Crime Family." This gang is so powerful that it ordered federal
agents to spy on the Trump political campaign, and indicted and imprisoned some participants
in an attempt to pressure President Trump to step down. It seems Trump still fears this gang,
otherwise he would order his attorney general to drop this bogus charge against Assange, then
pardon him forever and invite him to speak at White House press conferences.
Well, here was my own take on the controversy a couple of years ago, and I really haven't
seen anything to change my mind:
Well, DC is still a pretty dangerous city, but how many middle-class whites were
randomly murdered there that year while innocently walking the streets? I wouldn't be
surprised if Seth Rich was just about the only one.
Julian Assange has strongly implied that Seth Rich was the source of the DNC emails that
cost Hillary Clinton the presidency. So if Seth Rich died in a totally random street
killing not long afterward, isn't that just the most astonishing coincidence in all of
American history?
Consider that the leaks effectively nullified the investment of the $2 billion or so
that her donors had provided, and foreclosed the flood of good jobs and appointments to her
camp-followers, not to mention the oceans of future graft. Seems to me that's a pretty good
motive for murder.
Here's my own plausible speculation from a couple of months ago:
Incidentally, I'd guess that DC is a very easy place to arrange a killing, given that
until the heavy gentrification of the last dozen years or so, it was one of America's
street-murder capitals. It seems perfectly plausible that some junior DNC staffer was at
dinner somewhere, endlessly cursing Seth Rich for having betrayed his party and
endangered Hillary's election, when one of his friends said he knew somebody who'd be
willing to "take care of the problem" for a thousand bucks
Let's say a couple of hundred thousand middle-class whites lived in DC around then, and
Seth Rich was about the only one that year who died in a random street-killing, occurring not
long after the leak.
Wouldn't that seem like a pretty unlikely coincidence?
"If Rich was indeed responsible for the theft of the information and was possibly killed for
his treachery ."
Heroism is the proper term for what Seth Rich did. He saw the real treachery, against
Bernie Sanders and the democratic faithful who expect at least a modicum of integrity from
their Party leaders (even if that expectation is utterly fanciful, wishful thinking), and he
decided to act. He paid for it with his life. A young, noble life.
In every picture I've seen of him, he looks like a nice guy, a guy who cared. And now he's
dead. And the assholes at the DNC simply gave him a small plaque over a bike rack, as I
understand it.
Seth Rich: American Hero. A Truth-Teller who paid the ultimate price.
Great reporting, Phil. Another home run.
(And thanks to Ron for chiming in. Couldn't agree more. As a Truth-Teller extraordinaire,
please watch your back, Bro. And Phil, too. You both know what these murderous scum are
capable of.)
Because the {real} killers of JFK, MLK and RFK were never detained and jailed/hanged, why
would one expect a lesser known, more ordinary individual's murder [Seth] to be solved?
Seymour Hersh, in a taped phone conversation, claimed to have access to an FBI report on the
murder. According to Hersh, the report indicated tha FBI Cyber Unit examined Rich's computer
and found he had contacted Wikileaks with the intention of selling the emails.
Another reason Assange may not want to reveal it, if Seth Rich was a source for Wikileaks,
could be that Seth Rich didn't act alone, and revealing Seth's involvement would compromise
the other(s).
Or it could simply be that Wikileaks has promised to never reveal a source, even after
that source's death, as a promise to future potential sources, who may never want their
identities revealed, to avoid the thought of embarrassment or repercussions to their
associates or families.
Incidentally, they only started really going after Assange after the Vault 7 leaks of the
CIA's active bag of software tricks. I think, for Assange's sake, they should instead have
held on to that, and made it the payload of a dead man's switch.
I'm not sure how credible the source is but Ellen Ratner, the sister of Assange's former
lawyer and a journalist, told Ed Butowsky that Assange told her that it was Seth Rich. She
asked Butowsky to contact Rich's parents. She confirms the Assange meeting in an interview,
link below. Butowsky does not seem to be a credible source but Ratner does. If it was Seth
Rich then I have no doubt that his brother knows the details and the family does not want to
lose another son.
"According to Assange's lawyers, Rohrabacher offered a pardon from President Trump if Assange
were to provide information that would attribute the theft or hack of the Democratic National
Committee emails to someone other than the Russians."
Not to quibble on semantics but Rohrabacher met with Assange to ask if he would be willing
to reveal the source of the emails then Rohrabacher would contact Trump and try to make deal
for Assange's freedom. Rohrabacher clarified that he never talked to Trump or that he was
authorized by Trump to make any offer.
The MSM has been using the "amnesty if you say it was not the Russians" narrative to hint
at a coverup by Russian agent Trump. Normal for the biased MSM.
Giraldi's link "Assange did not take the offer" has nothing to do with Rohrabacher's
contact. It's just a general piece on Assange acting as a journalist should act.
I'm of the opinion Ron Unz seems to share, that Rich was not a particularly "big hitter" in
the DNC hierarchy and that his murder was more likely the result of a very nasty inter-party
squabble. I seem to recall a LOT of very nasty talk between the Jewish neocons in the Bush
era and the decent, traditional "small-government" style Republicans who greatly resented the
neocons' hijacking of the GOP for their demonic zionist agenda.
Common sense would suggest that the zionist types who have (obviously) hijacked the DNC
are at least as nasty and ruthless as the neocons who destroyed any decency or fair-play
within the GOP. It's not exactly hard to believe that these Murder, Inc. types (also lefties
of their era) wouldn't hesitate to whack someone like Rich for merely uttering a criticism of
Israel, for example.
Hell, Meyer Lansky ordered the hit-job on Bugsy Seigel for forgetting to bring bagels to a
sit-down ! There was a great web-site by a mobster of that era, long since taken down, who
described the story in detail. I forget the names .. but I'll see if I can't find a copy of
some of the pieces posted at least a decade ago .
It's not exactly hard to imagine some very nasty words being exchanged between the Rahm
Emmanuel types and decent Chicago citizens, for example, who genuinely cared for their city
and weren't afraid of The Big Jew and his mobster cronies . to their detriment I'm sure.
We're talking about organized crime, here, folks. The zionists make the so-called (mostly
fictitious) Sicilian Mafia look like newborn puppies. They wouldn't hesitate to whack a guy
like Rich for taking their favorite space in the bicycle rack.
My only trouble with the Seth Rich thing is, it seems a bit extreme, they seem quite callous
in murdering foreigners but US citizens in the US who are their staffers? If they really were
prepared to go out and kill in this way, they're be a lot more suspicious deaths.
What makes the case most compelling is the very quick investigation by police that looks
like they were told by somebody concerned about how the whole thing looked to close up the
case nice and quickly. That and the fact that he was shot in the back, which doesn't make
sense for an attempted robbery turned murder.
However, it may also be that as in so many cities in the US, murder clearance rates for
street shootings (Little forensic evidence, can only go by witness accounts or through poor
alibis from usual suspects and their associates. In this case there is also no connection
between Rich and any possible shooter with no witnesses.) are just so very low that DC police
don't bother and Seth Rich's death just happened to be one such case that attracted some
scrutiny.
But then maybe for the reasons above a place like DC is perfect to just murder somebody on
the street and that's why they were so brazen about it.
Seth Rich's death just happened to be one such case that attracted some scrutiny.
Well, upthread someone posted a recording of a Seymour Hersh phone call that confirmed
Seth Rich was the fellow who leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks, thereby possibly swinging
the presidential election to Trump and overcoming $2 billion of Democratic campaign
advertising.
Shortly afterwards, he probably became about the only middle-class white in DC who died in
a "random street killing" that year. If you doubt this, see if you can find any other such
cases that year.
I think it is *extraordinarily* unlikely that these two elements are unconnected and
merely happened together by chance.
In a remarkable statement that has gone virtually unreported in the American media,
Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination,
publicly denounced US intelligence agencies for interfering in the presidential contest and
attempting to sabotage the campaign of Democratic frontrunner Bernie Sanders.
In an opinion column published February 27 by the Hill , Gabbard attacked the
article published by the Washington Post on February 21, the eve of the Nevada
caucuses, which claimed that Russia was intervening in the US election to support Sanders. She
also criticized the decision of billionaire Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York
City, to repeat the anti-Russia slander against Sanders during the February 25 Democratic
presidential debate in South Carolina.
Gabbard is a military officer in a National Guard medical unit who has been deployed to Iraq
and Kuwait and has continuing and close contact with the Pentagon. She is obviously familiar
with the machinations of the US military-intelligence apparatus and knows whereof she speaks.
Her harsh and uncompromising language is that much more significant.
She wrote:
Enough is enough. I am calling on all presidential candidates to stop playing these
dangerous political games and immediately condemn any interference in our elections by
out-of-control intelligence agencies. A "news article" published last week in the
Washington Post, which set off yet another manufactured media firestorm, alleges
that the goal of Russia is to trick people into criticizing establishment Democrats. This is
a laughably obvious ploy to stifle legitimate criticism and cast aspersions on Americans who
are rightly skeptical of the powerful forces exerting control over the primary election
process.
We are told the aim of Russia is to "sow division," but the aim of corporate media and
self-serving politicians pushing this narrative is clearly to sow division of their own -- by
generating baseless suspicion against the Sanders campaign. It's extremely disingenuous for
"journalists" and rival candidates to publicize a news article that merely asserts, without
presenting any evidence, that Russia is "helping" Bernie Sanders -- but provides no
information as to what that "help" allegedly consists of.
Gabbard continued:
If the CIA, FBI or any other intelligence agency is going to tell voters that "Russians"
are interfering in this election to help certain candidates -- or simply "sow discord" --
then it needs to immediately provide us with the details of what exactly it's alleging.
After pointing out that the Democratic Party establishment and the corporate media have had
little interest in measures to actually improve election security, such as requiring paper
ballots or some other form of permanent record of how people vote, Gabbard demanded:
The FBI, CIA or any other intelligence agency should immediately stop smearing
presidential candidates with innuendo and vague, evidence-free assertions. That is
antithetical to the role those agencies play in a free democracy. The American people cannot
have faith in our intelligence agencies if they are pushing an agenda to harm candidates they
dislike.
As socialists, we do not share Gabbard's belief that the intelligence agencies have a
positive role to play or that the American people need to have faith in them. As her military
career demonstrates, she is a supporter of American imperialism and of the capitalist state.
However, her opposition to the "dirty tricks" campaign against Sanders is entirely legitimate
and puts the spotlight on a deeply anti-democratic operation by the military-intelligence
apparatus.
Gabbard denounces this "new McCarthyism" and calls on her fellow candidate to rebuff the CIA
smears and "defend the freedoms enshrined in our Constitution." Not a single one of the
remaining candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination -- including Sanders himself --
has responded to her appeal.
Her statement concludes that the goal of the "mainstream corporate media and the
warmongering political establishment" was either to block Sanders from winning the nomination,
or, if he does become the nominee, to "force him to engage in inflammatory anti-Russia rhetoric
and perpetuate the new Cold War and nuclear arms race, which are existential threats to our
country and the world."
Despite Gabbard's appeal for the Democratic candidates not to be "manipulated and forced
into a corner by overreaching intelligence agencies," the Democratic Party establishment has
been working in lockstep with the intelligence agencies in the anti-Russia campaign against
Trump, which began even before election day in 2016, metastasized into the Mueller
investigation and then the effort to impeach Trump over his delay in the dispatch of military
aid to Ukraine for its war with Russian-backed separatist forces.
Her comments are a complete vindication of what the World Socialist Web Site has
written about the anti-Russia campaign and impeachment: these were efforts by the Democratic
Party, acting as the representative of the military-intelligence apparatus, to block the
emergence of genuine left-wing popular opposition to Trump, and to channel popular hostility to
this administration in a right-wing and pro-imperialist direction.
Gabbard herself was the only House Democrat to abstain on impeachment, although she did not
voice any principled grounds for her vote, such as opposition to the intelligence agencies. She
has based her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination largely on an appeal to
antiwar sentiment, particularly opposing US intervention in Syria. She has also said that if
elected, she would drop all charges against Julian Assange and pardon Edward Snowden.
These views led to a vicious attack by Hillary Clinton, the defeated Democratic presidential
candidate in 2016, who last October called Gabbard "a Russian asset," claiming that she was
being groomed by Russia to serve as a third-party candidate in 2020 who would take votes away
from the Democratic nominee and help re-elect President Trump. "She's the favorite of the
Russians," Clinton claimed.
Since Clinton's attack, the Democratic National Committee has excluded Gabbard from its
monthly debates, manipulating the eligibility requirements so that billionaire Michael
Bloomberg would qualify even for debates held in states where he was not on the ballot but
Gabbard was, such as Nevada and South Carolina.
Back in January, well before the Democratic primary race had taken on its current
composition, independent journalist
Ruth Ann Oskolkoff reported that a source had heard from high-level Democratic Party
insiders that they were planning to install Joe Biden as the party's nominee, and to smear
Bernie Sanders as a Russian asset.
"On January 20, 2020 at 8:20 p.m. PDT I received a communication from a reliable source,"
Oskolkoff wrote.
"This person had interactions earlier that evening with high level party members and
associates of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) who said that they have now selected
Biden as the Democratic Party nominee, with Warren as the VP. They also said the plan is to
smear Bernie as a Russian asset."
Now, immediately before Super Tuesday, we are seeing establishment candidates
Pete Buttigieg and
Amy Klobuchar drop out of the race, both of whom, along with
former candidate Beto O'Rourke , are now suddenly endorsing Biden. Elizabeth Warren, the
only top-level candidate besides Sanders who could be labeled vaguely "left" by any stretch of
the imagination, has meanwhile
outraged progressives by remaining in the race, to the Vermont senator's detriment.
Prior to the South Carolina primary, Russian state media were touting Bernie Sanders as
the most likely Democratic nominee, and it won't be surprising if they do the same after
Super Tuesday https://t.co/mH98PVmcjr
This latter development is becoming a conspicuously common line of attack against Sanders
and, while we're on the subject, also tracks with a prediction made by journalist Max Blumenthal back in
July of 2017. Blumenthal told Fox's Tucker Carlson that "this Russia hysteria will be
re-purposed by the political establishment to attack the left and anyone on the left -- a
Bernie Sanders-like politician who steps out of line on the issues of permanent war or
corporate free trade, things like that -- will be painted as Russia puppets. So this is very
dangerous, and people who are progressive who are falling into it need to know what the
long-term consequences of this cynical narrative are."
So we're seeing things unfold exactly as some have predicted. We're seeing the clear
frontrunner smeared as a tool of Vladimir Putin, accompanied by a deluge of op-eds and think
pieces from all the usual
warmongering mass media narrative managers calling on so-called "moderates" to rally around
the former Vice President on Super Tuesday.
"Whatever the case for either Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren...neither is going to be
the nominee. And...it's not going to be Mike Bloomberg either. So it's Bernie Sanders or Joe
Biden." Tomorrow, if you live in one of 14 states, you can choose Biden. https://t.co/btuPbGtWxG
And the prediction markets have seen a massive surge for Biden and plunge for Bernie...
With Biden now surging into the lead
The only problem? Biden's brain is turning into sauerkraut.
There are two new clips of video footage making the rounds today, one featuring Biden at a
rally telling his supporters that tomorrow is "Super Thursday" ,
and another featuring the former VP saying (and this is a direct quote ),
"We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women created -- by the -- you know, you
know the thing."
And yeah, it's unpleasant to have to keep pointing this out. I'm not loving it myself. I
resent Biden's handlers and the Democratic Party establishment for making it necessary to
continually point out an old man's obvious symptoms of cognitive decline. But it does need to
be pointed to, and it's creepy and weird that they're continuing to prop up this crumbling husk
of a man while pretending that everything's fine.
Not that Biden would be an acceptable leader of the most powerful government on earth even
with a working brain; he's a horrible war hawk
with an
inexcusable track record of advancing right-wing policies. But even rank-and-file Americans
who don't pay attention to that stuff would plainly see a man on the debate stage opposite
Trump who shouldn't be permitted near heavy machinery, much less the nuclear codes. And Trump
will happily point that out.
It's been obvious since 2016 that the Dems were going to once again sabotage the only
candidate with a chance of beating Trump in favor of a scandalously inappropriate candidate,
but wheeling out an actual, literal dementia patient for the role is something not even I would
have imagined.
"... The Democrats did not want Adam Schiff to have to answer questions about the whistleblower, and they don't want the whistleblower's identity to be officially revealed. Such things do not contribute to the greatest cause of our time, the destruction of Donald Trump. ..."
"... The whole point of having the House impeachment investigation proceed from the House Intelligence Committee, headed by Adam Schiff, was to send the signal that Trump is unacceptable to the nefarious powers that make up the Deep State, especially the intelligence agencies, especially the CIA. ..."
"... What a world, then, when OP Democrats are cheering on John Bolton, hoping again for a savior to their sacred resistance cause, and meanwhile they aren't too excited about Rand Paul's intervention. For sure, it is a sign that a "resistance" isn't real when it needs a savior; it's not as if the French Resistance sat back waiting for Gen. de Gaulle. In any case, in the procession of horrible reactionary figures that Democrats have embraced, Bolton is probably the worst, and that's saying quite a lot. ..."
"... People are even talking about "getting used to accepting the help of the CIA with the impeachment," and the like. (I realize I'm being repetitious here, but this stuff blows my mind, it is so disturbing.) At least they are recognizing the reality -- at least partially; that's something. But then what they do with this recognition is something that requires epic levels of TDS -- and, somehow, a great deal of the Left is going down this path. ..."
"... The USA Deep State is a Five Eyes partner and as such Trump must be given the proverbial boot for being an uneducated boor lacking political gravitas & business gravitas with his narcissistic Smoot-Hawley II 2019 trade wars. Screw the confidence man-in-chief. He is a liability for the USA and global business. Trump is not an asset. ..."
"... Almost as a by product of his 2016 victory, Trump showed up the MSM hacks for what they were, lying, partisan shills utterly lacking in any integrity and credibility. The same applies to the intrigues and corruption of the Dirty Cops and Spookocracy. They had to come out from behind the curtain and reveal themselves as the dirty, lying, seditious, treasonous, rabid criminal scum they are. The true nature of the State standing in the spotlight for all the world to see. This cannot be undone. ..."
First , the whistleblower was ruled out as a possible witness -- this was
essentially done behind the scenes, and in reality can be called a Deep State operation, though
one exposed to some extent by Rand Paul. This has nothing to do with protecting the
whistleblower or upholding the whistleblower statute, but instead with the fact that the
whistleblower was a CIA plant in the White House.
That the whistleblower works for the CIA is a matter of public record, not some conspiracy
theory. Furthermore, for some time before the impeachment proceedings began, the whistleblower
had been coordinating his efforts to undermine Trump with the head of the House Intelligence
Committee, who happens to be Adam Schiff. It is possible that the connections with Schiff go
even further or deeper. Obviously the Democrats do not want these things exposed.
... ... ...
In this regard, there was a very special moment on January 29, when Chief Justice John
Roberts refused to allow the reading of a question from Sen. Rand Paul that identified the
alleged whistleblower. Paul then held a press conference in which he read his question.
The question was directed at Adam Schiff, who claims not to have communicated with the
whistleblower, despite much evidence to the contrary. (Further details can be read at
here
.) A propos of what I was just saying, Paul is described in the Politico article as
"a longtime antagonist of Republican leaders." Excellent, good on you, Rand Paul.
Whether this was a case of unintended consequences or not, one could say that this episode
fed into the case against calling witnesses -- certainly the Democrats should not have been
allowed to call witnesses if the Republicans could not call the whistleblower. But clearly this
point is completely lost on those working in terms of the moving line of bullshit.
One would think that Democrats would be happy with a Republican Senator who antagonizes
leaders of his own party, but of course Rand Paul's effort only led to further "outrage" on the
part of Democratic leaders in the House and Senate.
The Democrats did not want Adam Schiff to have to answer questions about the whistleblower,
and they don't want the whistleblower's identity to be officially revealed. Such things do not
contribute to the greatest cause of our time, the destruction of Donald Trump.
However, you see, there is a complementary purpose at work here, too. The whole point of
having the House impeachment investigation proceed from the House Intelligence Committee,
headed by Adam Schiff, was to send the signal that Trump is unacceptable to the nefarious
powers that make up the Deep State, especially the intelligence agencies, especially the
CIA.
The only way these machinations can be combatted is to pull the curtain back further -- but
the Republicans do not want this any more than the Democrats do, with a few possible exceptions
such as Rand Paul. (As the Politico article states, Paul was chastised publicly by McConnell
for submitting his question in the first place, and for criticizing Roberts in the press
conference.)
What a world, then, when OP Democrats are cheering on John Bolton, hoping again for a
savior to their sacred resistance cause, and meanwhile they aren't too excited about Rand
Paul's intervention. For sure, it is a sign that a "resistance" isn't real when it needs a
savior; it's not as if the French Resistance sat back waiting for Gen. de Gaulle. In any case,
in the procession of horrible reactionary figures that Democrats have embraced, Bolton is
probably the worst, and that's saying quite a lot.
... ... ...
Now we are at a moment when "the Left" is recognizing the role that the CIA and the rest of
the "intelligence community" is played in the impeachment nonsense. This "Left" was already on
board for the "impeachment process" itself, perhaps at moments with caveats about "not leaving
everything up to the Democrats," "not just relying on the Democrats," but still accepting their
assigned role as cheerleaders and self-important internet commentators. (And, sure, maybe
that's all I am, too -- but the inability to distinguish form from content is one of the main
problems of the existing Left.)
Now, though, people on the Left are trying to get comfortable with, and trying to explain to
themselves how they can get comfortable with, the obvious role of the "intelligence community"
(with, in my view, the CIA in the leading role, but of course I'm not privy to the inner
workings of this scene) in the impeachment process and other efforts to take down Trump's
presidency.
People are even talking about "getting used to accepting the help of the CIA with the
impeachment," and the like. (I realize I'm being repetitious here, but this stuff blows my
mind, it is so disturbing.) At least they are recognizing the reality -- at least partially;
that's something. But then what they do with this recognition is something that requires epic
levels of TDS -- and, somehow, a great deal of the Left is going down this path.
They might think about the "help" that the CIA gave to the military in Bolivia to remove Evo
Morales from office. They might think about the picture of Donald Trump that they find
necessary to paint to justify what they are willing to swallow to remove him from office. They
might think about the fact that ordinary Democrats are fine with this role for the CIA, and
that Adam Schiff and others routinely offer the criticism/condemnation of Donald Trump that he
doesn't accept the findings of the CIA or the rest of the intelligence agencies at face
value.
The moment for the Left, what calls itself and thinks of itself as that, to break with this
lunacy has passed some time ago, but let us take this moment, of "accepting the help of the
CIA, because Trump," as truly marking a point of no return.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
The USA Deep State is a Five Eyes partner and as such Trump must be given the proverbial boot
for being an uneducated boor lacking political gravitas & business gravitas with his
narcissistic Smoot-Hawley II 2019 trade wars. Screw the confidence man-in-chief. He is a liability for the USA and global business. Trump is not an asset.
paul ,
Trump, Sanders and Corbyn were all in their own way agents of creative destruction.
Trump tapped into the popular discontent of millions of Americans who realised that the
system no longer even pretended to work in their interests, and were not prepared to be
diverted down the Identity Politics Rabbit Hole.
The Deep State was outraged that he had disrupted their programme by stealing Clinton's seat
in the game of Musical Chairs. Being the most corrupt, dishonest and mendacious political
candidate in all US history (despite some pretty stiff opposition) was supposed to be
outweighed by her having a vagina. The Deplorables failed to sign up for the programme.
Almost as a by product of his 2016 victory, Trump showed up the MSM hacks for what they were,
lying, partisan shills utterly lacking in any integrity and credibility. The same applies to
the intrigues and corruption of the Dirty Cops and Spookocracy. They had to come out from
behind the curtain and reveal themselves as the dirty, lying, seditious, treasonous, rabid
criminal scum they are. The true nature of the State standing in the spotlight for all the
world to see. This cannot be undone.
For all his pandering to Adelson and the Zionist Mafia, for all his Gives to Netanyahu, Trump
has failed to deliver on the Big Ticket Items. Syria was supposed to have been invaded by
now, with Hillary cackling demonically over Assad's death as she did over Gaddafi, and
rapidly moving on to the main event with Iran. They will not forgive him for this.
They realise they are under severe time pressure. It took them a century to gain their
stranglehold over America, and this is a wasting asset. America is in terminal decline, and
may soon be unable to fulfil its ordained role as dumb goy muscle serving Zionist interests.
And the parasite will find it difficult to find a replacement host.
George Mc ,
Haven't you just agreed with him here?
He thinks the left died in the 1960s, over a half century ago. It's pretty simple to
identify a leftist: anti-imperialist/ anti-capitalist. The Democrats are imperialists.
People who vote for the Democrats and Republicans are imperialists. This article is a
confused mess, that's my whole point;)
If the Democrats and Republicans (and those who vote for them) are imperialists (which they are) then the left are indeed
dead – at least as far as political representation goes.
Koba ,
He's sent more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan he staged several coups in Latin America and
wanted to take out the dprk and thier nukes and wants to bomb Iran! Winding down?!
sharon marlowe ,
First, an attempted assassination-by-drone on President Maduro of Venezuela happened. Then
Trump dropped the largest conventional bomb on Afghanistan, with a mile-wide radius. Then
Trump named Juan Guido as the new President of Venezuela in an overt coup. Then he bombed
Syria over a fake chemical weapons claim. He bombed it before even an investigation was
launched. Then the Trump regime orchestrated a military coup in Bolivia. Then he claimed that
he was pulling out of Syria, but instead sent U.S. troops to take over Syrian oil fields.
trump then assassinated Gen. Solemeni. Then he claimed that he will leave Iraq at the request
of the Iraqi government, the Iraqi government asked the U.S. to leave, and Trump rejected the
request. The Trump regime has tried orchestrating a coup in Iran, and a coup in Hong Kong. He
expelled Russian diplomats en masse for the Skripal incident in England, before an
investigation. He has sanctioned Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, and Venezuela. He has
bombed Yemen, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Those are the things I'm
aware of, but what else Trump has done in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and South America you
can research if you wish. And now, the claim of leaving Afghanistan is as ridiculous as when
he claimed to be leaving Syria and Iraq.
Dungroanin ,
Yeah yeah and 'he' gave Maduro 7 days to let their kid takeover in Venezuela! And built a
wall. And got rid of obamacare and started a nuke war with Rocketman and and and ...
sharon marlowe ,
There were at least nine people killed when Trump bombed Douma.
Only a psychopath would kill people because one of its spy drones was shot down. You don't
get points for considering killing people for it and then changing your mind.
People should get over Hillary and pay attention to what Trump has been doing. Why even
mention what Hillary would have done in Syria, then proceed to be an apologist for what Trump
has done around the world in just three years? Trump has been quite a prolific imperialist in
such a short time. A second term could well put him above Bush and Obama as the 21st
century's most horrible leaders on earth.
Dungroanin ,
...If you think that the potus is the omnipotent ruler of everything he certainly seems to be
having some problems with his minions in the CIA, NSA, FBI..State Dept etc.
Savorywill ,
Yes, what you say is right. However, he did warn both the Syrian and Russian military of the
attack in the first instance, so no casualties, and in the second attack, he announced that
the missiles had been launched before they hit the target, again resulting in no casualties.
When the US drone was shot down by an Iranian missile, he considered retaliation. But, when
advised of likely casualties, he called it off saying that human lives are more valuable than
the cost of the drone. Yes, he did authorize the assassination of the Iranian general, and
that was very bad. His claims that the general had organized the placement of roadside bombs
that had killed US soldiers rings rather hollow, considering those shouldn't have been in
Iraq in the first place.
I am definitely not stating that he is perfect and doesn't do objectionable things. And he
has authorized US forces to control the oil wells, which is against international law, but at
least US soldiers are not actively engaged in fighting the Syrian government, something
Hillary set in motion. However, the military does comprise a huge percentage of the US
economy and there have to be reasons, and enemies, to justify its existence, so his situation
as president must be very difficult, not a job I would want, that is for sure.
The potus is best described (by Assad actually) as a CEO of a board of directors appointed
by the shareholders who collectively determine their OWN interests.
Your gaslighting ain't succeeding round here – Regime! So desperate, so so sad
🤣
"... In fact, Kuzmarov and Marciano say, Russia’s foreign policy in the Middle East, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe today reflects its perception of a threat from the United States and the NATO countries. For example, President George Herbert Walker Bush promised Mikhail Gorbachev, that NATO would not establish new military installations in Eastern Europe. With new NATO forward bases in Poland and the United States’ support of a coup in Ukraine, the Russians see the United States as having aggressive intent. From Russia’s vantage point United States threats to Soviet/Russian security have been a feature of East/West relations from the Russian Revolution, through the Cold War, to hostile relations with the United States in the twenty-first century. ..."
The Russians Are Coming, Again: The First Cold War as Tragedy, the Second as Farce
240 pp, $19 pbk, ISBN 978-1-58367-694-3
By Jeremy Kuzmarov and John Marciano
Reviewed by Harry Targ for Socialism and Democracy, vol. 33 (2019), no. 2
The primary purpose of this book is to challenge the popular view that Russia, led by Vladimir Putin, represents a challenge to
U.S. democracy much as the former Soviet Union was alleged to have been during the Cold War. The authors, taking The New York Times
as their prime source, argue that what is called Russiagate, a story about the nefarious use of computer hacking, spying, and bribing
and threatening to expose public figures, including President Trump, is being promoted day-after-day as the root cause of the outcome
of the 2016 election. In addition, they suggest that those who vigorously embrace the Russiagate explanation of the 2016 election
are claiming that Russia’s interference might be part of a longer-term Russian threat to American democracy. This is so because alleged
hackers spread misinformation about candidates and issues, thus distorting dialogue and debate.
The Russians Are Coming, Again: The First Cold War as Tragedy, the Second as Farce
The authors review the charges of subversion of the elections that have been “proven”, or so The New York Times claims. The “proof”
includes statements released by spokespersons from the FBI, the CIA and other national security agencies that Russian operatives,
agencies, and private institutions have hacked social media with “fake news” about candidates running for office (especially, Hillary
Clinton). Advocates of this view presume that such misinformation influenced the voter choices of the American electorate. These
are the same institutions that figured so prominently in presenting distorted views of a Soviet “threat” during the Cold War that
justified the arms race and massive U.S. military expenditures.
To illustrate the seriousness of the charges of the impact of Russia’s interference in the election they quote Thomas Friedman
who claimed that the Russian hacking of the election was “…a 9/11 scale event. …that goes to the very core of our democracy.” Along
with similar opinion pieces by Charles Blow, Timothy Snyder, and other columnists, news stories, Kuzmarov and Marciano say, have
been replete with similar claims. The New York Times narrative concludes that the hacking and interference in the U.S. election is
designed to promote victories of candidates for public office who would be sympathetic, and subservient to Russia. The long-range
goal of Russia, their stories suggest, is to promote Russian expansionism and its restoration to great power status.
After developing their critique of the Russiagate narrative, Kuzmarov and Marciano, make the case that United States foreign policy
since 1917 has been motivated by the desire to crush the Russian Revolution and limit the influence and power of the Soviet Union
in world affairs. The Russiagate narrative, they suggest, is primarily a continuation of the story each U.S. administration told
the American people about a “Soviet threat” to justify the escalation of the arms race and military spending. They argue that proponents
of the Russiagate scenario promote the idea of a new “Russian threat.”
In fact, Kuzmarov and Marciano say, Russia’s foreign policy in the Middle East, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe today reflects
its perception of a threat from the United States and the NATO countries. For example, President George Herbert Walker Bush promised
Mikhail Gorbachev, that NATO would not establish new military installations in Eastern Europe. With new NATO forward bases in Poland
and the United States’ support of a coup in Ukraine, the Russians see the United States as having aggressive intent. From Russia’s
vantage point United States threats to Soviet/Russian security have been a feature of East/West relations from the Russian Revolution,
through the Cold War, to hostile relations with the United States in the twenty-first century.
All too briefly, Kuzmarov and Marciano review the history of the root causes of the United States’ Cold War policy, the lies perpetrated
about the Soviet threat, and the enormous damage Cold War policies did to the American people and the victims of war around the world.
For those who have not lived through the Cold War and students who are not taught about alternative narratives to “American exceptionalism”
this brief volume is very useful. It draws upon the best of historical revisionist scholarship, including the works of William Appleman
Williams, Joyce and Gabriel Kolko, Gar Alperowitz, and Ellen Schrecker. It has chapters on the onset of the Cold War and its causes;
the attack by Cold War advocates on democracy; Truman, McCarthy, and anti-communism; and the war against the Global South. In sum,
the story begins with the substantial U.S. military intervention during the Russian civil war after the Bolshevik victory and continues
to Russiagate today.
The authors effectively develop their two main themes. First, they challenge the argument that Russia, led by Vladimir Putin,
represents a threat to U.S. democracy much as the former Soviet Union was alleged to have done during the Cold War. They argue that
the Russiagate narrative is fraudulent. Second, they briefly revisit the history of United States/Soviet/Russian relations to argue
that the one-hundred-year conflict between the two sides was largely caused by United States’ imperial policies and that proponents
of the Russiagate thesis seek to rekindle a new Cold War with Russia.
"... It is especially galling to see how the Hollywood Community has embraced the era of red-baiting Joseph McCarthy as the new standard for what is acceptable. There was a time that a few brave souls in Hollywood (I am thinking Lucille Ball, Kirk Douglas and Gregory Peck), spoke out against the blacklisting of actors, writers and directors for their past political ties to the Soviet Union. ..."
"... This was an ugly, awful and evil time in America. It was a period of time fed by fear and ignorance. While it is true that there were Americans who identified as Communists and embraced the politics of the Soviet Union, we scared ourselves into believing that communist subversion was everywhere and that America was teetering on the brink of being submerged in a red tide. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton's crazy rant accusing U.S. Army Major and Member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard, as a Kremlin puppet is not a deviation from the norm. Clinton exemplifies the terrifying norm of the political and cultural elite in this country. Accusing political opponents of being controlled by foreign enemies, real or imagined, is an old political tactic. Makes me wonder what Edward R. Murrow or Dalton Trumbo would say if we could bring them back from the dead. ..."
"... "Hillary Clinton's crazy rant accusing U.S. Army Major and Member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard, as a Kremlin puppet is not a deviation from the norm." ..."
"... Ms. President is the closest facsimile to Lady Macbeth that American politics has been able to produce. She'd have murdered her own husband if she had thought succession would have fallen to her. As it was, the only thing that kept him alive was that she needed him for the run she had in mind for herself. The debris that this woman has left in her wake boggles the mind. That she came within a whisker of the job where she would perhaps have left the country in that debris field is a sobering thought to think about what American presidential politics has become in the 21st c. Alas, what passes for her failure and the Country's good fortune, her loved ones in the Arts are still not over. And so they are left commiserating and caterwauling over the Donald this, and the Donald that, while all this good material and their celebrity goes down the tube. Good riddance to them both. ..."
"... Trump campaigned on Drain the Swamp in 2016. The Swamp attempted to take him down with the Russia Collusion hoax that included Spygate and the Mueller special counsel investigation. ..."
In the wake of the latest Hollywood buffoonery displayed at the Oscars, I think it is time for the American public to denounce
in the strongest possible terms the rampant hypocrisy of sanctimonious cretins who make their living pretending to be someone other
than themselves. Brad Pitt, Joaquin Phoenix and Barbara Streisand pop to mind as representative examples. All three are eager to
lecture the American public on the need for equality and non-discrimination. Yet, not one of the recipients of the
Oscar
gift bags worth $225,000 spoke out against that extraordinary excess nor demanded that the money spent purchasing these "gifts"
be used to benefit the poor and the homeless. Nope, take the money and run.
It is especially galling to see how the Hollywood Community has embraced the era of red-baiting Joseph McCarthy as the new
standard for what is acceptable. There was a time that a few brave souls in Hollywood (I am thinking Lucille Ball, Kirk Douglas and
Gregory Peck), spoke out against the blacklisting of actors, writers and directors for their past political ties to the Soviet Union.
Now I have lived long enough to see the so-called liberals in Hollywood rail against Donald Trump and his supporters as "agents
of Russia." Many in Hollywood, who weep crocodile tears over the abuses of the Hollywood Blacklist, are now doing the same damn thing
without a hint of irony.
If you are a film buff (and I consider myself one) you should be familiar with these great movies that remind the viewer of the
horrors visited upon actors, writers and directors during the Hollywood Blacklist:
The Front -- a 1976 comedy-drama film set against the Hollywood blacklist in the 1950s. It was written by Walter Bernstein,
directed by Martin Ritt, and stars Woody Allen and Zero Mostel.
Good Night, and Good Luck -- a 2005 historical drama film directed by George Clooney, tells the story of Edward R.
Murrow fighting back against the hysterical red-baiting of Senator Joseph McCarthy.
Trumbo -- a 2015 American biographical drama film directed by Jay Roach that follows the life of Hollywood screenwriter
Dalton Trumbo, who was blacklisted but continued to write award winning movies in alias (e.g. Spartacus).
This was an ugly, awful and evil time in America. It was a period of time fed by fear and ignorance. While it is true that
there were Americans who identified as Communists and embraced the politics of the Soviet Union, we scared ourselves into believing
that communist subversion was everywhere and that America was teetering on the brink of being submerged in a red tide.
Thirty years ago I reflected on this era and wondered how such mass hysteria could happen. Now I know. We have lived with the
same kind of madness since Donald Trump was tagged as a Russian agent in the summer of 2016. And the irony is extraordinary. The
very same Hollywood elite that heaped opprobrium on Director Elia Kazan for naming names in Hollywood in front of the House UnAmerican
Activities Committee, are now leading the charge in labeling anyone who dares speak out against the failed coup as "stooges" of the
Kremlin or Putin.
Hillary Clinton's crazy rant accusing U.S. Army Major and Member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard, as a Kremlin puppet is not a
deviation from the norm. Clinton exemplifies the terrifying norm of the political and cultural elite in this country. Accusing political
opponents of being controlled by foreign enemies, real or imagined, is an old political tactic. Makes me wonder what Edward R. Murrow
or Dalton Trumbo would say if we could bring them back from the dead.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is a vast understatement. You never could have convinced me 4 years ago that virtually all of my liberal
friends would have completely lost touch with reality due to their visceral hatred of one man.
It no longer matters if you agree with people on social policy, entitlements, student loans, homelessness, drug addiction or
even wealth distribution.
If you do not share their irrational hatred of Trump, you're going to be lambasted, shunned and treated like a pariah.
Hillary Clinton has become the poster child for the corruption that has captured and paralyzed our political parties and government
institutions. Why is she above prosecution? Is the corruption complete? Can we look to any individual or group to restore our
Republic? Wake me when the prosecutions begin.
"Hillary Clinton's crazy rant accusing U.S. Army Major and Member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard, as a Kremlin puppet is not
a deviation from the norm."
Ms. President is the closest facsimile to Lady Macbeth that American politics has been able to produce. She'd have murdered
her own husband if she had thought succession would have fallen to her. As it was, the only thing that kept him alive was that
she needed him for the run she had in mind for herself. The debris that this woman has left in her wake boggles the mind. That
she came within a whisker of the job where she would perhaps have left the country in that debris field is a sobering thought
to think about what American presidential politics has become in the 21st c. Alas, what passes for her failure and the Country's
good fortune, her loved ones in the Arts are still not over. And so they are left commiserating and caterwauling over the Donald
this, and the Donald that, while all this good material and their celebrity goes down the tube. Good riddance to them both.
I agree that HUAC's conduct was excessive but you really ought to show the other side of the coin as well.
Communism was genuinely awful. To this day we don't know how many people died, murdered by their own governments, in Soviet
Russia and Communist China.
The U. S. government was infiltrated at the very pinnacle of government (as in presidential advisors) by Soviet agents.
We know this from Kremlin documents.
We now know (based on Kremlin documents) that the American Communist Party was run by knowing Soviet agents and was funded
by the Soviet Union.
The motion picture industry had been heavily infiltrated by Communists including some actual Soviet agents (while Reagan
was head of SAG he rooted them out).
We resolved those issues the wrong way but they desperately needed to be resolved.
This is self-righteous baby boomer nonsense. It was a brief and slightly uncomfortable time for a handful of people in Hollywood,
after which the subversion of American culture and institutions chugged along merrily along to the present day.
But this episode has been re-purposed and often reduced to caricature as part of a long ideological project aimed at convincing
generations of otherwise intelligent white people that their past is a shameful parade of villains.
Kirk Douglas bravely defied the blacklist by giving Dalton Trumbo credit on Spartacus under his real name, effectively breaking
the blacklist.
I saw part of the Academy Awards and all I heard over and over again were the words race and gender, no female directors nominated.
On a side note, this being Black History month, teevee is usually filled with the appropriate programing. But because it is
the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Aushwitz the Jews are stealing the Blacks thunder by hogging the programming. When the
oppressed collide.
Just how big is the carbon footprint on a $225,000 swag bag? So nice to see Hollywood integrity in action. I wonder what the Bernie
Tax will be on them in 2021?
Chills run down my spine that you start your list with 'The Front'.
Woody Allen's 'The Front', a 'film noir' about the beast and about courage in trying to slay it, is an absolute masterpiece,
its end is unmeasurably spectacular and encouraging, and... somehow the movie never got the acclaim it deserves, and lives as
one of those quiet orphans.
But it is highly actual, and that is why you must have come to place it first.
Trump campaigned on Drain the Swamp in 2016. The Swamp attempted to take him down with the Russia Collusion hoax that included
Spygate and the Mueller special counsel investigation.
Rep. Devin Nunes uncovered many of the shenanigans while he investigated the claims of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
He implored Trump to use his prerogative as POTUS to declassify many documents and communications. Trump instead took the advice
of Rod Rosenstein acting as AG who initiated the Mueller investigation and did not declassify. He then passed the buck to AG Barr,
who has yet to declassify.
The question that needs to be asked in light of this: Is Trump a conman who has duped the electorate with Drain the Swamp as
he has not used his exclusive powers of classification to present to the voter all the documents and communications about the
actions of law enforcement and intelligence agencies relating to claims about Russian influence operations during the 2016 election?
Blue Peacock, the question that needs to be asked is do you blow your wad all at once on one play. Or do you drip, drip, drip
it out strategically. I suggest the latter in this endless game of gotcha politics. Yes, Trump is a con man. That is how he made
his billions - selling sizzle. One quality that does translate well into the political arena. No one is surprised - his life has
been on the front pages for decades.
The only newly revealed quality that I find remarkable is his remarkable staying power - the most welcome quality of all. It
takes ego maniacs to play this game. Surprised anyone still thinks politics is an avocation for normal people. It isn't. And we
the people are the ones that demand this to be the case.
I left the american sh*thole a long time ago and my choice never felt better. I look forward to seeing 50% of americans trying
to slaughter the other 50% over socialism. Here we're doing just fine with socialist medecine, and social programs for just about
everyting. The Commons are still viable where common sense resides... Oligarchs love cartels, socialism and piratization: it's
all about privatizing the gains and socializing the losses to the hoi polloi.
I wonder if Hollywood knows how small some of the audiences in actual movie theaters are now. It's always surprising to me that
I am sitting in almost empty theaters now when I decide I want actual movie theater popcorn and so will pay to watch a movie that
I have read about and heard about from friends who have already seen the movie. I don't attend unless I've heard good things from
my friends about the movie.
I am constantly surprised that some people even consider watching the Oscars now. I feel the same about professional sports.
You would be surprised at how good high school plays are and how good high school bands, orchestras, choirs are. The tickets
are cheap, and a person actually gets to greet the performers.
I feel the same about my local university (my Alma Mater). It's Performing Arts departments are excellent. As a student long
ago, my student pass allowed me to attend wonderful performances.
The Glory Days of Hollywood are no more. The actors and directors need to be humbled by having to go to towns across the country
to see how sparse the audience in a movie theater is now. It's not at all as I remember as a child when there were long lines
at the ticket window.
"... "Let me control the media and I will turn any nation into a herd of pigs" - Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, a very popular quote these days! ..."
That is NOT THE LESSON. The lesson is that MAIN S H I T Media and their FAKE NEWS cannot fool the Herd anymore.
ALL MSM did this last few years (after the brexit referendum) was to broadcast (98% of the time) only the side of those that
were against the brexit...
Clearly they weren't the majority!
The FUNNY part is that those du mb modern slaves gave those scoundrels a majority, so get ready for some AUSTERITY...
It's going to be fun.
"... Yet the mass media, freakishly, has had absolutely nothing to say about this extremely newsworthy story. ..."
"... The mass media's stone-dead silence on the OPCW scandal is becoming its own scandal, of equal or perhaps even greater significance than the OPCW scandal itself. It opens up a whole litany of questions which have tremendous importance for every citizen of the western world; questions like, how are people supposed to participate in democracy if all the outlets they normally turn to to make informed voting decisions adamantly refuse to tell them about the existence of massive news stories like the OPCW scandal? How are people meant to address such conspiracies of silence when there is no mechanism in place to hold the entire mass media to account for its complicity in it? And by what mechanism are all these outlets unifying in that conspiracy of silence? ..."
"... This is the FOURTH leak showing how the OPCW fabricated a report on a supposed Syrian 'chemical' attack," tweeted journalist Ben Norton. "And mainstream Western corporate media outlets are still silent, showing how authoritarian these 'democracies' are and how tightly they control info." "Media silence on this story is its own scandal," "Media silence on this story is its own scandal," "Media silence on this story is its own scandal," tweeted journalist Aaron Maté. ..."
This is getting really, really, really weird. WikiLeaks has WikiLeaks has
published yet another set of leaked
internal documents from within the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) adding even more material to
the mountain of evidence that we've been lied to about an alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria last year which resulted
in airstrikes upon that nation from the US, UK and France.
"... I would suggest amending this to: Official D policy: "no candidate who intends to govern in the interest of the entirety of the citizenry should seek the nomination of this Party" ..."
I would suggest amending this to: Official D policy: "no candidate who intends to govern
in the interest of the entirety of the citizenry should seek the nomination of this
Party"
"... The Russiagate investigation, which had formerly focused against the current US President, has reversed direction and now targets the prior President. ..."
"... In order to appreciate the seriousness of that misconduct and its implications, it is useful to understand certain procedural and substantive requirements that apply to the government's conduct of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. Title I of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA ), codified as amended at 50 USC. 1801-1813, governs such electronic surveillance. It requires the government to apply for and receive an order from the FISC approving a proposed electronic surveillance. When deciding whether to grant such an application, a FISC judge must determine among other things, whether it provides probable cause to believe that the proposed surveillance target is a "foreign power" or an agent a foreign power. ..."
"... The government has a heightened duty of candor to the FISC in ex parte proceedings, that is, ones in which the government does not face an adverse party, such as proceedings on electronic surveillance applications. The FISC expects the government to comply with its heightened duty of candor in ex parte proceedings at all times. Candor is fundamental to this Court's effective operation. ..."
"... On December 9, 2019, the government filed, with the FISC, public and classified versions of the OIG Report. It documents troubling instances in which FBI personnel provided information to NSD ..."
"... which was unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession. It also describes several instances in which FBI personnel withheld from NSD information in their possession which was detrimental to their case for believing that Mr. ..."
"... Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power. ..."
"... MACCALLUM: Were you surprised that he ..."
"... seemed to give himself such a distance from the entire operation? ..."
"... "JAMES COMEY: As the director sitting on top of an organization of 38,000 people you can't run an investigation that's seven layers below you. You have to leave it to the career professionals to do." ..."
"... MACCALLUM: Do you believe that? ..."
"... BARR: No, I think that the -- one of the problems with what happened was precisely that they pulled the investigation up to the executive floors, and it was run and bird dogged by a very small group of very high level officials. And the idea that this was seven layers below him is simply not true. ..."
"... Allegedly, George Papadopoulos said that "Halper insinuated to him that Russia was helping the Trump campaign" , and Papadopoulos was shocked at Halper's saying this. Probably because so much money at the Pentagon is untraceable, some of the crucial documentation on this investigation might never be found. For example, the Defense Department's Inspector General's 2 July 2019 report to the US Senate said "ONA personnel could not provide us any evidence that Professor Halper visited any of these locations, established an advisory group, or met with any of the specific people listed in the statement of work." ..."
"... very profitable business ..."
"... Schultz and other members of the DNC staff had exercised bias against Bernie Sanders and in favor of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Democratic primaries -- which favoritism had been the reason why Obama had appointed Shultz to that post to begin with. She was just doing her job for the person who had chosen her to lead the DNC. Likewise for Comey. In other words: Comey was Obama's pick to protect Clinton, and to oppose Trump (who had attacked both Clinton and Obama). ..."
"... Nowadays, Obama is telling the Party's billionaires that Elizabeth Warren would be good for them , but not that Sanders would -- he never liked Sanders. ..."
"... and, so, Trump now will be gunning against Obama ..."
"... Whatever the outcome will be, it will be historic, and unprecedented. (If Sanders becomes the nominee, it will be even more so; and, if he then wins on November 3rd, it will be a second American Revolution; but, this time, a peaceful one -- if that's even possible, in today's hyper-partisan, deeply split, USA.) ..."
"... There is no way that the outcome from this will be status-quo. Either it will be greatly increased further schism in the United States, or it will be a fundamental political realignment, more comparable to 1860 than to anything since. ..."
"... Reform is no longer an available option, given America's realities. A far bigger leap than that will be required in order for this country to avoid falling into an utter abyss, which could be led by either Party, because both Parties have brought the nation to its present precipice, the dark and lightless chasm that it now faces, and which must now become leapt, in order to avoid a free-fall into oblivion. ..."
"... The problem in America isn't either Obama or Trump; it's neither merely the Democratic Party, nor merely the Republican Party; it is instead both; it is the Deep State . ..."
Former US President
Barack Obama is now in severe legal jeopardy, because the Russiagate investigation has turned
180 degrees; and he, instead of the current President, Donald Trump, is in its cross-hairs.
The biggest crime that a US President can commit is to try to defeat American democracy (the
Constitutional functioning of the US Government) itself, either by working with foreign powers
to take it over, or else by working internally within America to sabotage democracy for his or
her own personal reasons. Either way, it's treason (crime that is intended to, and does,
endanger the continued functioning of the Constitution itself*), and Mr. Obama is now being
actively investigated, as possibly having done this.
The Russiagate investigation, which had
formerly focused against the current US President, has reversed direction and now targets the
prior President. Although he, of course, cannot be removed from office (since he is no longer
in office), he is liable under criminal laws, the same as any other American would be, if he
committed any crime while he was in office.
A
December 17th order by the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Court severely
condemned the performance by the FBI under Obama, for having obtained, on 19 October 2016 (even prior to the US Presidential
election), from that Court, under false pretenses, an authorization for the FBI to commence
investigating Donald Trump's Presidential campaign, as being possibly in collusion with
Russia's Government. The Court's ruling said:
In order to appreciate the seriousness of that misconduct and its implications, it is
useful to understand certain procedural and substantive requirements that apply to the
government's conduct of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. Title I of
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA ), codified as amended at 50 USC. 1801-1813,
governs such electronic surveillance. It requires the government to apply for and receive an
order from the FISC approving a proposed electronic surveillance. When deciding whether to
grant such an application, a FISC judge must determine among other things, whether it
provides probable cause to believe that the proposed surveillance target is a "foreign power"
or an agent a foreign power.
The government has a heightened duty of candor to the FISC in ex parte proceedings, that
is, ones in which the government does not face an adverse party, such as proceedings on
electronic surveillance applications. The FISC expects the government to comply with its
heightened duty of candor in ex parte proceedings at all times. Candor is fundamental to this
Court's effective operation.
On December 9, 2019, the government filed, with the FISC, public and classified versions
of the OIG Report. It documents troubling instances in which FBI personnel provided information
to NSD [National Security Division of the Department of Justice] which was unsupported
or contradicted by information in their possession. It also describes several instances in
which FBI personnel withheld from NSD information in their possession which was detrimental to
their case for believing that Mr. [Carter] Page was acting as an agent of a foreign
power.
On December 18th, Martha McCallum, of Fox News,
interviewed US Attorney General Bill Barr , and asked him (at 7:00 in the video
) how high up in the FBI the blame for this (possible treason) goes:
MACCALLUM: Were you surprised that he [Obama's FBI Director James Comey]
seemed to give himself such a distance from the entire operation?
"JAMES COMEY: As the director sitting on top of an organization of 38,000 people you
can't run an investigation that's seven layers below you. You have to leave it to the career
professionals to do."
MACCALLUM: Do you believe that?
BARR: No, I think that the -- one of the problems with what happened was precisely
that they pulled the investigation up to the executive floors, and it was run and bird dogged
by a very small group of very high level officials. And the idea that this was seven layers
below him is simply not true.
The current (Trump) A.G. there called the former (Obama) FBI Director a liar on that.
If Comey gets heat for this possibly lie-based FBI investigation of the US Presidential
nominee from the opposite Party of the sitting US President (Comey's own boss, Obama), then
protecting himself could become Comey's top motivation; and, in that condition, protecting his
former boss might become only a secondary concern for him.
Though Halper actually did no such studies for the Pentagon,
he instead functioned as a paid FBI informant (and it's not yet clear whether that money came
from the Pentagon, which spends
trillions of dollars that are off-the-books and untraceable ), and at some point Trump's
campaign became a target of Halper's investigation. This investigation was nominally to examine
"The Russia-China Relationship: The impact on US Security interests."
It seems that the Pentagon-contracted work was a cover-story, like
pizza parlors have been for some Mafia operations. But, anyway, this is how America's
'democracy' actually functions .
And, of course, America's
Deep State works not only through governmental agencies but also through
underworld organizations . That's just reality, not at all speculative. It's been this way
for decades, at least since the time of Truman's Presidency (as is documented at that
link).
Furthermore, inasmuch as this operation certainly involved Obama's CIA Director John Brennan
and others, and not only top officials at the FBI, there is no chance that Comey would have
been the only high official who was involved in it. And if Comey was
involved, then he would have been acting in his own interest, and not only in his boss's -- and
here's why: Comey would be expected to have been highly motivated to oppose Mr. Trump,
because Trump publicly questioned whether NATO (the main international selling-arm for
America's 'defense'-contractors) should continue to exist, and also because Comey's entire
career had been in the service of America's Military-Industrial Complex, which is the reason
why Comey's main
lifetime income has been the tens of millions of dollars he has received via the revolving door
between his serving the federal Government and his serving firms such as Lockheed Martin .
For these people, restoring, and intensifying, and keeping up, the Cold War , is a very profitable business . It's called
by some "the Military-Industrial Complex," and by others "the Deep State," but by any name it
is simply agents of the billionaires who own and control US-based international corporations,
such as General Dynamics and Chevron. As a governmental official, making decisions that are in
the long-term interests of those investors is the likeliest way to become wealthy.
Consequently, Comey would have been benefitting himself, and other high officials of the
Obama Administration, by sabotaging Trump's campaign, and by weakening Trump's Presidency in
the event that he would become elected. Plus, of course, Comey would have been benefitting
Obama himself. Not only was Trump constantly condemning Obama, but Obama had appointed to lead
the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 Presidential primaries, Debbie Wasserman Schultz ,
who as early as
20 February 2007 had endorsed Hillary Clinton for President in the Democratic Party
primaries, so that Shultz was one of the earliest supporters of Clinton against even Obama
himself. In other words, Obama had appointed Shultz in order to
increase the odds that Clinton -- not Sanders -- would become the nominee in 2016 to
continue on and protect his own Presidential legacy. Furthermore, on 28 July 2016, Schultz
became forced to resign from her leadership of the DNC after WikiLeaks released emails
indicating that Schultz and other members of the DNC staff had exercised bias against Bernie
Sanders and in favor of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Democratic primaries -- which
favoritism had been the reason why Obama had appointed Shultz to that post to begin with. She
was just doing her job for the person who had chosen her to lead the DNC. Likewise for Comey.
In other words: Comey was Obama's pick to protect Clinton, and to oppose
Trump (who had attacked both Clinton and Obama).
Nowadays, Obama is telling the Party's billionaires that Elizabeth Warren would be good for
them , but not that Sanders would -- he never liked Sanders. He wants Warren to get the
voters who otherwise would go for Sanders, and he wants the Party's billionaires to help her
achieve this (be the Party's allegedly 'progressive' option), so that Sanders won't be able to
become a ballot option in the general election to be held on 3 November 2020.
He is telling
them whom not to help win the Party's nomination. In fact, on November 26th,
Huffington Post headlined
"Obama Said He Would Speak Up To Stop Bernie Sanders Nomination: Report" and indicated that
though he won't actually say this in public (but only to the Party's billionaires), Obama is
determined to do all he can to prevent Sanders from becoming the nominee. In 2016, his
choice was Hillary Clinton; but, today, it's anyone other than Sanders; and, so, in a sense, it
remains what it was four years ago -- anyone but Sanders.
Comey's virtually exclusive concern, at the present stage, would be to protect himself, so
that he won't be imprisoned. This means that he might testify against Obama. At this stage,
he's free of any personal obligation to Obama -- Comey is now on his own, up against Trump, who
clearly is his enemy. Some type of back-room plea-bargain is therefore virtually inevitable --
and not only with Comey, but with other top Obama-appointees, ultimately. Obama is thus clearly
in the cross-hairs, from now on. Congressional Democrats have opted to gun against Trump (by
impeaching him); and, so, Trump now will be gunning against Obama -- and against the
entire Democratic Party (unless Sanders becomes its nominee, in which case, Sanders will
already have defeated that Democratic Party, and its adherents will then have to choose between
him versus Trump; and, so, too, will independent voters).
But, regardless of what happens, Obama now is in the cross-hairs. That's not just political
cross-hairs (such as an impeachment process); it is, above all, legal cross-hairs (an
actual criminal investigation). Whereas Trump is up against a doomed effort by the Democratic
Party to replace him by Vice President Mike Pence, Obama will be up against virtually
inevitable criminal charges, by the incumbent Trump Administration. Obama played hardball
against Trump, with "Russiagate," and then with "Ukrainegate"; Trump will now play hardball
against Obama, with whatever his Administration and the Republican Party manage to muster
against Obama; and the stakes this time will be considerably bigger than just whether to
replace Trump by Pence.
Whatever the outcome will be, it will be historic, and unprecedented. (If Sanders becomes
the nominee, it will be even more so; and, if he then wins on November 3rd, it will be a second
American Revolution; but, this time, a peaceful one -- if that's even possible, in today's
hyper-partisan, deeply split, USA.)
There is no way that the outcome from this will be status-quo. Either it will be greatly
increased further schism in the United States, or it will be a fundamental political
realignment, more comparable to 1860 than to anything since.
The US already has a
higher percentage of its people in prison than does any other nation on this planet.
Americans who choose a 'status-quo' option will produce less stability, more violence, not more
stability and a more peaceful nation in a less war-ravaged world. The 2020 election-outcome for
the United States will be a turning-point; there is no way that it will produce reform.
Americans who vote for reform will be only increasing the likelihood of hell-on-Earth. Reform
is no longer an available option, given America's realities. A far bigger leap than that will
be required in order for this country to avoid falling into an utter abyss, which could be led
by either Party, because both Parties have brought the nation to its present precipice, the
dark and lightless chasm that it now faces, and which must now become leapt, in order to avoid
a free-fall into oblivion.
The problem in America isn't either Obama or Trump; it's neither merely the Democratic
Party, nor merely the Republican Party; it is instead both; it is the
Deep State .
That's the reality; and the process that got us here started on 26 July 1945 and secretly continued on the American side even after
the Soviet Union ended and Russia promptly ended its side of the Cold War. The US regime's
ceaseless thrust, since 26 July 1945, to rule the entire world, will climax either in a Third
World War, or in a US revolution to overthrow and remove the Deep State and end its
dictatorship-grip over America. Both Parties have been controlled by that
Deep State , and the final stage or climax of this grip is now drawing near. America thus
has been having a string of the worst
Presidents -- and worst Congresses -- in US history. This is today's reality.
Unfortunately, a lot of American voters think that this extremely destabilizing reality, this
longstanding trend toward war, is okay, and ought to be continued, not ended now and replaced
by a new direction for this country -- the path toward world peace, which FDR had accurately
envisioned but which was aborted on 26 July 1945. No matter how many Americans might vote for
mere reform, they are wrong. Sometimes, only a minority are right. Being correct is not a
majority or minority matter; it is a true or false matter. A misinformed public can willingly
participate in its own -- or even the world's -- destruction. That could happen.
Democracy is a
prerequisite to peace, but it can't exist if the public are being systematically misinformed.
Lies and democracy don't mix together any more effectively than do oil and water.
Darn Russians made people pay $1750 to $3200 to attend the debates last night and clap for
Bloomberg. The Russians also aired a long Bloomberg informercial and an anti-Medicare for All
commercial during the ad breaks - to divide us. Putin will stop at nothing.
The latest act in the comedy began Friday, just before voting opened in the Nevada
Democratic caucus. The Washington Post
ran a story -- sourced, I'm not joking, to "people familiar with the matter" -- explaining
that Bernie
Sanders had been briefed that " Russia is attempting to help his presidential
campaign as part of an effort to interfere with the Democratic contest."
Sanders was quick to see through the gambit. "I'll let you guess about one day before the
Nevada caucus," he said. "Why do you think it came out?" He pointed to a Post reporter:
"It was The Washington Post ? Good friends." The Post, after all, has spent years
dumping on Sanders , a fervent critic of the paper's billionaire creep of an owner, Jeff
Bezos.
Intelligence officials and pundits have been screeching for years that patriotism demands
voters reject the foreign agent Donald Trump and the Russian asset Bernie Sanders, and support
a conventional establishment politician. Voters responded by moving toward Trump in national
approval surveys and speeding Sanders to the top of the Democratic Party ticket. A more
thorough disavowal of official propaganda would be difficult to imagine.
Russiagate will soon be four years old. For the first three years, it pushed parallel
themes: that Russia had "interfered" in the 2016 election, and Trump conspired in the
fraud.
After this story died a violent death when Mueller's probe ended with no new charges,
conventional wisdom shifted to a new gospel: Russiagate was about foreign interference.
Russiagate from the start
smelled funny , like bad food. Multiple developments worsened the odor. Stories kept
coming up wrong. There were too many unnamed sources, too frequently contradicting one
another and/or overstating facts. Every hoof print was a zebra's. Outlets stopped worrying
about relaying unconfirmed rumors, which is how terms like "
blackmail ," "
Trump ," "
Russia " and even " Golden
Showers " kept appearing in headlines, without proof there ever had been blackmail.
Moreover, while ordinary citizens like Reality Winner went straight to jail
for leaking, senior government officials in the past four years repeatedly and with impunity
leaked Russia-related tales. The leaks often pushed still more incorrect narratives, like for
instance that that Trump aide Carter Page was a foreign agent.
But the biggest red flag of all was the way in which "Russia" over the past few years
became shorthand to describe any brand of political deviance. I wrote this two
years ago :
"Since Trump's election, we've been told Putin was all or partly behind the lot of it: the
Catalan
independence movement, the Sanders campaign, Brexit , Jill Stein's
Green Party run ,
Black Lives Matter , the resignations of intraparty Trump critics Bob Corker and Jeff
Flake "
The extraordinary thing about this campaign to identify basically the entire universe of
political thought outside of establishment Democrats in the U.S. as Russian assets has been
the obvious projection involved.
The plot running through all of these stories has been the idea that Russia is trying to "
undermine our democracy " by "
sowing division ." But these charges are coming from the same people who spent the past
four years describing Republicans as deplorable fascists, and progressives on the other side
as racist, sexist, Nazis, and "
digital brownshirts ."
This has resulted in a four-year parade of official cranks muttering about Russian efforts
to "divide" us, when their own relentless message has been that America is besieged by a pair
of Hitlerian movements on the left and right that must be put down at all costs. The only
vision of "unity" they promote is one of obedience to the crackpot anti-utopia of
neoliberalism that populations around the world are currently rejecting at the ballot
box.
The core of the argument about Russian interference rested upon two major news stories:
the hack of the DNC in 2016, and a campaign by the "Internet Research Agency" to push
"divisive" social media content.
The former is a leak of true information about the correspondence of senior Democratic
Party officials (Jeremy Corbyn was similarly accused of abetting Russian disinformation
efforts when
damning-but-real materials about the British National Health Service were leaked). The
latter? A story about a group of silly memes, amplified a billionfold by the American
commercial news reports about these same efforts.
Did the Russians actually do these things? Maybe. It's not confirmed either way. The
sourcing even today remains tied to the same people who've lied about a thousand other
things, both in the course of this story and before, from WMDs to the missile gap. As we saw
this week, when officials quietly began admitting their ideas about "what Russia wants"
rested upon perhaps "
overstated " interpretations of intelligence, many of these narratives have been
elaborate exercises in reading tea leaves. And they won't let us see the tea leaves.
But if there is an official Russian agency behind, say, the Internet Research Agency,
those efforts pale in comparison to the enormous institutional effort in the United States to
use the narrative for other ends.
The United States, whose spending on intelligence and the military alone nearly equals
Russia's GDP, could crush Russia for breakfast and take the rest of the day off for beer and
volleyball. But officials have spent the past few years furiously constructing a popular
vision of the Russian enemy far bigger than the actual country, which the likes of Rachel
Maddow and Barack Obama not long ago were correctly calling a " gnat on the butt of an
elephant ."
Last week was a perfect example. Intelligence officials briefed Sanders about a belief on
their part that Russia wanted to "help" his campaign, although the nature of this assistance
was not specific enough to be disclosed.
The Post noted "U.S. prosecutors found a Russian effort in 2016 to use social media
to boost Sanders' campaign against Hillary Clinton," a typically deceptive construction.
Prosecutors
asserted a Russian effort to boost Sanders rather than finding it as true. Nobody has
seen the "proof" of this story, not even the Russians charged by Robert Mueller with the
conspiracy to help Sanders. In fact, that evidence was deemed so sensitive that Mueller
sought to prevent the Russian defendants from seeing it in discovery. The proof was
somehow so dangerous, we had to overturn centuries of legal tradition to keep it hidden.
No matter, the press had no problem repeating the story, because why not? The notion that
Russians want to help Sanders always fit nicely into establishment propaganda.
As a result, we get situations like last week, where there was an assertion about an
unknown level of Russian support -- presumably, social media boosting -- that could not
possibly equal the impact of a single news story leaked to the Post on the eve of the
Nevada primary. Every news consumer in America heard that story last week. Russians could
only dream of such saturation.
The logic of Russiagate is now beyond absurd. Vladimir Putin, somehow in perfect sync with
American voting trends, seeks to elevate both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, apparently to
compete against himself in the general election, in a desperate effort to suppress the
terrifying political might of, say, Joe Biden. I doubt even Neera Tanden in the depths of a
wine coma could believe this plot now.
That this is a dumb story is characteristic. The people pushing it don't have any smart
arguments left for remaining in power. Through decades of corporate giveaways, trickle-up
economics, pointless wars, and authoritarianism, they've failed the entire population. They
are the ones directly threatened by any hint that the population is awakening to its
decades-long disenfranchisement.
They are also the ones who benefit most from "disinformation." Who's trying to divide us?
Our own leaders, and as results like the Nevada primary show, the public now knows it.
"... CNN concluded that "America's Russia nightmare is back." Maddow was ecstatic, bleating "Here we go again," recycling her failed conspiracy theories whole. Everybody quoted Adam Schiff firing off that Trump was "again jeopardizing our efforts to stop foreign meddling." Tying it all to the failed impeachment efforts, another writer said , "'Let the Voters Decide' doesn't work if Trump fires his national security staff so Russia can help him again." The NYT fretted , "Trump is intensifying his efforts to undermine the nation's intelligence agencies." John Brennan (after leaking for a while, most boils dry up and go away) said , "we are now in a full-blown national security crisis." The undead Hillary Clinton tweeted , "Putin's Puppet is at it again." ..."
"... But it's still a miss on Bernie. He did well in Nevada despite the leaks, though Russiagate II has a long way to go. Bernie himself assured us of that. Instead of pooh-poohing the idea that the Russians might be working for him, he instead gave it cred, saying , "Some of the ugly stuff on the internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real supporters." ..."
"... The world's greatest intelligence team can't seem to come up with anything more specific than "interfering" and "meddling," as if pesky Aunt Vladimir is gossiping at the general store again. CBS reports that House members pressed the ODNI for evidence, such as phone intercepts, to back up claims that Russia is trying to help Trump, but briefers had none to offer. Even Jake Tapper , a Deep State loyalty card holder, raised some doubts. WaPo , which hosted one of the leaks, had to admit "It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken." ..."
"... Yes, yes, they have to protect sources and methods, but of course the quickest way to stop Russian influence is to expose it. Instead the ODNI dropped the turd in the punchbowl and walked away. Why not tell the public what media is being bought, which outlets are working, willingly or not, with Putin? Did the Reds implant a radio chip in Biden's skull? Will we be left hanging with the info-free claim "something something social media" again? ..."
"... Because the intel community learned its lesson in Russiagate I. Details can be investigated. That's where the old story fell apart. The dossier wasn't true. Michael Cohen never met the Russians in Prague. The a-ha discovery was that voters don't read much anyway, so just make claims. You'll never really prosecute or impeach anyone, so why bother with evidence (see everything Ukraine)? Just throw out accusations and let the media fill it all in for you. ..."
"... The intel community crossed a line in 2016, albeit clumsily (what was all that with Comey and Hillary?), to play an overt role in the electoral process. When that didn't work out and Trump was elected, they pivoted and drove us to the brink of all hell breaking loose with Russiagate I. The media welcomed and supported them. The Dems welcomed and supported them. Far too many Americans welcomed and supported them in some elaborate version of the ends justifying the means. ..."
"... The good news from 2016 was that the Deep State turned out to be less competent than we originally feared. ..."
The Russians are back, alongside the American intelligence agencies playing deep inside our elections. Who should we fear more?
Hint: not the Russians.
On February 13, the election security czar in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI)
briefed the House Intelligence Committee that the Russians were meddling again and that they favored Donald Trump. A few weeks
earlier, the ODNI
briefed Bernie Sanders that the Russians were also meddling in the Democratic primaries, this time in his favor. Both briefings
remained secret until this past week, when the former was leaked to the New York Times in time to smear Trump for replacing
his DNI, and the latter leaked to the Washington Post ahead of the Nevada caucuses to try and damage Sanders.
Russiagate is back, baby. Everyone welcome Russiagate II.
You didn't think after 2016 the bad boys of the intel "community" (which makes it sound like they all live together down in Florida
somewhere) weren't going to play their games again, and that they wouldn't learn from their mistakes? Those errors were in retrospect
amateurish. A salacious
dossier
built around a pee tape? Nefarious academics
befriending minor Trump campaign staffers who would tell all to an Aussie ambassador trolling London's pubs looking for young, fit
Americans? Falsified FISA applications when it was all too obvious even Trumpkin greenhorns weren't dumb enough to sleep with FBI
honeypots? You'd think after influencing
85 elections across the globe since World War II, they'd be better at it. But you also knew that after failing to whomp a bumpkin
like Trump once, they would keep trying.
Like any good intel op, you start with a tickle, make it seem like the targets are figuring it out for themselves. Get it out
there that Trump offered
Wikileaks' Julian Assange a pardon if he would state publicly that Russia wasn't involved in the 2016 DNC leaks. The story was all
garbage, not the least of which because Assange has been clear for years that it wasn't the Russians. And there was no offer of a
pardon from the White House. And conveniently Assange is locked in a foreign prison and can't comment.
Whatever. Just make sure you time the Assange story to hit the day after Trump pardoned numerous high-profile, white-collar criminals,
so even the casual reader had Trump = bad, with a side of Russian conspiracy, on their minds. You could almost imagine an announcer's
voice: "Previously, on Russiagate I "
Then, only a day after the Assange story (why be subtle?), the sequel hit the theaters with timed leaks to the NYT and
WaPo . The mainstream media went Code Red (the CIA has a long
history of working with the media to influence elections).
CNN
concluded that "America's Russia nightmare is back." Maddow was ecstatic,
bleating "Here we go again," recycling her failed conspiracy theories whole. Everybody quoted Adam Schiff
firing off that Trump was "again jeopardizing our efforts to stop foreign meddling." Tying it all to the failed impeachment efforts,
another writer
said , "'Let the Voters Decide' doesn't work if Trump fires his national security staff so Russia can help him again." The
NYT
fretted , "Trump is intensifying his efforts to undermine the nation's intelligence agencies." John Brennan (after leaking for
a while, most boils dry up and go away)
said , "we are now in a
full-blown national security crisis." The undead Hillary Clinton
tweeted , "Putin's Puppet is at it again."
It is clear we'll be hearing breaking and developing reports about this from sources believed to be close to others through November.
Despite the sense of desperation in the recycled memes and the way the media rose on command to the bait, it's intel community 1,
Trump 0.
But it's still a miss on Bernie. He did well in Nevada despite the leaks, though Russiagate II has a long way to go. Bernie himself
assured us of that. Instead of pooh-poohing the idea that the Russians might be working for him, he instead gave it cred,
saying , "Some of the ugly stuff on the internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real supporters."
Sanders handed Russiagate II legs, signaling that he'll use it as cover for the Bros' online shenanigans, which were called out
at the last debate. That's playing with fire: it'll be too easy later on to invoke all this with "Komrade Bernie" memes in the already
wary purple states. "Putin and Trump are picking their opponent,"
opined Rahm Emanuel to get that ball rolling.
Summary to date: everyone is certain the Russians are working to influence the election (adopts cartoon Russian accent) but who
is the cat and who is the mouse?
Is Putin helping Trump get re-elected to remain his asset in place? Or is Putin helping Bernie "I Honeymooned in the Soviet Union"
Sanders to make him look like an asset to help Trump? Or are the Russkies really all in because Bernie is a True Socialist
sleeper
agent, the Emma Goldman of his time (Bernie's old enough to have taken Emma to high school prom)? Or is it not the Russians but the
American intel community helping Bernie to make it look like Putin is helping Bernie to help Trump? Or is it the Deep State saying
the Reds are helping Bernie to hurt Bernie to help their man Bloomberg? Are Russian spies tripping over American spies in caucus
hallways trying to get to the front of the room? Who can tell what is really afoot?
See, the devil is in the details, which is why we don't have any.
The world's greatest intelligence team can't seem to come up with anything more specific than "interfering" and "meddling," as
if pesky Aunt Vladimir is gossiping at the general store again. CBS
reports that House members pressed the ODNI for evidence, such as phone intercepts, to back up claims that Russia is trying to
help Trump, but briefers had none to offer. Even
Jake Tapper , a Deep State loyalty card holder, raised some doubts. WaPo , which hosted one of the leaks, had to admit
"It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken."
Yes, yes, they have to protect sources and methods, but of course the quickest way to stop Russian influence is to expose it.
Instead the ODNI dropped the turd in the punchbowl and walked away. Why not tell the public what media is being bought, which outlets
are working, willingly or not, with Putin? Did the Reds implant a radio chip in Biden's skull? Will we be left hanging with the info-free
claim "something something social media" again?
If you're going to scream that communist zombies with MAGA hats are inside the house , you're obligated to provide a little
bit more information. Why is it when specifics are required, the
response is always something like "Well, the Russians are sowing distrust and turning Americans against themselves in a way that
weakens national unity" as if we're all not eating enough green vegetables? Why leave us exposed to Russian influence for even a
second when it could all be shut down in an instant?
Because the intel community learned its lesson in Russiagate I. Details can be investigated. That's where the old story fell
apart. The dossier wasn't true. Michael
Cohen never met the
Russians in Prague. The a-ha discovery was that voters don't read much anyway, so just make claims. You'll never really prosecute
or impeach anyone, so why bother with evidence (see everything Ukraine)? Just throw out accusations and let the media fill it all
in for you. After all, they managed to convince a large number of Americans Trump's primary purpose in running for president
was to fill vacant hotel rooms at his properties. Let the nature of the source -- the brave lads of the intelligence agencies --
legitimize the accusations this time, not facts.
It will take a while to figure out who is playing whom. Is the goal to help Trump, help Bernie, or defeat both of them to support
Bloomberg? But don't let the challenge of seeing the whole picture obscure the obvious: the American intelligence agencies are once
again inside our election.
The intel community crossed a line in 2016, albeit clumsily (what was all that with Comey and Hillary?), to play an overt
role in the electoral process. When that didn't work out and Trump was elected, they
pivoted and drove us to
the brink of all hell breaking loose with Russiagate I. The media welcomed and supported them. The Dems welcomed and supported them.
Far too many Americans welcomed and supported them in some elaborate version of the ends justifying the means.
The good news from 2016 was that the Deep State turned out to be less competent than we originally feared. But they have
learned much from those mistakes, particularly how deft a tool a compliant MSM is. This election will be a historian's marker for
how a decent nation, fully warned in 2016, fooled itself in 2020 into self-harm. Forget about foreigners influencing our elections
from the outside; the zombies are already inside the house.
I can't believe the media keeps accusing politicians they don't like of being Russian
assets. Trump, Tulsi, Bernie....seriously....how is CNN and MSNBC still on the air
relentlessly pushing crap like that....
Norwegian officials just came out in support of a Bernie Sanders presidency....they
democratically voted on it. So is Bernie a Norwegian asset? I actually would like that.
:p
🤨 Chris Matthews said Bernie supporters would hang him in Central Park and
compared his NV win to the Nazi conquest of France. He also suggested Dem leaders let Trump
win rather than Bernie take over the party. Chuck Todd called Bernie supporters "brwn shrts".
Bernie's Jewish and his family fled the Nazis to America. I can't even tell you the horrible
thing Jason Johnson said about women of color or YouTube will block the comment. This
👏🏾 Isn't 👏🏾 a 👏🏾News
👏🏾Channel.
My folks told me over and over about hiding under desks from the big one in the 50s.. This
tactic goes way back to freaking out the massive generation of children after WW2.
The CIA going back to their old routine now that it's becoming more and more clear that
they need to overhaul their first version of the cyborg candidate to make him more human
like.
0:42 Krystal reads Glenn's description of Rising: "The super-perky radical
trans-ideological 21st-century subversive sequel to the Katie Couric Matt Lauer Morning Today
Show in its heyday minus all that unpleasantness."
"... Admiral Bill McRaven is proving himself to be an ignorant buffoon. Yes, I'm calling a so-called military hero a clown. He is out today with a despicable op-ed attacking President Trump for removing ACTING DNI Joe Maguire. Here is a sampling of McRaven's stupidity: ..."
"... Maguire's role as DNI was a temporary appointment. It was not permanent and was not submitted to the Senate as part of a confirmation process. He was a mere place holder. Yet McRaven and others in the anti-Trump crowd display their profound ignorance and insist, wrongly, that Trump fired Maguire. ..."
"... Guess what? Maguire's resignation coincides with the 210 day limit. ..."
"... Donald Trump is now on the offensive against a corrupt, dishonest intelligence and law enforcement community as well as their enablers in the festering establishment--the whole crowd is panicked. ..."
"... If there really was intelligence that Russia had embarked on a new, more expansive round of meddling then that intelligence should have been briefed to the President as part of Presidential Daily Briefing. But that has not taken place. Trump's National Security Advisor, Robert O'Brien says pointedly that he has seen no intelligence to substantiate The NY Times report. NONE : ..."
"... "I haven't seen any intelligence that Russia is doing anything to attempt to get President Trump reelected," Robert O'Brien, who was appointed by Trump to the post in September, said in an ABC News interview to be broadcast on Sunday. ..."
"... "Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called "The Resistance," and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the Executive Branch and his Administration. Now, "resistance" is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. It obviously connotes -- It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous -- and indeed incendiary -- notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as the "loyal opposition," as opposing parties have done in this country for over 200 years, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government." ..."
"... Now don't go troubling yourself, Admiral, over finding a reason why people outside your beltway circle don't give a rat's ass about you and your pals getting disrespected. It's been a long time coming, a very long time, but ya'll have earned in spades the right to be ignored. Get used to it. Fool us for a year, for two years, three... but for eighteen years??? Sorry Admiral. Stop whining. ..."
"... Caity Johnstone has written a parody piece in which the intelligence community labels every candidate other than Buttigieg to be a Secret Russian Agent. ..."
The Russia Interference Hoax--Deja Vu All Over Again by Larry C Johnson
Admiral Bill McRaven is proving himself to be an ignorant buffoon. Yes, I'm calling a so-called military hero a clown. He
is out today with a despicable op-ed attacking President Trump for removing ACTING DNI Joe Maguire. Here is a sampling of McRaven's
stupidity:
Edmund Burke, the Irish statesman and philosopher,
once said
: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Over the course of the past three years, I have
watched good men and women, friends of mine, come and go in the Trump administration -- all trying to do something -- all trying
to do their best. Jim Mattis, John Kelly, H.R. McMaster, Sue Gordon, Dan Coats and, now, Joe Maguire, who until this week was the
acting director of national intelligence. . . .
But, of course, in this administration, good men and women don't last long. Joe was dismissed for doing his job: overseeing the
dissemination of intelligence to elected officials who needed that information to do their jobs. As Americans, we should be frightened
-- deeply afraid for the future of the nation. When good men and women can't speak the truth, when facts are inconvenient, when integrity
and character no longer matter, when presidential ego and self-preservation are more important than national security -- then there
is nothing left to stop the triumph of evil.
Bill, you are wrong as you can be. Are you too damn lazy to do some simple reading and research?
Maguire's role as DNI was a temporary appointment. It was not permanent and was not submitted to the Senate as part of a confirmation
process. He was a mere place holder. Yet McRaven and others in the anti-Trump crowd display their profound ignorance and insist,
wrongly, that Trump fired Maguire.
Here is the dishonest NY Times spin:
On Wednesday, the president announced that he was replacing Mr. Maguire with Richard Grenell, the ambassador to Germany and an
aggressively vocal Trump supporter. And though some current and former officials speculated that the briefing might have played a
role in that move, two administration officials said the timing was coincidental. Mr. Grenell had been in discussions with the administration
about taking on new roles, they said, and Mr. Trump had never felt a kinship with Mr. Maguire.
Once a vacancy occurs, the position is eligible to be filled by an acting officer for 210 days from the date of the vacancy, as
well as any time when a nomination is pending before the Senate.
Guess what? Maguire's resignation coincides with the 210 day limit.
Facts do not matter to the anti-Trumpers. Remember all of the hysteria surround Attorney General Barr's legitimate and proper
submission of a RECOMMENDATION for reduced sentencing in the case of Roger Stone. The media and punditry reacted as if Barr was calling
for the mass extermination of physically handicapped children. Hardly any took time to note that Barr's "RECOMMENDATION" was just
that--a recommendation. Nothing Barr said or wrote could compel or coerce Judge Berman to act according to Barr's wishes. And guess
what? Judge Berman decided that Barr was right. The key point being that, SHE DECIDED. Not Barr.
Donald Trump is now on the offensive against a corrupt, dishonest intelligence and law enforcement community as well as their
enablers in the festering establishment--the whole crowd is panicked.
The faux outrage over Trump replacing Maguire is just one indicator of this fear. Another is the fact that we are once again being
bombarded with the recycled propaganda that Russia meddled in our 2016 election and is poised to do the same in 2020. What next?
Resurrect Jussie Smollet and hire a group of pretend rednecks to stage another faux attack on him during the night on the wintry
streets of Chicago?
Intelligence officials warned House lawmakers last week that Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get President
Trump re-elected, five people familiar with the matter said, a disclosure to Congress that angered Mr. Trump, who complained that
Democrats would use it against him.
The day after the Feb. 13 briefing to lawmakers, the president berated Joseph Maguire, the outgoing acting director of national
intelligence, for allowing it to take place, people familiar with the exchange said. Mr. Trump was particularly irritated that Representative
Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the leader of the impeachment proceedings, was at the briefing.
During the briefing to the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Trump's allies challenged the conclusions, arguing that he had been
tough on Russia and that he had strengthened European security.
Just another scurrilous lie. Pure propaganda being spun for the sole purpose of smearing Trump and tainting his election. The
real truth is that Russia, under Vladimir Putin, is doing less "meddling" in our elections than did his predecessors. We meddled
in their elections and domestic politics going back to the end of World War II. Meddling is a natural consequence of having professional
intelligence services like the CIA, the FSB, the GRU, the DIA, etc. Another uncomfortable fact is that social media makes it more
difficult for the traditional intelligence actors to interfere in politics. Michael Bloomberg's spending in the 2020 Democrat primary
dwarfs all efforts to control the social media message. Yet, there are limits to the effectiveness of such "meddling."
If there really was intelligence that Russia had embarked on a new, more expansive round of meddling then that intelligence
should have been briefed to the President as part of Presidential Daily Briefing. But that has not taken place. Trump's National
Security Advisor, Robert O'Brien says pointedly that he has seen no intelligence to substantiate The NY Times report.
NONE :
"I haven't seen any intelligence that Russia is doing anything to attempt to get President Trump reelected," Robert O'Brien,
who was appointed by Trump to the post in September, said in an ABC News interview to be broadcast on Sunday.
"I have not seen that, and I get pretty good access," he said, according to excerpts released on Saturday.
Another meme in the latest propaganda push by deranged Democrats and discredited media is to portray Maguire's temporary replacement,
Ambassador Richard Grenell, as some sort of ignorant, unqualified political hack.
"The President has selected an individual without any intelligence experience to serve as the leader of the nation's intelligence
community in an acting capacity. This is the second acting director the President has named to the role since the resignation of
Dan Coats, apparently in an effort to sidestep the Senate's constitutional authority to advise and consent on such critical national
security positions, and flouting the clear intent of Congress when it established the Office of the Director of National Intelligence
in 2004.
"The intelligence community deserves stability and an experienced individual to lead them in a time of massive national and global
security challenges. And at a time when the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice has been called into grave question,
now more than ever our country needs a Senate-confirmed intelligence director who will provide the best intelligence and analysis,
regardless of whether or not it's expedient for the President who has appointed him.
Warner conveniently forgets that Trump named Dan Coats as DNI and the Senate, along with Warner's vote, approved him. Coats had
trouble spelling CIA and DNI. He was completely unqualified for the position, yet the Senate rolled over for him with barely a whimper.
How about the first DNI? Ambassador John Negroponte was
not an intelligence professional. He was career Foreign Service.
Ambassador Grenell has experience comparable to Negroponte's. Grenell has dealt with all elements of the intelligence community
during his tenure working within the realm of the U.S. foreign service. The good news is that Grenell is now on the job as DNI and
is starting to clean house. This should have been done four years ago. The DNI, like many other parts of the bureaucracy, is infested
with anti-Trump haters doing their best to sabotage his Presidency.
Robert O'Brien has cleaned out the NSC. There are a lot of empty desks there now. And persons through out the National Security
bureacracy, including DOD and CIA, are being emptied. This is a prelude. When prosecutor John Durham starts dropping indictments
expect the screaming to intensify.
"When prosecutor John Durham starts dropping indictments....."
Larry, it looks like you have a lot of confidence in Durham. What gives you this confidence? The actions of the DOJ to date
should make people skeptical that they'll prosecute their own leadership.
If Barr and Durham were going to play ball with the Deep Staters and the anti-Trumpers they would not be attacked as is happening.
The hysterical over wrought accusations leveled at Barr last week are merely a symptom of the fear seizing these seditionists.
Americans still retain their keen sense of fair play. Nothing wrong with wanting to be surrounded by those loyal to the elected
President.
It is the President's duty to the office itself to demand those appointed also be competent and act with integrity. The President
pays the price if they do not.
- on an English blog in order to underline some parallels between the parliamentary crisis in England last year and the very
similar constitutional crisis in the US. But there's a lot more to the lecture than that -
"Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called "The Resistance," and they rallied
around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the Executive Branch and his Administration.
Now, "resistance" is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. It obviously
connotes -- It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous -- and indeed incendiary --
notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as the "loyal
opposition," as opposing parties have done in this country for over 200 years, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a
war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government."
That, together with some penetrating remarks about the difference between Progressive and Conservative - and making it amply
clear how destructive Progressivism was - was perhaps more than William Barr merely setting out his stall. It was a declaration
of intent and if it's held to then we may expect some dramatic results.
So I'm not surprised the Democrats are attacking him. The wonder is that they're not tearing him limb from limb.
Chris Murphy - the dolt from CT - on TV whining about Grenell being unqualified and a Trump loyalist. This is the same stooge
who just met with the Iranian Foreign Minister (and a head of hair looking for a brain John Kerrey) in Munich.
Admiral McRaven and his gumba Pentagon bureaucrats should be doing a little belly button gazing to determine how after 2 decades
they've managed with considerable sturm und drang to win nothing but have succeeded magnificently in piloting the
country into Cold War II with a real adversary.
Well done, Admiral!
Now don't go troubling yourself, Admiral, over finding a reason why people outside your beltway circle don't give a rat's
ass about you and your pals getting disrespected. It's been a long time coming, a very long time, but ya'll have earned in spades
the right to be ignored. Get used to it. Fool us for a year, for two years, three... but for eighteen years??? Sorry Admiral.
Stop whining.
You mean all those VERY important people - dressed like doormen -who haven't won a war since WWII? BTW, Gulf Storm
doesn't count - you'd probably get more fight back from the NY State Troopers.
These politicians in uniform know all about "diversity", pissing away LOTS of money, transgenders, sucking up and especially
landing Beltway bandit contracts. Fighting, not so much.
Note, I'm referring to the General Officer ranks, not actual troops.
I assess with 100% certainty that this fake scandal was contrived to coincide with the end of this Maguire's "service". Indeed,
all of this time he has been acting as an agent of the Borg, only chucking this stinkbomb as his last, spiteful act. Contemptible.
Caity Johnstone has written a parody piece in which the intelligence community labels every candidate other than Buttigieg
to be a Secret Russian Agent.
Unless someone in the DNC or numerous affiliates can come up with an actual Russian, this kind of hoax will begin to be be seen
as dated.
However, with the Weinstein conviction, the MeToo movement will get new life and a wave of similar high profile pursuits
will begin.
Undoubtedly this will include one DJT, featuring accusers going back to the 1960's in a orchestrated 24/7 chorus of unproven
horror that they hope will succeed where Mueller and Schiff et al have failed.
Who knows, perhaps one accuser (two for corroboration) will even allege some vague Russian presence.
So a democratic megadoner is convicted of multiple accounts of sexual assault and surprise! Others in the moral cesspool that
is Hollywood won't be brought to "justice", social or otherwise but we'll see Stormy Daniels 2.0. Except her lawyer's already
in jail. The left better come up with something better than that.
How about Epstein and his pals? That would be a good start. However nothing will happen on that since too many powerful people
would likely be ensnared like Billy Clinton and a British prince.
The Russia Interference Hoax--Deja Vu All Over Again by Larry C Johnson
Admiral Bill McRaven is proving himself to be an ignorant buffoon. Yes, I'm calling a
so-called military hero a clown. He is out today with a despicable op-ed attacking President
Trump for removing ACTING DNI Joe Maguire. Here is a sampling of McRaven's stupidity:
Edmund Burke, the Irish statesman and philosopher, once
said : "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Over the course of the past three years, I have watched good men and women, friends of mine,
come and go in the Trump administration -- all trying to do something -- all trying to do their
best. Jim Mattis, John Kelly, H.R. McMaster, Sue Gordon, Dan Coats and, now, Joe Maguire, who
until this week was the acting director of national intelligence. . . .
But, of course, in
this administration, good men and women don't last long. Joe was dismissed for doing his job:
overseeing the
dissemination of intelligence to elected officials who needed that information to do their
jobs. As Americans, we should be frightened -- deeply afraid for the future of the nation. When
good men and women can't speak the truth, when facts are inconvenient, when integrity and
character no longer matter, when presidential ego and self-preservation are more important than
national security -- then there is nothing left to stop the triumph of evil.
Bill, you are wrong as you can be. Are you too damn lazy to do some simple reading and
research?
Maguire's role as DNI was a temporary appointment. It was not permanent and was
not submitted to the Senate as part of a confirmation process. He was a mere place holder. Yet
McRaven and others in the anti-Trump crowd display their profound ignorance and insist,
wrongly, that Trump fired Maguire.
Here is the dishonest NY Times spin:
On Wednesday, the president announced that he was replacing Mr. Maguire with Richard
Grenell, the ambassador to Germany and an aggressively vocal Trump supporter. And though some
current and former officials speculated that the briefing might have played a role in that
move, two administration officials said the timing was coincidental. Mr. Grenell had been in
discussions with the administration about taking on new roles, they said, and Mr. Trump had
never felt a kinship with Mr. Maguire.
Once a vacancy occurs, the position is eligible to be filled by an acting officer for 210
days from the date of the vacancy, as well as any time when a nomination is pending before the
Senate.
Guess what? Maguire's resignation coincides with the 210 day limit.
Facts do not matter to the anti-Trumpers. Remember all of the hysteria surround Attorney
General Barr's legitimate and proper submission of a RECOMMENDATION for reduced sentencing in
the case of Roger Stone. The media and punditry reacted as if Barr was calling for the mass
extermination of physically handicapped children. Hardly any took time to note that Barr's
"RECOMMENDATION" was just that--a recommendation. Nothing Barr said or wrote could compel or
coerce Judge Berman to act according to Barr's wishes. And guess what? Judge Berman decided
that Barr was right. The key point being that, SHE DECIDED. Not Barr.
Donald Trump is now on the offensive against a corrupt, dishonest intelligence and law
enforcement community as well as their enablers in the festering establishment--the whole crowd
is panicked.
The faux outrage over Trump replacing Maguire is just one indicator of this fear. Another is
the fact that we are once again being bombarded with the recycled propaganda that Russia
meddled in our 2016 election and is poised to do the same in 2020. What next? Resurrect Jussie
Smollet and hire a group of pretend rednecks to stage another faux attack on him during the
night on the wintry streets of Chicago?
Intelligence officials warned House lawmakers last week that Russia was interfering in the
2020 campaign to try to get President Trump re-elected, five people familiar with the matter
said, a disclosure to Congress that angered Mr. Trump, who complained that Democrats would use
it against him.
The day after the Feb. 13 briefing to lawmakers, the president berated Joseph Maguire, the
outgoing acting director of national intelligence, for allowing it to take place, people
familiar with the exchange said. Mr. Trump was particularly irritated that Representative Adam
B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the leader of the impeachment proceedings, was at the
briefing.
During the briefing to the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Trump's allies challenged the
conclusions, arguing that he had been tough on Russia and that he had strengthened European
security.
Just another scurrilous lie. Pure propaganda being spun for the sole purpose of smearing
Trump and tainting his election. The real truth is that Russia, under Vladimir Putin, is doing
less "meddling" in our elections than did his predecessors. We meddled in their elections and
domestic politics going back to the end of World War II. Meddling is a natural consequence of
having professional intelligence services like the CIA, the FSB, the GRU, the DIA, etc. Another
uncomfortable fact is that social media makes it more difficult for the traditional
intelligence actors to interfere in politics. Michael Bloomberg's spending in the 2020 Democrat
primary dwarfs all efforts to control the social media message. Yet, there are limits to the
effectiveness of such "meddling."
If there really was intelligence that Russia had embarked on a new, more expansive round of
meddling then that intelligence should have been briefed to the President as part of
Presidential Daily Briefing. But that has not taken place. Trump's National Security Advisor,
Robert O'Brien says pointedly that he has seen no intelligence to substantiate The NY Times
report.
NONE :
"I haven't seen any intelligence that Russia is doing anything to attempt to get President
Trump reelected," Robert O'Brien, who was appointed by Trump to the post in September, said in
an ABC News interview to be broadcast on Sunday.
"I have not seen that, and I get pretty
good access," he said, according to excerpts released on Saturday.
Another meme in the latest propaganda push by deranged Democrats and discredited media is to
portray Maguire's temporary replacement, Ambassador Richard Grenell, as some sort of ignorant,
unqualified political hack.
"The President has selected an individual without any intelligence experience to serve as
the leader of the nation's intelligence community in an acting capacity. This is the second
acting director the President has named to the role since the resignation of Dan Coats,
apparently in an effort to sidestep the Senate's constitutional authority to advise and consent
on such critical national security positions, and flouting the clear intent of Congress when it
established the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in 2004.
"The intelligence community deserves stability and an experienced individual to lead them in
a time of massive national and global security challenges. And at a time when the integrity and
independence of the Department of Justice has been called into grave question, now more than
ever our country needs a Senate-confirmed intelligence director who will provide the best
intelligence and analysis, regardless of whether or not it's expedient for the President who
has appointed him.
Warner conveniently forgets that Trump named Dan Coats as DNI and the Senate, along with
Warner's vote, approved him. Coats had trouble spelling CIA and DNI. He was completely
unqualified for the position, yet the Senate rolled over for him with barely a whimper. How
about the first DNI? Ambassador John Negroponte was not an intelligence
professional. He was career Foreign Service.
Ambassador Grenell has experience comparable to Negroponte's. Grenell has dealt with all
elements of the intelligence community during his tenure working within the realm of the U.S.
foreign service. The good news is that Grenell is now on the job as DNI and is starting to
clean house. This should have been done four years ago. The DNI, like many other parts of the
bureaucracy, is infested with anti-Trump haters doing their best to sabotage his
Presidency.
Robert O'Brien has cleaned out the NSC. There are a lot of empty desks there now. And
persons through out the National Security bureacracy, including DOD and CIA, are being emptied.
This is a prelude. When prosecutor John Durham starts dropping indictments expect the screaming
to intensify.
"When prosecutor John Durham starts dropping indictments....."
Larry, it looks like you have a lot of confidence in Durham. What gives you this
confidence? The actions of the DOJ to date should make people skeptical that they'll
prosecute their own leadership.
If Barr and Durham were going to play ball with the Deep Staters and the anti-Trumpers they
would not be attacked as is happening. The hysterical over wrought accusations leveled at
Barr last week are merely a symptom of the fear seizing these seditionists.
Americans still retain their keen sense of fair play. Nothing wrong with wanting to be
surrounded by those loyal to the elected President.
It is the President's duty to the office itself to demand those appointed also be
competent and act with integrity. The President pays the price if they do not.
- on an English blog in order to underline some parallels between the parliamentary crisis
in England last year and the very similar constitutional crisis in the US. But there's a lot
more to the lecture than that -
"Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called
"The Resistance," and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and
maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the Executive Branch and his Administration. Now,
"resistance" is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying
military power. It obviously connotes -- It obviously connotes that the government is not
legitimate. This is a very dangerous -- and indeed incendiary -- notion to import into the
politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as
the "loyal opposition," as opposing parties have done in this country for over 200 years,
they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a
duly elected government."
That, together with some penetrating remarks about the difference between Progressive and
Conservative - and making it amply clear how destructive Progressivism was - was perhaps more
than William Barr merely setting out his stall. It was a declaration of intent and if it's
held to then we may expect some dramatic results.
So I'm not surprised the Democrats are attacking him. The wonder is that they're not
tearing him limb from limb.
Chris Murphy - the dolt from CT - on TV whining about Grenell being unqualified and a Trump
loyalist.
This is the same stooge who just met with the Iranian Foreign Minister (and a head of hair
looking for a brain John Kerrey) in Munich.
Admiral McRaven and his gumba Pentagon bureaucrats should be doing a little belly button
gazing to determine how after 2 decades they've managed with considerable sturm und drang to
win nothing but have succeeded magnificently in piloting the country into Cold War II with a
real adversary.
Well done, Admiral!
Now don't go troubling yourself, Admiral, over finding a reason why people outside your
beltway circle don't give a rat's ass about you and your pals getting disrespected. It's been
a long time coming, a very long time, but ya'll have earned in spades the right to be
ignored. Get used to it. Fool us for a year, for two years, three... but for eighteen
years??? Sorry Admiral. Stop whining.
You mean all those VERY important people - dressed like doormen -who haven't won a war since
WWII?
BTW, Gulf Storm doesn't count - you'd probably get more fight back from the NY State
Troopers.
These politicians in uniform know all about "diversity", pissing away LOTS of money,
transgenders, sucking up and especially landing Beltway bandit contracts.
Fighting, not so much.
Note, I'm referring to the General Officer ranks, not actual troops.
I assess with 100% certainty that this fake scandal was contrived to coincide with the end of
this Maguire's "service". Indeed, all of this time he has been acting as an agent of the
Borg, only chucking this stinkbomb as his last, spiteful act. Contemptible.
Caity Johnstone has written a parody piece in which the intelligence community labels every
candidate other than Buttigieg to be a Secret Russian Agent.
Unless someone in the DNC or numerous affiliates can come up with an actual Russian, this
kind of hoax will begin to be be seen as dated.
However, with the Weinstein conviction, the MeToo movement will get new life and a wave of
similar high profile pursuits will begin.
Undoubtedly this will include one DJT, featuring
accusers going back to the 1960's in a orchestrated 24/7 chorus of unproven horror that they
hope will succeed where Mueller and Schiff et al have failed.
Who knows, perhaps one accuser (two for corroboration) will even allege some vague Russian
presence.
So a democratic megadoner is convicted of multiple accounts of sexual assault and
surprise! Others in the moral cesspool that is Hollywood won't be brought to "justice",
social or otherwise but we'll see Stormy Daniels 2.0. Except her lawyer's already in jail.
The left better come up with something better than that.
How about Epstein and his pals? That would be a good start. However nothing will happen on
that since too many powerful people would likely be ensnared like Billy Clinton and a British
prince.
"... Adam Schiff physically resembles a typical prosperity theology preacher -- a classic modern American snake oil salesman. And with his baseless accusations and the fear to touch real issues , he is even worse than that -- he looks outright silly even for the most brainwashed part of the USA electorate ;-) ..."
"... Realistically Schiff should be viewed as yet another intelligence agency stooge, a neocon who is funded by military contractors such as Northrop Grumman, which sells missiles to Ukraine. ..."
"... The claim that the withdrawal of military aid from Ukraine somehow influences the balance of power in the region was a State department concocted scam from the very beginning. How sniper rifles and anti-tank missiles change the balance of power on the border with the major nuclear power, who has probably second or third military in the world.? They do not. ..."
"... No where does Schiff compare to the evils and long lasting impact by that of Trump, Nunes, and Mcconnell. Comment over. ..."
"... Does not matter. Schiff is just a marionette performing prescribed function. He is adamantly inept is this function, but that happens with marionettes. Nothing to talk about or to compare with the major "evildoers" of Trump administration (although he, like Pompeo, is a neocon, so he belongs to the same crime family ;-) ..."
"... Actually, as a side effect, they might well sink Warren (which is not such a good thing), as she was stupid enough to jump into impeachment bandwagon early on with great enthusiasm. Proving another time that she is an incompetent politician. ..."
"... Trump is a narcissistic megalomaniac. It matters that he is escaping impeachment. Of all the presidents impeached before him as #4, he is the most deserving. History will judge his actions and crimes. ..."
While I agree that the removal of Trump might be slightly beneficial (Pence-Pompeo duo initially will run scared), this Kabuki
theater with Schiff in a major role is outright silly.
Adam Schiff physically resembles a typical prosperity theology preacher -- a classic modern American snake oil salesman.
And with his baseless accusations and the fear to touch real issues , he is even worse than that -- he looks outright silly even
for the most brainwashed part of the USA electorate ;-)
As he supported the Iraq war, he has no right to occupy any elected office. He probably should be prosecuted as a war criminal.
Realistically Schiff should be viewed as yet another intelligence agency stooge, a neocon who is funded by military contractors
such as Northrop Grumman, which sells missiles to Ukraine.
The claim that Trump is influenced by Russia is a lie. His actions indicate that he is an agent of influence for Israel, not
so much for Russia. Several of his actions were more reckless and more hostile to Russia than the actions of the Obama administration.
Anyway, his policies toward Russia are not that different from Hillary's policies. Actually, Pompeo, in many ways, continues Hillary's
policies.
The claim that the withdrawal of military aid from Ukraine somehow influences the balance of power in the region was a
State department concocted scam from the very beginning. How sniper rifles and anti-tank missiles change the balance of power
on the border with the major nuclear power, who has probably second or third military in the world.? They do not.
They (especially sniper rifles) will definitely increase casualties of Ukrainian separatists (and will provoke Russian reaction
to compensate for this change of balance and thus increase casualties of the Ukrainian army provoking the escalation spiral ),
but that's about it. So more people will die in the conflict while Northrop Grumman rakes the profits.
They also increase the danger of the larger-scale conflict in the region, which is what the USA neocons badly wants to impose
really crushing sanctions on Russia. The danger of WWIII and the cost of support of the crumbling neoliberal empire with its outsize
military expenditures (which now is more difficult to compensate with loot) somehow escapes the US neocon calculations. But they
are completely detached from reality in any case.
I think Russia can cut Ukraine into Western and Eastern parts anytime with relative ease and not much resistance. Putin has
an opportunity to do this in 2014 (risking larger sanctions) as he could establish government in exile out of Yanukovich officials
and based on this restore the legitimate government in Eastern and southern region with the capital in Kharkiv, leaving Ukrainian
Taliban to rot in their own brand of far-right nationalism where the Ukraine identity is defined negatively via rabid Russophobia.
His calculation probably was that sanctions would slow down the Russia recovery from Western plunder during Yeltsin years and,
as such, it is not worth showing Western Ukrainian nationalists what level of support in Southern and Eastern regions that actually
enjoy.
My impression is that they are passionately hated by over 50% of the population of this region. And viewed as an occupying
force, which is trying to colonize the space (which is a completely true assessment). They are viewed as American stooges, who
they are (the country is controlled from the USA embassy in any case).
And Putin's assessment might be wrong, as sanctions were imposed anyways, and now Ukraine does represent a threat to Russia
and, as such, is a huge source of instability in the region, which was the key idea of "Nulandgate" as the main task was weakening
Russia. In this sense, Euromaidan coup d'état was the major success of the Obama administration, which was a neocon controlled
administration from top to bottom.
Also unclear what Dems are trying to achieve. If Pelosi gambit, cynically speaking, was about rehashing Mueller witch hunt
success in the 2018 election, that is typical wishful thinking. Mobilization of the base works both ways.
So what is the game plan for DemoRats (aka "neoliberal democrats" or "corporate democrats" -- the dominant Clinton faction
of the Democratic Party) is completely unclear.
I doubt that they will gain anything from impeachment Kabuki theater, where both sides are afraid to discuss the real issues
like Douma false flag and other real Trump crimes.
Most Democratic candidates such as Warren, Biden, and Klobuchar will lose from this impeachment theater. Candidates who can
gain, such as Major Pete and Bloomberg does not matter that much.
run75441 , January 25, 2020 4:48 pm
likbez:
Let me help you along with the rant . . . "so you are in trump's camp." That was not a question. Given anything the Dems may
have, the Repubs have done it bigger. No where does Schiff compare to the evils and long lasting impact by that of Trump,
Nunes, and Mcconnell. Comment over.
likbez , January 25, 2020 7:47 pm
> No where does Schiff compare to the evils and long lasting impact by abd of trump
Does not matter. Schiff is just a marionette performing prescribed function. He is adamantly inept is this function, but
that happens with marionettes. Nothing to talk about or to compare with the major "evildoers" of Trump administration (although
he, like Pompeo, is a neocon, so he belongs to the same crime family ;-)
Opening impeachment was worse then a crime, it was a blunder on the part of neoliberal Dems. Essentially they bet
that it can serve as the "Muller investigation II" helping the neoliberal Dems to win 2020 like it helped them to win 2018 without
reforming the Party. They forgot about their own crimes committed in the process (Ukraine, Stzrokgate, etc), which now come to
light
Pelosi somehow opted for this "Hail Mary pass" and allowed Schiff to destroy the last remnants of the credibility of neoliberal
Dems: none of House Republicans voted for impeachment, which dooms the idea converting it into the vote of non-confidence of the
majority party. Creating the situation in which Dems, paradoxically, can lose some House seats they gained in 2018. Which would
be a bad thing. Also due to backlash they now can well lose 2020 election while each of Dems candidates (with the possible exception
of semi-senile neoliberal Biden) is a better option for the country than Trump.
Actually, as a side effect, they might well sink Warren (which is not such a good thing), as she was stupid enough to jump
into impeachment bandwagon early on with great enthusiasm. Proving another time that she is an incompetent politician.
"Whom the gods would destroy..." (misattributed to Euripides)
run75441 , January 25, 2020 8:17 pm
likbez:
No it does not. He is inept at a function and does not follow the constitutional precepts put in place by the Founding Fathers.
Schiff and all of us are on unchartered territory where a president deems he can do as he pleases, is above the law, and can not
be reigned in by the law or the two legislative bodies of the nation. He is aided and abetted by illegal Congressional actions
with the support of renegade Senators. No where in history has anything of this magnitude occurred. He has to be ousted.
I told you once before, knock that neoliberal shit off. You are just using this as a filter to avoid what most people see,
Trump is a narcissistic megalomaniac. It matters that he is escaping impeachment. Of all the presidents impeached before him as
#4, he is the most deserving. History will judge his actions and crimes.
This is not "the reputation for hyperbole". This is attempt to defend the interests of MIC, including the
interests of intelligence agencies themselves in view of deteriorating financial position of the USA. And first of all the level
of the current funding. Like was the case in 2016 elections, the intelligence
agencies and first of all CIA should now be considered as the third party participating in the
2020 election which attempts to be the kingmaker. They are interested in continuing and intensifying the Cold War 2, as it secured
funding for them and MIC (of this they are essential part)
Notable quotes:
"... The official, Shelby Pierson, "appears to have overstated the intelligence community's formal assessment of Russian interference in the 2020 election, omitting important nuance during a briefing with lawmakers earlier this month," according to CNN . ..."
"... " The intelligence doesn't say that ," one senior national security official told CNN. "A more reasonable interpretation of the intelligence is not that they have a preference, it's a step short of that. It's more that they understand the President is someone they can work with, he's a dealmaker." - CNN ..."
"... To recap - Pierson told the House Intelligence Committee a lie , which was promptly leaked to the press - ostensibly by Democrats on the committee, and it's just now getting walked back with far less attention than the original 'bombshell' headline received. ..."
"... No biggie... the media just ran with hysteria for 3 years as gospel accusing people of treason ..."
"... Well guess what? It turns out the media and the DNC were the ones working for Russia, executing their long standing goal to create chaos better than Russia could have ever dreamed of. https://t.co/PhrJiES9ui ..."
The US intelligence community's top election security official who appears to have
overstated Russian interference in the 2020 election has a history of hyperbole - described
by the
Wall Street Journal as "a reputation for being injudicious with her words."
The official, Shelby Pierson, "appears to have overstated the intelligence community's
formal assessment of Russian interference in the 2020 election, omitting important nuance
during a briefing with lawmakers earlier this month," according to
CNN .
The official, Shelby Pierson, told lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee that
Russia is interfering in the 2020 election with the goal of helping President Donald Trump
get reelected .
The US intelligence community has assessed that Russia is interfering in the 2020
election and has separately assessed that Russia views Trump as a leader they can work
with. But the US does not have evidence that Russia's interference this cycle is aimed at
reelecting Trump , the officials said.
" The intelligence doesn't say that ," one senior national security official told CNN.
"A more reasonable interpretation of the intelligence is not that they have a preference,
it's a step short of that. It's more that they understand the President is someone they can
work with, he's a dealmaker." -
CNN
Pierson was reportedly peppered with questions from the House Intelligence Committee,
which 'caused her to overstep and assert that Russia has a preference for Trump to be
reelected,' according to the report. CNN notes that one intelligence official said that her
characterization was "misleading," while a national security official said she failed to
provide the "nuance" required to put the US intelligence conclusions in proper context.
To recap - Pierson told the House Intelligence Committee a lie , which was promptly leaked
to the press - ostensibly by Democrats on the committee, and it's just now getting walked
back with far less attention than the original 'bombshell' headline received.
Sound familiar?
No biggie... the media just ran with hysteria for 3 years as gospel accusing people of
treason
Well guess what? It turns out the media and the DNC were the ones working for Russia,
executing their long standing goal to create chaos better than Russia could have ever
dreamed of. https://t.co/PhrJiES9ui
The PUTIN's aim is to sow distrust among the US population. The USA, a peaceful civilized
society with apparently no internal conflicts maintains a similar peaceful empire for the
benefit of all humanity.
The impersonate evil of the PUTIN has of course every intention to destroy the present state
of tranquility and therefore aims to destruct the undisputed peaceful leader of this empire
by sowing internal conflict.
This is why from Sanders to Warren to Gabbard to Bloomberg to Trump everyone is on the PUTIN
payroll or subconsciously exposed to some mind controlling rays he sends via satellite to the
USA.
The PUTIN is the invention by the Russian Federation after their successful evil attempt to
evade the good intentions of the EMPIRE to embrace Russia in its sphere of peaceful
tranquility.
I suppose when Jeff Bozo's Blog discovers that Putin is playing three-dimensional chess with
himself using Bernie Sanders as the White Side and Mike Bloomberg as the Black Side, it will
finally declare that to save the US from Russian meddling, the very notion and institution of
regular elections, and the massive organisation, funding systems and networks, and marketing
campaigns and promotions associated with the 4-year election cycle must finally be declared
harmful to American interests and done away with. WaPo will finally advocate for a one-man
police state. Democracy truly dies in the darkness of delirium and derangement. Thank you,
WaPo.
This is hilarious, 'nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American
people' H L Mencken. But seriously, Putin does now have the power to decide US elections, he
simply makes his preferred choice [now the obvious loser]one day before the election. You
could not make this up.
"The prospect of two rival campaigns both receiving help from Moscow appears to
reflect what intelligence officials have previously described as Russia's broader interest in
sowing division in the United States and uncertainty about the validity of American
elections" WaPo, 2/21/20.
This level if clinical delusion is reminiscent of the Führer's last days in the
bunker.
I know, I know, it's a waste of time trying to ridicule the media when they're already doing
that to themselves. Satire is definitely dead when the Washington Post reports about "two
rival campaigns both receiving help from Moscow". WaPo's attempts to explain that the purpose
of this bizarre behavior is "sowing division" makes it look even more incredible.
For years I have stressed the need for our leaders to make decisions based on
thoughtfulness and foresight -- not just emotion, or what may "feel good" in a given
moment. This is especially important in the area of foreign policy, as politicians' desire
to "do something" too often overrides careful consideration of the unintended consequences
of the actions they take. Time and time again, their poor judgment has led to worse
outcomes in the countries where we recklessly intervene, and for our own country's national
security.
An egregious lack of foresight also led to this counterproductive impeachment of
Trump.
Those who wish to lead our country should have had the foresight to know that this
result was inevitable. They need to understand that their decisions should not be dictated
by what makes them temporarily feel good or look good, but rather by what will be good for
the American people. Emotional gratification or political advantage should never determine
one's votes or actions.
Of course the 'sky is falling' Russia revelation/leak/false flag is part of the CIA's ongoing
(failed) coup against Trump. But most importantly these revelations are meant to destroy the
Bernie Sanders campaign as he gains an insurmountable lead and momentum. The desperate,
debauched CIA stooge Democratic Party launches another salvo in its ongoing coup against
Sanders. This is nothing to do with Russian interference of US elections, but the
interference by Intelligence, working for the Money Power, to preserve the status quo of
greed, and murder hope for change in its cradle.
IMO the "Russia meddling" trope is just cover for the real meddlers (ReMs) in our elections.
The ReMs don't bother with click bait ads, they use the most effective tool out there to
influence voters, candidates, and deep state operatives: the US$. The ReMs give cash to
candidates who prefer their policies, and if the candidate does toe the line on their
policies, they give the money to their opponent. This is the real meddling, but we don't hear
about it because any mention of it results in major shaming as "anti-*******" from the ReMs.
The ReMs (even though they are supporting a foreign country) do not have to register as
foreign agents in the US (very special treatment) due to specific legislation passed in
previous years. The ReMs have bragged about their "support of" (really, buying of) state and
federal level legislatures to the point of denying basic Constitutional rights and have been
vehemently protected by those bought off people.
This is the most effective fifth column, the principal criminal, not the Russkies.
Let's be honest with ourselves. We all know that American minds are extremely weak and
fragile and Americans cannot be exposed to any informations which they are far too helpless
to process correctly.
We absolutely need to be protected from any ideas that might derail our defenceless little
minds.
Thank heaven that the kindly US Government is defending us from wrongful ideas that we
cannot possibly handle ourselves.
I hate to break circe's bubble, but here's Saunders responding to a WaPoo trash article:
"I don't care, frankly, who Putin wants to be president. My message to Putin is clear:
Stay out of American elections, and as president I will make sure that you do. In 2016,
Russia used Internet propaganda to sow division in our country, and my understanding is that
they are doing it again in 2020."
Sorry dear. Russia did not use internet propaganda to sow division in 2016.... the Dims
did it all by themselves. So Saunders is a.) delusional or b.) just another lying politician
or c.) hoping the J. Bozo drops a check in the mail?
Question: the WaPoo seems to have become the new National Inquirer, yes? Does J. Bozo
really need the money?
The "social" is "social media" is in contrast to "professional" or "business" or
"commercial" media, i.e. the MSM and other commercial media.
I understand "social media" literally in the Orwellian sense, it is "social" media just like
war is peace. The true meaning is "asocial media" which prevents real interaction, and under
complete control by big brother, you can become a non-person at any moment.
The American "D"emocracy is a theater of the absurd - not sure if it is a tragedy or a comedy
or a tragicomedy. But one thing I am absolutely sure about is the high level of intelligence
of the Sheeple.
Yesterday, Pepe Escobar made a similar entry on his Facebook page to which I replied as
follows:
"Why would Russia do that when Trump's doing such a good job of further ruining the USA
and Bloomberg would do an even better job of it, whereas Sanders would actually improve the
nation and make it a stronger competitor. 100% illogical and spastic!"
One of his entries today deals with the Iranian election which saw the "Conservatives"
gain ground, which in the circumstances was a likely result. And if you haven't yet, check
out Pepe's
article at Strategic Culture .
"... Russia's broader interest in sowing division in the United States and uncertainty about
the validity of American elections..."
hell, I think there's been sizeable skepticism about the validity of US elections since
the Supreme Court pulled off a coup d'etat against Gore in 2000, and then went ahead again to
load the dice in Citizens United to give it all away to the oligarchs and Ruling Class with
their truck loads of money and dirty laundrying
no 'russian assets' need to add anything to that pathetic track record of American
'democracy'.... and that's just from the past short 20 years
I always thought the thing about 'sowing division in the US' was one of the Elites most
hilarious and laughable memes - what we need is a satirist as great as Moliere
To quote: "Russia's broader interest in sowing division in the United States and uncertainty
about the validity of American elections."
A democracy without division, really dissent, is not a democracy. "Hey hey we must not
have division over Wall Street or police abuse.....let's have harmony. No no no say no more
or you create division."
Want to get a prespective on American democracy? Ask African Americans and other minority
groups (such as Hispanics and the wrong sort of European immigrants) what has been done to
their right to vote and dissent both now (see Georgia) or in the past (see Jim Crow).
I said this back in 2016 when Russiagate started that it was a poisoned well that the
Democrats and the Deep State/National Security establishment would never stop returning to.
And here we are, within the space 72 hours the Democrats have accused Russia of "meddling" in
the 2020 election by supporting Trump AND Sanders, so I take it that from now on whenever any
candidate appears that might upset the establishment even a little bit, they will be accused
of being Russian puppets.
This gives the Democrat Party leadership yet another potential weapon to use against
Bernie Sanders in the event of a brokered convention, they'll just bleat out "we can't
nominate Bernie, the Russians tainted the process to support him". Trump at least can call
the Democrats out on their B.S. and call them liars right to their faces, but poor Bernie
wont have the courage to do that (at least from what I've seen so far). His own words about
Russian "meddling" in 2016 will haunt him, he'll say that the Russians shouldn't have meddled
but it won't have impacted his support, but they'll counter that the nomination process was
tainted and the DNC has no choice but to discuss how to proceed with the nomination process.
That's how they'll try to kill Bernie's candidacy, the "discussion" will just be a bunch of
declarations, ultimatums and public commitments they will extract from Bernie to try and
break Bernie from his base and either halt his movement's momentum or kill it outright.
I don't know if it will work but the DNC has a history of doubling down against the
people's favorite. If the DNC pursue this stratagem I imagine we'll see some talking heads
show up in March pushing for a discussion among the candidates on how to respond to Russian
meddling, maybe even some debate questions. Either way, Sander needs to come out swinging
against whatever the DNC suggests (ideally he should put forth his own suggestion and steer
the conversation down a path he choses). Rest assured whatever the DNC puts forth, the goal
won't be to protect the electoral process it will be to bog down the nomination process with
a dead horse debate in order to blunt Sander's momentum so that a brokered convention to pick
someone else won't be such an obvious democratic betrayal.
If the DNC succeeds in screwing Bernie (and more importantly Bernie's supporters) out of a
presidential nomination for an election they could have won, It will be a paradigm shift in
US internal politics, a second 9/11 that will radically alter how all elections within the US
are perceived by the public forever. in the same way 9/11 normalized the concept of the
Forever War within the US (also called "Generational War" for those who wish to obscure
truth), a "Milwaukee Screw job 2020" will normalize the concept of a moribund political
establishment within the DNC that will strangle even mild political reform movement conducted
within the system itself. While this will preserve the political establishment for a time,
the economic and political crises that created these movements will remain unresolved and
having de-facto declared maintaining these crises official party policy by blocking reform
efforts within the existing political system, these movements will become radicalized and
we'll see return of radical movements similar to those of the 1970s (or 1900s). Eventually
either the political system will be reformed or it will collapse, but this will take time (a
generation perhaps more). At the very least, this period time and all of the people who lived
during it will be robbed of their full political agency, a massive lose to US society and
political sophistication. In the worst case, it will result in a political collapse of the
US, which will entail a massive cost to the US's human, economic, political and international
capital comparable to Russian in 1917
The prospect of two rival campaigns both receiving help from Moscow appears to reflect what
intelligence officials have previously described as Russia's broader interest in sowing
division in the United States and uncertainty about the validity of American elections.
(In Rachel Maddow's voice.) Sounds crazy, but what if that's the whole point? What
if Russia is making all these nonsensical moves on purpose, knowing full well they'll be
detected by the U.S. intelligence and reported in the press, thus hurting the credibility of
the U.S. intelligence, as no sane individual will believe these allegations?
"... Schiff insisted that Trump must be removed now to "assure the integrity" of the 2020 election. He elaborated somewhat ambiguously that "The president's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won." Schiff also unleashed one of the most time honored but completely lame excuses for going to war, claiming that military assistance to Ukraine that had been delayed by Trump was essential for U.S. national security. He said "As one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry, the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there, and we don't have to fight Russia here." ..."
"... Schiff, a lawyer who has never had to put his life on the line for anything and whose son sports a MOSSAD t-shirt, is one of those sunshine soldiers who finds it quite acceptable if someone else does the dying. Journalist Max Blumenthal observed that "Liberals used to mock Bush supporters when they used this jingoistic line during the war on Iraq. Now they deploy it to justify an imperialist proxy war against a nuclear power." Aaron Mate at The Nation added that "For all the talk about Russia undermining faith in U.S. elections, how about Russiagaters like Schiff fear-mongering w/ hysterics like this? Let's assume Ukraine did what Trump wanted: announce a probe of Burisma. Would that delegitimize a 2020 U.S. election? This is a joke." ..."
"... On Wednesday, Schiff maintained that "Russia is not a threat to Eastern Europe alone. Ukraine has become the de facto proving ground for just the types of hybrid warfare that the twenty-first century will become defined by: cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, efforts to undermine the legitimacy of state institutions, whether that is voting systems or financial markets. The Kremlin showed boldly in 2016 that with the malign skills it honed in Ukraine, they would not stay in Ukraine. Instead, Russia employed them here to attack our institutions, and they will do so again." Not surprisingly, if one substitutes the "United States" for "Russia" and "Kremlin" and changes "Ukraine" to Iran or Venezuela, the Schiff comment actually becomes much more credible. ..."
"... Donald Trump's erratic rule has certainly dismayed many of his former supporters, but the Democratic Party is offering nothing but another helping of George W. Bush/Barack Obama establishment war against the world. We Americans have had enough of that for the past nineteen years. Trump may indeed deserve to be removed based on his actions, but the argument that it is essential to do so because of Russia lurking is complete nonsense. Pretty scary that the apparent chief promoter of that point of view is someone who actually has power in the government, one Adam Schiff, head of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee. ..."
"... It is scary, but what else can Schiff say? They have no credible arguments against Trump, or for their own party. They are a bunch of lying scumbags that will kill, cheat, steal, mislead, carpet-bag and anything else unethical to achieve their sleazy goals. ..."
"... Since the US Sociopaths In Charge have totally Effed up the nation, and a significant portion of the world, they have to have SOMEBODY to blame. They certainly won't take the blame they deserve themselves. ..."
"... What the ZOG wants the ZOG gets ..."
"... It is appropriate to recall the words of Joseph Goebbels: "Give me the media, and I will make a herd of pigs from any nation," and pigs are easy to drive to the slaughterhouse. Only Russia can really resist such a situation in the world. Therefore, she is the enemy. ..."
"... The Centrist Democrats and Republicans want to paint the old school God and Country Conservatives Equality and Justice for the USA (Nationalist) into being Russian ..."
One of the more interesting aspects of the nauseating impeachment trial in the Senate was
the repeated vilification of Russia and its President Vladimir Putin.
To hate Russia has become dogma on both sides of the political aisle, in part because no
politician has really wanted to confront the lesson of the 2016 election, which was that most
Americans think that the federal government is basically incompetent and staffed by career
politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell who should return back home and get real jobs
.
Worse still, it is useless, and much like the one trick pony the only thing it can do is
steal money from the taxpayers and waste it on various types of self-gratification that only
politicians can appreciate. That means that the United States is engaged is fighting multiple
wars against make-believe enemies while the country's infrastructure rots and a host of
officially certified grievance groups control the public space.
It sure doesn't look like Kansas anymore.
The fact that opinion polls in Europe suggest that many Europeans would rather have Vladimir
Putin than their own hopelessly corrupt leaders is suggestive. One can buy a whole range of
favorable t-shirts featuring Vladimir Putin on Ebay , also suggesting that most Americans find
the official Russophobia narrative both mysterious and faintly amusing. They may not really be
into the expressed desire of the huddled masses in D.C. to go to war to bring true U.S. style
democracy to the un-enlightened.
One also must wonder if the Democrats are reading the tea leaves correctly. If they think
that a slogan like "Honest Joe Biden will keep us safe from Moscow" will be a winner in 2020
they might again be missing the bigger picture. Since the focus on Trump's decidedly erratic
behavior will inevitably die down after the impeachment trial is completed, the Democrats will
have to come up with something compelling if they really want to win the presidency and it sure
won't be the largely fictionalized Russian threat.
Nevertheless, someone should tell Congressman Adam Schiff, who chairs the House Intelligence
Committee, to shut up as he is becoming an international embarrassment. His "closing arguments"
speeches last week were respectively two-and-a-half hours and ninety minutes long and were
inevitably praised by the mainstream media as "magisterial," "powerful," and "impressive." The
Washington Post 's resident Zionist extremist Jennifer Rubin
labeled it "a grand slam" while legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin
called it "dazzling." Gail Collins of the New York Times dubbed it "a
great job" and added that Schiff is now "a rock star." Daily Beast enthused that
the remarks "will go down in history " and progressive activist Ryan Knight called it "a
closing statement for the ages." Hollywood was also on board with actress Debra Messing
tweeting "I am in tears. Thank you Chairman Schiff for fighting for our country."
Actually, a better adjective would have been "scary" and not merely due to its elaboration
of the alleged high crimes and misdemeanors committed by President Trump, much of which was
undeniably true even if not necessarily impeachable. It was scary because it was a warmongers speech, full of allusions to Russia, to Moscow's
"interference" in 2016, and to the
ridiculous proposition that if Trump were to be defeated in 2020 he might not concede and
Russia could even intervene militarily in the United States in support of its puppet.
Schiff insisted that Trump must be removed now to "assure the integrity" of the 2020
election. He elaborated somewhat ambiguously that "The president's misconduct cannot be decided
at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won." Schiff also unleashed one of the most time honored but completely lame excuses for
going to war, claiming that military assistance to Ukraine that had been delayed by Trump was
essential for U.S. national security. He said "As one witness put it during our impeachment
inquiry, the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there,
and we don't have to fight Russia here."
Schiff, a lawyer who has never had to put his life on the line for anything and whose son
sports a MOSSAD t-shirt, is one of those sunshine soldiers who finds it quite acceptable if
someone else does the dying. Journalist Max Blumenthal observed that "Liberals used
to mock Bush supporters when they used this jingoistic line during the war on Iraq. Now they
deploy it to justify an imperialist proxy war against a nuclear power." Aaron Mate at The
Nation added that "For all the talk about
Russia undermining faith in U.S. elections, how about Russiagaters like Schiff fear-mongering
w/ hysterics like this? Let's assume Ukraine did what Trump wanted: announce a probe of
Burisma. Would that delegitimize a 2020 U.S. election? This is a joke."
Over
at Antiwar Daniel Lazare explains how the Wednesday speech was "a fear-mongering,
sword-rattling harangue that will not only raise tensions with Russia for no good reason, but
sends a chilling message to [Democratic Party] dissidents at home that if they deviate from
Russiagate orthodoxy by one iota, they'll be driven from the fold."
The orthodoxy that Lazare was writing about includes the established Nancy Pelosi/Chuck
Schumer narrative that Russia invaded "poor innocent Ukraine" in 2014, that it interfered in
the 2016 election to defeat Hillary Clinton, and that it is currently trying to smear Joe
Biden. One might add to that the growing consensus that Russia can and will interfere again in
2020 to help Trump. Absent from the narrative is the part how the U.S. intervened in Ukraine
first to remove its government and the fact that there is something very unsavory about Joe
Biden's son taking a high-paying sinecure board position from a notably corrupt Ukrainian
oligarch while his father was Vice President and allegedly directing U.S. assistance to a
Ukrainian anti-corruption effort.
On Wednesday,
Schiff maintained that "Russia is not a threat to Eastern Europe alone. Ukraine has become
the de facto proving ground for just the types of hybrid warfare that the twenty-first century
will become defined by: cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, efforts to undermine the
legitimacy of state institutions, whether that is voting systems or financial markets. The
Kremlin showed boldly in 2016 that with the malign skills it honed in Ukraine, they would not
stay in Ukraine. Instead, Russia employed them here to attack our institutions, and they will
do so again." Not surprisingly, if one substitutes the "United States" for "Russia" and
"Kremlin" and changes "Ukraine" to Iran or Venezuela, the Schiff comment actually becomes much
more credible.
The compulsion on the part of the Democrats to bring down Trump to avoid having to deal with
their own failings has brought about a shift in their established foreign policy, placing the
neocons and their friends back in charge. For Schiff, who has enthusiastically supported every
failed American military effort since 9/11, today's Russia is the Soviet Union reborn, and
don't you forget it pardner! Newsweek is meanwhile reporting that the U.S. military is reading
the tea leaves and
is gearing up to fight the Russians. Per Schiff, Trump must be stopped as he is part of a
grand Russian conspiracy to overthrow everything the United States stands for. If the Kremlin
is not stopped now, it's first major step, per Schiff, will be to "remake the map of Europe by
dint of military force."
Donald Trump's erratic rule has certainly dismayed many of his former supporters, but the Democratic Party is offering
nothing but another helping of George W. Bush/Barack Obama establishment war against the world. We Americans have had enough of
that for the past nineteen years. Trump may indeed deserve to be removed based on his actions, but the argument that it is
essential to do so because of Russia lurking is complete nonsense. Pretty scary that the apparent chief promoter of that point
of view is someone who actually has power in the government, one Adam Schiff, head of the House of Representatives Intelligence
Committee.
If the USA doesn't have a bogey man to be afraid of, the USA might worry more and to
insist on fixing the problems within the Nation.
So many of our politicians are guilty of allowing un constitutional on going act like the
removal of Due Process of law for some people and the on going bailout of Global Markets with
the US Dollar. The Patriot act and FISA Courts should have been gone.
Agreed. He seems as about as close as a leader can get to genuinely liking his country and
people. It seems the ones here only give a **** about carbon, Central and South Americans,
and cutting off my kids genitalia.
It is scary, but what else can Schiff say? They have no credible arguments against Trump,
or for their own party. They are a bunch of lying scumbags that will kill, cheat, steal,
mislead, carpet-bag and anything else unethical to achieve their sleazy goals. When Trump
wins in a landslide in 2020, they will claim it's because the Russians 'fixed' the election,
and the Democratic party will break into pieces arguing about how they failed and what they
did wrong. See www.splittingpennies.com
Since the US Sociopaths In Charge have totally Effed up the nation, and a significant
portion of the world, they have to have SOMEBODY to blame. They certainly won't take the
blame they deserve themselves.
lots of words and no answer to the title question. Giraldi does not see the deep
ideological problems: Russia is not trying to diversify into a PoC country, they do not
worship gays and may be the only white people nation with sustaining birth rate. The US will
go to war there is no way to let this continue.
The smart ppl are doing a lousy job of informing the dumb ones about accepted policy like
"America Always Needs An Enemy". Smart ones understand that, and see the bigger game because
of it.
We fight the dumb ones who believe Russian boogeyman crap, instead of helping them
understand they are being misled on who the enemy really is. The dumb ones then fight back
and further entrench that brainwashing.
It is appropriate to recall the words of Joseph Goebbels: "Give me the media, and I will
make a herd of pigs from any nation," and pigs are easy to drive to the slaughterhouse. Only
Russia can really resist such a situation in the world. Therefore, she is the enemy.
The Centrist Democrats and Republicans want to paint the old school God and Country
Conservatives Equality and Justice for the USA (Nationalist) into being Russian. How dare we
expect enforcement of the Laws on the books against them. They want to be deemed Royalty with
all the Elitist Rights.
The old rally call about Russia was always Communist Russia but, they don't do that
anymore? Why ? They love their Communist China wage slaves. The Centrist love Communist labor
in the name of profits . Human rights be damned it's all about the Global Elitist to them
now.
This story claims that it had five (5!) people criminally leaking alleged content from a
classified briefing. And why not, since no one gets prosecuted for these crimes. Still, we
have a serious problem with our supposedly professional "intelligence" and "oversight"
communities. https://t.co/zuAdwXpU2L
Until heads roll and hoaxers are sent to prison, the seditious Russian collusion hoaxers
will never stop. They will lie and leak and fabricate evidence, whatever it takes, to
prevent the American people from taking charge of their own government. https://t.co/wijJ07QKOO
This was an outright declaration of "class war" against working-class voters by a
"university-credentialed overclass" -- "managerial elite" which changed sides and allied with
financial oligrchy. See "The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite" by
Michael Lind
Notable quotes:
"... By canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist societies after World War II, the neoliberal elite saws the seed of the current populist backlash. The "soft neoliberal" backbone of the Democratic Party (Clinton wing) were incapable of coming to terms with Hillary Clinton's defeat -- the rejection of the establishment candidate by the US population and first of all by the working class. The result has been the neo-McCarthyism campaign and the attempt to derail Trump via color revolution spearheaded by Brennan-Obama factions in CIA and FBI. ..."
It looks like Bloomberg is finished. He just committed political suicide with his comments
about farmers and metal workers.
BTW Bloomberg's plan is highly hypocritical -- like is Bloomberg himself.
During the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, a "neoliberal revolution from above" was
staged in the USA by "managerial elite" which like Soviet nomenklatura (which also staged a
neoliberal coup d'état) changed sides and betrayed the working class.
So those neoliberal scoundrels reversed the class compromise embodied in the New Deal.
The most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the neoliberal managerial class and financial
oligarchy who got to power via the "Quiet Coup" was the global labor arbitrage in which
production is outsourced to countries with lower wage levels and laxer regulations.
So all those "improving education" plans are, to a large extent, the smoke screen over the
fact that the US workers now need to compete against highly qualified and lower cost
immigrants and outsourced workforce.
The fact is that it is very difficult to find for US graduates in STEM disciplines a
decent job, and this is by design.
Also, after the "Reagan neoliberal revolution" ( actually a coup d'état ), profits
were maximized by putting downward pressure on domestic wages through the introduction of the
immigrant workforce (the collapse of the USSR helped greatly ). They push down wages and
compete for jobs with their domestic counterparts, including the recent graduates. So the
situation since 1991 was never too bright for STEM graduates.
By canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist societies after World War
II, the neoliberal elite saws the seed of the current populist backlash. The "soft
neoliberal" backbone of the Democratic Party (Clinton wing) were incapable of coming to terms
with Hillary Clinton's defeat -- the rejection of the establishment candidate by the US
population and first of all by the working class. The result has been the neo-McCarthyism
campaign and the attempt to derail Trump via color revolution spearheaded by Brennan-Obama
factions in CIA and FBI.
See also recently published "The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial
Elite" by Michael Lind.
One of his quotes:
The American oligarchy spares no pains in promoting the belief that it does not exist,
but the success of its disappearing act depends on equally strenuous efforts on the part of
an American public anxious to believe in egalitarian fictions and unwilling to see what is
hidden in plain sight.
One bonfire that refuses to die and flamed up again today - Crowdstrike and the media's total
refusal to even mention its name, which was the really critical part of the Ukrainian phone
call. Not their phony quid pro quo.
All Democrat candidates need to questioned about Crowdstrike, since it led to two failed
major Democrat-led actions against President Trump - The Mueller investigation and the
Democrat impeachment.
Following article underscores what Larry Johnson has been reporting for years:
"... However, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed in his report that the dossier was used in the Obama administration's 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). As stated in the IG report, there were discussions by top intelligence officials as to whether the Steele dossier should be included in the ICA report. ..."
"... But upon careful inspection of Horowitz's report, on page 179, investigators ask former FBI Director James Comey if he discussed the dossier with Brennan and whether or not it should be given to President Obama. According to the report, Comey told investigators that Brennan said it was "important" enough to include in the ICA -- clearly part of the "corpus of intelligence information" they had. ..."
"... "Mr. Durham appears to be pursuing a theory that the C.I.A., under its former director John O. Brennan, had a preconceived notion about Russia or was trying to get to a particular result -- and was nefariously trying to keep other agencies from seeing the full picture lest they interfere with that goal, the people said." ..."
"... Brennan's assessment stated that Putin wanted to "undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate former Secretary of State [Hillary] Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency." It also stated that Putin "developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump." ..."
"... Durham's investigation appear to have many tentacles. For example, he has expanded his probe to the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment. According to sources who spoke to SaraACarter.com he is carefully scrutinizing money paid through the office to former FBI confidential informant Cambridge academic Stefan Halper. Halper, who worked in previous U.S. administrations and is an academic, is connected to three of President Donald Trump's campaign officials that were wrapped up into the FBI's probe, most notably Carter Page. ..."
"... Halper, along with others such as former MI6 Chief Sir Richard Dearlove, founded the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar, in England at Cambridge University. According to several sources, Durham has questioned officials at the Office of Net Assessment about Halper's contracts, how the money was utilized and what agency actually awarded the contract. ..."
"... Durham's criminal investigation into the FBI , CIA, as well as private entities is ongoing. Known by its acronym ONA, the secretive office is run by Director James Baker, who has been in the role since being appointed by the Obama Administration in 2015. In a January letter to Baker, Grassley asks a litany of questions as to Halper's role within ONA, his contracts, his foreign contacts and whether the FBI, or CIA, used the ONA office to pay Halper for spying on Trump campaign personnel. ..."
"... "Can ONA state for certain that Halper did not use taxpayer money provided by DoD to recruit, or attempt to recruit, sources for the FBI investigation into the now-debunked theory of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia," Grassley asks Baker. ..."
"... Ironically, documents obtained by SaraACarter.com suggest that during Halper's tenure with the seminar, he had also invited senior Russian intelligence officials to co-teach his course on several occasions. Further, according to news reports, he also accepted money to finance the course from a top Russian oligarch with ties to Putin. ..."
"... Several course syllabi from 2012 and 2015 obtained by this outlet reveal Hapler had invited and co-taught his course on intelligence with the former Director of Russian Intelligence Gen. I. Vyacheslav Trubnikov. ..."
"... However, there is evidence that Halper had similar sources to former MI6 spy Christopher Steele, who compiled the dossier. Based on hand written notes from an interview the State Department's Kathleen Kavalec states two of Steele's dossier sources; "Trubnikov" and "Surkov." ..."
U.S. Attorney John Durham – charged with the criminal probe into the FBI's Russia
investigation of the Trump campaign – has been questioning CIA officials closely involved
with John
Brennan's 2017 intelligence community assessment regarding direct Russian interference in
the 2016 election, according to U.S. officials.
In May 2017, Brennan denied during a hearing before the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence that its agency relied on the now debunked Christopher Steele dossier for the
Intelligence Community Assessment report. He told then Congressman Trey Gowdy "we didn't"
use the Steele dossier.
"It wasn't part of the corpus of intelligence information that we had," Brennan
stated.
"It was not in any way used as a basis for the Intelligence Community assessment that was
done. It was -- it was not."
However, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed in his report that the dossier was
used in the Obama administration's 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). As stated in
the IG report, there were discussions by top intelligence officials as to whether the Steele
dossier should be included in the ICA report.
But upon careful inspection of Horowitz's report, on page 179, investigators ask former
FBI Director James Comey if he discussed the dossier with Brennan and whether or not it should
be given to President Obama. According to the report, Comey told investigators that Brennan
said it was "important" enough to include in the ICA -- clearly part of the "corpus of
intelligence information" they had.
According to a recent report by The New York Times, Durham's probe is specifically looking
at that January 2017 intelligence community assessment, which concluded with "high confidence" that
Russian President Vladimir Putin "ordered an influence campaign in 2016."
"Mr. Durham appears to be pursuing a theory that the C.I.A., under its former director
John O. Brennan, had a preconceived notion about Russia or was trying to get to a particular
result -- and was nefariously trying to keep other agencies from seeing the full picture lest
they interfere with that goal, the people said."
Sources with knowledge have said CIA officials questioned by Durham's investigative team
"are extremely concerned with the investigation and the direction it's heading."
Brennan's assessment stated that Putin wanted to "undermine public faith in the U.S.
democratic process, denigrate former Secretary of State [Hillary] Clinton, and harm her
electability and potential presidency." It also stated that Putin "developed a clear preference
for President-elect Trump."
But not everyone agreed with Brennan. The NSA then under retired Adm. Mike Rogers stated it
only had "moderate confidence" that Putin tried to help Trump's election. As stated in the
New York times Durham is investigating whether Brennan was keeping other intelligence
agencies out of the loop to keep his narrative that Putin was helping Trump's campaign
public.
"I wouldn't call it a discrepancy, I'd call it an honest difference of opinion between
three different organizations, and, in the end, I made that call," Rogers
told the Senate in May 2017.
"It didn't have the same level of sourcing and the same level of multiple sources."
According to The Times Durham is reviewing emails from the CIA, FBI, and National Security
Agency analysts who worked on the January, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment on Russia's
interference in the election.
Durham's office could not be reached for comment. DOJ spokesperson Kerri Kupec also could
not be reached for comment.
However, Brennan told MSNBC's "Hardball" last week,
that Durham's questioning is dangerous.
"It's kind of silly," he said.
"Is there a criminal investigation now on analytic judgments and the activities of C.I.A.
in terms of trying to protect our national security? I'm certainly willing to talk to Mr.
Durham or anybody else who has any questions about what we did during this period of 2016
."
Durham And FBI Spy Stefan Halper
Durham's investigation appear to have many tentacles. For example, he has expanded his
probe to the Pentagon's
Office of Net Assessment. According to sources who spoke to SaraACarter.com he is carefully
scrutinizing money paid through the office to former FBI confidential informant Cambridge
academic Stefan Halper. Halper, who worked in previous U.S. administrations and is an academic,
is connected to three of President Donald Trump's campaign officials that were wrapped up into
the FBI's probe, most notably Carter
Page.
Halper, along with others such as former MI6 Chief Sir Richard Dearlove, founded the
Cambridge Intelligence Seminar, in England at Cambridge University. According to several
sources, Durham has questioned officials at the Office of Net Assessment about Halper's
contracts, how the money was utilized and what agency actually awarded the contract.
Further, Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, is also
investigating the over $1 million in contracts Halper received from the ONA, as
first reported at SaraACarter.com. It is, of course, a separate investigation from Durham's
but on the same issues.
The Office Of Net Assessment, according to sources with knowledge, is sometimes used as a
front to pay contractors, like Halper, who are conducting work for U.S. intelligence agencies.
It is for this reason, that Durham is investigating the flow of money that Halper received and
whether or not agencies other than the FBI were involved in the investigation into Trump's
campaign and whether or not, the contracts were accurately accounted for in the reports
received by Grassley.
Durham's criminal investigation
into the FBI , CIA, as well as private entities is ongoing. Known by its acronym ONA, the
secretive office is run by Director James Baker, who has been in the role since being appointed
by the Obama Administration in 2015. In a January letter to Baker, Grassley asks a litany of
questions as to Halper's role within ONA, his contracts, his foreign contacts and whether the
FBI, or CIA, used the ONA office to pay Halper for spying on Trump campaign personnel.
"Can ONA state for certain that Halper did not use taxpayer money provided by DoD to
recruit, or attempt to recruit, sources for the FBI investigation into the now-debunked
theory of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia," Grassley asks Baker.
But it is Halper's role overseas and concern that the CIA may have been involved that is
leading to more questions than answers. In 2016, in what appeared to be an unexpected move,
Halper left the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar. He
told papers in London – at the time – that it was due to "unacceptable Russian
influence."
Ironically, documents obtained by SaraACarter.com suggest that during Halper's tenure with the
seminar, he had also invited senior Russian intelligence officials to co-teach his course on
several occasions. Further, according to news reports, he also accepted money to finance the
course from a top Russian oligarch with ties to Putin.
Several course syllabi from 2012 and 2015 obtained by this outlet reveal Hapler had
invited and co-taught his course on intelligence with the former Director of Russian
Intelligence Gen. I. Vyacheslav Trubnikov.
Moreover, the New York Times recent report suggests that Durham's probe into Brennan is also
looking closely at an alleged secret source said to have direct ties to the Kremlin. It is not
certain if the same secret Kremlin source discussed by Brennan is the same source used by
Halper in his reports.
However, there is evidence that Halper had similar sources to former MI6 spy Christopher
Steele, who compiled the dossier. Based on hand written notes from an interview the State
Department's Kathleen Kavalec states two of Steele's dossier sources; "Trubnikov" and
"Surkov."
Interesting, isn't it.
Surkov is Vladislav Surkov, an aide of Vladimir Putin who is on the U.S.'s list of
sanctioned individuals, and Trubnikov is none other than Vyacheslav Trubnikov. Trubnikov was
the First Deputy of Foreign Minister of Russia and he formally served as the Director of
Foreign Intelligence Service. He is also a source of Halper.
"... Imperialism – the highest stage of capitalism ..."
"... Without the natives' consent and without the neighbouring countries approval, Moroccans, Somalis, and later Afghans and Syrians, found home in the EU thanks to madame Merkel. ..."
At the moment, the United States has great difficulty in retaining its hegemony in the
Middle East. Its troops have been declared unwanted in Iraq; and in Syria, the US and their
foreign legion of terrorists lose terrain and positions every month. The US has responded to
this with a significant escalation, by deploying more troops and by constant threats against
Iran. At the same time, we have seen strong protest movements in Lebanon, Iraq and
Iran.
When millions of Iraqi took to the streets recently, their main slogan was "THE UNITED
STATES OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST!"
How should one analyze this?
Obviously, there are a lot of social tensions in the Middle East – class based,
ethnic, religious and cultural. The region is a patchwork of conflicts and tensions that not
only goes back hundreds of years, but even a few thousand.
There are always many reasons to rebel against a corrupt upper class, anywhere in the world.
But no rebellion can succeed if it is not based on a realistic and thorough analysis of the
specific conditions in the individual country and region.
Just as in Africa, the borders in the Middle East are arbitrarily drawn. They are the
product of the manipulations of imperialist powers, and only to a lesser extent products of
what the peoples themselves have wanted.
During the era of decolonization, there was a strong, secular pan-Arab movement that wanted to create
a unified Arab world. This movement was influenced by the nationalist and socialist ideas that
had strong popular support at the time.
King Abdallah I
of Jordan envisaged a kingdom that would consist of Jordan, Palestine and Syria. Egypt and
Syria briefly established a union called the United Arab Republic . Gaddafi wanted
to unite Libya, Syria and Egypt in a federation of Arab republics
.
In 1958, a quickly dissolved confederation was established between Jordan and Iraq, called
the Arab Federation
. All these efforts were transient. What remains is the Arab League, which is, after all, not a
state federation and not an alliance. And then of course we have the demand for a Kurdish
state, or something similar consisting of one or more Kurdish mini-states.
Still, the most divisive product of the First World War was the establishment of the state
of Israel on Palestinian soil. During the First World War, Britain's Foreign Minister Arthur
Balfour issued what became known as the Balfour Declaration
, which " view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish
people."
But what is the basis for all these attempts at creating states? What are the prerequisites
for success or failure?
The imperialist powers divide the world according to the power
relations between them
Lenin gave the best and most durable explanation for this, in his essay Imperialism
– the highest stage of capitalism . There, he explained five basic features of
the era of imperialism:
The concentration of production and capital has developed to such a
high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; The
merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this
"finance capital", of a financial oligarchy; The export of capital as distinguished from the
export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; The formation of international
monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves; The territorial
division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.
But Lenin also pointed out that capitalist countries are developing unevenly, not least
because of the uneven development of productive forces in the various capitalist countries.
After a while, there arises a discrepancy between how the world is divided and the relative
strength of the imperialist powers. This disparity will eventually force through a
redistribution, a new division of the world based on the new relationship of strength. And, as
Lenin states :
The question is: what means other than war could there be under capitalism to overcome the
disparity between the development of productive forces and the accumulation of capital on the
one side, and the division of colonies and spheres of influence for finance capital on the
other?"
The two world wars were wars that arose because of unevenness in the power relationships
between the imperialist powers. The British Empire was past its heyday and British capitalism
lagged behind in the competition. The United States and Germany were the great powers that had
the largest industrial and technological growth, and eventually this misalignment exploded. Not
once, but twice.
Versailles and Yalta
The victors of the First World War divided the world between themselves at the expense of
the losers. The main losers were Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia (the Soviet Union) and the
Ottoman Empire. This division was drawn up in the Versailles treaty and the following minor
treaties.
Europe after the Versailles Treaties (Wikipedia)
This map shows how the Ottoman Empire was partitioned:
At the end of World War II, the victorious superpowers met in the city of Yalta on the
Crimean peninsula in the Soviet Union. Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin made an agreement on how
Europe should be divided following Germany's imminent defeat. This map shows how it was
envisaged and the two blocs that emerged and became the foundation for the Cold War.
Note that Yugoslavia, created after Versailles in 1919, was maintained and consolidated as
"a country between the blocs". So it is a country that carries in itself the heritage of both
the Versailles- and Yalta agreements.
The fateful change of era when the Soviet Union
fell
In the era of imperialism, there has always been a struggle between various great powers.
The battle has been about markets, access to cheap labor, raw materials, energy, transport
routes and military control. And the imperialist countries divide the world between themselves
according to their strength. But the imperialist powers are developing unevenly.
If a power collapses or loses control over some areas, rivals will compete to fill the void.
Imperialism follows the principle that Aristotle in his Physics called horror vacui – the
fear of empty space.
And that was what happened when the Soviet Union lost the Cold War. In 1991, the Soviet
Union ceased to exist, and soon the Eastern bloc was also history. And thus the balance was
broken, the one that had maintained the old order. And now a huge area was available for
re-division. The weakened Russia barely managed to preserve its own territory, and not at all
the area that just before was controlled by the Soviet Union.
Never has a so large area been open for redivision. It was the result of two horrible
world wars that anew was up for grabs. It could not but lead to war." Pål
Steigan, 1999
"Never has a so large area been open for re-division. It was the result of two horrible
world wars that anew was up for grabs. It could not but lead to war." Map: Countries either
part of the Soviet Union, Eastern Bloc or non-aligned (Yugoslavia)
When the Soviet Union disintegrated, both the Yalta and Versailles agreements in reality
collapsed, and opened up the way for a fierce race to control this geopolitical empty
space.
This laid the foundation for the American
Geostrategy for Eurasia , which concentrated on securing control over the vast Eurasian
continent. It is this struggle for redistribution in favor of the United States that has been
the basis for most wars since 1990: Somalia, the Iraq wars, the Balkan wars, Libya, Ukraine,
and Syria.
The United States has been aggressively spearheading this, and the process to expand NATO
eastward and create regime changes in the form of so-called "color revolutions" has been part
of this struggle. The coup in Kiev, the transformation of Ukraine into an American colony with
Nazi elements, and the war in Donbass are also part of this picture. This war will not stop
until Russia is conquered and dismembered, or Russia has put an end to the US offensive.
So, to recapitulate: Because the world is already divided between imperialist powers and
there are no new colonies to conquer, the great powers can only fight for redistribution. What
creates the basis and possibilities for a new division is the uneven development of capitalism.
The forces that are developing faster economically and technologically will demand bigger
markets, more raw materials, more strategic control.
The results of two terrible wars are
again up for grabs
World War I caused perhaps 20 million deaths , as well as at least as many
wounded. World War II caused around 72 million deaths . These are
approximate numbers, and there is still controversy around the exact figures, but we are
talking about this order of magnitude.
The two world wars that ended with the Versailles and Yalta treaties thus caused just below
100 million dead, as well as an incredible number of other suffering and losses.
Since 1991, a low-intensity "world war" has been fought, especially by the US, to conquer
"the void". Donald Trump
recently stated that the United States have waged wars based on lies, which have cost $ 8
trillion ($ 8,000 billion) and millions of people's lives. So the United States' new
distribution of the spoils has not happened peacefully.
"The Rebellion against
Sykes-Picot"
In the debate around the situation in the Middle East, certain people that would like to
appear leftist, radical and anti-imperialist say that it is time to rebel against the
artificial boundaries drawn by the Sykes-Picot and Versailles treaties. And certainly these
borders are artificial and imperialist. But how leftist and anti-imperialist is it to fight for
these boundaries to be revised now?
In reality, it is the United States and Israel that are fighting for a redistribution of the
Middle East. This is the basis underlying Donald Trump's "Deal of the Century", which aims to
bury Palestine forever, and it is stated outright in the new US strategy for partitioning
Iraq.
Again, this is just an updated version of the Zionist Yinon plan that aimed to cantonize the
entire Middle East, with the aim that Israel should have no real opponents and would be able to
dominate the entire region and possibly create a Greater Israel.
It is not the anti-imperialists that are leading the way to overhaul the imperialist borders
from 1919. It is the imperialists. To achieve this, they can often exploit movements that are
initially popular or national, but which then only become tools and proxies in a greater
game.
This has happened so many times in history that it can hardly be counted.
Hitler's Germany exploited Croatian nationalism by using the
Ustaša gangs as proxies. From 1929 to 1945, they killed hundreds of thousands of
Serbs, Jews and Roma people. And their ideological and political descendants carried out an
extremely brutal ethnic cleansing of the Krajina area and forced out more than 200,000 Serbs in
their so-called Operation Storm in 1995.
Hitler also used the extreme Ukrainian nationalists of Stepan Bandera's OUN, and after
Bandera's death, the CIA continued to use them as a fifth column against the Soviet Union.
The US low-intensity war against Iraq, from the Gulf War in 1991 to the Iraq War in 2003,
helped divide the country into enclaves. Iraqi Kurdistan achieved autonomy in the oil-rich
north with the help of a US "no-fly zone". The United States thus created a quasi-state that
was their tool in Iraq.
Undoubtedly, the Kurds in Iraq had been oppressed under Saddam Hussein. But also
undoubtedly, their Iraqi "Kurdistan" became a client state under the thumb of United States.
And there is also no doubt that the no-fly zones were illegal, as UN Secretary General Boutros
Boutros-Ghali
admitted in a conversation with John Pilger .
And now the United States is still using the Kurds in Northern Iraq in its plan to divide
Iraq into three parts. To that end, they are building the world's largest consulate in Erbil.
What they are planning to do, is simply "creating a country".
As is well known, the United States also uses the Kurds in Syria as a pretext to keep 27
percent of the country occupied. It does not help how much the Kurdish militias SDF and PYD
invoke democracy, feminism and communalism; they have ended up pleading for the United States
to maintain the occupation of Northeast Syria.
Preparations for a New World War
Israel and the US are preparing for war against Iran. In this fight, they will develop as
much "progressive" rhetoric as is required to fool people. Real dissatisfaction in the area,
which there is every reason to have, will be magnified and blown out of all proportion. "Social
movements" will be equipped with the latest news in the Israeli and US "riot kits" and receive
training and logistics support, in addition to plenty of cold hard cash.
There may be good reasons to revise the 1919 borders, but in today's situation, such a move
will quickly trigger a major war. Some say that the Kurds are entitled to their own state, and
maybe so. The question is ultimately decided by everyone else, except the Kurds themselves.
The problem is that in today's geopolitical situation, creating a unified Kurdistan will
require that "one" defeats Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. It's hard to see how that can happen
without their allies, not least Russia and China, being drawn into the conflict.
And then we have a new world war on our hands. And in that case, we are not talking about
100 million killed, but maybe ten times as much, or the collapse of civilization as we know it.
The Kurdish question is not worth that much.
This does not mean that one should not fight against oppression and injustice, be it social
and national. One certainly should. But you have to realize that revising the map of the Middle
East is a very dangerous plan and that you run the risk of ending up in very dangerous company.
The alternative to this is to support a political struggle that undermines the hegemony of the
United States and Israel and thereby creates better conditions for future struggles.
It is nothing new that small nations rely on geopolitical situations to achieve some form of
national independence. This was the case, for example, for my home country Norway. It was
France's defeat in the Napoleonic War that caused Denmark to lose the province of Norway to
Sweden in 1814, but at the same time it created space for a separate Norwegian constitution and
internal self rule.
All honor to the Norwegian founding fathers of 1814, but this was decided on the
battlefields in Europe. And again, it was Russia's defeat in the Russo-Japanese War that laid
the geopolitical foundation for the dissolution of the forced union with Sweden almost a
hundred years later, in 1905. (This is very schematically presented and there are many more
details, but there is no doubt that Russia's loss of most of its fleet in the Far East had
created a power vacuum in the west, which was exploitable.)
Therefore, the best thing to do now is not to support the fragmentation of states, but to
support a united front to drive the United States out of the Middle East. The Million Man March
in Baghdad got the ball rolling. There is every reason to build up even more strength behind
it. Only when the United States is out, will the peoples and countries in the region be able to
arrive at peaceful agreements between themselves, which will enable a better future to be
developed.
And in this context, it is an advantage that China develops the "Silk Road" (aka Belt and
Road Initiative), not because China is any nobler than other major powers, but because this
project, at least in the current situation, is non-sectarian, non-exclusive and genuinely
multilateral. The alternative to a monopolistic rule by the United States, with a world police
under Washington's control, is a multipolar world. It grows as we speak.
The days of the Empire are numbered. What this will look like in 20 or 50 years, remains to
be seen.
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial
backers. We are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only
means of income. Even the smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.
Connect with
Connect with
Subscribe newest oldest most voted Notify of
George Mc ,
Off topic – but there's nowhere else to put this at the moment:
The BBC was taken aback by leftwing attacks on its general election coverage
No idea what they are talking about. They patiently explained that Corbyn was Hitler. What
more could they do?
Dungroanin ,
Ok roll up the sleeves, time to concentrate. I've had enough of being baited as a judae-
phobe.
The 'Balfour Declaration' – he didn't write it and it was a contract published in
the newspapers within hours of it being inveigled.
Ready?
'Balfour and Lloyd George would have been happy with an unvarnished endorsement of
Zionism. The text that the foreign secretary agreed in August was largely written by Weizmann
and his colleagues:
"His Majesty's Government accept the principle that Palestine should be reconstituted as
the national home of the Jewish people and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the
achievement of this object and will be ready to consider any suggestions on the subject which
the Zionist Organisation may desire to lay before them."
Got that – AUGUST?
Dungroanin ,
The leading figure in that drama was a charismatic chemistry professor from Manchester, Chaim
Weizmann – with his domed head, goatee beard and fierce intellect. Weizmann had gained
an entrée into political circles thanks to CP Scott, the illustrious editor of the
Manchester Guardian, and had then sold his Zionist project to government leaders, including
David Lloyd George when he was chancellor of the exchequer.
Dungroanin ,
Author(s)
Walter Rothschild, Arthur Balfour, Leo Amery, Lord Milner
Signatories
Arthur James Balfour
Recipient
Walter Rothschild
Dungroanin ,
'In due course the blunt phrase about Palestine being "reconstituted as the national home of
the Jewish people" was toned down into "the establishment of a home for the Jewish people in
Palestine" – a more ambiguous formulation which sidestepped for the moment the idea of
a Jewish state. '
Dungroanin ,
'Edwin Montagu, newly appointed as secretary of state for India, was only the third
practising Jew to hold cabinet office. Whereas his cousin, Herbert Samuel (who in 1920 would
become the first high commissioner of Palestine) was a keen supporter of Zionism, Montagu was
an "assimilationist" – one who believed that being Jewish was a matter of religion not
ethnicity. His position was summed up in the cabinet minutes:
Mr Montagu urged strong objections to any declaration in which it was stated that
Palestine was the "national home" of the Jewish people. He regarded the Jews as a religious
community and himself as a Jewish Englishman '
Dungroanin ,
'Montagu considered the proposed Declaration a blatantly anti-Semitic document and claimed
that "most English-born Jews were opposed to Zionism", which he said was being pushed mainly
by "foreign-born Jews" such as Weizmann, who was born in what is now Belarus.'
Dungroanin ,
The other critic of the proposed Declaration was Lord Curzon, a former viceroy of India, who
therefore viewed Palestine within the geopolitics of Asia. A grandee who traced his lineage
back to the Norman Conquest, Curzon loftily informed colleagues that the Promised Land was
not exactly flowing with milk and honey, but nor was it an empty, uninhabited space.
According to the cabinet minutes, "Lord Curzon urged strong objections upon practical
grounds. He stated, from his recollection of Palestine, that the country was, for the most
part, barren and desolate a less propitious seat for the future Jewish race could not be
imagined."
And, he asked, "how was it proposed to get rid of the existing majority of Mussulman
[Muslim] inhabitants and to introduce the Jews in their place?"
Dungroanin ,
Sorry for the length of this bit – but it only makes sense in the whole:
'Between them, Curzon and Montagu had temporarily slowed the Zionist bandwagon. Lord
Milner, another member of the war cabinet, hastily added two conditions to the proposed
draft, in order to address the two men's respective concerns. The vague phrase about the
rights of the "existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" hints at how little the
government knew or cared about those who constituted roughly 90 per cent of the population of
what they, too, regarded as their homeland.
After trying out the new version on a few eminent Jews, both of Zionist and
accommodationist persuasions, and also securing a firm endorsement from America's President
Woodrow Wilson, Lloyd George and Balfour took the issue back to the war cabinet on 31
October. By now the strident Montagu had left for India, and on this occasion Balfour, who
could often be moody and detached, led from the front, brushing aside the objections that had
been raised and reasserting the propaganda imperative. According to the cabinet minutes, he
stated firmly: "The vast majority of Jews in Russia and America, as, indeed, all over the
world, now appeared to be favourable to Zionism. If we could make a declaration favourable to
such an ideal, we should be able to carry on extremely useful propaganda both in Russia and
America."
This was standard cabinet tactics: a strong lead from a minister supported by the PM,
daring his colleagues to argue back. And this time Curzon did not, though he did make another
telling comment. He "attached great importance to the necessity of retaining the Christian
and Moslem Holy Places in Jerusalem and Bethlehem". If this were done, Curzon added, he "did
not see how the Jewish people could have a political capital in Palestine".'
Dungroanin ,
Dates again crucial and the smoking gun:
'securing a firm endorsement from America's President Woodrow Wilson, Lloyd George and
Balfour took the issue back to the war cabinet on 31 October.'
Dungroanin ,
The two conditions had bought off the two main critics. That was all that seemed to matter,
even though the reference to the "rights of the existing non-Jewish communities" stood in
potential conflict with the first two clauses about the British supporting and using their
"best endeavours" for the "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish
people".
Dungroanin ,
There is MORE but I'll pause and see how many are really interested in FACTS, as opposed to
invented History, Economics and Capital instead of the only real human motivations of the
ages – Money and Power.
George Mc ,
the only real human motivations of the ages – Money and Power.
If this is true then we are all doomed.
Dungroanin ,
Not if we are aware of it George.
Dungroanin ,
Ok a summary fom Brittanica:
'Balfour Declaration Quick Facts
The Balfour Declaration, issued through the continued efforts of Chaim Weizmann and Nahum
Sokolow, Zionist leaders in London, fell short of the expectations of the Zionists, who had
asked for the reconstitution of Palestine as "the" Jewish national home. The declaration
specifically stipulated that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and
religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." The document, however,
said nothing of the political or national rights of these communities and did not refer to
them by name. Nevertheless, the declaration aroused enthusiastic hopes among Zionists and
seemed the fulfillment of the aims of the World Zionist Organization (see Zionism).
The British government hoped that the declaration would rally Jewish opinion, especially
in the United States, to the side of the Allied powers against the Central Powers during
World War I (1914–18). They hoped also that the settlement in Palestine of a
pro-British Jewish population might help to protect the approaches to the Suez Canal in
neighbouring Egypt and thus ensure a vital communication route to British colonial
possessions in India.
The Balfour Declaration was endorsed by the principal Allied powers and was included in
the British mandate over Palestine, formally approved by the newly created League of Nations
on July 24, 1922.
In May 1939 the British government altered its policy in a White Paper recommending a
limit of 75,000 further immigrants and an end to immigration by 1944, unless the resident
Palestinian Arabs of the region consented to further immigration.
Zionists condemned the new policy, accusing Britain of favouring the Arabs. This point was
made moot by the outbreak of World War II (1939–45) and the founding of the State of
Israel in 1948.'
Dungroanin ,
But what about the timing?
Well there are twin tracks, here is the first.
'But talking about the return of the Jews to the land of Israel was only meaningful
because that land seemed up for grabs after the Ottoman Empire sided with Germany in 1914.
For Britain, France and Russia – though primarily focused on Europe – war against
a declining power long dubbed the "Sick Man of Europe" opened up the prospect of vast gains
in the Levant and the Middle East.
The Ottoman army, however, proved no walkover. In 1915 it threatened the Suez Canal,
Britain's imperial artery to India, and then repulsed landings by British empire and French
forces on the Dardanelles at Gallipoli. Although Baghdad fell in March 1917, two British
assaults on Gaza that spring were humiliatingly driven back, with heavy losses. Deadlock in
the desert added to Whitehall's list of woes.
In this prescribed narrative of remembrance for 1914-18, what happened outside the Western
Front has been almost entirely obscured. The British army's "Historical Lessons, Warfare
Branch" has published in-house a fascinating volume of essays about what it tellingly
entitles "The Forgotten Fronts of the First World War" – with superb maps and
illustrations. The collection covers not only Palestine and Mesopotamia (roughly modern-day
Iraq and Kuwait), but also Italy, Africa, Russia, Turkey and the Pacific – indeed much
of the world – but sadly it is not currently available to the public. '
Dungroanin ,
The second track is the 'money' track and what everything is about and why we live in such a
miasma of blatant lies.
IT can only make sense by asking questions such as :
Can we follow the money?
When was the Fed set up? Why? By whom?
How much money did it lend &
to whom?
When was the first world war started?
When did US declare war?
When did US troops arrive in numbers to enter that war?
What happened in Russia at the same time?
And in Mesopotamia?
How did it end?
How did it fail to end?
What happened to the contract?
Etc.
I have attempted to research and answer some of these already above.
Next I will attempt to walk the other track but be warned that opens more ancient
tracks.
Dungroanin ,
'On 2 November, Balfour sent his letter to Lord Rothschild.
7 November, Lenin and the Bolsheviks had seized power in Petrograd. ransacked the Tsarist
archives, they published juicy extracts from the "secret treaties" that the Allied powers had
made among themselves in 1915-16 to divide the spoils of victory.
The same day the Ottoman Seventh and Eighth Armies evacuated the town of Gaza
9 November Letter published in Times.
Mid November – The Bolsheviks did not discover that the British were also playing
footsie with the Turks. In the middle of November 1917, secret meetings took place with
Ottoman dissidents in Greece and Switzerland about trying to arrange an armistice in the Near
East. The war cabinet recognised that, as bait, it might have to let the Ottomans keep parts
of their empire in the region, or at least retain some appearance of control. When Curzon got
wind of this, he was incensed: "Almost in the same week that we have pledged ourselves, if
successful, to secure Palestine as a national home for the Jewish people, are we to
contemplate leaving the Turkish flag flying over Jerusalem?"
End November. The Manchester Guardian's correspondent in Petrograd, Morgan Philips Price,
was able to examine the key documents overnight, and his scoop was published by the paper at
the end of November. It revealed to the world, among other things, that the British also had
an understanding with the French – the Sykes-Picot agreement of January 1916 – to
carve up the Near East between them once the Ottoman empire had been defeated. In this,
Palestine was slated for some kind of international condominium – not the British
protectorate envisaged in the Balfour Declaration.
11 December Allenby formally entered Jerusalem. '
So just a few loose ends left to tie up anyone actually want to go there?
The paramount goal of the Fed's founders was to eliminate banking panics, but it was not
the only goal. The founders also sought to increase the amount of international trade
financed by US banks and to expand the use of the dollar internationally. By 1913 the United
States had the world's largest economy, but only a small fraction of US exports and imports
were financed by American banks. Instead, most exports and imports were financed by bankers'
acceptances drawn on European banks in foreign currencies. (Bankers' acceptances are a type
of financial contract used for making payments in the future, for example, upon delivery of
goods or services. Bankers' acceptances are drawn on and guaranteed, i.e., "accepted," by a
bank.) The Federal Reserve Act allowed national banks to issue bankers' acceptances and open
foreign branches, which greatly expanded their ability to finance international transactions
Further the Act authorized the Reserve Banks to purchase acceptances in the open market to
ensure a liquid market for them, thereby spurring growth of that market.
President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act on December 23, 1913.
The task of determining the specific number of districts, district boundaries, and which
cities would have Reserve Banks was assigned to a Reserve Bank Organization Committee.
On April 2, 1914, the Committee announced that twelve Federal Reserve districts would be
formed, identified the boundaries of those districts, and named the cities that would have
Reserve Banks.1 The Banks were quickly organized, officers and staff were hired, and boards
of directors appointed. The Banks opened for business on November 16, 1914.
..
The Federal Reserve Act addressed perceived shortcomings by creating a new national
currency -- Federal Reserve notes -- and requiring members of the Federal Reserve System to
hold reserve balances with their local Federal Reserve Banks.
World War I began in Europe in August 1914, before the Federal Reserve Banks had opened
for business. The war had a profound impact on the US banking system and economy, as well as
on the Federal Reserve.
War disrupted European financial markets and reduced the supply of trade credit offered by
European banks, providing US banks with an opening. Low US interest rates, abundant reserves,
and new authority to issue trade acceptances enabled American banks to finance a growing
share of world trade.
Dungroanin ,
So the denouement :
It appears that the 'first world war' was designed to diminish European banks and boost
the US banks.
However the fuller history of the US bankers is worth knowing- the Jekyll Islanders story
is widely publicised.
Into this time track enters the Balfour Declaration addressed to Lord Rothschild, steered
by Milner (heir to Rhodes empire building and the old EIC), approved by the potus Wilson
(another hireling) that finally sent US troops to overwhelm the Germans, while the great
gamers took out the Romanovs and the Ottoman Empire.
-- --
When we try to understand such facts and timelines and are attacked as Judaeo-phobes,
because we identify Bankers and Robber Barons, it becomes even clearer how deep and wide they
have controlled history and it has NOTHING to do with RELIGION (except perhaps Ludism).
Nothing to do with Judaism (except perhaps Old Jewry in the City, but Lombard Street was most
powerful!) and EVERYTHING to do with POWER and it's representation MONEY. The obscuring of
that through various Economic theories including Marxism is the work of the same old bastards
who are responsible for all our current malaises.
Thankyou and good evening, if anyone made it this far!
😉
George Mc ,
Well OK Dunnie, let's say I go along with you and assume that all the shit we are facing has
nothing to do with religion or all that "Marxian porridge" (as Guido Giacomo Preparata called
it). The question is: What do we do about it?
Speaking of GGP , it seems to me that you and him have much in common. He also goes on
about "Power" but seems to be on the verge of referring this "Power" to mystical entities in
a disconcertingly Ickean manoeuvre. Not that I'm attibuting such a thing to yourself. (No
irony intended.)
Dungroanin ,
George – i don't want you or anyone to just go along with me.
I want everyone to make their minds up on FACTS. That is the only way humanity has
actually progressed by inventing the only self correcting philosophical system and method of
the ages that goes beyond 'personal responsibility teligions' – SCIENTIFIC METHOD
– that takes away arbitrary power to rule, from these that inhabit the top of the human
pyramid by virtue of being born there and having control over the money and so the power to
remain in these positions, which does not benefit the totality of humanity or all life on
Earth.
I am not a messiah, I am angry as fuck and I am not going to sit around enjoying whatever
soma has been handed to us to keep compliant and leave this Planet worse than I found it.
That is the scientific conclusion I have reached.
I suppose some proto buddhist / zoroastrianism / animalist / Shinto / Jain & Quakers
seek religious truth in inner experience, and place great reliance on conscience as the basis
of morality.
I suppose Ghandi's non-violence rebellion against Imperialists is a model as are various
peasants revolts – the Russian / Chinese / Korean / Vietnamese couldn't have survived
without the literal grassroots!
..
As for Guido Giacomo Preparata that you have introduced to me – i had nevet heard of
him before this morning – my first take on him is that he seems to have arrived at
similar conclusions by similar methodology. He seems to have a lot of formal education and a
enviable career so far – i'll have to look into him further but the interview that i
just read seems to indicate concurrence with what i said above. I see no Ickean references
– please give a link.
-- -
As a observation do you not find it funny that there is not a single objection to the
verity of the facts which I have presented above?
Good luck George if you are a real seeker of truth. If not insta-karma awaits.
George Mc ,
The Preparata statement I was referring to is in this interview:
Power is a purely human suggestion. Suggested by whom? That is the question. The NSDAP
thus appeared to have been a front for some kind of nebula of Austro-German magi, dark
initiates, and troubling literati (Dietrich Eckhart comes to mind), with very plausible
extra-Teutonic ramifications of which we know next to nothing. Hitler came to be inducted
in a lodge of this network, endowed as he seemed with a supernatural gift of inflaming
oratory.
This is a theme that I am still studying, but from what I gathered, the adepts of the
Thule Gesellschaft communed around the belief of being the blood heirs of a breed that
seeks redemption / salvation / metempsychosis in some kind of eighth realm away from this
earth, which is the shoddy creation of a lesser God -- the archangel of the Hebrews,
Jehovah. It all sounds positively insane to post-modern ears, but it should be taken very
seriously, I think.
Admittedly it isn't quite interdimensional reptiles but there is a distinct metaphysical
flavour there.
I wouldn't go along with everything Preparata says but he is a wonderful writer and I have
bought almost everything I can find by him. His "biggie" is "Conjuring Hitler". It was Nafeez
Mosaddeq Ahmed that brought GGP to my attention via that book.
milosevic ,
images on this website look terrible, with very little colour. the problem seems to be caused
by this rule, from the file "OffGstyle.css":
.content-wrap-spp img {
filter: sepia(20%) saturate(30%);
}
Open ,
This sepia effect usually works well with Off-Guardian articles, but with these maps in
today's article it is definitely terrible. Why have maps if they don't want to show them
clearly?
(any extra steps for the user to see the pictures clearly is not the answer)
Another area neglected on this website is crediting photos. The majority of images carry
no atribution/credit, despite it [crediting photos] is the best ethical practice even for
public domain pictures. I wish Admin gets expert advice on this.
Open ,
Look at the language used by the americans:
On feb. 12 [2020], Coalition forces, conducting a patrol near Qamishli, Syria ,
encountered a checkpoint occupied by pro-Syrian .. forces .
So, the supremacist unites states' army has found that Syrian forces are occupying Syrian
land .. wow wow wow .. according to this logic, Russian forces are occupying Russian land.
Iranian forces are occupying Iranian land (how dare they?!). But american forces are not
occupying any land, and Israel is not occupying Palestinian and Syrian lands.
This language needs to be known more widely.
Open ,
The americans always use the term 'Coalition forces' when they talk about their illegal
presence in Syria. I tried to search online for what countries are in this coalition. I
recall I was able to find that in the past, but now, it seems this information is being
pushed under wrap.
What are they afraid of? What are they hiding?
Joe ,
Just bring about the end of "Israel" and there'll be peace in the Middle East, and probably
in the wider world, too.
Open ,
Ending the Israeli project is certainly a step in the right direction to improve global
stability. However, alone, it will not bring about peace because the
British/Five-Eyes/Washington's doctrine of spreading disorder and chaos permeates (saturates)
the planet.
In fact, current disorders are the results of convergence of Israeli interests with those
of Western White Supremacy's* resolve to dominate, erh, eveything.
* Western White Supremacy can also be called Western White Idiocy and Bigotry.
Israel manipulates the West's political and military might. The West also uses Israel to
spread Chaos and Disorder.
Antonym ,
Right, back to the good old peace of the graveyard inspired by Mohamed's male sex riot
ideology and plunder legitimization before the Westerners showed up with their superior
(arms) tech legitimization for their plunder.
Before Israel's 1947 creation the world was a bed of roses .
Open ,
"srael's 1947 creation"
Without the natives' consent and without the neighbouring countries approval, Ukranians
and Germans, and later South Americans, found home in the Middle East.
How ligitimate is that?
Antonym ,
Without the natives' consent and without the neighbouring countries approval, Moroccans,
Somalis, and later Afghans and Syrians, found home in the EU thanks to madame Merkel.
How ligitimate is that?
Open ,
"Moroccans, Somalis, and later Afghans and Syrians .. etc.."
Do these comments reflect the Zionists' perspective? This is important because they prove
that the whole existence of Israel is based on total fabrication and lies.
Maggie ,
Did you have to practice at being THAT stupid! Or did they lobotomise you in Langley?
Somalis, Afghans, Syrians would not have had any cause to leave their homeland had it not
been for your employers the CIA/MOSSAD facilitating the raping and pillaging of their homes
by the Oil Magnates, leaving them starving and desolate. https://www.hiiraan.com/op2/2007/may/somalia_the_other_hidden_war_for_oil.aspx
and where does our Aid money go?
https://www.youtube.com/embed/5OInaYenHkU?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent
But of course Antonym, if you were in their situation, you would just stick it out?
Shame on you .
To those who care, read "The confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins" to
understand how this corrupt system is conducted.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Its 'creation' in blood, murder, rape and terror, in a great ethnic cleansing-the sign of
things to come, ceaselessly, for seventy years and ongoing.
paul ,
Ask the people in Gaza about the Zionist "peace of the graveyard."
Antonym ,
Gaza before 2005 was relatively peaceful + prosperous. After the Israeli withdrawal the
inhabitants messed up their own economy but kept on making lots of babies just like
before.
Quite the opposite of a graveyard or a Warsaw ghetto or a Dachau.
Despite the disengagement, the United Nations, international human rights organisations
and most legal scholars regard the Gaza Strip to still be under military occupation by
Israel, though this is disputed by Israel and other legal scholars. Following the
withdrawal, Israel has continued to maintain direct external control over Gaza and indirect
control over life within Gaza: it controls Gaza's air and maritime space, and six of Gaza's
seven land crossings, it maintains a no-go buffer zone within the territory, and controls
the Palestinian population registry, and Gaza remains dependent on Israel for its water,
electricity, telecommunications, and other utilities.
Interesting definition of "withdrawal". It's amazing those Gazans even managed to have
babies!
Richard Le Sarc ,
You would have made a grand Nazi, Antsie-cripes, you have!
paul ,
Gaza was, and is, a huge Zionist concentration camp hermetically sealed off from the outside
world and blockaded just like the Warsaw Ghetto. With Zionist thugs and kiddie killers
shooting hundreds of kids in the head for the fun of it with British sniper rifles and dum
dum bullets, and periodically dropping 20,000 tons of bombs at a time on it, a higher
explosive yield than Hiroshima. With parties of Jews going along to hold barbecues and
picnics to watch all the fun. Nice people, those chosen folk.
Richard Le Sarc ,
I rather think that Epstein, Weinstein, Moonves and all those orthodox and ultra-orthodox who
are such prolific patrons of the sex industry in Israel, know a bit about 'male sex riot
ideology', Antsie.
Dungroanin ,
Pathetic.
'Nandy won a major boost when members of the Labour affiliate Jewish Labour Movement gave her
their backing after a hustings, saying she understood the need to change the party's
culture.'
From the Groaniad
How many members? How many by denomination?
As for the Balfour Contract there were actual English Jewish establishment figures against
its premise. Actual imperial servants. The declaration was a stitch up by the new banking
powers in the US which then sent in the yanks to stop the Germans in 1917.
History is rewritten daily to memory hole such facts.
Capricornia Man ,
The 'Jewish Labour Movement' is so Jewish that most of its members are not Jewish. And it is
so Labour-affiliated that it did not support Labour in the December general election. But it
has no shortage of money. It exists solely to prosecute the interests of a foreign power.
Much the same could be said for any politician who accepts its endorsement.
Rhys Jaggar ,
Given that Jews are vastly outnumbered by non Jews, the simplest way to stop Jewish
manipulation of politics is to form a party from which Jews are specifically banned.
You will not propose any policies harming Jews in any way, you will just make it clear
that this is a party free from any Jewish influence in its constitution.
If Jews cannot accept that, then they are utterly racist and must be dealt with without
sensibility.
Maggie ,
A better solution Rhys would be to form a party that denies all and any dual citizens
That way all the Zionists would be barred.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Full public financing of political parties would end Zionist control.
paul ,
Thornberry has just thrown in the towel.
She will now have more time to "get down on her hands and knees" and "beg forgiveness" from
the Board of Deputies.
Those good little Shabbos are so easily trained.
Dungroanin ,
BoD's??? Another random organisation!
Who are they? Who do they represent? How many people? Which people? How did they get
elected? How can they be fired?
Richard Le Sarc ,
The next world war has already started, with the bio-warfare atttack on China aka Covid19.
lundiel ,
Why no comment on the government reshuffle? I don't agree with the Indian middle-class
uplifting but totally agree with neutering the ultra-conservative treasury.
Maggie ,
I think it's a case of who gives a fck. We now know that our elections are rigged, and so
there is no point in us being involved. My family and I all realised and voted for the last
time.
They are all bloody crap actors reading their scripts and playing their parts, whilst the
never changing suits in the background pull the strings.
I had to explain to my 10 year old Grandson how politics work, and he said "Why doesn't
anyone know the names of, or see the suits?"
What I want to know is why no-one ever asks this question or demands an answer?
tonyopmoc ,
Completely Brilliant Article, but it is Valentines Day, so as I am 66 years old, and in love
with my wife (nearly 40 years together = LOVE), I wrote this in response to Craig Murray, who
has banned me again.
It may be off topic for him, but it ain't off topic for me. I am still in Love.
"Churchill's mental deterioration from syphilis – which the Eton and Oxford ."
Never had it, and she didn't either. We were young and in love, but we didn't know, if
either of us had sex before, but I had a spotty dick, and went to the VD clinic. I had a
blood test, and they gave me some zinc cream.
She also had the same thing, and showed her Mum.
We were both completely innocent, and had a sexually transmitted disease called Thrush. It
is relatively harmless, but can also give you a sore throat.
We both laughed at each other, and nearly got married.
Natural Yoghurt, is completely brilliant at preventing it.
Far better than Canestan.
Happy Valentines Day, for Everyone still In Love.
Let us all look forwad to a Brighter Day for our Grandchildren.
Tony
Loverat ,
Hey Tony
Dont worry. Craig Murray might not like you but I do. Your stories, here and elsewhere
have entertained me for many years.
Mind you, if I were your other half I would have chucked you years ago.
paul ,
Tell him how much you like haggis and tossing your caber.
Dungroanin ,
Without Stalins say so Poland would not have had its borders at the end of ww2.
Also,
On these maps just off the right hand edges is missing Afghanistan.. which the imperialists
invaded in 2002 as the Taliban wiped out the opium crops. Back to full production immediately
after invasion and 18 years later secret negotiations to hand over to Taliban while leaving
8,000 CUA troops delivering the huge cash crop.
Seeking possession and control – in competition with those you see as seeking to
dispossess and control or deny you – is the identity or belief in 'kill or be
killed'.
This belief overrides and subordinates others – such as to subsume all else to such
private agenda that will seek alliance against common threat but only as a shifting strategy
of possession and control.
One of the things about this 'game' of power struggle, is that it loses any sense of WHY
– and so it is a driven mind or dictate of power or possession for it own sake that
cannot really ENJOY or HAVE and share what it Has. The image of the hungry ghost comes to
mind here. It will never have enough until you are dead – and even then will offer you
torment beyond the grave.
Until this mindset is recognised and released as an 'insanity' it operates as accepted
currency of exchange, and maps our a world of its own conflicting and conflicted
meanings.
The willingness to destroy or kill, deny or undermine and invalidate others in order to
GET for a private agenda set over the whole instead of finding balance within the whole
– is destructive to life, no matter how ingenious the thinking that frames it to seem
to be progressive, protective, or in fact powerful.
But in our collective alignment and allegiance with such a way of thinking and identifying
– we all give power to the destructive – as if to protect the life that it gives
us.
The hungry ghost is also in the mass population when separated from their land and lives
to seek connection or meaning in proffered 'products and services' instead of creating out of
our own lives. Products and services that operate a hidden agenda of possession and control
or market and mind capture under threat of fear of pain of loss in losing even the little
that we have.
Having – on a spiritual level is our being – and not a matter of stuffing a
hole.
Madness that can no longer mask as anything else is all about – and brings a choice to
conscious awareness as to whether to persist in it or decide to find another way of seeing
and being.
This is not to say there is no place to call upon or seek to limit people in positions of
trust from serving an unjust outcome by calling for transparency and accountability –
but not to wait on that or make that the be all and end all.
If there is another way and a better way than war masking in and misusing and thus
corrupting anything and everything, then it has to be lived one to another.
Everyone seeks a better experience – but many seek it in a negative framing.
Negative in the sense of self-lack seeking power in the terms of its current identity. Evils
work their own destruction, but find sustainability in selling destructive agenda or toxic
debt as ingeniously complex instruments of deceit – by which the targeted buyer
believes they have or shall save their 'self' or add to their 'self' rather than growing
hollow to a driven mindset of reactive fear-addiction.
I don't need to 'tell this to those who refuse to listen' – but I share it with any
moment of a willingness to listen. In the final analysis, we are the ones who live the result
of choices in our lives, whatever the times and conditions.
The 'repackaging' of reality to self-deceit, is not new but part of the human mind and
experience throughout history. The evil changes forms – as if the good has and shall
triumph. But truth undoes illusion by being accepted. It doesn't war on illusion and thus
make it real – and remain truth.
Judgement divides to rule.
Discernment arises from the unwillingness to division.
One is set apart from and over life as the invocation of an alien will, dealing death, and
the other as the will of true desire revealed.
The idea of independent autonomy is relative to a limited sphere of responsibilities in
the world.
The idea of living our own life is an alignment within the same for others and the freedom to
do so cannot take from others without becoming possessed by our denials, debts and
transgressions – no less so in the driven mind of ingeniously repackaged and wilfully
defended narrative identity.
In our own experience, this is not a matter of applied analysis, so much as awareness or
space in which to seek and find truth in some willingness of recognition and acceptance or
choice, while the triggering or baiting to madness is loud or compelling as the dictate of
fear seeking protection and grievance seeking retribution – as if these give freedom
and power rather than locking into a fear-framed limitation as substitution for life set in
defiance and refusal to look on or share in truth – and so to such a one, war is truth,
and love is weakness to exploit, use and weaponise for getting.
paul ,
If you look at the proposed new map of the Middle East, it mirrors Kushner's Deal Of The
Century for Palestine – because it has the same Zionist authorship.
The same old dirty Zionist games of divide and rule – break up countries in the region
into tiny defenceless little statelets setting different ethnic and religious groups at each
others' throats, so that they can rule the roost and steal whatever they wish.
You see this in the past and the recent past. The way Lebanon was torn away from Syria. Or
Kuwait from Iraq. Or the Ruritanian petty Gulf dictatorships like Bahrain, Qatar, Dubai.
Trump was being honest for the first time in his miserable life when he said none of these
satellites and satraps would last a fortnight if they were not propped up by the US.
paul ,
George Galloway described the whole region as a flock of sheep surrounded by ravenous wolves.
At the same time, there is more than a grain of truth in the Zionists' contention that the
people of the region are to some extent the authors of their own misfortune.
They always fall for the divide-and-rule games of outside powers, Britain, America,
Israel, who invade, bomb, slaughter, humiliate and exploit them. If they had been united,
Israel would not have been created. Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, would not have been destroyed
and bombed back to the Stone Age. These countries would be genuinely independent and at
peace.
When I speak to ordinary moslems, it is surprising and depressing to see how much visceral
hatred they express for Shia moslems. They seem blind to the way they are being manipulated
to serve outside interests.
So we see moslem Saudi Arabia trying to incite America and Israel to destroy Iran, and
offering to pay for the whole cost of the war. Or S. Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, UAE et al, in bed
with Israel, paying billions to bankroll the terrorist head choppers in Syria. Or Egypt,
which does not even protest, let alone lift a finger, when Israeli aircraft use its air space
to carpet bomb Gaza. Or going further back in history, when countries like Egypt and Syria
sent troops to join the 1991 US invasion of Iraq. Even though Iraq had sent its forces to the
Golan Heights in 1973 to fight and die to prevent Syria being overrun by Israel. How
contemptible is all that? Yet those are just a few of many examples of all the backstabbing
that has occurred over the years. If these people don't respect themselves, why should
anybody else?
paul ,
And this has been going on for hundreds of years.
1096 marked the beginning of The Crusades, a disaster for the region on a par with the
creation of Israel.
At that time, London was a little village of 25,000. Baghdad and Alexandria and Cordoba were
sophisticated modern cities with populations of hundreds of thousands. They dismissed the
Crusaders as mere bandits who would do some looting, steal some cattle, and go home. But 3
years later Jerusalem had been conquered and its inhabitants slaughtered, the start of a 200
year disaster for the region. How? Why?
Because the Arabs were so busy fighting a civil war at the time they barely noticed the
foreign invaders. The old, old story. Civil war between Sunnis and Shias.
One day, they will wake up and realise that they have to hang together, or hang
separately.
But I wouldn't hold your breath.
There seems to be an endless supply of quisling stooge dictators ready to do the bidding of
hostile outside powers. The Mubaraks, the Sisis, the King Abdullahs, the Sinioras, the MBS's,
to name but a few.
Conforming to all the worst stereotypes about Arabs and moslems.
You could argue that they deserve all they get, when they are ever ready to bend over and
drop their trousers.
Is it really any surprise that they have been invaded, slaughtered, bombed back to the Stone
Age, robbed, exploited and humiliated from time immemorial.
Maybe one day they will discover an ounce of dignity and self respect. Who knows?
Maggie ,
"1096 marked the beginning of The Crusades, a disaster for the region on a par with the
creation of Israel.
At that time, London was a little village of 25,000. Baghdad and Alexandria and Cordoba were
sophisticated modern cities with populations of hundreds of thousands. They dismissed the
Crusaders as mere bandits who would do some looting, steal some cattle, and go home. But 3
years later Jerusalem had been conquered and its inhabitants slaughtered, the start of a 200
year disaster for the region. How? Why?"
Because despite the mendacious lies that are told about Muslims, they are tolerant and
forgiving. They believe in one God, and live exemplary modest, generous lives in the belief
that they will enter in to the kingdom of heaven.
And these are the people we are being encouraged to hate and fear? To enable the neo cons
to invade and destroy everything in their path to get their oil.
Hundreds of millions of Muslims the world over 'live in democracies' of some shape or
form, from Indonesia to Malaysia to Pakistan to Lebanon to Tunisia to Turkey. Tens of
millions of Muslims' live in -- and participate in' -- Western democratic societies. The
country that is on course to have the biggest Muslim population in the world in the next
couple of decades is India, which also happens to be the world's biggest democracy. Yet a
persistent pernicious narrative exists, particularly in the West, that Islam and democracy
are incompatible. Islam is often associated with dictatorship, totalitarianism, and a lack of
freedom, and many "well paid" analysts and pundits claim that Muslims are philosophically
opposed to the idea of democracy .
Richard Le Sarc ,
'Democracy' as practised in the neo-liberal capitalist West, is a nullity, a fiction, a
smoke-screen behind which the one and only power, that of the rich owners of the economy,
acts alone.
I know. These Zionist morons droning on about how violent Islam is as religion yet ignoring
the fact that the Bible is based on the God of Abraham granting them Canaan (like Trump
giving the Israelis the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank) and urging them to
commit complete and utter genocidal annihilation of the inhabitants by not leaving a single
living thing breathing.
No violence there folks. Nope. The book of love my ass!
paul ,
Their God was a demented estate agent, rather like Trump or Kushner.
Personally I believe that the chapters of the bible were written after their genocidal blood
lust simply to justify their despicable acts. Claiming that God made 'em do it.
Loverat ,
My experience of muslims in the UK is many express support for the Palestinians but don't
identify or understand those states which still speak up for their rights, Syria, Iran and a
few others.
Sadly like the general UK population they have been exposed to propaganda which excuses
evil and mass murder carried out by Saudi Arabia and their lackeys and Israel. This is
changing however. People are gradually waking up. Muslims and the general UK public if they
really knew the extent of this would be out demonstrating on the streets.
The realisation these policies have exposed all of us to nuclear wipe out in seconds
should be enough motivation for any normal person.
The wipe out or (preferably) demonstrations will happen. Just a question of when. You can see
why the establishment and people like Higgins, Lucas and York are so active recently. These
idiots, blinded by their pay checks can't see the harm they are causing through their
irresponsible lies even to their own families. Perhaps they all have nuclear shelters in
their back garden.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Saudi Arabia is NOT 'Moslem'. It is Wahhabist, a genocide cult created by doenmeh, ie
crypto-Jewish followers of the failed 17th century Messiah, Sabbatai Zevi, which is
homicidally opposed to all Moslems but fellow Wahhabists.
milosevic ,
I thought it was created by the British Empire, in order to provide reliable stooges and
puppet regimes.
Richard Le Sarc ,
What people must realise is that,for the Zionassty secular and Talmudic religious
leaderships, by far the dominant forces in Israel and among many of the Diaspora sayanim, the
drive to create 'Eretz Yisrael', '..from the Nile to the Euphrates' (and some include the
Arabian Peninsula as well), is a real, religious, ambition-indeed an obligation. With the
alliance with the 'Christian Zionist' lunatics in the USA, the fate of humanity is in the
hands of the Evil Brain Dead.
BigB ,
I despair. This is why there is 'No Deal For Nature' because the hegemonic cultural movement
is to extend cultural hegemony over nature. We cannot seem to help it or stop ourselves. Do
we suppose a glossy website will change that? Or empty sloganneering subvertisements? Or
waiving placards outside banks? Or some other futile conscience salving symbolic gesture?
No, we have to subvert the cultural hegemony over nature at every point at every chance.
Which is thankless because cultural normativity is ubiquitous. And it's killing us. And BRI
is the very antithesis of alternative an eternal return into the cultural consumerism and
commodification that is the global hegemony at least at an elite level. And we are among that
elite – in terms of consumption and pollution. We are the problem. If we seek to extend
or preserve our own Eurocentric priviliges and consumptions we can only do so by extracting
evermore global resources and maldeveloping the Rest. Which is also what Samir Amin said:
following Wallerstein's World Systems Theory.
The progressive packaging of all our sins and transferring them to something called
'American Imperialism' is nothing less than mass psychological transference to a Fetish. By
which we maintain autonomy from any blame in the ecological disaster we are co-creating.
Which is why it is a powerful cultural narrative constructivism. 'We' do not have to reform:
the scapegoated Otherised 'they' do. Whilst we all sit smugly in our inauthentic imaginary
autonomy: the ecological destruction caused entirely by our collectivist consumption carries
on. 'They' have to clean up 'their' act – not us. 'We' align with the
'counter-hegemonic alliance': the alternative BRI. 'We' are so bourgeois and progressive in
our invented independence and totally aligned with the destructive forces of capitalist
endocolonised culture because of our own internalised screening discourse. Which is why there
is #NoDealForNature. 'We' don't actually give a flying fuck not beyond some hollow totemic
gestures in transference of our own responsibility.
'We' are pushing for the financialisation of nature: as the teleology of our particular
complicit cultural narratives. It's not just 'them'. Supply and demand are dialectically
exponential. Who is demanding less, more fairly distributed North to South? Exponential
expansionism via BRI is no more alternative than colonising the Moon or Mars. For nature to
have a deal: we have to stop demanding growth. And in doing that: become self-responsible
right through to the narratives we produce. For which every person in the global consumer
bourgeoisie – that's us – will have to change their imperatives from culture to
nature. Which means a new naturalised culture: not just complicitly advocating the 'same old,
same old' exponential expansionism of the extractivist commodification of every last standing
resource. Under the guise of new narrative constructions like this. That's not progress: it's
capitalist propaganda and personal self-propaganda. We are among the consumer elite. Which is
driving the financialisation and commodification of everything. For us.
#NoDealForNature until we take full and honest self-responsibility to create one with our
every enaction including speech-enactivism.
"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive
commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our
utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed,
and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save
the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has
preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox.
Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to
the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of
man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the
degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is
so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of
the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but
subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely
diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration
in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an
operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were
intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit,
with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly
bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at
least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not
marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this
is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from
marriage."
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
BigB ,
Every appraisal from a cultural POV extends the cultural hegemony over nature – with no
exceptions. If we do not address the false dichotomy of culture and nature – and invert
the privileged status of cultural domination over nature – this never changes. If
nothing changes its going to be a very short century the last in the history of culture.
I'm expressing my own private POV with the intention of at least highlighting the issue of
only ever expressing the distorted cultural-centric POV. It would be nice if we could all
agree to do something other than waste our privileged status and access to resources for
other than meaningless sarcasm. It's not like we'd all benefit from a change in POV and the
entailed potential in a change of course that can only happen if we think of nature first, is
it? 😉
The only thing I don't like about the environmentally "woke" is that many are easily
manipulated by the neoliberal elite. Greta is a perfect example.
That is they go after the little guy while the Military and big industry continue to
pollute unhampered.
George Mc ,
I despair.
Well that's what you do.
Dungroanin ,
The M5 highway is secured. Allepo access points too and Idlib is surrounded- where are the US
backed /Saudi paid / Tukish passport holding Uighars and various Turkmen proxy jihadist anti
Chinese / anti Russian, Central asian caliphate establishing mercenaries supposed to go now??
Pompeo is buzzing around Africa now like a blue bottomed cadaverous fly, non-stop buzzing
from piles of shot, trying to find them homes – no Libya doesn't want anymore of them,
nor the UAE and Saudis, or Turks maybe dump them in Canada with all these ex Ukrainian still
nazis? Its a big country nobody will know!
Or bring them to the US and give them a ticker tape parade?
Or let them surrender and have them testify as to how the fuck they let themselves be
bought for $$$$ maybe just fry them with the low yield nuke and blame Assad for it!
Dumbass yanks, fukus, 5+1 eyed gollum and Nutty- 'it's the Belgian airforce bombing
Russian weapons in Syria' -yahoo!
Up-Pompeos farce and buzzing is about to sizzle in the blue light of death for dumbfuck
poison spreading flies.
normal wisdom ,
so much disrespect here hare here.
these takfiri these giants these beards are hero
of the oded yinon plan
they raped murdered and stole
dustified atomised the syriana so
is rael can become real
the red heffers have been cloned the temple will grow
the semites must leave for norway,sweden wales scotland and detroit
already
the khazar ashkanazim need the land returned to it's true owners from the turkic russio
steppe
tonight back to back i watch reality
fiddler on the roof and exodus and schindlers lists.
i watch bbc simon scharmas new rabbi revised history of mighty israel.
every day it grows massive every day hezbollah become weak husk
shirley you can sea more that
my life already
Francis Lee ,
Very interesting and informative article. Lenin's 5 conditions of the imperialism of his time
have been matched by similar conditions in our own time, as listed by the Egyptian Marxist,
Samir Amin. These conditions being as follows.
1. Control of technology.
2. Access to natural resources.
3. Finance.
4. Global media.
5. The means of mass destruction.
Only by overturning these monopolies can real progress be made. Easily said. But a life
and death struggle for humanity.
The collapse of the Soviet Union opened up the space for increased penetration of Europe
to the East by the US and its West European allies in NATO. At that time the subaltern US
powers in Europe were the UK and West Germany, as it then was. There was a semblance of
sovereignty in France under De Gaulle, but this has since disappeared. Europe as a whole is
now occupied and controlled by the US which has used EU/NATO bloc to push right up to the
Russian border. Most, if not all, the non-sovereign quasi states, in Europe, particularly
Eastern Europe, are Quisling-Petainist puppet regimes regardless of whether they are inside
our outside of the EU. (I say 'states' but of course if a country is not sovereign it cannot
be a 'state' in the full meaning of the word).
A political, social and economic crisis in Europe seems to be taking taking shape. Perhaps
the key problem, particularly Eastern Europe, has been depopulation. There is not one
European state in which fertility (replacement) rates has reached 2.1 children. Western
European imperial states have to large degree been able to counter-act this tendency by
immigration from their former colonies, particularly the UK and France. But this has not been
possible in states such as Sweden and Germany where the migration of non-christian guest
workers from Turkey to Germany and Islamic refugees
from the middle-east hot-spots have had a free passage to Sweden. This has become a serious
social and economic problem; a problem resulting from a neoliberal open borders policy. The
fact of the matter is that radically different cultures will tend to clash. Thank you Mr
Soros.
British immigration policy was successful in so far as immigrants from the Caribbean were
English speakers, they were also protestant Christians, and the culture was not very
different from the UK. Later immigration from the Indian sub-continent and Indian settled
East Africa were generally professional and middle-class business people. Again English
speakers. Assimilation of these newcomers was not unduly difficult.
However it wouldn't be exaggerating to say that Eastern Europe is facing a demographic
disaster. This particular zone is literally bleeding people. Ukraine for example has lost 10
million people since 1990. Every month it is estimated that 100,000 Ukrainians leave the
country, usually for good. In terms of migration – no-one wants to go to Eastern
Europe, but everyone wants to leave, asap. This process is complemented by low birth rates,
and high death rates. These are un-developing states in an un-developing world. But now we
have new kids on the bloc. A counter-hegemonic alliance. No guesses who.
BigB ,
Rubbish. There is no 'counter-hegemonic alliance' to humanities rapacious demand for fossil
fuels and ecological resources. Where are the material consumption resources for BRI coming
from – the Moon, Mars? Passing asteroids? Or from the Earth?
When its gone: its gone. Russia and China provide absolutely no alternative to this.
China's consumption alone is driving us over the brink. To which the real alternative is a
complicit silence. As we all align with culture-centric capitalist views: there is no
naturalistic 'counter-hegemonic alliance'. Just some hunters in the Amazon we are having shot
right now so we can have the privilige of extending cultural hegemony over nature.
When it's gone: it's gone. And so will we be too. Probably as we are still praising the
wonders of the 'counter-hegemonic alliance' that killed us.
Actually there is a naturalistic alliance forming but it seems you haven't been paying
attention because you seem stuck in some Malthusian mind set. In order to defeat capitalism
you have to defeat Globalism so you first have to eliminate the Anglo-American Hegemony and
get back to a multipolar world.
Ranting on about like Gretchen doesn't do any good.
BigB ,
Resources are finite and thermodynamics exist. These are the ineliminable, indisputable, and
rock solid epistemology of the Earth System. Everything else is metaphysics – literally
'beyond nature; beyond physics'. Or, as it is more commonly known – economics. The
imaginary epistemology of political economics and political theory. 'Theory' is the
non-scientific sense of unfounded opinion and non-sense. A philosophical truth-theory that is
not and cannot ever be true. Hypothetical non-sense.
I get my information from a wide range of sources that realise these foundational
predicates. That is: a foundational set of beliefs that require no underpinning. I can only
paraphrase Eddington on thermodynamics: "if your theory is found to be against the second law
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."
Which is to say all modern political theory and economics – and by extension all
opinions based on its internalisation – is the product of vivid and unfounded
imagination. To which a naturalised epistemology is the only remedy.
There are lots of people working on the problem: but not in the political sphere. Which is
why we are stuck in a hallucinated metaphysical political-economic theatre of the absurd and
absolutised cultural non-sense. Which is not beyond anyone to rectify: if and when we accept
the limitations of the physical-material Earth System. And apply them to our thinking.
#NoDealForNature until we accept that the thermodynamics of depletion naturally limit
growth. Anything anyone says to the contrary should be treated with scepticism and cause a
collapse into deepest humiliation of any rational thinker.
Richard Le Sarc ,
'Depopulation' is only a problem if you believe in the capitalist cancer cult of infinite
growth on a finite planet, ie black magic. If you value Life on Earth, and its continuance,
human depopulation is necessary. Best done slowly and humanely, by redistributing the wealth
stolen by the capitalist parasites. The process seen in the Baltics and Ukraine is the
capitalist way, cruel and inhumane. Even worse is planned for the Africans, south Asians and
Chinese etc.
They don't for a minute believe in "infinite growth". They believe in the "bottom
line","instant gratification" and "primitive accumulation". "Infinite growth" is a sales
pitch that they use to sell the unwary on their rapaciousness. That is all. If they actually
believed in "infinite growth" they've be investing in renewable resources not fracking, strip
mining and other environmentally unfriendly practices.
The problem for Imperialists is that they only know how to plunder, rape and destroy thus all
their weaponry and tactics is used for aggression they know nothing about actual defense
which is their weak point. General George C Custer found this out some time back and so did
Trump just recently when the American were assaulted by a barrage of missiles they couldn't
stop.
Iran, Russia and China have one of the most advanced arsenal of defensive weapons ever
developed such as the S- series of air defense system that can turn a Tomahawk attack into a
turkey shoot. What was it? I think it was 100 Tomahawks fired on Syria after that false flag
chemical attack and only 15 or so got through and this was the earlier version of the S
missile defense S-300. They've already developed 500 which practically makes them impervious
and is a true iron dome compared the iron sieve that the Israelis got for free during GW1 and
then repackaged and sold back to the US Military for 15B with very few improvements except
maybe for a pretty blue bow.
Not only that but they can return fire with hypersonic weapons that are unstoppable and
can turn a base or Aircraft Carrier into a floating pinnate.
Actually the US proudly waving the banner of the East India Company is following in the
footsteps of the deceased British Empire into the boneyard of empires which is Afghanistan.
Iraq, Syria and Ukraine are just side shows. America can not escape history no matter what it
does now since its days of empire are now numbered. Just as they were for the late unlamented
Soviet Union.
The "New American Century" is ending preemptively early like Hitler's "Thousand Year
Reich" and we can all breath a sigh of relief when it does.
Frank ,
The only thing that will get the bastard yanks out of the middle east is dead Americans.
Lots and lots of dead Americans.
Enough dead Americans to make the braindead jingoistic American masses notice.
Enough dead Americans to touch every family that produces grunts that serve their criminal
state by raping and pillaging foreign countries.
Enough dead Americans to make dumbfuck Americans who say, 'Thank you for your service"
squirm in literal pain at the words.
Dungroanin ,
They got brain damage in their bunkers in the best US base in the ME from just a handful of
Kinetic energy missiles.
Their low yield nuke is their response.
The Israelis keep prodding the Bear – they even targeted a Russian Pantir system in
Syria!
I suppose only a downing or infact destroying on the ground of a squadron of useless F35's
with a threat to escalate into a full blown mobilisation is ever going to stop these
imperialist chancers. Or a fully coordinated assassination campaign of the leads and their
heirs as they frolic on their superyachts and space stations and secret Tracey islands.
And they can pay their taxes in full.
The Third world war is already fought – this really is a world war rather than some
Anglo Imperialist bankers playing king of the castle – and they have LOST – the
Empire is dead.
Long live the new Empire – the first not beholden to the bankers.
wardropper ,
Even with a new empire, our godless world would soon enough breed another generation of
bankers to which we would be beholden.
That's what the fundamentally dishonest people in any society do.
Something wrong? Oh, well, we'll form a committee to discuss it, and in future we will look
into creating a banking system which will enable us pay ourselves high wages for our
invaluable contribution to human evolution.
It's MORALITY which is lacking today, not more legislation or a new constitution.
All one has to do is move off the centralized banking system developed and controlled by the
Rothschilds that is totally based on creating finance out of thin air and return to a
commodity based currency (not gold!!) that represents actual value like scrip or wampum or
barter and the bankers will eventually starve.
Actually this system is starting to take hold in the US to a small extend to avoid the
depredations of the IRS since Tax is based mostly on currency.
Stop using fiat currency and the problem's solved.
After WW II the French didn't have a press to press Francs so their standard of exchange
became cigarettes and chocolate. It worked quite well until the presses started churning out
paper again.
wardropper ,
My fear is that without the Rothschilds, some other over-ambitious family would simply step
in and fill their shoes. It's the motivation to be greedy and wicked which needs addressing.
How that would be done, of course, I have no idea.
This is only if you embrace the concept of centralized banking and the "magic" of compound
interest. Current "banking" is all smoke and mirrors that favors the parasite who lives on
the production of others through what is called "unearned income".
Actually the Israelis are going a little slower now that isolated reports indicate that those
flying turkeys AKA F-35s are getting popped out of the skies of Syria by antiquated Soviet
SAMs. Of course there is no mention of this in the Mainstream Press. Just like there wasn't a
word of a IDF General and his staff taken out by a shoulder launched RPG fired by Hezbollah
in retaliation for attacking their media center in Beirut.
Antonym ,
Anybody who believes that the Israeli tail wags the US mil-ind. complex dog is contributing
to the Jewish superiority myth.
Ken ,
They're not superior, but they do wag the US MIC dog in and ebb-and-flow kind of way. That
9/11 thing was quite the wag. Read Christopher Bollyn and study other aspects of the event if
you're not sure of this.
Antonym ,
Langley and Riyadh love you; you fell for their ploy. See: Tel Aviv is much worse them.
The CIA/FBI failure explained.
The Mossad loves you too: for keeping mum on this Entebbe Mach 2.0 on their familiar New
York crap they got huge US support in the ME.
Makes them look invincible too as a bonus .
5 dancing guys was all the proof needed – cheapest op in history.
Ken ,
"5 dancing guys was all the proof needed – cheapest op in history"
Oh please, that was such a minor bit of evidence of any Zionist/Israeli involvement, which
spanned nearly every facet of the event and its aftermath.
The list of false flagging Zionist Jews in love with you is too long to list.
Oh please. What about the close to 200 Israelis who were arrested that day? Not to mention
the helpful warning by Odigo which was only given to citizens of Israel?
Also one has to act who benefitted? Definitely not the Saudis or the Americans leaving
Sharon who was trying to suppress a Palestinian uprising that he arrogantly started.
Speaking of your friendly five doing a fiddler on the roof on top of an Urban Moving Van
that just happened to owned by another Israeli who fled the country. Didn't they say
something stupid when arrested like "we are not your problem. It's the Palestinians who are
your problem!"?
A pathetic frame up attempt but a frame none the less. Speaking of frame ups wasn't Fat
Katz at SiteIntel (propaganda) who posted some stock footage of Palestinians celebrating
which has been proven to be false since the only people who seem to celebrating that day was
your friends the Dancing Israelis which doesn't prove their mental superiority at all but
their arrogant stupidity,
Richard Le Sarc ,
The three, the USA, Saudi Arabia and the USA, are allies in destruction-the Real Axis of
Evil. The dominant force, these days, given the control of the USA by Israel First Fifth
Columnists, in the MSM, political 'contributions', the financial Moloch etc, is most
certainly the Zionassties. Why don't you, like so many other Zionassties, glory in your
power, Antsie. Nobody believes your ritual denials.
They don't really wag the dog by themselves. They have a lot of help from the Stand with
Israel brain dead Christian Zionists who like Israelis consider themselves the chosen ones as
well.
Ken ,
@Gall Yep! I had a long time friend who went Pentecostal and we drifted apart but still kept
in touch. I lost him completely just after telling him that Israelis played a big part in
9/11.
Chuck Baldwin and a few other it seems have seen the light and are now questioning their
colleagues undying support of Israel. Maybe you could show this article to your friend who
seems enthralled by the terrorist snake er I mean state: https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/02/13/emperor-trump/
Yes that pretty much sums up how 9/11 was carried on. Both Heinz Pommer and VT have done some
excellent research based on facts not fantasy.
As far as your friend and many Christian Zionists in general. They seem to live in some
alternative universe and dislike being confused by such irrelevant things as facts.
It is a story that can be told in some detail – but when you say myth do you actually
mean fallacy – ie – are you saying that Jewish power doesn't exercise
considerable influence – if not control over US social and political and corporate
development across of broad spectrum of leverages?
Richard Le Sarc ,
Yes-all those addresses of Congress, by Bibi, where the Congress critters compete to display
the most extreme groveling and adulation, are just the natural expression of reverence and
awe at his semi-Divine moral excellence. Denying the undeniable is SOP for Zionassties.
normal wisdom ,
what jews?
i do not see any jews
just a sea of khazar ashkanazim pirates
a kaballa talmudick race trick
a crime syndicate pretending to be semite
jew is just the cover
init
At the end of this essay, you may find a song which reasonably applies to Donald Trump
directed to Democrats.
How does one say Adam Schiff without laughing? It's hard to continue typing while
contemplating the Burbank Buffoon. Yet AS is making obscene flatus-like noises about
impeachment 2.0. He and Nervous Nancy will conspire with chief strategist Gerald Nadler about
extending the charges of 1.0 to 2.0.
Second verse
Same as the first
Obstructing leaking by firing leakers. That's one of the pending charges. Leutnant Oberst
Vindman will be help up as the innocent victim of political retaliation. As I understand the
military code of conduct, it says that the underling, Herr Oberst Vindman, went outside the
chain of command and released classified information. In the military this is called
insubordination, perhaps gross insubordination in view of the classified nature of the
information.
Another charge to be filed on behalf of former Ambassador Yovanovich, is that her God-given
Female rights were brutally violated as retaliation of advising Ukrainian officials to
disregard Commander Cheeto.
There is no telling what additional non-crimes may be thrown at the feet at El Trumpo. All
too horrible to contemplate--like someone throwing feces-contaminated dope needles onto Nervous
Nancy's front lawn in Pacific Heights.
If this Shampeachment 2.0 (S2) occurs before November's election, Democrats will become as
rare as dodo birds. If such proponents of S2 persist after the general election, they better
have secure transportation to an extradition-free country.
If it gets bad enough, considering the Clinton Mafia's body count, would it be unreasonable
to expect some untimely heart attacks and suicides with red scarves? On Clintonites? Soros et
al.?
When the first shot and you don't kill the king, flee. But the DNC is going to attempt shot
number 2. Trump WILL NEVER ALLOW A SECOND IMPEACHMENT TO OCCUR, no matter how patently
worthless? Will the most powerful narcissist in the world allow the DNC / coup perpetrators to
escaping Trumpian retribution?
Those doubting the Wrath of Q be prepared to be disabused of the impression that Q is pure
fantasy. Fantasy--like GPS targeting a single small sniper drone to shoot someone from 3000
feet.
Sorry folks. I live in a swamp. I've stepped in shit with my eyes open. Many of you have
too. Some of the excrement was of my own making.
Think about the singularly most effective and complex plot the world has ever seen, called
9/11. Think of the thousands of lives purposefully snuffed in then name of power and money.
Call yourselves serfs--that's a euphemism. You--including me-- are nothing but ants. Goddam
little ants that only Janes respect. There are no ascetic Janes in the penthouses of the
elites.
But I digressed to the mysterious existence of morality in politics as a whole. Today's
topic is more confined to the Democratic nomination.
Statement of Bias: Go Tulsi. Bravo Andy. The rest of you to the elsewhere--yeah, BS too.
The Dems are determined to grasp Defeat from the jaws of Defeat. Quite a trick. Like trying
to borrow money from the Judge during a Bankruptcy trial.
I talked today with a freshman college student majoring in political science about her
thought about the Shampeachment. She hadn't been paying attention. Not that I blame her. Her
college freshman friend watched C-Span; wasn't impressed. We political aficionados know all
about this political debauchery. If AS and NN attempt S2, expect many defections from the
supporting vote.
Democrat respect has dwindled in the Independent sector. This is not to say the Repugnants
are thereby more popular. They aren't. Trump is. Trump need that NH clown to challenge him in
the Repugnant primary to prove exactly how powerful he is. Anybody notice who were in the
audience, sitting nearby during Trump's post acquittal speech. Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham.
The lamb and the lion laying together. They are both on the Trump Train. Even Richard Burr
voted Trump in the impeachment. Mittens feared both his cojones would be excised if he voted
against Trump on both counts. What a chickenheart.
But where are the Dems? Why, they are Here. Yes. Yes. And they are There. Yes. Yes. And they
are Near. Yes. Yes. But....they are Far. Whither thou goest?
I refrain from pointed comments about AOC in further comments. The Squad is the iceberg
floating away from the glacier which spawned it. Unsuitable to warm weather produced by
political combat, the Squad faction will woke themselves up to dubious futures.
Establishment versus Bernie:
Not a contest. Spineless Bernie pretzelizes during first heated combat (which the Dem Debate
Debacles were not). Won't take a second punch--the first during night 3 of the '16 DNC
convention. Fist-shy now. Open Borders? WTF? Are you so nuts? If one offered a person the
choice personal safety in their own homes and streets and free medical care for all--including
the criminal aliens that A New Path Forward proposes--what do you think 85% of the public would
choose?
Pandering.
The Left is also pushing strenuous avoidance of discussing issues in a platitude-depleted
fashion. Yeah, Bernie's giving the same speech, with suitable modification, over 40 years.
Consistency is a good thing, yeh? How about persistently beating your head with a hammer (while
you still can)? Sounds like something Sun Tzu might not recommend.
Now, speaking of Las Vegas and the Nevada Primary. The culinary workers union will not
endorse Bernie due to well-deserved or ill-deserved claims that M4A will abolish hard won union
health benefits. And don't worry, the Shadow will be there, although Buttjiggle has now
disavowed any further connection, along with David Plouffe.
Keeping the Bern off the campaign trail is going to infuriate the Woke Generation / Antifa.
When--not if--the DNC cheats Bernie out of the nomination, if such proves necessary* will
literally result in blood on the streets along with broken windows and flaming tires. Associate
with that lot, eh? Given the choice of going into a biker bar, where brawls are always on the
menu, or a discreet wine bar, which would one rather choose? Sorry, those are your only
choices.
Nancy Pelosi, impressed by Arnold Schwarzenegger's former physical prowess, tears up her
copy of the state of the union address. How decorous. How courteous. How polite. Seen around
the world. Nigel Farage must be laughing his butt off, thinking about the shallow anti-Brexit
campaigns against his were compared to our Coup. Nigel won. Trump . is. winning. Getting tired
of winning yet?
I could go on for pages more of Dem stupidity, but why bother? Stupidity surrounds us.
Betting odds: DNC 1,999,999 to Bernie 1.
Place your bets.
For all the good it will do and I am sincere about this, I will vote Tulsi in the Dem
primary.
Here is the song Dems need to heed. This is Donald Trump telling' y'all I'M NOT YOUR MAN
"... Of particular interest will be cases overseen by now-unemployed former US attorney for DC, Jessie Liu, which includes actions against Stone, Flynn, the Awan brothers, James Wolfe and others . Notably, Wolfe was only sentenced to leaking a classified FISA warrant application to journalist and side-piece Ali Watkins of the New York Times - while prosecutors out of Liu's office threw the book at former Trump adviser Roger Stone - recommending 7-9 years in prison for process crimes. ..."
"... What's next on the real-life House of Cards? ..."
A
week of two-tiered
legal shenanigans was capped off on Friday with a
New York
Times report that Attorney General William Barr has assigned an outside prosecutor to
scrutinize the government's case against former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn,
which the Times suggested was " highly unusual and could trigger more accusations of political
interference by top Justice Department officials into the work of career prosecutors."
Notably, the FBI excluded
crucial information from a '302' form documenting an interview with Flynn in January, 2017.
While Flynn eventually pleaded guilty to misleading agents over his contacts with the former
Russian ambassador regarding the Trump administration's efforts to oppose a UN resolution
related to Israel, the original draft of Flynn's 302 reveals that agents thought
he was being honest with them - evidence which Flynn's prior attorneys never pursued.
His new attorney, Sidney Powell, took over Flynn's defense in June 2019 - while Flynn
withdrew his guilty plea in January , accusing the government of "bad faith,
vindictiveness, and breach of the plea agreement."
In addition to a review of the Flynn case, Barr has hired a handful of outside prosecutors
to broadly review several other politically sensitive national-security cases in the US
attorney's office in Washington , according to the Times sources.
Of particular interest will be cases overseen by now-unemployed former US attorney for DC,
Jessie Liu, which includes actions against Stone, Flynn, the Awan brothers, James Wolfe and
others . Notably, Wolfe was only sentenced to leaking a classified FISA warrant application to
journalist and side-piece
Ali Watkins of the New York Times - while prosecutors out of Liu's office threw the book at
former Trump adviser Roger Stone - recommending 7-9 years in prison for process crimes.
Earlier this week, Barr overruled the DC prosecutors recommendation for Stone, resulting in
their resignations. The result was the predictable triggering of Democrats across the spectrum
.
According to the Times , "Over the past two weeks, the outside prosecutors have begun
grilling line prosecutors in the Washington office about various cases -- some public, some not
-- including investigative steps, prosecutorial actions and why they took them, according to
the people. They spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive internal
deliberations."
The moves amounted to imposing a secondary layer of monitoring and control over what
career prosecutors have been doing in the Washington office. They are part of a broader
turmoil in that office coinciding with Mr. Barr's recent
installation of a close aide, Timothy Shea , as interim United States attorney in the
District of Columbia, after Mr. Barr maneuvered out the Senate-confirmed former top
prosecutor in the office, Jessie K. Liu.
Mr.
Flynn's case was first brought by the special counsel's office, who agreed to a plea deal
on a charge of lying to investigators in exchange for his cooperation, before the Washington
office took over the case when the special counsel shut down after concluding its
investigation into Russia's election interference.
-New
York Times
"... By April 2018, Gates had reached a plea deal to testify against Manafort in a criminal case that ultimately resulted in Manafort's conviction on tax and illegal lobbying charges. As the day-to-day manager of Manafort's political consulting and lobbying efforts for former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, Gates handled Manafort's operations and was deeply familiar with when and how payments were made and from whom. ..."
"... Furthermore, Gates revealed that Manafort's team had confirmed with the party's former accountant that the black ledger could not be a contemporaneous document because the party's official accounting books burned in a 2014 fire during Ukraine's Maidan uprising. ..."
"... The Party of Regions accountant reached by Manafort's team told them that the black ledger was a "copy of a document that did not exist" and it "was not even [the accountant's own] handwriting," Gates told the prosecutors. ..."
One of Robert Mueller's pivotal trial witnesses told the special prosecutor's team in spring
2018 that a key piece of Russia collusion evidence found in Ukraine known as the "black ledger"
was fabricated, according to interviews and testimony.
The ledger document, which suddenly appeared in Kiev during the 2016 U.S. election, showed
alleged cash payments from Russian-backed politicians in Ukraine to ex-Trump campaign chairman
Paul Manafort.
"The ledger was completely made up," cooperating witness and Manafort business partner Rick
Gates told prosecutors and FBI agents, according to a written summary of an April 2018 special
counsel's interview.
In a brief interview with Just the News, Gates confirmed the information in the summary.
"The black ledger was a fabrication," Gates said.
"It was never real, and this fact has since been proven true."
Gates' account is backed by several Ukrainian officials who stated in interviews dating to
2018 that the ledger was of suspicious origins and could not be corroborated.
If true, Gates' account means the two key pieces of documentary evidence used by the media
and FBI to drive the now-debunked Russia collusion narrative -- the Steele dossier and the
black ledger -- were at best uncorroborated and at worst disinformation. His account also
raises the possibility that someone fabricated the document in Ukraine in an effort to restart
investigative efforts on Manafort's consulting work or to meddle in the U.S. presidential
election.
Much mystery has surrounded the black ledger, which was publicized by the New York Times and
other U.S. news outlets in the summer of 2016 and forced Manafort out as one of Trump's top
campaign officials.
After gaining wide attention as purported evidence of Russian ties to the Trump campaign,
the ledger was never introduced as evidence at Manafort's 2018 trial or significantly analyzed
in Mueller's final 2019 report, which concluded that Trump did not collude with Russia to
influence the 2016 election. No FBI 302 interview reports have been released either showing
what the FBI concluded about the ledger.
Gates' interview with the Mueller team now provides a potential clue as to why.
By April 2018, Gates had reached a plea deal to testify against Manafort in a criminal case
that ultimately resulted in Manafort's conviction on tax and illegal lobbying charges. As the
day-to-day manager of Manafort's political consulting and lobbying efforts for former Ukrainian
President Viktor Yanukovych, Gates handled Manafort's operations and was deeply familiar with
when and how payments were made and from whom.
During a debriefing with Mueller's team on April 10, 2018, Gates was asked about the August
2016 New York Times article that first alerted the public to the existence of the black ledger
and eventually led to Manafort's downfall.
"The article was completely false," Gates is quoted as telling Mueller's team in a written
summary of the interview created by some of the attendees.
"As you now know there were no cash payments. The payments were wired. The ledger was
completely made up."
When pressed as to why he was so certain, Gates explained the ledger did not match the way
Yanukovych's Party of Regions made payments to consultants like Manafort.
"It was not how the PoR [Party of Regions] did their record keeping," Gates told the
prosecution team, according to the written summary.
Furthermore, Gates revealed that Manafort's team had confirmed with the party's former
accountant that the black ledger could not be a contemporaneous document because the party's
official accounting books burned in a 2014 fire during Ukraine's Maidan uprising.
"All the real records were burned when the party headquarters was set on fire when
Yanukovych fled the country," Gates told the investigators, according to the interview
summary.
The Party of Regions accountant reached by Manafort's team told them that the black ledger
was a "copy of a document that did not exist" and it "was not even [the accountant's own]
handwriting," Gates told the prosecutors.
Gates' account to prosecutors closely matches what several Ukrainian officials have said for
more than a year.
Ukraine's Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor Nazar Kholodnytskyy told me last spring that he
believed the black ledger was not a contemporaneous document, and likely manufactured after the
fact.
"It was not to be considered a document of Manafort," Kholodnytskyy said in an
interview.
"It was not authenticated. And at that time it should not be used in any way to bring
accusations against anybody."
Likewise, one of Gates' and Manafort's Ukrainian business partners, Konstantin Kilimnik, who
is now indicted in the same case as Manafort but remain at large, wrote a senior U.S. State
Department official in summer 2016 that the black ledger did not match actual payments made to
Manafort's firm.
"I have some questions about this black cash stuff because those published records do not
make sense," Kilimnik wrote the State official in August 2016.
"The time frame doesn't match anything related to payments made to Manafort. It does not
match my records. All fees Manafort got were wires, not cash."
In December 2018, a Ukrainian court ruled that two of that country's government officials --
member of parliament Sergey Leschenko and Artem Sytnyk, the head of the National Anticorruption
Bureau of Ukraine -- illegally interfered in the 2016 U.S. election by publicizing the black
ledger evidence.
While that ruling has been overturned on a technicality, the role of Sytnyk and Leschenko in
pushing the black ledger story remains true.
In an interview last summer, Leschenko said he first received part of the black ledger when
it was sent to him anonymously in February 2016, but it made no mention of Manafort. Months
later, in August 2016, more of the ledger became public, including the alleged Manafort
payments.
Leschenko said he decided to publicize the information after confirming a few of the
transactions likely occurred or matched known payments.
But Leschenko told me he never believed the black ledger could be used as court evidence
because it couldn't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it was authentic, given its
mysterious appearance during the 2016 election.
"The black ledger is an unofficial document," Leschenko told me. "And the black ledger was
not used as official evidence in criminal investigations because you know in criminal
investigations all proof has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. And the black ledger is not a
sample of such proof because we don't know the nature of such document ."
In the end, the black ledger did prompt the discovery of real financial transactions and
real crimes by Manafort, which ultimately led to his conviction.
But its uncertain origins raise troubling questions about election meddling and what
constitutes real evidence worthy of starting an American investigation.
His "closing arguments" speeches last week were respectively two-and-a-half hours and ninety
minutes long and were inevitably praised by the mainstream media as "magisterial," "powerful,"
and "impressive."
My favorite phrase - Americans are suckers and boobies. Pushing Russia out of the circle
of friends of the United States (and Russia has never been an enemy of the United States, who
knows the history of relations between the United States and Russia, knows what I'm talking
about) can only double suckers and boobies. In general, the ship "Russia" finally sailed from
the US coast. It's a pity.
Demrats gave Trump the best week of his presidency.
Sadly, this is an example of not letting go.
US Senate Panel Finds No Evidence of Alleged Russian Interference in 2016 Vote
LINK
The Senate Intelligence Committee said in a report released on Thursday that again it saw
no evidence of alleged Russian interference changing any votes or manipulating voting
machines in the 2016 US presidential election.
"The Committee has seen no evidence that any votes were changed or that any voting
machines were manipulated", the Intelligence Committee said in its report into allegations
of Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election.[.]
found no evidence but Russia, Russia, Russia the bogeyman. Will someone remind D.C. of
U.S. interference in, and overthrow of elected governments in countries around the world?
Then there're several items at Common Dreams , the first having an excellent vid
featuring Krystal Ball of The Hill reporting
how the election was rigged . It also links to an important Twitter thread by Naomi
Klein . I found this message perhaps the most important part:
"If we honestly believe we are building a movement, not just an electoral campaign, then
the relationships we forge, and the political education we do along the way, is never wasted.
It's all part of building power, which we badly need no matter what happens. Nothing is
wasted."
Michael Robertson says: February 3, 2020 at 3:39 pm
Democrats concluded some time ago that the only viable strategy for removing Trump
requires demonization of Russia as our enemy. And Ukraine as our ally. No one questions how
this came to be, or demands any real reporting about Ukraine. It's a black hole, and we are
expected to simply accept the framing of the Dems. Those who question it are accused of being
brainwashed by RT, or of secretly loving Mr. Trump. And they are simply befuddled by
accusations of neo-McCarthyism.
Clark Shanahan says: February 3, 2020 at 8:03 pm
As the professor warns us, we have gone through some very backwards times:
"Speaker Nancy Pelosi is connecting the dots -- "all roads lead to Putin," she says -- and
making the argument that Trump's pressure campaign on Ukraine was not an isolated incident
but part of a troubling bond with the Russian president reaching back to special counsel
Robert Mueller's findings on the 2016 election.
"This has been going on for 2 1/2 years," Pelosi said Friday.
"This isn't about Ukraine," she explained a day earlier. "'It's about Russia. Who
benefited by our withholding of that military assistance? Russia.""
(AP Dec 6, Lisa Mascaro/Mary Clare Jalonick)
Schiff has claimed that the Evil Vlad wakes up every morning, plotting to destroy our
virginal democracy because the US makes Russia look shabby.. He happens to receive a lot of
funding from the arms industry.
Nadler equated Russian meddling to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor..
If these three actually believe their own spin, heaven help us.
It truly is obscene.
The Battle of Stalingrad ended February 2, 1943.
Listening to our Russophobes, it seems the wrong people won that war. It is so ugly.
This book sheds some light into the story of how Administrative assistants to Present became
independent heavily influenced by CIA body controlling the USA foreign policy and to a large
extent controlling the President. Recent revolt of NSC (Aka Ukrainegate) shows that the servant
became the master
The books contains some interesting information about forming NSC by Truman --- the father of
the US National Security State. And bureaucratic turf war the preceded it. It wwas actually
Eisenhower who created forma position of a "special assistant to the president for national
security affairs"
The author also cover a little bit disastrous decision to launch a "surge" (ironically by the
female chickenhawk Meghan O'Sullivan), -- which attests neocon nature of current NSC and level of
indoctrination of staffers in "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine quite clearly. That's why a
faction of NSC launched a coup d'état against Trump in t he form of Ukrainegate and
probably was instrumental in Russiagate as well.
Notable quotes:
"... Starting in the 1960s, the NSC dethroned the State Department in providing analysis, intelligence, and even some diplomacy to the diplomat in chief. In the years after September 11th, the staff also began to take greater responsibility, especially for planning, from the military and the rest of the Pentagon. Both departments have struggled and often failed to reclaim lost ground and influence in Washington. ..."
"... Yet war is a hard thing to try to manage from the Executive Office Building. Thousands of miles from the frontlines and far from harm, the NSC make recommendations based on what they come to know from intelligence reports, news sources, phone calls, video-teleconferences, and visits to the front. Even with advice based only on this limited and limiting view, the NSC staff has transformed how the United States fights its wars. ..."
"... Although presidents bear the ultimate responsibilities for these decisions, the NSC staff played an essential, and increasing, role in the thinking behind each bold move. In conflict after conflict, a more powerful NSC staff has fundamentally altered the American way of war. It is now far less informed by the perspective of the military and the view from the frontlines. It is less patient for progress and more dependent on the clocks in the Executive Office Building and Washington than those in theater. It is far more combative, less able to accept defeat, and more willing to risk a change of course. ..."
"... The NSC common law's kept the peace in Washington for years after Iran-Contra. The restrictions against outright advocacy and outsized operational responsibilities were accepted by those at the White House as well as in the agencies during Republican and Democratic administrations. Yet as many in Washington believed the world grew more interconnected and the national security stakes increased, especially after September 11th, a more powerful NSC has given staffers the opportunity to bend, and occasionally break, the common laws, as they have been expected to and allowed to take on more responsibilities for developing strategies and new r ideas from those in the bureaucracy and military. ..."
"... ...Meanwhile, others, including the anonymous author of the infamous September 2018 New York Times opinion piece, believe government officials who comprise a "steady state" amid Trump's chaotic presidency are "unsung heroes" resisting his worst instincts and overreaches. 13 Thus, it is no surprise that more and more Americans are concerned: a 2018 poll found that 74 percent of Americans feel a group of officials arc able to control government policy without accountability. ..."
"... it is no wonder some Americans have taken to assuming the worst of their public servants. ..."
"... Each member of the NSC staff needs to remember that their growing, unaccountable power has helped give evidence to the worries about a deep state. Although no one in Washington gives up influence voluntarily, the staff, even its warriors, need to remember it is not just what they fight for but whether a fight is necessary at all. ..."
"... ... Too many in Washington, including at the Executive Office Building, have forgotten that public service is a privilege that bestows on them great responsibility. Although the NSC has long justified its actions in the name of national security, the means with which its members have pursued that objective have made for a more aggressive American way of war, a more fractious Washington, and more conspiracies about government. ..."
"... The question is for what and for whom they will fight in the years and wars ahead. ..."
The men and women walking the hushed corridors of the Executive Office Building do not look
like warriors. Most are middle-aged professionals with penchants for dark business suits and
prestigious graduate degrees, who have spent their lives serving their country in windowless
offices, on far-off battle-fields, or at embassies abroad. Before arriving at the NSC, many
joined the military or the nation's diplomatic corps, some dedicated themselves to teaching and
writing about national security, and others spent their days working for the types of
politicians who become presidents. By the time they joined the staff, each had shown the pluck
-- and the good fortune -- required to end up staffing a president.
When each NSC staffer first walks up the steps to the Executive Office Building, he or she
joins an institution like no other in government. Compared to the Pentagon and other
bureaucracies, the staff is small, hierarchically flat with only a few titles like directors
and senior directors reporting to the national security advisor and his or her deputies.
Compared to all those at the agencies, even most cabinet secretaries, the staff are also given
unparalleled access to the president and the discussions about the biggest decisions in
national security.
Yet despite their access, the NSC staff was created as a political, legal, and bureaucratic
afterthought. The National Security Council was established both
to better coordinate foreign policy after World War II and as part of a deal to create what
became known as the Defense Department. Since the army and navy only agreed to be unified under
a single department and a civilian cabinet secretary if each still had a seat at the table
where decisions about war were expected to be made, establishing the National Security Council
was critical to ensuring passage of the National Security Act of 1947. The law, as well as its
amendments two years later, unified the armed forces while also establishing the Joint Chiefs
of Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, as well as the CIA.
... ... ...
Fans of television's the West Wing would be forgiven for expecting that once in the Oval
Office, all a staffer needs to do to change policy is to deliver a well-timed whisper in the
president's car or a rousing speech in his company. It is not that such dramatic moments never
occur, but real change in government requires not just speaking up but the grinding policy work
required to have something new to say.
A staffer, alone or with NSC and agency colleagues, must develop an idea until feasible and
defend it from opposition driven by personal pique, bureaucratic jealousy, or substantive
disagreement, and often all three.
Granted none of these fights are over particularly new ideas, as few proposals in war are
truly novel. If anything, the staffs history is a reminder of how little new there is under the
guise of national security. Alter all, escalations, ultimatums, and counterinsurgency are only
innovative in the context of the latest conflicts. The NSC staff is usually proposing old
ideas, some as old as war itself like a surge of troops, to new circumstances and a critical
moment.
Yet even an old idea can have real power in the right hands at the right time, so it is
worth considering how much more influence the NSC brings to its fights today.
... ... ...
A larger staff can do even more thanks to technology. With the establishment of the
Situation Room in 1961 and its subsequent upgrades, as well as the widespread adoption of email
in the 1980s, the classified email system during the 2000s, and desktop video teleconferencing
systems in the 2010s, White House technology upgrades have been justified because the president
deserves the latest and the fastest. These same advances give each member of the staff global
reach, including to war zones half a world away, from the safety of the Executive Office
Building.
The NSC has also grown more powerful along with the presidency it serves. The White House,
even in the hands of an inexperienced and disorganized president like Trump, drives the
government's agenda, the news media's coverage, and the American public's attention. The NSC
staff can, if skilled enough, leverage the office's influence for their own ideas and purposes.
Presidents have also explicitly empowered the staff in big ways -- like putting them in the
middle of the policymaking process -- and small -- like granting them ranks that put them on
the same level as other agency officials.
Recent staffers have also had the president's ear nearly every day, and sometimes more
often, while secretaries of state and defense rarely have that much face time in the Oval
Office. Each has a department with tens of thousands (and in the Pentagon's case millions) of
employees to manage. Most significantly, both also answer not just to the president but to
Congress, which has oversight authority for their departments and an expectation for regular
updates. There are few more consequential power differences between the NSC and the departments
than to whom each must answer.
Even more, the NSC staff get to work and fight in anonymity. Members of Congress,
journalists, and historians are usually too busy keeping track of the National Security Council
principals to focus on the guys and gals behind the national security advisors, who are
themselves behind the president. Few in Washington, and fewer still across the country, know
the names of the staff advising the president let alone what they arc saying in their memos and
moments with him.
Today, there arc too many unnamed NSC staffers for anyone's good, including their own. Even
with the recent congressional limit on policy staffers, the NSC is too big to be thoroughly
managed or effective. National security advisors and their deputies are so busy during their
days that it is hard to keep up with all their own emails, calls, and reading, let alone ensure
each member of the staff is doing their own work or doing it well. The common law and a de
tacto honor system has also struggled to keep staff in check as they try to handle every issue
from war to women's rights and every to-do list item from drafting talking points to doing
secret diplomacy.
Although many factors contribute to the NSC's success, history suggests they do best with
the right-size job. The answer to better national security policy and process is not a bigger
staff but smaller writs. The NSC should focus on fewer issues, and then only on the smaller
stuff, like what the president needs for calls and meetings, and the big, what some call grand
strategic, questions about the nation's interests, ambitions, and capacities that should be
asked and answered before any major decision.
... ... ...
Along the way, the staff has taken on greater responsibilities from agencies like the
departments of state and defense as each has grown more bureaucratic and sclerotic.
Starting in the 1960s, the NSC dethroned the State Department in providing analysis,
intelligence, and even some diplomacy to the diplomat in chief. In the years after September
11th, the staff also began to take greater responsibility, especially for planning, from the
military and the rest of the Pentagon. Both departments have struggled and often failed to
reclaim lost ground and influence in Washington.
As a result, today the NSC has, regretfully, become the strategic engine of the government's
national security policymaking. The staff, along with the national security advisor, determine
which issues -- large and small -- require attention, develop the plans for most of them, and
try to manage day-to-day the implementation of each strategy. That is too sweeping a remit for
a couple hundred unaccountable staffers sitting at the Executive Office Building thousands of
miles from war zones and foreign capitals. Such immense responsibility also docs not make the
best use of talent in government, leaving the military and the nation's diplomats fighting with
the White House over policies while trying to execute plans they have less and less ownership
over.
... ... ...
Although protocol still requires members of the NSC to sit on the backbench in National
Security Council meetings, the staff s voice and advice can carry as much weight as those of
the principals sitting at the table, just as the staff has taken on more of each department's
responsibilities, the NSC arc expected to be advisors to the president, even on military
strategy. With that charge, the staff has taken to spending more time and effort developing
their own policy ideas -- and fighting for them.
Yet war is a hard thing to try to manage from the Executive Office Building. Thousands
of miles from the frontlines and far from harm, the NSC make recommendations based on what they
come to know from intelligence reports, news sources, phone calls, video-teleconferences, and
visits to the front. Even with advice based only on this limited and limiting view, the NSC
staff has transformed how the United States fights its wars.
The American way of war, developed over decades of thinking and fighting, informs how and
why the nation goes to battle. Over the course of American history and, most relevantly, since
the end of World War II, the US military and other national security professionals have
developed, often through great turmoil, strategic preferences and habits, like deploying the
latest technology possible instead of the largest number of troops. Despite the tremendous
planning that goes into these most serious of undertakings, each new conflict tests the
prevailing way of war and often finds it wanting.
Even knowing how dangerous it is to relight the last war, it is still not easy to find the
right course for a new one. Government in general and national security specifically are
risk-averse enterprises where it is often simpler to rely on standard operating procedures and
stay on a chosen course, regardless of whether progress is slow and the sense of drift is
severe. Even then, many in the military, who often react to even the mildest of suggestions and
inquiries as unnecessary or even dangerous micromanagement, defend the prevailing approach with
its defining doctrine and syndrome.
As Machiavelli recommended long ago, there is a need for hard questions in government and
war in particular. He wrote that a leader "ought to be a great askcr, and a patient hearer of
the truth." 7 From the Executive Office Building, the NSC staff, who are more
distanced from the action as well as the fog of war, have tried to fill this role for a busy
and often distracted president. They are, however, not nearly as patient as Machiavelli
recommended: they have proven more willing, indeed too willing at times, to ask about what is
working and what is not.
Warfighters are not alone in being frustrated by questions: everyone from architects to
zookeepers believes they know how best to do their job and that with a bit more time, they will
get it right. Without any of the responsibility for the doing, the NSC staff not only asks hard
questions but, by avoiding implementation bias, is willing to admit, often long before those in
the field, that the current plan is failing. A more technologically advanced NSC, with the
ability to reach deep into the chain of command and war zones for updates, has also given the
staff the intelligence to back up its impatience.
Most times in history, the NSC staff has correctly predicted that time is running against a
chosen strategy. Halperin. and others on the Nixon NSC, were accurate in their assessments of
Vietnam. Dur and his Reagan NSC colleagues were right to worry that diplomacy was moving too
slowly in Lebanon. Haass and Vershbow were correct when they were concerned with how windows of
opportunity for action were shrinking in the Gulf and Balkans respectively, just as O'Sullivan
was right that things needed to change relatively soon in Iraq.
Yet an impatient NSC staff has a worse track record giving the president answers to what
should come next. The NSC staff naturally have opinions and ideas about what can be done when
events and war feel out of control, but ideas about what can be done when events and war feel
out of control, but the very distance and disengagement that allow' the NSC to be so effective
at measuring progress make its ideas less grounded in operational realities and more clouded by
the fog of Washington. The NSC, often stridently, wants to do something more, to "go big when
wc can," as one recent staffer encouraged his president, to fix a failing policy or win a w
r ar, but that is not a strategy, nor does that ambition make the staff the best
equipped to figure out the next steps."
With their proposals for a new plan, deployment, or initiative, the staff has made more bad
recommendations than good. The Diem coup and the Beirut mission are two examples, and
particularly tragic ones at that, of NSC staff recommendations gone awry. The Iraq surge was
certainly a courageous decision, but by committing so many troops to that country, the manpower
w r as not available for a war in Afghanistan that was falling off track. Even the
more successful NSC recommendations for changes in US strategy in the Gulf War and in Bosnia
did not end up exactly as planned, in part because even good ideas in war rarely do.
Although presidents bear the ultimate responsibilities for these decisions, the NSC
staff played an essential, and increasing, role in the thinking behind each bold move. In
conflict after conflict, a more powerful NSC staff has fundamentally altered the American way
of war. It is now far less informed by the perspective of the military and the view from the
frontlines. It is less patient for progress and more dependent on the clocks in the Executive
Office Building and Washington than those in theater. It is far more combative, less able to
accept defeat, and more willing to risk a change of course.
And it is characterized by more frequent and counterproductive friction between the civilian
and military leaders.
... ... ...
Through it all, as the NSC's voice has grown louder in the nation's war rooms, the staff has
transformed how Washington works, and more often does not work. The NSC's fights to change
course have had another casualty: the ugly collapse of the common law' that has governed
Washington policymaking for more than a generation. The result today is a government that
trusts less, fights more, and decides much slower.
National security policy- and decision-making was never supposed to be a fair fight. Eliot
Cohen, a civil-military scholar with high-level government experience, has called the
give-and-take of the interagency process an "unequal" dialogue -- one in which presidents are
entitled to not just make the ultimate decision but also to ask questions, often with the NSC's
help, at any time and about any topic.* Everyone else, from the secretaries of state and
defense in Washington dow r n to the commanders and ambassadors abroad, has to
expect and tolerate such presidential interventions and then carry out his orders.
Even an unfair fight can have rules, however. The NSC common law's kept the peace in
Washington for years after Iran-Contra. The restrictions against outright advocacy and outsized
operational responsibilities were accepted by those at the White House as well as in the
agencies during Republican and Democratic administrations. Yet as many in Washington believed
the world grew more interconnected and the national security stakes increased, especially after
September 11th, a more powerful NSC has given staffers the opportunity to bend, and
occasionally break, the common laws, as they have been expected to and allowed to take on more
responsibilities for developing strategies and new r ideas from those in the
bureaucracy and military.
... ... ...
...Meanwhile, others, including the anonymous author of the infamous September 2018 New
York Times opinion piece, believe government officials who comprise a "steady state" amid
Trump's chaotic presidency are "unsung heroes" resisting his worst instincts and overreaches.
13 Thus, it is no surprise that more and more Americans are concerned: a 2018 poll
found that 74 percent of Americans feel a group of officials arc able to control government
policy without accountability.
In an era when Americans can see on reality television how their fish are caught, meals arc
cooked, and businesses are financed, it is strange that few have ever heard the voice of an NSC
staffer. The Executive Office Building is not the only building out of reach: most of the
government taxpayers' fund is hard, and getting harder, to see. With bigger security blockades,
longer waits on declassification, and more severe crackdowns on leaks, it is no wonder some
Americans have taken to assuming the worst of their public servants.
The American people need to know the NSC's war stories if for no other reason than each
makes clear that there is no organized deep state in Washington. If one existed, there would be
little need for the NSC to fight so hard to coordinate the government's various players and
parts. However, this history also makes plain that though the United States can overcome bad
decisions and survive military disasters, a belief in a deep state is a threat to the NSC and
so much more.
... ... ...
Each member of the NSC staff needs to remember that their growing, unaccountable power
has helped give evidence to the worries about a deep state. Although no one in Washington gives
up influence voluntarily, the staff, even its warriors, need to remember it is not just what
they fight for but whether a fight is necessary at all. Shortcuts and squabbles may make
sense when every second feels like it counts, but the best public servants do what is necessary
for the president even as they protect, for years to come, the health of the institutions and
the very democracy in which they serve. As hard as that can be to remember when the clock in
the Oval Office is ticking, doing things the right way is even more important than the latest
crises, war, or meeting with the president.
... ... ...
... Too many in Washington, including at the Executive Office Building, have forgotten
that public service is a privilege that bestows on them great responsibility. Although the NSC
has long justified its actions in the name of national security, the means with which its
members have pursued that objective have made for a more aggressive American way of war, a more
fractious Washington, and more conspiracies about government.
Centuries ago, Plato argued that civilians must hope for warriors who could be trusted to be
both "gentle to their own and cruel to their enemies." At a time when many doubt government and
those who serve in it, the NSC staff s history demonstrates just what White House warriors arc
capable of. The question is for what and for whom they will fight in the years and wars
ahead.
... ... ...
The legendary British double agent Kim Philby wrote: "just because a document is a document
it has a glamour which tempts the reader to give it more weight than it deserves An hour of a
serious discussion with a trustworthy informant is often more valuable than any number of
original documents. Of course, it is best to have both."
A must-read for anyone interested in history or foreign policy. Gans pulls back the
curtain on arguably the most powerful yet opaque body in foreign policy decision-making,
the National Security Council. Each chapter recounts a different administration -- as told
through the work of an NSC staffer. Through these beautifully-written portraits of largely
unknown staffers, Gans reveals the chilling, outsized influence of this small, unelected
institution on American war and peace. From this perspective, even the policy success
stories seem more luck than skill -- leaving readers concerned about the NSC's continued
unchecked power.
"... Adam Schiff: If Trump isn't removed he "could offer Alaska to the Russians in exchange for support in the next election or decide to move to Mar-a-Lago permanently and leave Jared Kushner to run the country, delegating to him the decision whether they go to war." pic.twitter.com/VBzkonqpmH ..."
Impeachment manager Adam Schiff (D-CA) argued on Monday during closing remarks that if
President Trump isn't removed from office, he " could offer Alaska to the Russians in exchange
for support in the next election or decide to move to Mar-a-Lago permanently and leave Jared
Kushner to run the country , delegating to him the decision whether they go to war."
Adam Schiff: If Trump isn't removed he "could offer Alaska to the Russians in exchange for support in
the next election or decide to move to Mar-a-Lago permanently and leave Jared Kushner to run
the country, delegating to him the decision whether they go to war." pic.twitter.com/VBzkonqpmH
Russia, China and Iran are already being blamed for using tech to undermine the 2020
election. Yet, the very technologies they are allegedly using were created by a web of
companies with deep ties to Israeli intelligence.
Megyn Kelly explains why President Donald Trump is right about CNN being against him in an
interview with Bill Maher on Friday's broadcast of 'Real Time' on HBO.
BILL MAHER: There was a gun rally. It was peaceful. And you could see how disappointed the
media was that the Civil War didn't break out.
MEGYN KELLY: Of course.
MAHER: That's what I think media bias is, much more than politics.
KELLY: I think that there was a liberal slant in the media even before Trump got in there.
Take CNN. He went in there and said CNN is completely biased to the left, they're lefties,
they're completely against him. And my take on it was, in the beginning, he was wrong, CNN
wasn't that way. I used to watch CNN all the time when I was at FOX. When I was getting ready
for 'The Kelly File,' I had on CNN and I'd watch a lot of their shows. I like a lot of the
anchors over there. But my view is, CNN became the thing that Trump said they were and they
weren't and now they are. Now they're indistinguishable from MSNBC.
This corona virus panic is interesting. RT has an interesting piece that points out that
corona virus has been officially recognized in some 8,000 odd people and 200 odd people have
died from it, we need a sense of perspective. World wide seasonal flu, kills between 350,000
and 600,000 people each year. Tuberculosis kills over 1,000,000 people each year. Malaria
kills a similar number. AIDS killed over 500,000 last year. And we're panicking about 200 or
so?
Just had an email from a company I deal with in China, the relevant passages-
2. The company has been following instructions from the Chinese government to postpone
the Spring Festival holiday to Feb. 9th, 2020 if not any further postpone. But, we believe
most of our services should be provided as usual since then.
5. We also would like your attention that there's yet no evidence or cases to support
the transmission of the novel coronavirus through packages or imported goods. According to
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of the US, because of poor survivability
of these coronaviruses on surfaces, there is likely very low risk of spread from products or
packaging that are shipped over a period of days or weeks at ambient temperatures. The
National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China advises that coronavirus is
spread most often by respiratory droplets from one person to another, regular packages from
Wuhan can be received as usual. Reference links are attached as the footnote below for your
references.[1]
6. The Company will take proactive measures like ultraviolet light to ensure a safe and
healthy environment of its warehouse. Disinfection work will be conducted before each
delivery.
The farce has claimed all kinds of convictions, but hardly any related to the actual case at
hand. In fact, the Washington Post , a paper that has done much to whip up Russiagate
hysteria, actually conducted a thorough
analysis of the so-called Russian social media campaign and concluded, "there's no evidence
that [Russians] did any particularly sophisticated targeting." Rather, Occam's Razor-type
reasoning implies that Russian "trolls," like most other entities active on the web, were
simply looking for clicks in order to make a buck from advertisers. In a sign that the
Washington Post might not be completely oblivious to journalistic ethics, one of their
reporters has surprisingly
started a systematic effort to review the journalistic excesses of the last few years
related to Russiagate. The New York Times has not attempted any similar soul-searching
as regards the Russiagate hysteria regrettably, but had itself to
admit that when it comes to "meddling in elections . . . we do it too."
As someone who is occasionally forced to tread water in the Beltway swamp, I would also be
very eager to see a certain draining of foreign influence from the American political process.
But, at this point, I am at least as concerned with Bahrain influence , British
influence , Chinese
influence , German influence , Indian
influence , Israeli influence , Japanese
influence , Nigerian
influence , Norwegian
influence , Pakistani
influence , Polish
influence , Philippine
influence , Saudi influence
, South Korean influence
, Taiwan
influence , Turkish
influence , Ukrainian
influence , UAE
influence , Vietnamese influence , etc. Sorry, President Putin, you are likely
not even in the top twenty foreign powers currently manipulating the conduct of U.S. foreign
policy, but Russiagate sure has made for an entertaining drama.
As for those various espionage escapades, well, when the Hollywood blockbuster film
Argocaptured
"Best Film" back in 2012, that moment seemed to crystallize a new and glorious era for
America's intelligence agencies. Are our spies amazing or what -- not just creative -- but
low-budget and good looking too? Perhaps now is the time for Hollywood to pick up another CIA
script with Iran: the overthrow of
Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953? That event, as much as any other, forms the essential backdrop for
today's ominous developments in the Persian Gulf.
Lyle J. Goldstein is Research Professor in the China Maritime Studies Institute (CMSI)
at the United States Naval War College in Newport, RI. In addition to Chinese, he also speaks
Russian and he is also an affiliate of the new Russia Maritime Studies Institute (RMSI) at
Naval War College. You can reach him at [email protected] . The opinions in his columns are entirely
his own and do not reflect the official assessments of the U.S. Navy or any other agency of the
U.S. government.
I write a lot about government secrecy and the importance of whistleblowers, leakers and
leak publishers, and for good reason: governments which can hide their wicked deeds from public
accountability will do so whenever possible. It's impossible for the public to use democracy
for ensuring their government behaves in the way they desire if they aren't allowed to be
informed about what that behavior even is.
These things get lots of attention in conspiracy circles and dissident political factions.
Quite a few eyes are fixed on the veil of government opacity and the persecution of those brave
souls who try to shed light on what's going on behind it. Not enough eyes, but quite a few.
What gets less attention, much to our detriment, is the fact that the primary mechanism of
our oppression and exploitation is happening right out in front of our faces.
The nonstop campaign by bought politicians, owned news outlets, and manipulated social media
platforms to control the dominant narratives about what's going on in the world contribute
vastly more to the sickness of our society than government secrecy does. We know this from
experience: any time a whistleblower exposes secret information about the malfeasance of
powerful governments like NSA surveillance or Collateral Murder , we see not public
accountability, nor demands for sweeping systemic changes to prevent such malfeasance from
reoccurring, but a bunch of narrative management from the political/media class.
This narrative management is used to shift attention away from the information that was
revealed and onto the fact that the person who revealed it broke the law or misbehaved in some
way. It's used to convince people that the revelations aren't actually a big deal, or that it
was already basically public knowledge anyway. And it's used to manipulate public attention on
to the next hot story of the day and memory hole it underneath the white noise of the media
news churn. And nothing changes.
We've seen it happening over and over and over again. The narrative management machine has
gotten so effective and efficient that it's been able to completely ignore the recent
revelation that the US, UK and France almost certainly bombed Syria in 2018
for a completely false reason . A few half-assed Bellingcat spin jobs and an otherwise
total media blackout, and it's like the whole thing never happened.
What this tells us is that our first and foremost problem is not the fact that conspiracies
are happening behind a curtain of government secrecy, but that the way people think, act and
vote is being actively manipulated right out in the open. Government secrecy is indeed one
aspect of establishment narrative control, but controlling the public's access to information
is only one aspect. The bigger part of it is controlling how the public thinks about
information.
The reason people never use the power of their superior numbers to force real change, even
though they're being exploited and oppressed in myriad ways by the ruling class, is because
they've been propagandized into accepting the status quo as desirable (or at least normal). The
propaganda of the political/media class is therefore the establishment's front line of defense.
Its most powerful, and essential, weapon.
This is important for dissidents of all stripes to understand, because it means we're not
just passively waiting around for another Manning or Snowden or an Ian Henderson to give us
information which we can use to fight the oppression machine. Those individuals have done a
great public service, but the battle to awaken human consciousness to what's really going on in
our world is in no way limited to leakers and whistleblowers. It is not at the mercy of
government secrecy.
If you are engaged in any type of media, you are engaging
the narrative matrix which keeps the public asleep and complacent. It doesn't matter if you
have a Twitter account, a Youtube account, some flyers or a can of spray paint: if you are
capable of getting any kind of message out there, you are able to directly influence the
mechanism of your oppression. You are able to inform people that they are being lied to, you
are able to explain why, and you are able to point them to where they can find more
information.
This is extremely empowering. You do not need to wait around hoping that some bombshell
piece of information makes it past all the various security checks and spinmeisters and
triggers a real social awakening. You can be that information. You can become a catalyst for
that awakening.
The key to turning this ship around does not lie hidden somewhere behind a veil of
government opacity. It lies in you. It lies in all of us. We can begin awakening our fellow
humans right now by attacking the narrative management of the propaganda machine that sits
right in front of us, unarmored and unhidden.
Rosie memos @almostjingo - 1:40 UTC · Jan 30, 2020
Well geez this is awkward. Despite being told for years that "Internet Research Agency"
was working for Putin the DOJ admits it's not going to offer any evidence in the case "that
the Russian Government sponsored the alleged conspiracy" MUH RUSSIA. @TheJusticeDept
-- --
Neither The DoJ or the FBI are aware of the fact that more than 60% of Israeli army speak
Russian fluently just like their native hebrew, or better!?
US Vice President Mike Pence used his speech at the Holocaust memorial last week to bang a
war drum at Iran. It revealed a deplorable lack of dignity and understanding of the event,
despite Pence's efforts to appear solemn. But not only that. It showed too how out of touch the
United States – at least its political leadership – is with the rest of the world
and a growing collective concern among others to ensure international peace.
Maybe that's why Britain's Prince Charles appeared to snub Pence, declining to shake his
hand while attending the commemoration of the Holocaust and 75th anniversary of the liberation
of Auschwitz. Charles warmly greeted other dignitaries, including Russian President Vladimir
Putin and France's Emmanuel Macron. It was curious how he blanked Pence.
But there again, maybe not that curious.
Pence and the Trump administration seem to be hellbent on starting a war with Iran. A war
that would engulf the entire Middle East and possibly ignite a world conflagration.
Washington's wanton threats of violence against Iran and its recent assassination of one of
Iran's top military leaders stands as a shocking repudiation of international law and the UN
Charter. It's the kind of conduct more akin to an organized crime syndicate rather than a
supposedly democratic state.
The UN Charter was created in 1945 in the aftermath of the Second World War precisely to
prevent repetition of the worst conflagration in history and all its barbaric crimes, including
the Nazi Holocaust. Over 5o million people died in that war, and nearly half of them belonged
to the Soviet Union.
The prevention of war is surely the most onerous responsibility of the UN Security Council.
Yet the United States is the one power that routinely ignores international law and the UN
Charter to unilaterally launch wars or military interventions. Washington's threats against
Iran are, unfortunately, nothing new. This is standard American practice.
Putin, Macron, Prince Charles and German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier all invoked the
need for collective commitment to international law and peace. They implied that such a
commitment was the best way to honour those who were killed in the Holocaust and the Second
World War; the surest way to prevent the barbarity of fascist ideology and persecution ever to
be repeated.
Those speakers one after another denounced the ideology of demonizing others which fuels
hatred and wars. How pertinent is that to the way Washington routinely demonizes other nations
and foreign leaders?
In sharp contrast, when the American vice president made his address, his apparent solemnity
was contradicted by a
blood-curdling call to arms against Iran , which he accused of being the "leading state
purveyor of anti-semitism". Pence urged the whole world "to stand strong against the Islamic
Republic of Iran", spoken as if he was spitting out the words like venom.
There is little doubt that Pence was formulating a rationale for military confrontation with
Iran. That has been the consistent policy of the Trump administration over the past three
years.
It was no surprise that Pence's speech was in sync with the usual bellicose rhetoric from
Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu towards Iran. But what was arresting was just how out of sync
Pence and the Trump administration are with the rest the world.
That's what is perplexing about many American politicians. They seem ignorant of history
(Pence gave no acknowledgement to the Soviet soldiers who liberated Auschwitz and other death
camps); they are consumed by self-righteousness and arrogance like a puritan preacher without
an ounce of humanity.
Anyone who reflects on the horror of war would surely be advocating the respect of and
adherence to international law, commitment to peace, and the earnest pursuit of dialogue and
partnership among nations.
Russia's Putin has repeatedly called for the members of the UN Security Council to urgently
get together in order to guarantee a multilateral commitment to peace. Putin has also
repeatedly appealed to the United States to get serious about negotiating renewed arms control
treaties. Washington has ignored those latter calls.
Mike Pence's menacing words and attitude at the Holocaust memorial showed a disturbing and
pernicious disconnect with the need for preventing war and genocide. It was a disgraceful
dishonouring of victims.
Out of sync with the world, the US has returned to the ashes and lawlessness of 1945.
"... Finally, and perhaps this is the most important point, the FBI was at this time supposed to be in the early stages of an investigation into how the DNC emails were leaked to Wikileaks. The FBI here believed Wikileaks to be indicating the material had been leaked by Seth Rich who had then been murdered. Surely in any legitimate investigation, the investigators would have been absolutely compelled to check out the truth of this possibility, rather than treat it as a media issue? ..."
A persistent American lawyer has uncovered the undeniable fact that the FBI has been
continuously lying , including giving
false testimony in court, in response to Freedom of Information requests for its records on
Seth Rich. The FBI has previously given affidavits
that it has no records regarding Seth Rich.
A Freedom of Information request to the FBI which did not mention Seth Rich, but asked for
all email correspondence between FBI Head of Counterterrorism Peter Strzok, who headed the
investigation into the DNC leaks and Wikileaks, and FBI attorney Lisa Page, has revealed two
pages of emails which do not merely mention Seth Rich but have "Seth Rich" as their heading.
The emails were provided in, to say the least, heavily redacted form.
Before I analyze these particular emails, I should make plain that they are not the major
point. The major point is that the FBI claimed it had no records mentioning Seth Rich, and
these have come to light in response to a different FOIA request that was not about him. What
other falsely denied documents does the FBI hold about Rich, that were not fortuitously picked
up by a search for correspondence between two named individuals?
To look at the documents themselves, they have to be read from the bottom up, and they
consist of a series of emails between members of the Washington Field Office of the FBI (WF in
the telegrams) into which Strzok was copied in, and which he ultimately forwarded on to the
lawyer Lisa Page.
The opening email, at the bottom, dated 10 August 2016 at 10.32am, precisely just one month
after the murder of Seth Rich, is from the media handling department of the Washington Field
Office. It references Wikileaks' offer of a reward for information on the murder of Seth Rich,
and that Assange seemed to imply Rich was the source of the DNC leaks. The media handlers are
asking the operations side of the FBI field office for any information on the case. The
unredacted part of the reply fits with the official narrative. The redacted individual officer
is "not aware of any specific involvement" by the FBI in the Seth Rich case. But his next
sentence is completely redacted. Why?
It appears that "adding" references a new person added in to the list. This appears to have
not worked, and probably the same person (precisely same length of deleted name) then tries
again, with "adding for real" and blames the technology – "stupid Samsung". The
interesting point here is that the person added appears not to be in the FBI – a new
redacted addressee does indeed appear, and unlike all the others does not have an FBI suffix
after their deleted email address. So who are they?
(This section on "adding" was updated after commenters offered a better explanation than my
original one. See first comments below).
The fourth email, at 1pm on Wednesday August 10, 2016, is much the most interesting. It is
ostensibly also from the Washington Field Office, but it is from somebody using a different
classified email system with a very different time and date format than the others. It is
apparently from somebody more senior, as the reply to it is "will do". And every single word of
this instruction has been blanked. The final email, saying that "I squashed this with ..", is
from a new person again, with the shortest name. That phrase may only have meant I denied this
to a journalist, or it may have been reporting an operational command given.
As the final act in this drama, Strzok then sent the whole thread on to the lawyer, which is
why we now have it. Why?
It is perfectly possible to fill in the blanks with a conversation that completely fits the
official narrative. The deletions could say this was a waste of time and the FBI was not
looking at the Rich case. But in that case, the FBI would have been delighted to publish it
unredacted. (The small numbers in the right hand margins supposedly detail the exception to the
FOIA under which deletion was made. In almost every case they are one or other category of
invasion of privacy).
And if it just all said "Assange is talking nonsense. Seth Rich is nothing to do with the
FBI" then why would that have to be sent on by Strzok to the FBI lawyer?
It is of course fortunate that Strzok did forward this one email thread on to the lawyer,
because that is the only reason we have seen it, as a result of an FOI(A) request for the
correspondence between those two.
Finally, and perhaps this is the most important point, the FBI was at this time supposed to
be in the early stages of an investigation into how the DNC emails were leaked to Wikileaks.
The FBI here believed Wikileaks to be indicating the material had been leaked by Seth Rich who
had then been murdered. Surely in any legitimate investigation, the investigators would have
been absolutely compelled to check out the truth of this possibility, rather than treat it as a
media issue?
We are asked to believe that not one of these emails says "well if the publisher of the
emails says Seth Rich was the source, we had better check that out, especially as he was
murdered with no sign of a suspect". If the FBI really did not look at that, why on earth not?
If the FBI genuinely, as they claim, did not even look at the murder of Seth Rich, that would
surely be the most damning fact of all and reveal their "investigation" was entirely agenda
driven from the start.
In June 2016 a vast cache of the DNC emails were leaked to Wikileaks. On 10 July 2016 an
employee from the location of the leak was murdered without obvious motive, in an alleged
street robbery in which nothing at all was stolen. Not to investigate the possibility of a link
between the two incidents would be grossly negligent. It is worth adding that, contrary to a
propaganda barrage, Bloomingdale where Rich was murdered is a very pleasant area of Washington
DC and by no means a murder hotspot. It is also worth noting that not only is there no suspect
in Seth Rich's murder, there has never been any semblance of a serious effort to find the
killer. Washington police appear perfectly happy simply to write this case off.
I anticipate two responses to this article in terms of irrelevant and illogical
whataboutery:
Firstly, it is very often the case that family members are extremely resistant to the
notion that the murder of a relative may have wider political implications. This is perfectly
natural. The appalling grief of losing a loved one to murder is extraordinary; to reject the
cognitive dissonance of having your political worldview shattered at the same time is very
natural. In the case of David Kelly, of Seth Rich, and of Wille Macrae, we see families
reacting with emotional hostility to the notion that the death raises wider questions.
Occasionally the motive may be still more mixed, with the prior relationship between the
family and the deceased subject to other strains (I am not referencing the Rich case
here).
You do occasionally get particularly stout hearted family who take the opposite tack and
are prepared to take on the authorities in the search for justice, of which Commander Robert
Green, son of Hilda Murrell, is a worthy example.
(As an interesting aside, I just checked his name in the Wikipedia article on Hilda, which
I discovered describes Tam Dalyell "hounding" Margaret Thatcher over the Belgrano and the
fact that ship was steaming away from the Falklands when destroyed with massive loss of life
as a "second conspiracy theory", the first of course being the murder of Hilda Murrell.
Wikipedia really has become a cesspool.)
We have powerful cultural taboos that reinforce the notion that if the family do not want
the question of the death of their loved one disturbed, nobody else should bring it up. Seth
Rich's parents, David Kelly's wife, Willie Macrae's brother have all been deployed by the
media and the powers behind them to this effect, among many other examples. This is an
emotionally powerful but logically weak method of restricting enquiry.
Secondly, I do not know and I deliberately have not inquired what are the views on other
subjects of either Mr Ty Clevenger, who brought his evidence and blog to my attention, or
Judicial Watch, who made the FOIA request that revealed these documents. I am interested in
the evidence presented both that the FBI lied, and in the documents themselves. Those who
obtained the documents may, for all I know, be dedicated otter baiters or believe in stealing
ice cream from children. I am referencing the evidence they have obtained in this particular
case, not endorsing – or condemning – anything else in their lives or work. I
really have had enough of illogical detraction by association as a way of avoiding logical
argument by an absurd extension of ad hominem argument to third parties.
* * *
Unlike his adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the
Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, Craig's blog has no
source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary
subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every
article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate. Subscriptions to
keep Craig's blog going are gratefully received .
" We have powerful cultural taboos that reinforce the notion that if the family do not
want the question of the death of their loved one disturbed, nobody else should bring it
up. "
Yeah. We see that all the time on ID Network ... whenever a family member wants
authorities to stop investigating their "loved one's" death, it usually means they're
protecting the guilty party. But the cases are solved by good cops who ignore the family and
do what's right.
Investigating and prosecuting murders is not all about the family. It's also about finding
and removing murderers from society so they can't hurt anyone else.
And neither Mueller nor any other government official ever bothered to interview Julian
Assange even though he agreed to do so. That Mueller didn't but took CrowdStrike's word for
the fact that so-called "Russians" hacked the DNC computer and then gave it to Wikileaks
tells you about all you need to know. Mueller knew who likely did it but didn't want to make
it part of his Report or let it be made public. Meanwhile the Russia Collusion Hoax marched
on, got a life of its own and is allowed to continue in its various forms like the
impeachment of a Donald Trump.
"Is it true that the hidden metadata contained within the FIRST WikiLeaks DNC files batch
clearly shows sequential time stamps (on each file copied) proving that a very high speed
transfer rate took place that could only be done with direct internal access to a DNC
computer on the network (i.g., a USB thumb drive or NAS drive plugged directly into a local
PC or a LAN network jack within the building) as opposed to the much slower file transfer
rate that would be recorded in the metadata if Russia or other hackers had remotely accessed
a DNC computer or local DNC network via a remote WAN/Internet connection (to transfer those
files from the outside)? Another rumor that needs to be put to rest is a SECOND batch of
files may exist (that is almost identical to the FIRST batch), except it includes some fake
Russian breadcrumb "fingerprints" that may have been added to support the "Russian's hacked
it" story that was circulated within the intelligence agencies and leaked out to the media.
IDK, true or false? "
synopsis of the real whistleblower Bill Binney, ex-NSA Technical director who has had his
life ruined because he published this info.
There's no need to rehash the sordid politics of the U.S.-Russia relationship since 2014.
That relationship became collateral damage to gross corruption in Ukraine.
The U.S. and its allies, especially the UK under globalists like David Cameron, wanted to
peel off Ukraine from the Russian orbit and make it part of the EU and eventually NATO.
From Russia's perspective, this was unacceptable. It may be true that most Americans cannot
find Ukraine on a map, but a simple glance at a map reveals that much of Ukraine lies East of
Moscow.
Putting Ukraine in a Western alliance such as NATO would create a crescent stretching from
Luhansk in the South through Poland in the West and back around to Estonia in the North. There
are almost no natural obstacles between that arc and Moscow; it's mostly open steppe.
Completion of this "NATO Crescent" would leave Moscow open to invasion in ways that Napoleon
and Hitler could only dream. Of course, this situation was and is unacceptable to Moscow.
Ukraine itself is culturally divided along geographic lines. The Eastern and Southern
provinces (Luhansk, Donetsk, Crimea and Dnipro) are ethnically Russian, follow the Orthodox
Church and the Patriarch of Moscow, and welcome commercial relations with Russia.
The Western provinces (Kiev, Lviv) are Slavic, adhere to the Catholic Church and the Pope in
Rome, and look to the EU and U.S. for investment and aid.
Prior to 2014, an uneasy truce existed between Washington and Moscow that allowed a
pro-Russian President while at the same time permitting increasing contact with the EU. Then
the U.S. and UK overreached by allowing the CIA and MI6 to foment a "color revolution" in Kiev
called the "Euromaidan Revolution."
Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych resigned and fled to Moscow. Pro-EU protestors took
over the government and signed an EU Association Agreement.
In response, Putin annexed Crimea and declared it part of Russia. He also infiltrated
Donetsk and Luhansk and helped establish de facto pro-Russian regional governments. The U.S.
and EU responded with harsh economic sanctions on Russia.
Ukraine has been in turmoil (with increasing corruption) ever since. U.S.-Russia relations
have been ice-cold, exactly as the globalists intended.
The U.S- induced fiasco in Ukraine not only upset U.S.-Russia relations, it derailed a cozy
money laundering operation involving Ukrainian oligarchs and Democratic politicians. The Obama
administration flooded Ukraine with non-lethal financial assistance.
This aid was amplified by a four-year, $17.5 billion loan program to Ukraine from the IMF,
approved in March 2015. Interestingly, this loan program was pushed by Obama at a time when
Ukraine did not meet the IMF's usual borrowing criteria.
Some of this money was used for intended purposes, some was skimmed by the oligarchs, and
the rest was recycled to Democratic politicians in the form of consulting contracts, advisory
fees, director's fees, contributions to foundations and NGOs and other channels.
Hunter Biden and the Clinton Foundations were major recipients of this corrupt recycling.
Other beneficiaries included George Soros-backed "open society" organizations, which further
directed the money to progressive left-wing groups in the U.S.
This cozy wheel-of-fortune was threatened when Donald Trump became president. Trump
genuinely desired improved relations with Russia and was not on the receiving end of laundered
aid to Ukraine.
Hillary Clinton was supposed to continue the Obama policies, but she failed in the general
election. Trump was a threat to everything the globalists, Democrats and pro-NATO elites had
constructed in the 2010s.
The globalists wanted China and the U.S. to team up against Russia. Trump understood
correctly that China was the main enemy and therefore a closer union between the U.S. and
Russia was essential.
The elites' efforts to derail Trump gave rise to the "Russia collusion" hoax. While no one
disputes that Russia sought to sow confusion in the U.S. election in 2016, that's something the
Russians and their Soviet predecessors had been doing since 1917. By itself, little harm was
done.
Yet, the elites seized on this to concoct a story of collusion between Russia and the Trump
campaign. The real collusion was among Democrats, Ukrainians and Russians to discredit
Trump.
It took the Robert Mueller investigation two years finally to conclude there was no
collusion between Trump and the Russians. By then, the damage was done. It was politically
toxic for Trump to reach out to the Russians. That would be spun by the media as more evidence
of "collusion."
Russian President Vladimir Putin (l.) has recently named a new Prime Minister, Mikhail
Mishustin (r.). This is part of a complex government reorganization designed to extend Putin's
rule beyond existing term limits. This is a setback for democracy, but may be a plus for the
economy because it adds stability and continuity to Putin's programs.
This whirl of false charges, cover-ups, and deep state sabotage finally led to Trump's
impeachment on December 18, 2019.
Fortunately, the Senate impeachment trial may soon be behind us with Trump's exoneration in
hand (although new impeachment charges and false accusations cannot be ruled out).
Is the stage finally set for improved U.S.-Russia relations, relief from U.S. sanctions, and
a significant increase in U.S. direct foreign investment in Russia?
Right now, my models are telling us that Russia is one of the most attractive targets for
foreign investment in the world. Just because U.S. policymakers missed the boat does not mean
that investors must do the same.
Russia is often denigrated by Wall Street analysts and mainstream economists who know little
about the country. Russia is the world's largest country by area and has the largest arsenal of
nuclear weapons of any country in the world.
It has the world's 11th largest economy at over $1.6 trillion in annual GDP, ahead of South
Korea, Spain and Australia and not far behind Canada, Brazil and Italy.
It also is the world's third largest producer of oil and related liquids, with output of
11.4 million barrels per day, about 11% of the world's total. The U.S. (17.8 million b/d),
Saudi Arabia (12.4 million b/d) and Russia combine to provide 41% of the world's liquid fuels.
The latter two countries effectively control the world's oil price by agreeing on output
quotas.
Russia has almost no external dollar-denominated debt and has a debt-to-GDP ratio of only
13.50% (the comparable ratio for the United States is 106%).
In short, Russia is too big and too powerful to ignore despite the derogatory and uninformed
claims of globalists. Importantly, Russia is emerging from the oil price shock of 2014-2016 and
is in a solid recovery.
The stage is now set for significant economic expansion as illustrated in the chart below
from Moody's Analytics:
This graphic analysis from Moody's Analytics divides major economies into categories of
Recovery, Expansion, Slowdown and Recession. Economies revolve clockwise through these four
phases. The U.S. is in a Slowdown phase with some risk of Recession. Russia is in the Recovery
phase heading toward Expansion. The Russian situation is the most attractive for investors
because it offers cheap entry points with high returns as the Expansion phase begins.
Russia has also gone to great lengths to insulate itself from U.S. economic sanctions. Their
reserves have recovered to the $500 billion level that existed before the 2014 oil price
collapse with one important difference. The dollar component of reserves has shrunk
substantially while the gold component has increased to over 20%.
With the recent surge in gold prices, Russia's reserves get a significant boost (when
expressed in dollars) because of the higher dollar value of the gold reserves. Gold cannot be
hacked, frozen or seized, as is the case with digital dollar assets.
Russia's fortunes have been improving not only because of low debt and higher gold prices
but also because of higher oil prices. The country is poised for a strong expansion, even if
U.S. hostility caused by the Democrats continues.
If Trump regains his footing after impeachment and wins a second term (which I expect),
investors can expect warmer relations with Russia and an even more powerful Russian economic
expansion than the one already underway. Tags
FBI Lied to a Federal Court Regarding Seth Rich by Larry C Johnson
Thanks to Judicial Watch, a new batch of emails have surfaced that put the FBI in a whole
lot of trouble with at least two Federal Judges. Attorney Ty Clevenger made repeated FOIA
requests to the FBI for all emails and communications dealing with Seth Rich and his murder.
The FBI denied they had any such communications. Whoops! There are now five emails and one text
message that show that denial is not true. Let's dig into the details.
The FBI, in the person of David Hardy, affirmed in an affidavit that there were no
responsive records. Hardy is the Section Chief of the Record/Information Dissemination Section
("RIDS"), Information Management Division ("IMD"),1 Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), in
Winchester, Virginia. Here are the relevant portions of his first affidavit:
On September 30, 2017, by electronic submission via the OIP online portal, Plaintiff
submitted an administrative appeal of the FBI's September 19, 2017 determination. Specifically,
Plaintiff alleged the FBI limited its search to the Central Records System("CRS") for main file
records. Additionally, Plaintiff noted that any responsive records likely would be found in
emails, hard copy documents, and other files in the FBI's Washington Field Office; therefore,
the FBI should be directed to conduct a thorough search, to include emails and other records in
the Washington Field Office. . . .
(9) By letter executed on November 9, 2017, OIP advised Plaintiff it affirmed the FBI's
determination. OIP further advised Plaintiff that to the extent his request sought access to
records that would either confirm or deny an individual's placement on any government watch
list, the FBI properly refused to confirm or deny the existence of any such records because
their existence is protected from disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E). . .
.
(19) CRS Search and Results. In response to Plaintiff's request dated September 1, 2017,
RIDS conducted an index search of the CRS for responsive main and reference file records
employing the UNI application of ACS. The FBI searched the subject's name, "Seth Conrad Rich,"
in order to identify files responsive to Plaintiff's request and subject to the FOIA. The FBI's
searches included a three-way phonetic breakdown5 of the subject's name. These searches
located no main or reference records responsive to Plaintiff's FOIA request.
(20) Subsequently, the FBI conducted additional searches of the CRS via the UNI application
of ACS and a Sentinel index search for both main and reference file records. The FBI used the
same search terms it used in its original searches as described supra. This new search also
resulted in no main or reference file records being located responsive to Plaintiff's FOIA
request. . . .
(25) The FBI conducted an adequate and reasonable search for records responsive to
Plaintiffs FOIA request; however, no records were located. First given its comprehensive nature
and scope, the CRS is the principle records system searched by RIDS, to locate information
responsive to most FOIA/Privacy Act requests, as the CRS is where the FBI indexes information
about individuals, organizations, and events for future retrieval. See , 14, supra. Second, the
CRS is the FBI recordkeeping system where investigative records responsive to this request
would reasonably be found. Given Plaintiffs request sought information about an individual
subject, Seth Conrad Rich, who was murdered in the District of Columbia on or about July 10,
2016, such information would reasonably be expected to be located in the CRS via the index
search methodology. Finally, the office likely to conduct or assist in such an investigation --
WFO -- confirmed that it did not open an investigation or provide investigative or technical
assistance into the murder of Seth Conrad Rich, as the matter was under investigation by the
MPD, who declined the FBI's assistance.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct, and that ibits A - E attached hereto are true and correct copies.
Well, guess what? Just as Ty Clevenger anticipated, the relevant emails were in the
Washington Field Office. To make matters worse, some of these emails were sent to FBI
Headquarters. David Hardy either is incompetent or he has lied. There is no middle ground. In
either case, his submission was not true.
Here are the emails (I transcribed them and put them in chronological order to facilitate
your ability to read them and understand what is being communicated).
10:32 am -- Message sent from FBI's Washington Field Office Public Affairs officer to at
least three other Washington Field Office FBI Agents. In addition, there are three other
blacked out areas in the addressee field, which appear to be the names of persons who do not
work at the Washington Field Office.
I hope you are well. I heard from the front office that you are covering for BLANK this
week. Various news outlets are reporting today that Julian Assange suggested during an overseas
interview that DNC Staffer, Seth Rich, was a Wikileaks source and may have been killed because
he leaked the DNC e-mails to his organization, and that Wikileaks is offering $20,000 for
information regarding the death of Seth Rich last month. Based on this news, we anticipate
additional press coverage on this matter. I hear that you are in a class today; however, when
you have a moment can you give me a call to discuss what involvement the FBI has in the
investigation.
12:53 pm -- Message replying to the 10:32 am message, sent from FBI Washington Field Office
with at least four other Washington Field Office FBI Agents addressed on the message. There
also are two other blacked out addresses, which may indicate personnel not in the Washington
Field Office.
Adding BLANK (a name to the addressee list). I am aware of this reporting from earlier this
week, but not any involvement in any related case. BLANKED OUT.
12:54 pm -- Message sent from FBI Washington Field Office with at least four other
Washington Field Office FBI Agents addressed on the message. There also are two other blacked
out addresses, which may indicate personnel not in the Washington Field Office.
Adding BLANK for real. Stupid Samsung. (Apparently the author of this message failed in the
preceding message.)
1:00 pm -- Message replying to the 12:54 pm message, sent from FBI Washington Field Office
with five other Washington Field Office FBI Agents addressed on the message.
Hi. (THE REST OF THE MESSAGE IS BLANKED OUT.)
1:25 pm -- Message replying to the 1:00 pm message, sent from FBI Washington Field Office
with five other Washington Field Office FBI Agents addressed on the message. Plus, two other
BLANKED out addressees not identified.
Thanks BLANK will do.
7:09 pm -- Message from FBI Washington Field Office to Jonathan Moffat and Peter Strzok of
the FBI's Criminal Division and two other BLANKED out addressees.
FYSA (For Your Situational Awareness). I squashed this with BLANK
7:49 pm Text message from Peter Strzok to Lisa Page forwarding her this email chain.
The initial response to the query from the Public Affairs Office of the Washington Field
Office is telling. The Agent could have responded very simply--The FBI was not involved in any
facet of the Seth Rich investigation. This was a local matter handled by the DC Police.
But that is not how the Agent responded. And then he took the step of adding in people at
FBI Headquarters. How do we know this? The message from the Washington Field Office at 7:09 pm
was sent to the Criminal Division to Agents Moffat and Strzok.
Ty Clevenger now has ample ammunition to return to court and insist that the FBI be required
to identify all agents involved in these email chains and to discuss what they knew about the
Seth Rich case. David Hardy declared under the penalty of perjury that there were no such
emails. I doubt that the two judges involved in the relevant cases on this matter will be happy
to learn that the FBI stonewalled a valid FOIA request and a
Stay tuned.
Below is the copy of the email chain. You need to read from bottom to top.
Reblog (0)Comments You can follow this conversation by
subscribing to the
comment feed for this post. I will be shocked if the
judge does anything about it beyond a slap on the wrist an an admonition not to get caught
again.
Strictly it had to be handled by DC police, nevertheless the FBI was made aware of it-- and
should have taken over at that point?--and somewhere up the chronology ladder Peter Strzok got
envolved, not quite the way he should have though, instead he only forwarded the latest mail to
his "interior lover". Suggesting??? Peter Strzok as man in charge my have stopped the FBI from
taking over?
I think it is premature to prejudge the question of how successful the FBI will be in
heading off the attempts of Ty Clevenger and Ed Butowsky to penetrate the wall of silence which
has been erected around the involvement of that organisation in covering up the truth about
Seth Rich's murder, and his involvement in leaking the materials from the DNC published by
'WikiLeaks.'
It is also material here that other parts of the cover-up may be running into trouble.
Further indications that contingency plans to use Steele as a 'patsy' were made early on,
and are now being implemented, come in an extraordinary article published in the latest edition
of the 'Sunday Times' by the paper's Political Editor, Tim Shipman.
Important parts of this were reproduced in a piece by Daniel Chaitin in the 'Washington
Examiner', headlined 'Top British spy report: "Strong possibility' that anti-Trump dossier was
completely fabricated", which links to the original article.
The original is, unfortunately, behind a paywall – but can be obtained if one is
prepared to take the trouble to sign up for the free allowance allowed by the papers.
In fact, much more interesting than the fact that a well-known British writer about spies,
Rupert Allason, aka 'Nigel West', who is clearly a conduit for elements in our security
services, has been brought in in support of the strategy of making Steele the 'patsy', are
paragraphs that make a claim which Chaitin does not appear to notice. These read:
'In November (2016 – DH], the FBI began checking out Steele and his sources. The
inspector- general found that former colleagues described Steele as demonstrating "poor
judgment" by "pursuing people with political risk but no intel value".
'More worryingly, they worked out that most of Steele's information came from a "primary
sub-source", identified by American media as a Belarus-born businessman, Sergei Millian. The
FBI interviewed Millian three times, in January, March and May 2017.
'He told the FBI that he was an unwitting source and much of what he had told Steele was
"just talk", "word of mouth and hearsay" or conversations "had with friends over beers". The
claims about Trump cavorting with prostitutes at the Ritz-Carlton were "rumour and speculation"
or said "in jest". The inspector- general's report says Millian "made statements indicating
that Steele misstated or exaggerated" what he had told him and that his reports were far more
"conclusive" than was justified.'
As it happens, while I have seen Millian referred to as a source for the dossier attributed
to Steele, I have – so far at least – not seen him identified with the supposed
'Primary Sub-source.'
A critical question is whether the 'Sunday Times' is right in claiming that the person whom
the FBI are reported by Inspector-General Horowitz as interviewing in January, March and May
2017, in a version which that figure's report accepts, was in fact Millian.
What Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch have to say in the apologia they published last
November under the title 'Crime in Progress', following their attempt to claim that there was
serious sourcing for the 'golden showers' claim, seems worth bringing into the picture:
'Steele said that one of his collectors was among the finest he had ever worked with, an
individual known to U.S. intelligence and law enforcement. Neither Simpson nor Fritsch was told
the name of this source, nor the source's precise whereabouts, but Steele shared enough about
the person's background and access that they believed the information they planned to pass
along was credible.'
The suggestion seems clear that this was the 'Primary Sub-source.'
Anyone who did the most basic research into Millian would very rapidly realise that the
notion that he could have the kind of 'background and access' making the claims made in the
dossier attributed to Steele 'credible' was laughable.
A rather obvious hypothesis, I think, was that the 'Primary Sub-source' was actually –
to hark back to the title of a book and film about a classic British disinformation operation
– 'The Man Who Never Was.'
The actual truth, I think, is likely to have been well-summarised by Lee Smith in the
opening paragraphs of his review of the Simpson/Fritsch book, which is headlined 'A crime still
in progress':
'Crime in Progress is, inadvertently, the cruelest book ever written about the American
media. Its authors, Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch, are the two former Wall Street Journal
reporters who founded the DC-based consultancy Fusion GPS. In 2016, the Hillary Clinton
campaign paid them to use their former media colleagues to push a conspiracy theory smearing
her Republican opponent, Donald Trump. The crime is still in progress.
'To help top-notch journalists market the fantasy that one of the world's most familiar
faces was a secret Russian spy, Fusion GPS co-ordinated with the FBI to forge a series of
"intelligence reports". They attributed these lurid memos to a down-on-his-luck Brit, a former
spy named Christopher Steele.'
My only reservation about this is that I do not think that Steele was 'down-on-his-luck',
until he found that his partners in the 'crime still in progress' were planning to wriggle out
of their own responsibility by making him the 'patsy', or 'fall guy.'
To give intelligence credibility to a farrago which, as Smith suggests, is likely to have
been cooked up in Fusion GPS, with the assistance of criminal elements in the U.S. law
enforcement and intelligence apparatus, it was helpful to bring in an old confederate of both,
Steele.
(One could also then appeal to that curious snobbery that often makes Americans take
seriously precisely the kind of 'Brit' to whom they should give a very wide berth!)
This, ironically, created a situation where those criminal elements could then suggest that
their only fault was in being credulous about claims made by a British intelligence officer
whom it was suggested past experience gave them reason to trust.
A natural way of developing this strategy would be to find someone like Millian, and use him
to buttress the central claims that the dossier 1. was actually produced by Steele, and 2. that
it had actual sources, rather than being largely fabricated. (As so often, the W.C. Fields
principle applies: 'Never give a sucker an even break.')
It seems clear that Horowitz has been prepared to go along with this strategy, and that a
very large number of 'suckers' among those on the other side of the fence from Simpson and
Fritsch have fallen for it, hook, line and sinker. (It might be invidious to name names.)
The likely reason why all this happened, of course, is that a succession of events –
the discovery that material from the DNC had been leaked and was going to be published by
'WikiLeaks', the identification of Seth Rich as the figure responsible, and then his murder
– produced an urgent need for a cover-up.
Inevitably, given the shortage of time, this was imperfect, and gave hostages to
fortune.
It is clear that Clevenger and Butowsky have, and probably will continue to have,
difficulties in getting judges to follow the evidence where it leads.
However, the former is a first-class 'ferret', and I think it is premature to rule out the
possibility that some of the people who are adjudicating these cases may decide that they do
not want to continue to cover up a 'crime still in progress.'
As it happens, Clevenger has written to John Durham, Richard Donague, and also Michael
Horowitz, announcing that he wishes to file a criminal complaint in relation to the materials
which Larry has discussed.
(An account with relevant links is given in a new post entitled 'We now have unequivocal
proof that the FBI is hiding records about Seth Rich' on Clevenger's 'Lawflog' blog, subtitled
'Because some people just need a good flogging.'
I would strongly recommend anyone seriously interested in seeing the truth about these
matters exposed, and the conspiracy against the Constitution defeated, to sign up for alerts
from Clevenger's blog.
Posted by: David Habakkuk |
29 January 2020 at 12:51 PM In fairness to the FBI, they
didn't say there were no emails, they said they used a search of CRS and that didn't identify
any emails. It isn't clear to me from what was provided in this post whether the search would
have included records from the WFO.
I posted quite a long response to 'Sid Finster', which has gone into spam.
Have been reading both the Simpson/Fritsch apologia, and also the book-length version of
Heidi Blake's attempt at 'escapology' on behalf of 'BuzzFeed.'
Both drive a point home: one simply cannot take on trust anything these people say.
This also includes material like the Bruce Ohr 302s. I know think that these were crafted,
between him, Pientka, Strzok et al, as part of contingency plans to make Steele the 'patsy' if
the attempt to 'escalate' with the conspiracy against the Trump failed.
Posted by: David Habakkuk |
29 January 2020 at 01:00 PM The sorry fact is this: Out
here in places like my town in flyover country, I could mention Seth Rich and no one would have
the slightest idea who he was and why he should get justice--or at least that the truth about
his life and death should be told.
Does he have family fighting for the truth about his death? Are there investigative
reporters on the story?
Posted by: oldman22 |
29 January 2020 at 10:56 PM
Oldman22 -The article states - "Steele, who quit MI6 in 2009, never told his former bosses,
what he was up to."
I believe this judgement would now be revised, if one can trust newspaper articles detailing
an earlier meeting with Sir Richard Dearlove that have since come out.
However, I have a little experience with how these things go down in the real world. I
genuinely hope that this experience will prove misleading.
Posted by: Sid Finster |
30 January 2020 at 10:42 AM The omni-present
Strzok/Page.
The DNC computer hack strikes me as another faux investigation identical in that regard to the
Clinton e-mail investigation - half measures abounding. The question is why? The brief e-mail
exchange between WFO and FBIHQ makes it perfectly clear that if the field investigators had not
already taken an interest on following up on Rich as an obvious lead they certainly should
have. It appears to me that they had not since the initial inquiry came down from the Public
Affairs Office and seems somewhat less than urgent.
My question is why wasn't the FBI all over this obvious lead if they wanted to get to the
actual bottom of the DNC hack?
Putin is nothing if not a pragmatist. A nationalist as well. See where Russia was when he
began his first term as President and where it is now which is even more impressive when
resistance from the US and 'friends' is taken into account.
Being pragmatic doesn't always satisfy everyone. He doesn't have the same political system
as the US and Western Democracies either, so there's that. I think a large part of his appeal
to those who see him objectively is his attempts to be a broker rather than a hot head
reactionary and that would apply to the nasties in Israel. Capt Obvious says Israel isn't a
standalone problem.
Putin and Netanyahu's relationship is too close for comfort.
Posted by: SharonM | Jan 30 2020 13:01 utc | 6
Name one national leader to whom Putin displays a lack of respect?
He's not a big-mouthed AmeriKKKan or a sleazy Pom. It's Russian (and Chinese) policy to keep
the door to the path of diplomacy open at all times.
I'm surprised that everyone is pretending not to notice that Trump hasn't finished helping
the "Israelis" to outsmart themselves. He's made several of their criminally psychotic dreams
come true and they've lapped them up without any apparent reservations about the legal and
moral ramifications.
He'll keep 'giving' them increasingly ridiculous concessions because he's probably as curious
as everyone else to discover if there's a practical limit to the quality and quantity of
asinine bullshit the "Israelis" will believe.
Thank you for the informative article by Sharon Tennison, about Putin.
Those who find it interesting and/or informative will also be interested in this much
earlier, much more detailed article that she wrote six years ago, about her initial and
considerable interactions with him when he was a civil-servant bureaucrat in St Petersbug in
the 90s. http://www.russiaotherpointsofview.com/2014/04/russia-report-putin-.html
I wholeheartedly recommend this linked article (along with the one from Moe, above), and
am sure that anyone reading it will find it informative and a very helpful tool with regard
to understanding Putin's actions in today's world.
Sharon Tennison's rather in-depth account of the Vladimir Putin that she knew and dealt
with when he was a civil-servant bureaucrat in St Petersburg in the 90s will shed a lot of
light on the actions of today's Putin.
Trump doesn't have a thing to fear he's been a huge asset to the security state, whose
Russiagate theatrics provided mainstream media news with just enough bullshit to distract the
public, so that Trump could never be aggressively attacked from the Left. For the last three
years, all the "resistance oxygen" was sucked up by the warmongering against Russia.
Meanwhile, this enabled Trump to successfully pass a slew of reactionary legislation and
fasttrack numerous lifetime appointments to the federal court without barely a whimper from
the phony Dems. In fact, the Democrats unanimously voted for Trump's military budget. The
same idiot they called unhinged was given the power to start WWIII.
No matter how much liberals complain–the wealthy are happy with the status quo and
the right-wing Evangelicals are as pleased as punch. However, there's quite a large number of
disaffected Trump voters looking at Tulsi, but could eventually come Bernie's way.
Especially, if Tulsi endorses Bernie. This discontented bunch includes the working-poor, the
indebted young, and all the folks who are not doing economically well under Trump's fabulous
stock market. It especially includes the military families who were promised an end to the
miserable foreign interventions. Bernie, has some appeal to these folks. His platform
certainly resonates with all those who can barely pay their health insurance
premiums, and whose salary is NOT nearly considered a living wage. But Bernie could win
hands-down and steal Trump's base, if he only had the courage to UNAPOLOGETICALLY speak out
against US imperialism and connect all the dots explaining how the security state plundered
the treasury for decades f–king over the working-class.
"... the West's equivalent to the former Soviet Union's systematic, and equally pervasive, truth-suppression, to fool the public into thinking that the Government represents them, no matter how much it does not. ..."
"... (The chief trick in this regard is to fool them into thinking that since there is more than one political party, one of them will be "good," even though the fact may actually be that each of the parties represents simply a different faction of a psychopathically evil aristocracy. After all: each party lied and supported invading Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011, and Syria constantly; and no party acknowledges that the 2014 regime-change in Ukraine was a U.S. coup instead of a domestic Ukrainian democratic revolution. On such important matters, they all lie, and in basically the same ways. These lies are bipartisan, even though most of the other political lies are heavily partisan.) ..."
"... The great then-independent investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald headlined about that interview, at Salon on 18 April 2012, "Attacks on RT and Assange reveal much about the critics: Those who pretend to engage in adversarial journalism will invariably hate those who actually do it." How true that was, and unfortunately still is! And Assange himself is the best example of it. ..."
"... Let's examine the unstated premises at work here. There is apparently a rule that says it's perfectly OK for a journalist to work for a media outlet owned and controlled by a weapons manufacturer (GE/NBC/MSNBC), or by the U.S. and British governments (BBC/Stars & Stripes/Voice of America), or by Rupert Murdoch and Saudi Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal (Wall St. Journal/Fox News), or by a banking corporation with long-standing ties to right-wing governments (Politico), or by for-profit corporations whose profits depend upon staying in the good graces of the U.S. government ( Kaplan/The Washington Post ), or by loyalists to one of the two major political parties (National Review/TPM/countless others), but it's an intrinsic violation of journalistic integrity to work for a media outlet owned by the Russian government. Where did that rule come from? ..."
"... This is the American gospel, and it is called "capitalism." Oddly, after Russia switched to capitalism in 1991, the American gospel switched instead to pure global conquest -- über -imperialism -- and the American public didn't even blink. So: nowadays, capitalism has come to mean über-imperialism. That's today's American gospel. Adolf Hitler would be smiling, upon today's Amerika. ..."
All of the lies are still being propounded by the U.S. regime and remain fully enforced by suppression of the truth about these
matters.
That's being done in all news-media except a few of the non -mainstream ones.
So: this is about an actual Western samizdat - the West's equivalent to the former Soviet Union's systematic, and equally pervasive,
truth-suppression, to fool the public into thinking that the Government represents them, no matter how much it does not.
(The chief trick in this regard is to fool them into thinking that since there is more than one political party, one of them will
be "good," even though the fact may actually be that each of the parties represents simply a different faction of a psychopathically
evil aristocracy. After all: each party lied and supported invading Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011, and Syria constantly; and no party
acknowledges that the 2014 regime-change in Ukraine was a U.S. coup instead of a domestic Ukrainian democratic revolution. On such
important matters, they all lie, and in basically the same ways. These lies are bipartisan, even though most of the other political
lies are heavily partisan.)
The U.S.-and-allied regimes' billionaires-owned-and-controlled 'news'-media
condemned Assange for this interview, because it enabled whomever still had an open mind, amongst the Western public, to hear from
one of those billionares' destruction-targets (Nasrallah), and for Assange's doing this on the TV-news network of the main country
that America's billionaires are especially trying to conquer, which is (and since
26 July 1945 has consistently been ) Russia.
The great
then-independent investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald headlined about that interview, at Salon on 18 April 2012,
"Attacks on RT
and Assange reveal much about the critics: Those who pretend to engage in adversarial journalism will invariably hate those who
actually do it." How true that was, and unfortunately still is! And Assange himself is the best example of it. Greenwald wrote:
Let's examine the unstated premises at work here. There is apparently a rule that says it's perfectly OK for a journalist to
work for a media outlet owned and controlled by a weapons manufacturer (GE/NBC/MSNBC), or by the U.S. and British governments
(BBC/Stars & Stripes/Voice of America), or by Rupert Murdoch
and Saudi Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal (Wall St. Journal/Fox News), or by a banking corporation with
long-standing ties to right-wing governments
(Politico), or by for-profit corporations whose profits depend upon staying in the good graces of the U.S. government (
Kaplan/The Washington Post ), or by loyalists to
one of the two major political parties (National Review/TPM/countless others), but it's an intrinsic violation of journalistic
integrity to work for a media outlet owned by the Russian government. Where did that rule come from?
But from 'temporary' house-arrest there, Assange was allowed asylum by Ecuador's progressive President Rafael Correa on
20 June 2012 , to stay in London's Ecuadoran Embassy, so as not to be seized
by the UK regime to be sent to prison and probable death-without-trial in the U.S. To Correa's shock, it turned out that Correa's
successor, Vice President Lenin Moreno, was actually a U.S. agent, who promptly forced Assange out of the Embassy, into Belmarsh
prison, to die there or else become extradited to die in a U.S. prison, also without trial.
And, for what, then, is Assange being imprisoned, and perhaps murdered? He divulged government secrets that should never even
have been secrets! He raised the blanket of lies, which covers over these actually dictatorial clandestine international operations.
He exposed these evil imperialistic operations, which are hidden behind (and under) that blanket of imperialists' lies. For this,
he is being martyred -- a martyr for democracy, where there is no actual democracy (but only those lies).
Here is an example:
On December 29th, I headlined
"Further Proof: U.S.,
UK, & France Committed War-Crime on 14 April 2018" and reported highlights of the latest Wikileaks document-dumps regarding a
U.S.-UK-French operation to cover-up (via their control over the OPCW) their having committed an international war-crime when they
had fired 105 missiles against Syria on 14 April 2018, which was done allegedly to punish Syria for having perpetrated a gas-attack
in Douma seven days before -- except that there hadn't been any such gas-attack, but the OPCW simply lied and said that there might
have been one, and that the Syrian Government might have done it! That's playing the public for suckers.
Back on 3 November 2019, Fox News bannered
"Fox News Poll: Bipartisan majorities want some U.S. troops to stay in Syria" and reported that when citing ISIS as America's
enemy that must be defeated, 69% of U.S. respondents wanted U.S. troops to stay in Syria. But when did ISIS ever constitute a threat
to U.S. national security? And under what international law is any U.S. soldier, who is inside Syria, anything other than an invader
there? The answer, to both of these questions, is obviously "never" and "none." But if you are an investor in Lockheed Martin, don't
you want Americans to be suckers about both ? And, so, they are . People such as Julian Assange don't want the public anywhere to
be lied-to. Anyone who is in the propaganda-business -- serving companies such as Lockheed Martin -- wants the public to be suckers.
This is the way the free market actually works. It works by lying, and in such a country the Government serves the people who
have the money, and not the people who don't. The people who don't have the money are supposed to be lied-to. And, so, they are.
But this is not democracy.
Democracy, in fact, is impossible if the public are predominantly deceived.
If the public are predominantly deceived, then the people who do the deceiving will be the dictators there. And if a country has
dictators, then it's no democracy. In a totally free market, only the people with the most money will have any freedom at all; everyone
else will be merely their suckers, who are fooled by the professionals at doing that -- lying.
The super-rich enforce their smears, and their other lies, by hiring people to do this.
When Barack Obama said that "The United States is and
remains the one indispensable nation" - so that each other nation is "dispensable" - he was merely exemplifying the view that
only the most powerful is indispensable, and that therefore everyone else is dispensable. Of course, this is the way that he, and
Donald Trump, both have governed in the U.S. And
Americans overwhelmingly endorse
this viewpoint . They're fooled by both parties, because both parties serve only their respective billionaires -- and billionaires
are above the law; they are the law, in America and its allied regimes. That's the way it is.
This is the American gospel, and it is called "capitalism." Oddly, after Russia switched to capitalism in 1991, the American gospel
switched instead to pure global conquest -- über -imperialism -- and the American public didn't even blink. So: nowadays, capitalism
has come to mean über-imperialism. That's today's American gospel. Adolf Hitler would be smiling, upon today's Amerika.
And as far as whistleblowers -- such as Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden, and Chelsea Manning, and other champions of honesty
and of democracy -- are concerned: Americans agree with the billionaires, who detest and destroy such whistleblowers. Champions of
democracy are shunned here, where PR reigns and real journalism is almost non-existent.
Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee and Chairman of the Senate Finance
Committee have formerly requested that Attorney General William Barr declassify four footnotes
in Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz's report on the FBI's FISA abuse
investigation. The letter states that the classified footnotes contradict information in
Horowitz's report that appears to have misled the public.
U.S. Sens. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, sent the classified letter
Tuesday evening and questioned the contradiction between the footnotes and what was made public
by Horowitz's team regarding the bureau's Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
However, the Senator's did not disclose what section of the December FISA report contradicts
the footnotes in their findings.
The Senator's state in their letter to Barr that certain sections of Horowitz's report on
the FBI are misleading the public.
Part of the classified letter, which was obtained by SaraACarter.com states:
"We have reviewed the findings of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) with regard to
the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane investigation, and we are deeply concerned about certain
information that remains classified ," the letter states.
"Specifically, we are concerned that certain sections of the public version of the report
are misleading because they are contradicted by relevant and probative classified information
redacted in four footnotes.
This classified information is significant not only because it contradicts key statements
in a section of the report , but also because it provides insight essential for an accurate
evaluation of the entire investigation.
The American people have a right to know what is contained within these four footnotes
and, without that knowledge, they will not have a full picture as to what happened during the
Crossfire Hurricane investigation. "
Johnson and Grassley's office noted that "for maximum public transparency, the senators
wrote a separate unclassified cover letter to describe their request."
Full text of the unclassified letter to Barr below:
I wonder what kind of back room deals are going on right now that got the establishment
working so hard to make sure the people are distracted from?
The impeachment is a giant nothing burger considering democrats lack the votes and any
reasonable person knows that Barr was destined to return a giant nothing burger from the
beginning so there must be something important the establishment wants to keep hidden by
keeping these nothing burgers alive and in our faces.
Didn't NeoCon puppet Trump order Barr to declass the Russia hoax docs?? Then deep
state/CIA Barr and dirty corrupt DOJ turned everything around on Trump, and said Barr was
ordered to determine IF anything needed to be declassified, which means, it will NEVER
HAPPEN!!!
Trump had leverage over the domestic/global swamp when he held the thread of
declassification over their heads, but once he ordered Barr to do it, and Barr turned it
around on him, he lost all of his leverage/power. More here on leverage and
declassification:
.Horowitz discredited himself in an earlier report and Congress testimony when he said
"there was no bias in the FBI's efforts to surveil Trump"
He's a Democrat. Wanna know why some businesses fail? They let 'qualified' but sabotaging
people stay around.
Governments can fail too. Looks like Horowitz has proven once again he's not neutral. I
actually emailed the White House, I believe after he testifyied in that hearing, to get rid
of him. Barr is likewise useless in terms of protecting the government and citizens from the
deep state.
The US government is for the US government. The system protects the system! It does not
matter who it looks like is running it because the system is running the system and the
system is covering for everyone in the system that needs to be protected to protect the
system.
"Today, January 27, 2020, we have a stunning update ==>>
After previously claiming no FBI records could be found related to Seth Rich, emails have
been uncovered. These emails weren't just from anybody. These emails were between FBI
lovebirds Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the two most corrupt individuals involved in the Russia
Collusion Hoax.
In a set of
emails released by Judicial Watch on January 22, 2020, provided by a FOIA request on
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, two pages on emails refer to Seth Rich:"
The January 2nd American assassination of Gen. Qassem Soleimani of Iran was an event of
enormous moment.
Gen. Soleimani had been the highest-ranking military figure in his nation of 80 million, and
with a storied career of 30 years, one of the most universally popular and highly regarded.
Most analysts ranked him second in influence only to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's elderly
Supreme Leader, and there were widespread reports that he was being urged to run for the
presidency in the 2021 elections.
The circumstances of his peacetime death were also quite remarkable. His vehicle was
incinerated by the missile of an American Reaper drone near Iraq's Baghdad international
airport just after he had arrived there on a regular commercial flight for peace negotiations
originally suggested by the American government.
Our major media hardly ignored the gravity of this sudden, unexpected killing of so
high-ranking a political and military figure, and gave it enormous attention. A day or so
later, the front page of my morning New York Times was almost entirely filled with
coverage of the event and its implications, along with several inside pages devoted to the same
topic. Later that same week, America's national newspaper of record allocated more than
one-third of all the pages of its front section to the same shocking story.
But even such copious coverage by teams of veteran journalists failed to provide the
incident with its proper context and implications. Last year, the Trump Administration
had declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard "a terrorist organization," drawing widespread
criticism and even ridicule from national security experts appalled at the notion of
classifying a major branch of Iran's armed forces as "terrorists." Gen. Soleimani was a top
commander in that body, and this apparently provided the legal figleaf for his assassination in
broad daylight while on a diplomatic peace mission.
But consider that Congress has been considering
legislation declaring Russia an official state sponsor of terrorism , and Stephen Cohen,
the eminent Russia scholar, has argued that no foreign leader since the end of World War II has
been so massively demonized by the American media as Russian President Vladimir Putin. For
years, numerous agitated pundits have denounced
Putin as "the new Hitler," and some prominent figures have even called for his
overthrow or death. So we are now only a step or two removed from undertaking a public
campaign to assassinate the leader of a country whose nuclear arsenal could quickly annihilate
the bulk of the American population. Cohen has repeatedly warned that the current danger of
global nuclear war may exceed that which we faced during the days of the 1962 Cuban Missile
Crisis, and can we entirely dismiss such concerns?
Even if we focus solely upon Gen. Solemaini's killing and entirely disregard its dangerous
implications, there seem few modern precedents for the official public assassination of a
top-ranking political figure by the forces of another major country. In groping for past
examples, the only ones that come to mind occurred almost three generations ago during World
War II, when Czech agents assisted by the Allies assassinated Reinhard Heydrich in Prague in
1941 and the US military later shot down the plane of Japanese admiral Isoroku Yamamoto in
1943. But these events occurred in the heat of a brutal global war, and the Allied leadership
hardly portrayed them as official government assassinations. Historian David Irving reveals
that when one of Adolf Hitler's aides suggested that an attempt be made to assassinate Soviet
leaders in that same conflict, the German Fuhrer immediately forbade such practices as obvious
violations of the laws of war.
The 1914 terrorist assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of
Austria-Hungary, was certainly organized by fanatical elements of Serbian Intelligence, but the
Serbian government fiercely denied its own complicity, and no major European power was ever
directly implicated in the plot. The aftermath of the killing soon led to the outbreak of World
War I, and although many millions died in the trenches over the next few years, it would have
been completely unthinkable for one of the major belligerents to consider assassinating the
leadership of another.
A century earlier, the Napoleonic Wars had raged across the entire continent of Europe for
most of a generation, but I don't recall reading of any governmental assassination plots during
that era, let alone in the quite gentlemanly wars of the preceding 18th century when Frederick
the Great and Maria Theresa disputed ownership of the wealthy province of Silesia by military
means. I am hardly a specialist in modern European history, but after the 1648 Peace of
Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War and regularized the rules of warfare, no assassination as
high-profile as that of Gen. Soleimani comes to mind.
The bloody Wars of Religion of previous centuries did see their share of assassination
schemes. For example, I think that Philip II of Spain supposedly encouraged various plots to
assassinate Queen Elizabeth I of England on grounds that she was a murderous heretic, and their
repeated failure helped persuade him to launch the ill-fated Spanish Armada; but being a pious
Catholic, he probably would have balked at using the ruse of peace-negotiations to lure
Elizabeth to her doom. In any event, that was more than four centuries ago, so America has now
placed itself in rather uncharted waters.
Different peoples possess different political traditions, and this may play a major role in
influencing the behavior of the countries they establish. Bolivia and Paraguay were created in
the early 18th century as shards from the decaying Spanish Empire, and according to Wikipedia
they have experienced nearly three dozen successful coups in their history, the bulk of these
prior to 1950, while Mexico has had a half-dozen. By contrast, the U.S. and Canada were founded
as Anglo-Saxon settler colonies, and neither history records even a failed attempt.
During our Revolutionary War, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and our other Founding
Fathers fully recognized that if their effort failed, they would all be hanged by the British
as rebels. However, I have never heard that they feared falling to an assassin's blade, nor
that King George III ever considered such an underhanded means of attack. During the first
century and more of our nation's history, nearly all our presidents and other top political
leaders traced their ancestry back to the British Isles, and political assassinations were
exceptionally rare, with Abraham Lincoln's death being one of the very few that come to
mind.
At the height of the Cold War, our CIA did involve itself in various secret assassination
plots against Cuba's Communist dictator Fidel Castro and other foreign leaders considered
hostile to US interests. But when these facts later came out in the 1970s, they evoked such
enormous outrage from the public and the media, that three consecutive American presidents --
Gerald R.
Ford , Jimmy
Carter , and Ronald Reagan -- issued successive
Executive Orders absolutely prohibiting assassinations by the CIA or any other agent of the US
government.
Although some cynics might claim that these public declarations represented mere
window-dressing, a
March 2018 book review in the New York Times strongly suggests otherwise. Kenneth M.
Pollack spent years as a CIA analyst and National Security Council staffer, then went on to
publish a number of influential books on foreign policy and military strategy over the last two
decades. He had originally joined the CIA in 1988, and opens his review by declaring:
One of the very first things I was taught when I joined the CIA was that we do not conduct
assassinations. It was drilled into new recruits over and over again.
Yet Pollack notes with dismay that over the last quarter-century, these once solid
prohibitions have been steadily eaten away, with the process rapidly accelerating after the
9/11 attacks of 2001. The laws on our books may not have changed, but
Today, it seems that all that is left of this policy is a euphemism.
We don't call them assassinations anymore. Now, they are "targeted killings," most often
performed by drone strike, and they have become America's go-to weapon in the war on
terror.
The Bush Administration had conducted 47 of these assassinations-by-another-name, while his
successor Barack Obama, a constitutional scholar and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, had raised his
own total to 542. Not without justification, Pollack wonders whether assassination has become
"a very effective drug, but [one that] treats only the symptom and so offers no cure."
Thus over the last couple of decades American policy has followed a very disturbing
trajectory in its use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy, first restricting its use
to only the most extreme circumstances, next targeting small numbers of high-profile
"terrorists" hiding in rough terrain, then escalating those same such killings to the many
hundreds. And now under President Trump, the fateful step has been taken of America claiming
the right to assassinate any world leader not to our liking whom we unilaterally declare worthy
of death.
Pollack had made his career as a Clinton Democrat, and is best known for his 2002 book
The Threatening Storm that strongly endorsed President Bush's proposed invasion of Iraq
and was enormously
influential in producing bipartisan support for that ill-fated policy. I have no doubt that
he is a committed supporter of Israel, and he probably falls into a category that I would
loosely describe as "Left Neocon."
But while reviewing a history of Israel's own long use of assassination as a mainstay of its
national security policy, he seems deeply disturbed that America might be following along that
same terrible path. Less than two years later, our sudden assassination of a top Iranian leader
demonstrates that his fears may have been greatly understated.
The book being reviewed was Rise and Kill First by New York Times reporter
Ronen Bergman, a weighty study of the Mossad, Israel's foreign intelligence service, together
with its sister agencies. The author devoted six years of research to the project, which was
based upon a thousand personal interviews and access to some official documents previously
unavailable. As suggested by the title, his primary focus was Israel's long history of
assassinations, and across his 750 pages and thousand-odd source references he recounts the
details of an enormous number of such incidents.
That sort of topic is obviously fraught with controversy, but Bergman's volume carries
glowing cover-blurbs from Pulitzer Prize-winning authors on espionage matters, and the official
cooperation he received is indicated by similar endorsements from both a former Mossad chief
and Ehud Barak, a past Prime Minister of Israel who himself had once led assassination squads.
Over the last couple of decades, former CIA officer Robert Baer has become one of our most
prominent authors in this same field, and he praises the book as "hands down" the best he has
ever read on intelligence, Israel, or the Middle East. The reviews across our elite media were
equally laudatory.
Although I had seen some discussions of the book when it appeared, I only got around to
reading it a few months ago. And while I was deeply impressed by the thorough and meticulous
journalism, I found the pages rather grim and depressing reading, with their endless accounts
of Israeli agents killing their real or perceived enemies, with the operations sometimes
involving kidnappings and brutal torture, or resulting in considerable loss of life to innocent
bystanders. Although the overwhelming majority of the attacks described took place in the
various countries of the Middle East or the occupied Palestinian territories of the West Bank
and Gaza, others ranged across the world, including Europe. The narrative history began in the
1920s, decades before the actual creation of the Jewish Israel or its Mossad organization, and
ranged up to the present day.
The sheer quantity of such foreign assassinations was really quite remarkable, with the
knowledgeable reviewer in the New York Times suggesting that the Israeli total over the
last half-century or so seemed far greater than that of any other country. I might even go
farther: if we excluded domestic killings, I wouldn't be surprised if the body-count exceeded
the combined total for that of all other major countries in the world. I think all the lurid
revelations of lethal CIA or KGB Cold War assassination plots that I have seen discussed in
newspaper stories might fit comfortably into just a chapter or two of Bergman's extremely long
book.
What is the canary's purpose in life? Why, to sing, of course - at least from the human's
point-of-view.
What is the canary trap? Why, to catch humans who are singing like canaries.
The latest occult dish served up by Democratic Party spirit cookers in the impeachment
ritual is the release of "bombshell" news leaked to The New York Times late Sunday from a new
book by Mr. Trump's erstwhile National Security Advisor, John Bolton, purporting verbal
evidence of a quid pro quo in the Ukraine aid-for-investigations allegation. Better hold the
premature ejaculations on that one.
The canary trap is a venerable ploy of intelligence tradecraft for flushing out
info-leakers. You send slightly different versions of an info package to suspected leakers in a
leaky agency, and when the info materializes somewhere like The New York Times , you can tell
exactly which canary crooned the melody. In this case, the agency was the White House National
Security Council, the notorious nest of intriguers lately the haunts of impeachment stars Col.
Alexander Vindman and alleged "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella (on loan from the CIA, and now
back there). Another bird in that nest is Alexander Vindman's twin brother Col. Eugene
(Yevgeny) Vindman, a military lawyer posted as chief ethics counsel for the NSC, of all
things.
The info-package in this case was the manuscript of John Bolton's book, The Room Where It
Happened , relating his brief and tumultuous misadventures in Trumpland, slated for release
March 17. Someone in the White House chain of command ordered a security review of the
manuscript by the NSC -- a curious detail. Why there, of all places, given the recent exploits
of Ciaramella, Vindman & Vindman, Sean Misko, Abigail Grace, current or former NSC
employees now in the service of Adam Schiff's House Intel Committee, which kicked off the
latest mega-distraction from the nation's business? Why not give the manuscript to the Attorney
General's counsel, or some other referee to determine what in the book might qualify as
privileged communication between a president and a top national security advisor?
Well, before you go tripping off on a tear about the suspect loyalties of William Barr,
consider that the chief byproduct of the entire three-year RussiaGate flimflam and all its
subsequent offshoots by the Lawfare Resistance has been to completely undermine Americans'
faith in federal institutions, including the DOJ, the FBI, the CIA. Perhaps what we're seeing
is the convergence of two perfect setups.
Surely Adam Schiff thinks that testimony from John Bolton was his ace-in-the-hole to
corroborate the House's impeachment case. Maybe his staff (of former NSC moles) had a hand in
orchestrating the leaks from the NSC to The New York Times at exactly the right moment -- hours
before Mr. Trump's lawyers would begin to argue the main body of his defense in the Senate, to
produce an orgasmic gotcha . But what if Mr. Trump's lawyers and confidents were ahead of the
scheme and knew exactly when and how Mr. Schiff would call the play?
It's actually inconceivable that that Mr. Trump's team did not know this play was coming. Do
you suppose they didn't know that Mr. Bolton had written a book on contract for Simon &
Schuster, and much more? After all, a president has access to information that even a sedulous
bottom-feeder like Mr. Schiff just doesn't command. Maybe the canary trap is only the prelude
to a booby trap -- and remember, boobies are much larger birds than canaries. Maybe, despite
prior protestations about not calling witnesses, the Bolton ploy will actually be an excuse for
Mr. Trump's defense team to run the switcheroo play and accede to the calling of witnesses.
Perhaps they are not afraid of what Mr. Bolton might have to say in the 'splainin' seat.
Perhaps what he has to say turns out to be, at least, the proverbial nothingburger with mayo
and onion, or, at worst, a perfidious prevarication motivated by ill-will against the employer
who sacked him ignominiously. Perhaps Mr. Trump's lawyers are longing for the chance to haul in
some witnesses of their own, for instance the "whistleblower." It is also inconceivable that
the actual progenitor of this mighty hot mess would not be called to account in the very forum
that his ploy was aimed to convoke.
And from the unmasked "whistleblower," the spectacle would proceed straightaway to Adam
Schiff himself in the witness chair. That will be an elongated moment of personal
self-disfigurement not seen in American history since William Jennings Bryan was left
blubbering in the courtroom at Dayton, Tennessee, 1925, after he spearheaded the malicious
prosecution of John Scopes for teaching evolution in a high school biology class or the moment
of national wonder and nausea in June 1954 when Army Chief Counsel Joseph Welch rose from his
chair and asked witch-hunting Senator Joseph McCarthy, "At long last, have you left no sense of
decency?"
In a deeply imperfect world, California's 28th congressional district has produced a true
marvel: the perfect scoundrel. Adam Schiff has been hurling false accusations and retailing
mendacious narratives for three years. He deserves the most public disgrace that can possibly
be arranged, on nationwide television, with all his many media enablers at CNN and MSNBC having
to call the play-by-play. Then the nation needs to expel him from the House of Representatives.
And then, maybe, the USA can get on with other business.
"... Anonymouse sauces (sic) are stating that the FBI conducted electronic surveillance on ALL Republican Presidential candidates in the 2016 election on Obama's instructions who was briefed each week on the surveillance. ..."
"... In other news, the GAO has declined to publish an internal audit report that details that the level of waste in federal spending has dropped from 20% under Obama to 15% of all federal spending under Trump... ..."
"... Either way--- Drump or some Dum candidate--- America is screwed. ..."
"... Even if true, no murders are attributed to Trump even by his nuttiest enemies. He would have a long way to go to reach the depths of the Bushes and the Clintons. ..."
"... It is fascinating watching the partisan blame game when practically every single one of them up there, regardless of spot or stripe, voted for and supports arming Ukraine. ..."
All the usual suspects are praising Adam Schiff's marathon two-and-a-half-hour Senate speech
on Wednesday to the skies.
Neocon columnist Jennifer Rubin
calls it "a grand slam" in the Washington Post.
Legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin
describes it as "dazzling" on CNN.
Hillary Clinton: "Every American should watch this"
John Legend: "This is brilliantly argued and so compelling. Watch if you have time. Call
your senators. Everyone says the outcome is predetermined. But make sure your senators hear
from you if you're moved by this. Thank you, Congressman Schiff, for standing up for what's
right."
Debra Messing: " I am in tears. Thank you Chairman Schiff for fighting for our
country."
New York Times columnist Gail Collins says it
was "a great job" and that Schiff is "a rock star" for pulling it off.
But in fact it was the opposite
a fear-mongering, sword-rattling harangue that will not only raise tensions with Russia
for no good reason, but sends a chilling message to dissidents at home that if they deviate
from Russiagate orthodoxy by one iota, they'll be driven from the fold.
What is that orthodoxy?
It's that Russia invaded poor innocent Ukraine in 2014, that it interfered in the US
presidential election in 2016 in order to hurt Hillary Clinton and propel Donald Trump into
the White House, and that it's now trying to smear Joe Biden merely because he had allowed
his son to take a high-paying job with a notorious Ukrainian oligarch at a time when he was
supposedly heading up the Ukrainian anti-corruption effort.
As Schiff put it with regard to Donald Trump's famous July 25 phone call urging Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky to look into Biden's activities:
"This investigation was related to a debunked conspiracy theory alleging that Ukraine not
Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. This narrative propagated by the Russian
intelligence services contends that Ukraine sought to help Hillary Clinton and harm
then-candidate Trump . This tale is also patently false and, remarkably, it is precisely the
inverse of what the US intelligence community's unanimous assessment was that Russia
interfered in the 2016 election in sweeping and systemic fashion in order to hurt Hillary
Clinton and help Donald Trump."
So even though the Financial Times
reported during the 2016 election campaign that the threat of a Trump victory was spurring
"Kiev's wider political leadership to do something they have never attempted before: intervene,
however indirectly, in a US election," articles like that are now down the memory hole because
Schiff says they're Russian propaganda that US intelligence agencies have determined to be
false.
The same goes for arguments that it's actually NATO's aggressive expansion to the east that
has led to a needless buildup of tensions, not Russia's drive to the west. Recent examples
include an article in the National Interest
arguing that NATO has "empowered some of the most historically anti-Russian elements in
that region – Ukrainian Banderites [i.e. followers of Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera],
Polish nationalists, Balkan Islamists" – elements that, not unreasonably, have sparked
Russia's worst fears – or one in the Nation stating that NATO's drang nach osten is
"the primary cause for the new and very dangerous Cold War."
Articles like those are verboten as well because they go counter to the new line that Russia
is entirely to blame. Declared Schiff:
"Russia is not a threat to Eastern Europe alone. Ukraine has become the de facto proving
ground for just the types of hybrid warfare that the twenty-first century will become defined
by: cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, efforts to undermine the legitimacy of state
institutions, whether that is voting systems or financial markets. The Kremlin showed boldly
in 2016 that with the malign skills it honed in Ukraine, they would not stay in Ukraine.
Instead, Russia employed them here to attack our institutions, and they will do so
again."
As for Biden, a New York Times editorial said about his son's unfortunate new job back in
2015:
"Sadly, the credibility of Mr. Biden's [anti-corruption] message may be undermined by the
association of his son with a Ukrainian natural-gas company, Burisma Holdings, which is owned
by a former government official suspected of corrupt practices . Burisma's owner, Mykola
Zlochevsky, has been under investigation in Britain and in Ukraine. It should be plain to
Hunter Biden that any connection with a Ukrainian oligarch damages his father's efforts to
help Ukraine. This is not a board he should be sitting on ."
We must all put such sentiments behind us now Russia is seeking to "weaponize" such
information, according to Schiff, and deploy it "against Mr. Biden just like it did against
Hillary Clinton in 2016 when Russia hacked and released emails from her presidential campaign."
If Russia wants to weaponize it, then it's best for the rest of us not to breathe a word of it
lest people think we've been weaponized as well.
Bottom line: we must impeach Trump, according to Schiff's epic presentation, not only
because he's overstepped his proper constitutional bounds, but because he's part of a grand
Russian conspiracy to spread disinformation, undercut US security, undermine faith in US
intelligence agencies, and "remake the map of Europe by dent of military force." In order to
counter this all-encompassing threat, it is our patriotic duty to do the opposite by believing
the CIA and redoubling US defense. If anyone tells us that Biden was guilty of a flagrant
conflict of interest, we must stop up our ears because that's what Moscow wants us to think. If
anyone says that the entire Russian-interference narrative is just a silly conspiracy theory
based on a paucity of facts and an abundance of paranoid speculation, we must do likewise
because it's just the Kremlin trying to worm its way into our minds.
When in doubt, just remember to bleat: America good, Russia baa-aa-aad.
But while it would be nice to dismiss this as a joke, it's not. Schiff's emergence as leader
of the Democratic impeachment drive means that the party is re-grouping along the most
retrograde Cold War lines. As reckless and appalling as Trump's behavior is in the Persian
Gulf, the emerging Democratic worldview is shaping up as no less extreme. Because it sees
Russia as mounting a multi-pronged offensive, the clear implication is that the US must respond
in kind. This means more troops deployments, more forces mobilized to counter Russian threats
from Venezuela to the Middle East, more TV talking heads going on and on about this or that
Kremlin conspiracy, and more labelling of people like Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein as Russian
assets.
Remember, this is the Los Angeles neocon who
backed the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq, and Saudi Arabia's unprovoked war
against Yemen, an assault that, since March 2015, has cost
100,000 lives and brought half the country to the brink of starvation. He supported Obama's
war in Libya and called for the establishment of a no-fly zone in Syria and relies on arms
manufacturers and military contractors for major
financial support .
But while Bernie supporters may have thought that Democrats were edging away from such
views, they're plainly in the wrong. Schiff's new-found prominence shows that the neocons are
back in the saddle. Impeachment advocates should be careful of what they wish for because the
anti-Trump forces are turning out to be no less dangerous than those helping him to remain.
What a dumb headline. Every single politician in D.C. is a deep state stooge. Every.
Single. One. None of them are even a little bit better than any of the others. Grow up.
"Recreational intoxication - with the strongest pot ever grown, strength-intensified by
over 50 years of applied horticultural science." Heavy users of the "recreational pot" are psychos. "Recreational psychosis" - courtesy of your state government
It does seem that the impeachment is helping Trump and Bernie as Bernie is taking a clear
lead. The Dems badly wanted to impeach Trump and this Ukraine thing was the first viable
option after the Mueller report failure. It was a poor choice for the Dems because of Joe
Biden's involvement. It got worse when Biden and other Dems say that no one ever thought that
the kid's board position was an issue even though Obama administration people brought it
up.
The more interesting trial which no one is covering is Hunter Biden's child support trial.
He is refusing to turn over his financials. This should be a huge story.
Did he file taxes?
How many foreign companies were sending him money?
Was he reporting all of the income from Burisma and the other companies? I suspect not
because I think he was sending a cut to his father for "getting" him the work.
BREAKING NEWS: Anonymouse sauces (sic) are stating that the FBI conducted electronic
surveillance on ALL Republican Presidential candidates in the 2016 election on Obama's
instructions who was briefed each week on the surveillance.
These anonymouse sauces also stated that there has been no surveillance of ANY of the
Democrat Presidentail candidates in 2019-2020.
Apparently, the Republican party has been unwilling to maintain the levels of cash bribes,
payments in kind etc to senior FBI employees that were paid by the Obama administration.
In other news, the GAO has declined to publish an internal audit report that details that
the level of waste in federal spending has dropped from 20% under Obama to 15% of all federal
spending under Trump...
I made a Google search about something else and I ran into a half dozen different posts
about Shiff having Anthony Bourdain murdered because Bourdain saw Shiff rape and murder a 10
year old African American boy in a snuff video. I think Shiff is creepy and probably a
pervert but this was a little much even with my low opinion of Shiff. Has this been
debunked?
The Schiff fan club are all Killary dead enders and liberal neoCons... they're sore at
Putin 'cause he wouldn't let Obama openly start a bloodbath in Syria the war Dubya did in
Iraq- Afghanistan. Obama and Killary had to use ISIS instead to annihilate some ME countries
to lock down US Global Hegemony.
Adding insult to injury, Drump slam dunked their idol, Killary, in the 2016 election,
which just wasn't on the dance card.
Either way--- Drump or some Dum candidate--- America is screwed.
All these are civil cases Trump lost but won't go to jail, because owning a corporation
allows you to commit crimes and not be charged criminally.
Trump admitted on the Access Hollywood tape that he sexually assaulted women.
22 women have since come forward to say that Trump sexually assaulted them, including his
first wife who said in a divorce deposition that Trump raped her.
Then there are the decades of tax evasions documented in the New York Times.
And the insurance scam documented by Michael Cohen's testimony before Congress.
Campaign law violations
witness tampering
obstruction
selling out America to foreign
There are also 14 on going investigations against Trump as well, but they can't charge
Trump in any of those yet, because he is a sitting president.
Even if true, no murders are attributed to Trump even by his nuttiest enemies. He would
have a long way to go to reach the depths of the Bushes and the Clintons.
It is fascinating watching the partisan blame game when practically every single one of
them up there, regardless of spot or stripe, voted for and supports arming Ukraine.
Nevertheless, after listening to what Shiff and Nadler said yesterday I conclude that if
Trump is re-elected the claim will be made that he stole the election with the help of Russia.
This is silly, his actions indicate that he is an agent of influence for Israel, not
Russia.
Call me Turcopolier. I stand here where ignorant armies clash by night and hope to be saved
to tell the tale in November. pl
After being held captive for three days while House Democrats litigated their impeachment
case against President Trump, House Impeachment Manager Adam Schiff (D-CA) enraged Senate
Republicans last night during his closing remarks when he referred to an anonymously sourced
media report that they would face retribution from the White House if they voted to convict the
president.
"CBS News reported last night that a Trump confidant said that key senators were warned,
'Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike.' I don't know if that's true,"
said Schiff, challenging GOP lawmakers to vote with "moral courage" instead of caving to their
party.
GOP senators are heard yelling "that's not true" when House manager Adam Schiff cites a
CBS report claiming Pres. Trump told them their heads "will be on a pike" if they voted
against him. pic.twitter.com/wrXI4KhGPR
-- Alex Salvi (@alexsalvinews) January 25, 2020
Schiff's 'pike' comment enraged several moderate Republicans - who Democrats desperately
need on their side for a vote on whether to call witnesses in the trial.
"I thought he was doing fine with [talking about] moral courage until he got to the 'head on
a pike.' That's where he lost me," said one such Senator, Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), adding "He's a
good orator. ... It was just unnecessary."
Kevin Smith: "Higgins is currently frantically trying to prop up the Douma narrative against a mountain of evidence disproving
his conclusions. For those who’ve followed his story, it’s clear that Higgins is an intelligence asset, set up to take the fall
when the currently collapsing narratives take hold in the mainstream.
"You didn't think that one through, did you, @eliothiggins sweetie? You're not in the
ladies' lingerie trade now. This discussion is about truth, which endures, is not held together
by elastic, and is not for sale." ~Peter Hitchens responding to Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat over the OPCW scandal on
Twitter – 2 January 2020.
"... I believe more people nowadays recognise that the devastating wars in Iraq and Libya and events in Syria were pushed by our governments and media. They can even accept, when you explain, that we've been assisting terrorists to unseat governments for years. But they seem hesitant of taking the next step and we need to encourage them on this path. ..."
"... This path leads to recognising the sheer evil in our midst and getting out of this mindset that criminal behavior and lying in governments and in our media is normal or should in any way be tolerated. Perhaps some people appreciate this already but don't want to address it out of concern to what they might find. Maybe some people dread the thought of a global conflict so ignore it. But we need to hammer home the consequences of simply doing nothing. ..."
"... I've been trying to think of an analogy to try to get this point across. I sometimes say to people, we wouldn't have released a serial killer like Harold Shipman from prison and appointed him Foreign Secretary. Therefore, why do we tolerate a long line of Foreign Secretaries complicit in laying waste to the world? Sadly, with this analogy most people usually look back at me blankly so I have been searching for one more complete and rooted in history which people can relate better to events today. ..."
"You didn't think that one through, did you, @eliothiggins sweetie? You're not in the
ladies' lingerie trade now. This discussion is about truth, which endures, is not held
together by elastic, and is not for sale."
Peter Hitchens responding to Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat over the OPCW scandal on
Twitter – 2 January 2020.
Like many, I've been following the Douma scandal for some time and particularly since the
OPCW whistleblowers and leaked emails blew the lid off the official narrative that Assad used
chemical weapons there.
For the past few weeks he's been debating the topic with Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat, Scott Lucas and various Middle East based journalists
who created and then pushed the false narrative.
In fact, it's not really a debate. Peter Hitchens is quite literally slaughtering these
narrative managers – his logic and clear thinking – and wit exposing the numerous
gaps in their story and their desperate deflections.
Hitchens position is not exactly the same as many of us here hold – that Douma was a
clear false flag. What he is saying is the evidence points to there being no chemical attack by
the Syrian government, the pretext used for the attack on Syria. He doesn't wish to speculate
on matters which aren't conclusively proven, for example precisely on what did actually
happen.
I respect that position in many ways and his refusal to comment on the dead civilians in the
Douma images makes sense from a journalist in the mainstream. I think by having a position
which is clear and unassailable enables him to easily brush off his online detractors and not
allow them to deflect to other issues.
While I don't agree with everything he says, Hitchens has a calm and rational argument for
all the issues he covers. This puts clear ground between him and his online opponents who often
resort to childish abuse.
My 80-year old mum admires him too. She describes him as 'frightfully posh'. Perhaps someone
who might have belonged in a previous age – but I'm glad we have him in this one.
Anyway, I think we can be sure that Hitchens will continue his important work within the
remit he's chosen and others will investigate the unanswered questions which arise from the
Douma incident.
Ultimately the question about the dead civilians in the images is simply too dreadful to
ignore.
This is because if a chemical attack did not take place and Assad was not responsible it
seems highly likely that the civilians including children were murdered to facilitate a
fabrication.
And were our own intelligence agencies involved in a staged event, considering the refusal
to even establish the basic facts in the days following?
And then, of course, the resulting air strikes nearly caused us to go to war with Russia,
with all that would entail.
While these investigations continue, I think it's timely to see where these events fit into
the way the general public think and perceive wrongdoing and to try to radically to change
this.
I believe more people nowadays recognise that the devastating wars in Iraq and Libya and
events in Syria were pushed by our governments and media. They can even accept, when you
explain, that we've been assisting terrorists to unseat governments for years. But they seem
hesitant of taking the next step and we need to encourage them on this path.
This path leads to recognising the sheer evil in our midst and getting out of this mindset
that criminal behavior and lying in governments and in our media is normal or should in any way
be tolerated. Perhaps some people appreciate this already but don't want to address it out of
concern to what they might find. Maybe some people dread the thought of a global conflict so
ignore it. But we need to hammer home the consequences of simply doing nothing.
I've been trying to think of an analogy to try to get this point across. I sometimes say to
people, we wouldn't have released a serial killer like Harold Shipman from prison and appointed
him Foreign Secretary. Therefore, why do we tolerate a long line of Foreign Secretaries
complicit in laying waste to the world? Sadly, with this analogy most people usually look back
at me blankly so I have been searching for one more complete and rooted in history which people
can relate better to events today.
So, here follows an analogy of a character who lived in the 17th century. His traits, his
crimes, the political climate and peoples misguided perceptions in response can be compared to
recent events and one particular individual causing havoc in the world today.
Of course I refer to Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat.
Eliot ( 'suck my balls' ) Higgins and
Titus Oates1. Eliot Higgins and Bellingcat
Higgins probably doesn't need much of an introduction here. It seems he has no specific
qualifications relevant to his role and a bit of a drop-out in terms of education.
Before the Arab spring I knew no more about weapons than the average Xbox owner. I had no
knowledge beyond what I'd learned from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rambo."
But this didn't prevent him blogging about world events and then setting himself up and his
site as investigator for several incidents most notably the shooting down of the MH17 passenger
plane over Ukraine and allegations of chemical weapons use in Syria. It's now known that
Bellingcat is funded by pro-war groups including the Atlantic Council
Higgins has been accused by chemical weapons experts, academics and independent journalists
on the ground of fabricating evidence to reach a predetermined outcome decided on by his
funders.
His rise to prominence was fast and apparently some media editors now refer their
journalists to Bellingcat fabrications rather than allowing them to do any journalism
themselves.
For those who've followed his story, it's clear that Higgins is an intelligence asset, set
up to take the fall when the currently collapsing narratives take hold in the
mainstream.
2. Titus Oates and the Popish Plot
Oates was a foul-mouthed
charlatan , serial liar and master of deception who lived in the 17th century. His earlier
life included being expelled from school and he was labelled a 'dunce' by people who knew him.
He became a clergyman and later joined the Navy. His career was plagued by various sex scandals
and charges of perjury.
In the 1670s during the time of Charles II, religious tensions threatened to spill over into
civil war but the pragmatic King, by and large, kept a lid on it.
However, along with Dr Israel Tonge an anti-Catholic rector, Oates started writing
conspiracy theories and inventing plots and later began writing a manuscript alleging of a plan
to assassinate King Charles II and replace him with his openly Catholic brother.
When the fabrication started to gather momentum, the King had an audience with Oates and was
unconvinced and was said to have found discrepancies in his story.
However, the tense political and religious climate at that time was ideal for conspiracy
theories and scaremongering. The King's ministers took Oates at his word and over a dozen
Catholics were executed for treason. This story created panic and paranoia lasting several
years taking the nation to the brink of civil war.
Over time Oates lies were exposed and when the Catholic King James II came to the throne, he
tried Oates with perjury and he was whipped and placed in the pillory.
After James II fled England during the so-called 'Glorious Revolution' King William and
Queen Mary pardoned Oates and gave him a pension.
For me, this whole episode has many obvious parallels with Higgins, the long-running Russia
and the anti-Semitism witch-hunts in the media and the false narratives over Iraq, Libya and
Syria. Like those in power today, Oates had a knack for getting away with it. And I guess we
can all relate this to Julian Assange – the victims or whistleblowers being punished and
the perpetrators getting off.
I had wondered why James II, often ruthless and unforgiving had not executed Oates. But
apparently the crime of perjury even then didn't carry the death sentence. The judge who
convicted Oates was said to have tried his best to finish him off through the whipping, though
he survived.
But perhaps even the King and judiciary in failing in this or not using other means at their
disposal, couldn't comprehend the enormity of his crimes. Oates was after all a rather absurd
character, open to ridicule.
Perhaps this is a bit similar to people today when discovering that Eliot Higgins is also a
foul-mouthed fraud – but they can't reconcile this comical ex-lingerie employee as a
menace to humanity.
3. Modern day
In the past few weeks I've read various older articles on Iraq and Syria. US troops
shooting people for fun from a helicopter . The perpetrators are still free – the
whistle-blowers who exposed that, and other events in prison or exile.
Last year we learned about a shocking massacre of Syrian children,
unreported in the mainstream media . Mainstream journalists through their one-sided
distortions of the conflict and silence, perpetuating the myth that the terrorists who carried
out this mass murder are freedom fighters.
And as I've mentioned, we've seen firmer evidence of what many of us knew along – that
Douma was a staged fabrication as a pretext for air-strikes and dangerously escalating the
Syrian war. The likes of Eliot Higgins and others in the media, colluding in the cover-up of
mass murder which likely facilitated this event. And for those honest journalists and experts
who bring the truth of these staged events to us,
smears will no doubt continue .
Higgins and others in the media who lie, misinform or remain silent are no better than those
shooting civilians from helicopters or starting these wars in the first place. In fact, they
have killed more and keep killing.
This modern-day Titus Oates, and others share a big responsibility for death and destruction
in the Middle East and a dangerous new Cold War.
As I say, I think people are waking up to the distorted narratives and misdirections which
have inflicted war on others. Now they need to take the next step and grasp the sheer enormity
of the crimes and the risks of global conflict if we don't act.
So, how do we achieve this and get in a position of holding the criminals and war
propagandists to account?
By confronting them directly and mercilessly. As Jeremy Corbyn should have done over the
anti-Semitism hoax. Perhaps we should adopt some of the tactics they use against the
truth-tellers and whistle-blowers. I don't mean by lies or smears. Maybe even ridiculing these
people and their nonsense might have the effect of trivialising the crimes they have
committed.
No, I think it is time for plainer, no-holds-barred language describing these people for the
true evil they are – until the truth and label sticks.
We need to recognise more the seriousness of the crimes. This commentary from the usually
measured Piers Robinson about the staged event in Douma reflects the true gravity of the
situation in
terms of the OPCW complicity .
4. The hijacking of OPCW
The cover-up of evidence that the Douma incident was staged is not merely misconduct. As
the staging of the Douma incident entailed mass murder of civilians, those in OPCW who have
suppressed the evidence of staging are, unwittingly or otherwise, colluding with mass
murder."
We need to now apply this strong language to all crimes committed, be it from the soldiers
on the ground, the governments starting these wars or supplying terrorists or the media which
promote mass murder through their lies, distortions and silence when presented with the true
facts.
We need to go on the offensive and call out the criminals and spell out in no uncertain
terms what we are dealing with. With the evidence and fact-based analogies or arguments we
publish we should be using more commentary such as 'mass murderer', 'traitor' or 'terrorist
propagandist'.
This is particularly important in light of events in recent days. The assassination of
General Qasem Soleimani has been normalised in both mainstream and on social media. The people
legitimising state-sponsored murder in offices thousands of miles away from Iran, woefully
ignorant of the potential of this causing a chain of events which could visit our door
soon.
Above all, we should specifically name and shame the individuals promoting war. This needs
to be relentless. The official war narratives which have crumbled so far are ample evidence of
wrongdoing on a vast scale. So, we can be confident in doing this with the truth firmly on our
side.
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial
backers. We are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only
means of income. Even the smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.
Connect with
Subscribe newest oldest most voted
wardropper ,
No, I think it is time for plainer, no-holds-barred language describing these people for the
true evil they are – until the truth and label sticks.
Yes indeed.
I was, however, reminded today of the huge mountain we yet have to climb before it can be
normal again NOT to be corrupt and wicked. The scenario was a session of acrimony in a US
Senate chamber, and according to the NYTimes, "Tensions grew so raw after midnight that Chief
Justice Roberts cut in just before 1 a.m. to admonish the managers and the president's
lawyers to "remember where they are" and return to "civil discourse." "
"Remembering where you are", when dealing with Titus Oates and other vulgar frauds is perhaps
not entirely appropriate ?
wardropper ,
Apologies, I forgot to set the first sentence in quotes
Thom ,
Hitchens may be on the level on this particular issue but it is part of a wider deception
where Hitchens poses as a friend to critical thinkers and then tells them they are helpless
and/or can do nothing about it. If he really had journalistic integrity he wouldn't be taking
a salary from the Mail on Sunday, a newspaper that relentlessly lied for the Tories at the
last election, with the help of the itelligence agencies.
Koba ,
As good as Hitchens has done here he's still at heart a Trotskyist he lives a good split and
a toothless display just like the Trotskyists he used to side with. His brother went from
Trotskyist to soft neocon and peter went from Trotskyist to an ardent Christian Conservative
in a veeeeeery short space of time. Plus there dad was deeeeep in with the establishment and
his mum Jewish. So .
Bellingcrap is just another scam like Dupes (Snopes) and Politi"facts". All of them are
funded by the Atlantic Council and the CIA front National Endowment for "Democracy". Their
cover as an "independent objective fact checking service" is about as transparent as Saran
Wrap.
tonyopmoc ,
I really liked this when I read it this morning, before the grandkids came round, but I
thought some of the comments a bit severe..
I mean this photo is of some 40 year old kid, who lives in Leicester, and his
Mum/wife/sister or whatever works in the local Post Office .
I personally had never heard of Brown Noses, and I have never personnally succeeded in
getting anything I wrote, posted above our below the line, since The Manchester Guardian
moved from Manchester to London, and whilst I do love reading some of the posters' comments
well look face it.
Even though Rhys probabaly doesn't like what this kid writes – Elliot is it? he is
hardly going to come round with a chainsaw, to cut his head off is he? He probably never even
thought of it.
He did say he is small fry, and he probably is still a virgin (been brainwashed – so
he actually belives the model doll is better. What has he got to compare it to?)
So I can't blame any of them.
There are alternatives as well as Facebook, Youtube, Instagram, and all those Dating
Websites, when almost everything you write gets deleted.
Just go down the local pub when there is a good band on. Even I can pull there, but I am
better looking than both Rhys and Elliot
I Like Girls.
I am a man. It's Normal
Just keep fit dancing and smiling, and you will be O.K.
Tony
paul ,
The prime importance of these endless hoaxes, smears, lies, fabrications and official
approved conspiracy theories, lies not so much in the events themselves as what it says about
the nature of the people who rule over us and their courtiers and handmaidens in the MSM.
It would take a whole forest of trees merely to catalogue all their lies over the years,
whether it's the Iraq Incubator Babies, the black Viagra fuelled rape gangs in Libya, the
Syrian Gas Hoaxes, 9/11, Iraq's WMD, Iran's non existent nuclear weapons, Skripal,
Russiagate, Ukrainegate, or the communist spy/ terrorist/ anti semitic smear campaign against
Corbyn. And that is only the tip of a very large iceberg. You could go back further to
Gladio, Operation Northwoods, Tonkin Gulf, the "Holocaust", Zinoviev Letter, Bayonetted
Belgian Babies, Raped Belgian Nuns, Human Bodies Made Into Soap. The list is endless.
We have been lied to consistently for years, decades, and generations. And these lies have
been peddled endlessly in the MSM, no matter how ludicrous and transparently false they are.
In the absence of direct personal knowledge or very convincing evidence to the contrary, you
just have to assume that everything we have ever been told, are being told, and will be told,
and most of the accepted historical record, are simply false. Nothing, nothing at all, can
ever be taken at face value.
And those who rule over us and who are responsible for these lies are psychopathic
subhuman filth devoid of any moral values or any redeeming features whatsoever. They are a
thousand times worse than the worst mass murderers or child killers who have ever been
through our courts. The Moors Murderers, the Ted Bundys, the Jeffrey Dahmers, were seriously
damaged individuals who killed a handful of victims. And they did their own dirty work. The
Blairs, the Campbells, the Straws, the Bushes, the Cheneys, the Rumsfelds, the Allbrights,
the Macrons, the Camerons, the Netanyahus, the Trumps, have the blood of millions on their
hands. They and their wire pullers are responsible for the death, starvation and misery of
tens and hundreds of millions.
So when Blair, or Johnson, or Trump or whoever is interviewed on television, you have to
remember that individual is a thousand times worse than the Moors Murderers, and we would
actually be that much better off if Brady or Hindley were ruling over us. They deserve no
respect or deference or legitimacy. They plot the murders of millions and the starvation of
tens of millions – and laugh and giggle as they do so. They should be simply recognised
for what they awe – psychopathic subhuman filth.
I do agree with you Paul and of course all you say is true. One of the main problems is that
these people have the power to build artificial constructs sufficient for the masses to
believe and perpetuated through their bought and paid for MSM whose journalists are mere foot
soldiers and wish only to get their pay checks. They have no reason to question the lies and
distortions pedaled to them by TPTB – they merely repeat the false narrative:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not
understanding it!" – Upton Sinclair
And we, the great 99%, have little power to change things except within our local network.
We can shout all we like on social media but it changes nothing until the great crisis
reoccurs and perhaps the masses will rise and demand a just and equitable system. Until that
day perhaps this little video will provide an understanding:
The business of the MSM throughout the ages has been to traumatise or at least just generally
worry the public with headlines focused on fear, envy, anger, revenge, and hate. Include all
five in your story and you're well on the way to a Pulitzer Prize, bestowed on the profession
by one of the great muckrakers of all time. It's not incidental that there have been a
disturbing number of winners that have turned out to be dissembling frauds. Add to this the
fact that 'journalism' training apparently does not teach entrants to distinguish the
difference between opinion and news, and the die is cast: propaganda as news.
Dungroanin ,
Here is what BellEndScat supporting Rusbridger is moaning about.
"For some years now – largely unreported – two chancery court judges have been
dealing with literally hundreds of cases of phone hacking against MGN Ltd and News Group, the
owners, respectively, of the Daily Mirror and the Sun (as well as the defunct News of the
World).
The two publishers are, between them, forking out eye-watering sums to avoid any cases going
to trial in open court. Because the newspaper industry lobbied so forcefully to scrap the
second part of the Leveson inquiry, which had been due to shine a light on such matters, we
can only surmise what is going on.
But there are clues. Mirror Group (now Reach) had by July 2018 set aside more than
£70m to settle phone-hacking claims without risking any of them getting to court. The
BBC reported last year that the Murdoch titles had paid out an astonishing £400m in
damages and calculated that the total bill for the two companies could eventually reach
£1bn."
"Because the newspaper industry lobbied so forcefully to scrap the second part of the
Leveson inquiry, which had been due to shine a light on such matters, we can only surmise
what is going on."
-- --
Completely ignoring that the Integrity Iniative infested Guardian ITSELF objected to the
recommendation of Levesons thoroughly public Inquiry and opposition to a independent press
regulator!
It would have been a building block and certainly stopped most of the continued press
misbehaviour over the last 5 years.
Neither Fish nor Fowl Mr Rusbridger. More sinner that saint, more like.
Hugh O'Neill ,
Going to the heart of what Bellingcat, MI6 and CIA is Pompeo's: "We lie, we cheat, we steal."
These evil filth are devoid of any moral code and have no respect whatsoever for the laws of
God or Man. At which point, consider Moses' (how apt) Ten Commandments. There among them is:
"Thou shalt not bear false witness". Think what you will of these Ten, but as a moral code,
they were quite useful.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Would that all these scum could share the fate of their progenitor, Streicher-without the '
necktie party'. Life at hard labour would do the lot of them much good.
Brianeg ,
I looked at the Veterans Today link and it all sounds very plausible'
However in today's world nothing makes sense especially when the questions arise.
Is it possible to change the signal of an aircrafts transponder remotely. Can the target
acquisition radar on the missile be spoofed remotely. Just why did the flight control officer
sanction the take off of this plane in the middle of a war unless they were party to the
whole thing.. Just what were the six Israeli F-35 jets doing flying close to the Iranian
border?
Okay there is a lot of smoke but just where is the fire.
Just as interesting is that none of the twelve Iranian missiles was intercepted and there
are rumours that the Iranians were able to take out of action American air defences.
I am sure that like with Douma when the majority of NATO missiles were intercepted by
missiles that were decades old, you wonder what might happen when most of the middle east is
covered by the S-300 and later versions.
This is a story that has got a long way to run and we might never hear the ending.
Dungroanin ,
Facts are inconvenient.
Many planes took off.
This one was delayed by the pilot 'to remove overloading'.
Reports of Cruise missiles heading in.
The thing about 'chips' is they could easily be identified by putting them in a black box
and watching what they do using a chip which only does that!
The whole bs about it's THEM not US crap falls away. Just need some open source simple
'custodian' chip manufacturer to make that available. If it can be made a 'gate keeper' than
we are all safe.
Mucho ,
"It sounds a bit MAGA. "
After this, I will never, ever read any of your comments ever again. Get lost!
Mucho ,
You talk so much crap. Please, keep it to yourself
Dungroanin ,
I ain't saying that is your opinion am I?
The bit I watched was him being gung-ho about getting back 'control of microprocessors'
!!!
There is a big difference between designing chips and 'manufacturing' facilities'.
Have you never wondered why most actual building of small electrical component equipment
takes place in Asia?
I don't care wherher you read my comments- i am free to post what I want on whatevet
article and whoevers comment. And stick to facts.
Mucho ,
"The bit I watched ".
Honestly, I am so tired of people who comment on things they know nothing about. Everything
you say is wrong, because you are speaking from a position of total ignorance, because you
haven't watched the films.
Watch 1 to 3. Watch 22 and 23 ALL THE WAY THROUGH, not skimming. Then comment. Every
inaccurate comment you make is covered in detail. Honestly it's no wonder we're so fucked.
From 2005 after one google search, time spent on this, 10 seconds:
"While Yona was developed in partnership with one of Intel's California centers, the 65nm
microprocessor product is the first to be developed in its entirety, both the architecture
and strategy, by Intel engineers at its Israel plants in Haifa and Yakum. " https://www.israel21c.org/intels-new-chip-design-developed-in-israel/
You know zilch, you understand nothing, you make assumptions, you don't watch or read the
material, and then in your total ignorance, you spew your feeble thoughts on this forum.
Moron
Mucho ,
You define the phrase "ignorant Brit"
Dungroanin ,
Mucho since you FAILED instantly in your promise to ignore me – i will respond to your
toy throwing out of the parambulator.
First just telling people to WATCH something without explaining what the salient point to
be learnt – is not the way to influence or educate.
I prefer reading an argument- I definitely do not spend hours watching TV or listening to
propaganda by msm / indy or 'shock jocks' – that last was the personality I saw and
didn't feel the need to hear anymore as I don't when Nigel Farage and his ilk do on the radio
here.
If you want to inform or prove something to me or anyone else kindly post a link to a
written piece.
Second, chips are designed eveywhere there is such competence. Chip manufacturing mainly
improved theough research in top universities.
The UK was a lead chip designer too.
None of that means the Israelis haven't monopolosed tech and own many patents. The fact is
the Israelis ARE part of the 5+1 eyed world Empire – they are the plus one. Snowdens
whistleblowing makes absolutely clear that the +1 gets a higher clearance than the +4.
That's as nice as I am prepared to be, so finally, that last paragraph is what is known as
PROJECTION. Look it up and learn that it comes from your fav bogeymen brainfuckers.
That is some serious self-hate you have going on – work on it.
Take it easy ok?
Mucho ,
Number 23 is totally relevant too, going deep into chips, backdooring and kill switch usage
Koba ,
So the mocking of maga is what set you off? Fuck maga and it's idiot supporters great nations
don't slaughter civilians for capital
chris morris is very funny has a fine body of twisted comedick works
for all his charm his role is too destroy society degrade
he is khazar after all
sacha baron co hen the names speaks for itself an empty cruel tool
never trust a coen cohen khan or cowen or co they cookoo
eliot mcfuck higgins is not oirish
he is not certainly related to snooker loopy or is it darts i cannot remember hero alex
higgins.
eliot"s dad is rita katz from site intel group amaq news
his mom barbera lerner spector
or is it vice versa
versa vice
whatever
shirley you
get my the friends of the oirish israel drift
so to speaks
or sum such
Mucho ,
Brilliant, insightful, logical hypothesis of the recent plane downing over Iran by Jeremy
Rothe Kushel. Ignore the video, this is about the written article.
For further info about Israeli tech domination, what it is, where it comes from and the
implications of this, go to Brendon O Connell's YT channel. Number 22 in his list is very
important.
Mucho ,
Jeremy Rothe-Kushel is a very important member of the truth community, in no small part due
to the fact that he is an Ashkenazi Jew. My personal belief is that in the end, the Jewish
community will play a pivotal role in weeding out the evil that rules over us. I wish we
didn't have these labels, that we could have true freedom to play our chosen role in our God
created realm, but at this stage in the game, we're stuck with our divide and rule labels and
systems of control.
Jeremy's style is to the point, he has great depth of knowledge, an encyclopedic knowledge of
his field and is a highly astute commentator. He presents a lot of complex information in
fairly easy to digest chunks with his co-host, Greg McCarron, on their show "The Antedote" on
YT, as well as doing a lot of guerilla style activism in US politics. Highly recommended.
norman wisdom ,
i met elliot many years ago
the chap on the 8 year old lap top above
we called him fat face down the synagogue ohh how we laughed
he laughed as well everytime someone said it
such fun
are rabbi one day organised a trip and lecture tour of chatham house the belly of the
beast.
we learnt all about how tough regime change was and how difficult it is to do on a bbc size
budget.
what we learnt was that having are people everywhere really helped
scripted up to speed influencer roles in media in public on track on page working cog
like.
a kind of khazar collective non semites only for security reasons of course.
we could work from a very low pound dollar and shekels base and still be very effective.
never under estimate the benjamins or elliots it is folks like this that are the real hero
of the oded yinon
yes sir
already my life
fat face eliot boy done good
and like all khazar he hates the sephardim jewisher and the unclean arab which is shirley
a bonus is it not
George Mc ,
First off, if folks haven't a clue who Harold Shipman is, you're not going to get far with
Titus Oats. At the most they might think it's a character from Gormenghast.
Second, I initially misread the article and thought that the figure from the 17th century
actually WAS Higgins of Bellingcat. And if that seems an absurd assumption to make, even
temporarily, it doesn't seem much more absurd than some of the stuff he says e.g.
I had no knowledge beyond what I'd learned from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rambo.
The point has been raised that there are psyops perpetrated with a malicious sense of
humour as if to say, "These suckers will swallow anything". Higgins with his "education" from
Arnold and Rambo may be an example of one of those jokes.
Third, and to end on an optimistic note, I like the 17th century sentencing and recommend
we bring it back:
and he was whipped and placed in the pillory.
Dungroanin ,
Admin – a suggestion on keeping recent articles available from the top of the page.
Problem: As you add new aricles at top left the ones on the very right drop away! Almost
as if being binned into a memory hole.
Solution: allow a scroll at the right hand edge so that these older links are easily
available to readers. Only a minor coding change without any change to your front page.
Tallis Marsh ,
I concur! I'm sure many of us will appreciate a scroll on the right hand edge so we can
access the older articles. Thanks in advance, OffG!
Oliver ,
HM Armed Forces operations in Syria follow the doctrine of Major General Sir Frank Kitson who
learnt his stuff in Kenya in the 1950s. Murder, torture, rape the staples of the British
military's modern terrorist ability. NATO doctrine too.
This is an important article: one of the few that dares to express that Douma et al are not
mere false flags they a darkly psychotic form of 'snuff propaganda porn' (including the
recycling and rearanging of 'props' that were until recently animate human souls with a
lifetime of possibility abnegated for ideology). The Working Group on Syria is part of a
small counter-narrative subset – along with Sister Agnes Mariam, Vanessa Beeley, RT (on
occasion), UK Column, The Indicter, Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli – who are willing to
state plainly that this is child murder. Now I wholeheartedly commend Kevin that we should
name and shame the culprits and their supporters.
"No, I think it is time for plainer, no-holds-barred language describing these people
for the true evil they are – until the truth and label sticks."
I had a similar epiphany in early 2016. The barbaric of murder of starved and thirsty
children at Rashidin – Syrian innocence lured by much needed sweets and drinks only to
be blown apart in front of their mothers. Anyone who supports the White Helmets terrorist
construct and their NATO-proxy child-murderers needs to be exposed. But what if that trail of
exposure leads back to the leader of the Labour party: who had just personally endorsed the
charity funding of the White Helmets? And continued to support the Jo Cox Foundation of
Syrian humanitarian bombers and R2P interventionists? Which itself is a front for the dark
money web of 'philanthrocapitalism' that is the shadow support network for regime change
crimes against humanity. This is when righteous indignation meets the dark wall of silence
around the social construction of reality. Especially if you put Jeremy Corbyn in the
frame.
What this means is the ability to frame dark actors for the true evil they are has to be a
two-way flow. Meaning is created across networks, not just by naming but by naming and
agreeing across narrative communities. Again, this is not abstruse: it is social reality.
Social reality is not reality: it is a consensual constructivism. Significant numbers of
others have to be in a position of consensual agreement in order to challenge the dominant
narrative(s). So I echo the sentiment that many can see that the dominant narrative –
especially concerning Syria – is deeply flawed. But they are as yet unwilling to admit
that the depth of the flaw is in fact a tear in social reality that cannot be easily
healed.
This is the aspect of social reality called 'universe maintenance'. Doxa is the reality
constructing belief set – the episteme of interacting beliefs. The narrative has two
main aspects: ortho-doxa and hetero-doxa – the orthodox maintaining and heterodox
subverting discourses. In order to truly subvert the hegemonic orthodoxy – there has to
be a social moment of criticality when the heterodox is no longer deniable. To reach that
point: the intrajecting true has to be believable to the hegemonic orthodoxy. Now we have a
third mode: para-doxa when the true 'state of affairs' is not believable – it is easily
rejected as paradoxical to the reigning consensus covenant of the true. This is universe
maintaining: whereby the the totality of the dominant discourse actually subsumes or repels
any paradox as a half-truth or ameliorated, disarmed less-than-true ('conspiracy theory').
This is known as 'recuperation'. Anything that meets the dominant discourse has to be
explained in the terms of the dominant discourse accommodative and recommending itself to the
dominant discourse. Which then becomes a part of the dominant universe of discourse.
A moment of the true is like a barb to a bubble. It has to be contained and wrapped in
narrative that describes and explains it into a consumable form. The full realisation of the
propagandic child murder in Syria – tacitly supported by the Labour Party and Jeremy
Corbyn in particular – would destroy the symbolic universe of social reality. Of which
it is my personal experience no one really wants to do. The correlations, direct and indirect
links, and universally maintained orthodoxy of narrative discourse point to an accomodation.
An explanation or multivariate set of explanations that problem shift and ascribe blame to
imaginary actors. To deflect or defend the personal self. Because the personal self is
independently situated outside the social sphere. Or is it?
Seeing the real event as it happens requires the perspicacity of social inclusion. We all
create social reality together: with our without layers of dualising exclusion that protects
us from the way the world really is. Who would vote to legitimise the supporters of NATO and
the child-murderers of Syria? 31 million legitimising independent social actors just did. Do
you suppose they did so in full knowledge that it is child-murder they were supporting? Or
did they create universe maintaining accommodations to the truth? That is how powerful the
screening discourses and legitimising orthodoxic narrative mythology is. It is not that it
cannot be subverted: its just that calling out the true evil has to be heard in unison by
large or social small assemblages willing to totally change everything – including
themselves. In order to transition to a different social reality one that accommodates the
truth. One which will look nothing like the social reality we choose to maintain as is.
Francis Lee ,
My first attempt didn't get through. Herewith second.
It seems to me that the internal affairs of the Russian Federation, although they may have
some impact on external geopolitical issues, are a matter for them. At the present time the
relevant question regarding the RF is as follows: Question 1. Is Russia a revionist state
intent on an expansionist foreign policy? Answer NO. But it is not going to tolerate NATO
expansion into its own strategic zones, namely, Ukraine, Georgia and the North Caucusas.
Question 2. Is the Anglo-Zionist empire in open of pursuit of a world empire intent on
destroying any sovereign state – including first and foremost Russia – which
stands in its way? Answer YES. This really is so blatant that anyone who is ethnically
challenged should seek psychiatric help. In Polls conducted around the world the US is always
cited as the most dangerous enemy of world peace, including in the US itself. Thus a small
influential (unfortunately deranged) cabal based in the west has insinuated its way into the
institutions of power and poses a real and present danger to world peace.
This being the case it is imperative to push all and any 'normal' western governments and
shape public opinion and discourse (except the nut-jobs like Poland and the Baltics) into
diplomacy. Wind down NATO just as the Warsaw Pact was wound down. that will do for starters.
Of course the PTB in all the western institutions – the media (whores) the deep state,
the Atlantic Council, the Council on Foreign Relations, Chatham House the Arms merchants, the
security services GCHQ, the CIA, Mossad and the rest will oppose this with all the power at
their command. This is the present primary site of struggle, mainly propagandistic, cultural
and economic, but with overtones of kinetic warfare.
Similar diplomatic initiatives must be directed at China. Yes, I know all about China's
social credit policy, I don't particularly like the idea of 24 hour system of surveillance,
and I wouldn't want to live there, but is already a virtual fait accompli in the west. Again
it bears repeating that sovereign states should be left to their own devices. After all
'States have neither permanent friends of allies, only permanent interests. (Lord Palmerston,
19 century British Statesman). No more 'humanitarian interventions' thank you very much. How
about Mind our own Business non-interventions.
I make no apologies for being a foreign policy realist – if that hasn't become
apparent by this stage!
BigB ,
Francis:
The Russian Federation is involved is strategic partnership with China in consolidating
the Eurasian 'supercontinent' into the world island. One which is slowly being drawn together
into a massive market covering 70% of the world's population, 75% of energy resources, and
70% of GDP. I'd call that expansionist, wouldn't you?
Market mechanisms and methodology are exponentially expansionist, extractivist, and
extrapolative. Market propaganda is free and equal exchange coupled with mutual development
through comparative advantage. Everyone benefits, right?
No: markets operate as vast surplus value extractors that only operate unequally to
deliver maximum competitive advantage to the suprasovereign core. Surplus value valorises
surplus capital which cannot be contained in a single domestic market: so it seeks to exploit
underdeveloped foreign markets setting up dependencies and peripheries in the satellite
states. Which keeps them maldeveloped. In short: Russia and China's wealth is not just their
own.
Russia and China are globalisation now. Globalist exponential expansionism, extractivism,
and extrapolation is the repression of humanism and destruction of the biosphere. It can't
stop growing in the cancer stage of hyper-capitalism. We are currently consuming every
resource at a material throughput increase of 3% per annum year on year. That's a 23 year
exponential doubling of material resources. And a 46 year doubling of the doubling. How long
before globalisation uses everything? How far into the race to the bottom will the market
collapse?
It would be really nice to return to a Westphalian System of non-expansionist,
non-extractivist sovereign nation states. It is just not even plausible under market
mechanisms of extraction. There can be no material decoupling and development remains
contingent on an impossible infinity: because development remains parallel and assymetrically
maintained. And all major resources are depleting exponentially too. Including the nominative
renewable and sustainable ones.
Degrowth; self-sufficiency; localised 'anti-fragility', steady-state; asymmetric
development of the marginalised and the peripheralised; regenerative agroecological
agriculture; human development not abstract market development; are just some of the
pre-requisites of a return to sovereign states. Russia 'sovereigntist' globalisation is the
expansionist opposite to that. The RF is part of the biggest market in the world that hoovers
up as much surplus value as it can before sending a large tranche of it to London. As much as
$25bn a year in capital flight into the offshore nexus of secrecy jurisdictions. It's a
globalist expansionist market mechanism that hoovers all vitality out of the life-ground.
That: I call expansionist and imperialist of which Russia and China are now the major
part.
Francis Lee ,
"The Russian Federation is involved is strategic partnership with China in consolidating the
Eurasian 'supercontinent' into the world island. One which is slowly being drawn together
into a massive market covering 70% of the world's population, 75% of energy resources, and
70% of GDP. I'd call that expansionist, wouldn't you?"
No, I wouldn't actually. Building roads, rail connections and other trade routes doesn't
strike me as imperial expansion. No-one is being forced to join the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO) or into reconfiguring their internal political and economic structures, as
the US does in Latin America or as the British did in India and Southern Africa. (East India
Company and the British British South Africa Chartered Company). The SCO is a voluntary
arrangement. Uzbekistan for example has decided not to join the central Asian Eurasian
Economic Union – well that's its prerogative. No-one is going to send any gun-boats to
force them. (I am aware that Uzbekistan is a landlocked country, but I was talking
figuratively.)
The EEU's genesis has along with the SCO and BRI has been forced upon the China/Russia
axis as part of an emerging counter-hegemonic alliance against the US's imperial
aggrandisement with its kowtowing vassals in tow. Russia has no claims on any of its
neighbours since it is already endowed with ample land and mineral deposits. China is a key
part of this essentially geopolitical bloc quite simply because the US imperial hegemon is
determined to stop China's development by all means necessary including the dragooning of
contiguous military bases in US proxy states around China's maritime borders.
A distinction should be made between rampant imperialism of the Anglo-zi0nist empire, and
the response of an increasingly bloc of states who find both their sovereignty and even their
existence threatened by the imperial juggernaut. What exactly did you expect them to do given
the hostility and destructive intent of the Empire? Defence against imperialism is not
imperialism. The defence of autonomy and sovereignty of international society and the
creation of an anti-hegemonic have the potential to finally create a transformative new world
order (and goodness knows we need one) announced at the end of the Cold War in 1991. This
ambition finds support not only in Russia and China but in other countries ready to align
with them, but also in many western countries. I obviously need to put the question again.
Who is and who is not the greatest threat to world peace? Surely to pose the question is to
answer it.
Dungroanin ,
Agree Francis.
There is a move to suggest that the Old Empire retains a 'maritime' world and the SCO
confines itself to the Eurasian land mass.
Dream on.
The Empire is DEAD. Long live the new Empire!
BigB ,
Who is the greatest threat to world peace and to the world itself? We are. The global carbon
consumption/pollution bourgeoisie. It is the global expansionist mindset that is increasing
its demands for growth – as the only solution to social problems, maldevelopment, and
maldistribution caused by excessive growth. Supply has to be met by exponentially expanding
markets. Whether this is voluntaristic or coerced makes very little difference to the market
cancer subsuming the globe. Benign or aggressive forms of cancer are still cancer. And the
net effect is the same.
Russia and China – the 'East' – uphold exactly the same corporate model of
global governance that the 'West' does. Which has been made clear in every joint communique
– especially BRICS communiques. I have made the case – following Professor
Patrick Bond – that BRICS in particular (a literal Goldman Sachs globalist marketing
ploy) – are sub-imperial, not anti-imperial. All their major institutions are dollar
denominated for loans; BRI finance is in dollars; BRICS re-capitalised the IMF; Contingency
Reserve Arrangements come with an IMF neoliberalising structural adjustment policy; etc. It
is the same model East and West. One is merely the pseudo-benign extension of the other. The
alternative to neoliberal globalisation is neoliberal globalisation. This became radiantly
clear at SPIEF 2019: TINA there is no alternative.
The perceived alternative is the reproduction of neoliberalism – which has long been
think-tanked and obvious – and its transformation from 'globalisation 3.0' to
'globalisation 4.0' trade in goods and services, with the emphasis on a transition to
high-speed interconnectivity and decoupled service economies. Something like the
Trans-Eurasian Information Super Highway (TASIM)? With a sovereigntist and social inclusivity
compact. So the neoliberal leopard can change its spots?
No. Whilst your argument is sound and well constructed: it is reliant on the early 20th
century Leninist definition of 'imperialism' as a purely militarist phenomena. Imperialism
mutated since then – from military to financial (which are not necessarily exclusive
sets) – and is set to metastasise again into 'green imperialism' of man over man (and
it is an andrarchic principle) and man (culture) over nature. Here your argument falls down
to an ecological and bio-materialist critique. Cancer is extractivist and expansionist
wherever it grows.
Russia is the fourth largest primary energy consumer on the planet. Disregarding hydro
– which is not truly ecological – it has a 1% renewable penetration. It is a
hydrocarbon behemoth set to grow the only way it knows how – consuming more
hydrocarbons. They cannot go 'green': no one can. And a with a global ecological footprint of
3.3 planets per capita, per annum, this is not sustainable. Now or ever.
So a distinction needs to be made between the old rampant neoliberal globalisation model
(3.0) – the Anglo-Zionist imperialist model – and the emergent neoliberal
globalisation model (4.0) of Russia/China's rampant ecological imperialism? And a further
distinction needs to be made about what humanity has to do to survive this distinction
between aggressive and quasi-benign cancer forms. Because we will be just as dead, just as
quick if we cannot even identify the underlying cancer we are all suffering from.
Koba ,
Big B sit down ultra! China and Russia rent empires and have no desire to be! If you're a
left winger you're another poor example of one and more than likely a Trotskyist
Richard Le Sarc ,
Love the nickname, Josef.
Louis Proyect ,
This is because if a chemical attack did not take place and Assad was not responsible it
seems highly likely that the civilians including children were murdered to facilitate a
fabrication.
And were our own intelligence agencies involved in a staged event, considering the refusal
to even establish the basic facts in the days following?
-- -
This is the sort of conclusion you must come to if you are into Islamophobic conspiracy
theories. The notion that this kind of slaughter took place to "facilitate" a false flag is
analogous to the 9/11 conspiracism that was on display here a while back and that manifested
itself through the inclusion of NYU 9/11 Truther Mark Crispin Miller on Tim Hayward's
Assadist propaganda team.
Sad, really.
Harry Stotle ,
Go on Louis, remind us about the 'terrorist passport' miraculously found at the foot of the
collapsed tower with a page coveniently left open displaying a 'Tora Bora' stamp – I
kove that bit.
I mean who, apart from half the worlds scientific community is not totally convinced by
such compelling evidence, especially when allied to the re-writing of the laws of physics in
order to rationlise the ludicrous 2 planes 3 towers conspiracy theory?
Next you'll be telling us it was necessary for the US to invade Afghanistan and Iraq for
reasons few American'srecall beyond the neocon fantasy contructed on 11th Septemember,
2001.
Dave Hansell ,
It's clear to a blind man on a galloping horse from this comment of yours Mr Proyect that
concepts such as objective evidence, logical and rational deduction, the scientific method
etc are beyond your ken.
Faced with the facts of a collapsing narrative of obvious bullshit and lies you have
bought into, which you are incapable of facing up to, it is unsurprising that you are reduced
to such puerile school playground level deflections.
So come on, try getting out of the gutter and upping your game. Because this fare is
nothing short of sad and pathetic.
We know from the evidence of those who actually know their arse from their elbow on these
matters that the claims of an attack using chemical weapons on this site are
unsustainable.
Which leaves the issue of the bodies at the site. Given they did not lose their lives as a
result of the unscientific bullshit explanation you desperately and clearly want to be the
case the question is how did those civilians lose their lives? How did their corpses find
their way to that location?
Did Assad and his "regime" murder them and move the bodies to that site (over which they
had no control) in order to create a false flag event to get themselves falsely accused of an
NBC attack Louis? Because that's the only reasonable and rational deduction one can imply
from your argument and approach.
It is certainly more reasoned, rational and in keeping with the scientific method (you
might want to try it sometime) to surmise that the bodies on site, having not been the result
of the claimed and unsustainable narrative you have naively committed to, either died on site
from some other cause or were brought to the site for the purpose of creating your fantasy
narrative.
In the latter case it is further a matter of rational and reasoned deduction that such an
occurrence could only be carried it in circumstances in which whoever carried it out had
actual, effective and physical control of a geographical location and area situated within a
wider conflict zone.
Again, it remains a piece of factual reality that this location was not under the control
of the Assad 'regime.' Not least because otherwise there would be no logical or rational
military reason for the de facto Syrian Government and it's armed forces to waste resources
attacking it.
Unless of course he buys I to the conspiracy theory and hat they somehow organised a false
flag implicating themselves?
I'm sure everyone else here in the reality based community is waiting with bated breath
for you to 'explain' how they did this Louis.
I know I am. I could do with a good laugh.
George Mc ,
This is the sort of conclusion you must come to if you are into Islamophobic conspiracy
theories.
Umm – the assumption that Muslims DIDN'T do it is "Islamophobic"? Even on your own
terms you're not making much sense these days, Louis.
Hi I'm Louis an unrepentant Marxist and I willfully refuse to use block-quotes.
Richard Le Sarc ,
More proyectile vomitus in defence of child-murdering salafist vermin. How low can this
creature descend?
Louis Proyect ,
Richard, such abusive language only indicates your inability to discuss the matter at hand.
In general, a detached sarcasm works much better in polemics. You need to read Lenin to see
how it is done. I should add that I am referring to V.I. Lenin, not John Lenin who wrote
"Crippled Inside".
Richard Le Sarc ,
You defended the salafist butchers with lies, proyectile-do you not even comprehend your own
sewage? Or did someone else write it and you just appended your paw-print?
Dave Hansell ,
Apologies here. There is an open goal and the ball needs to be put in the back of the net:
Seems that Louis here is well ahead of the curve in terms of Fukuyama's well known
observation about the end of history.
For Louise history, in terms of the progress and development of human knowledge, stopped
around a century ago with whatever Lenin wrote.
But that's what happens to those who only read one book.
Sad really.
Dungroanin ,
You come across more as Yaxley – Lenin mr Tommy Proyect – but he is a MI5 stooge
unlike you cough cough.
Koba ,
Lenin hates Trotsky! Trotsky was a power mad maniac who wanted a permanent war state to
somehow spread his specific brand of "ahem" socialism, which won't win you friends! "Hi yeah
sorry we killed your family in a war we started to save you but yippee Trotsky is now in
charge so stop complaining"! You're just a bunch of liars the trots
Maggie ,
learn to use the internet which has the information you need to learn the truth:
Maggie don't take jimmy bore as some truth teller he's a bland progressive with revolutionary
slogans like proyect! He also has a habit of equating Stalin with Hitler in that god awful
nasal accent of his
Richard Le Sarc ,
Thems White Helmets is always so neat and tidy. Their mammies must have insisted that they
always look their best.
paul ,
The British taxpayer funded head choppers and throat slitters in Syria routinely committed
massacres and filmed their victims. The resulting footage was passed off by tame media hacks
as "evidence" of regime atrocities.
Koba ,
Death to the Trotskyists
Fuck proyect your name calling says it all!
Islamophobes indeed?! What an idiot
Harry Stotle ,
The alternative media, and a smattering of truth tellers are locked in an asymmetrical
information-war with the establishment – with an all too obvious 'David & Goliath'
sort of dynamic underlying it.
The question asked at the heart of this article is how to break the vice like grip
information managers hold over various geopolitical narratives, referencing events in Douma
in particular.
Alnost reflexively 9/11 comes to mind – a fairly unambiguous example of mass murder
for which the official account does not withstand even the most cursory form of scrutiny.
Professionals even went so far as to purger themselves while the investigating committee
admitted they were 'set up to fail' (to quote its chairman).
Yet the public, instead of shredding Bush, limb from limb (for the lies that were told)
rolled onto their back while the neoncons tickled their collective belly as you might do with
a particulalrly adorable puppy,
So if we can't even get to the bottom of events in the middle of New York what realistic
chance of doing so in a hostile war zone like Douma?
On balance racism, together with other forms of collective loathing is the most likely
reason why this unsatisfactory state of affairs is unlikely to change.
A collective 'them and us' mindset makes it far easier for information managers to
manipulate a visceral hatred and fear of 'the other'.
Today it is Qasem Soleimani westerners are taugyt to despise, yesterday it was Bashar
al-Assad, before that Vladimir Putin, Saddam Hussein, Muammar al-Gaddafi, Nicolás
Maduro . the list just goes on and on.
Information managers simply wind the public up so that collective anger can be directed
toward governments or individuals they are trying to bring down – recent history tells
us that the public are largely oblivious to this process, so thus never learn from their
mistakes.
Perhaps one thing western leaders, and the US in particular can always rely on, is the
ease with which the public can be persuaded to believe that certain bogeymen pose a grave
threat to 'our way of life' while failing to notice that it is in fact our own leaders who
are carrying out the worst atrocities.
harry law ,
Harry Stotle, .."Perhaps one thing western leaders, and the US in particular can always rely
on, is the ease with which the public can be persuaded to believe that certain bogeymen pose
a grave threat to 'our way of life'. That's true Hermann Goring had it about right with this
quote
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk
his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one
piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for
that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who
determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is
a democracy or fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you
have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Adam Schiff, the liberal hero of impeachment, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the
military-industrial complex and a fervent exponent of permanent war.
o some Democrats and journalists, Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) is a hero. All over the
internet, people are thanking him for defending the Constitution, hoping he'll run for
president someday. After his performance during this week's impeachment hearing, the worship
was especially intense; a letter writer to the New York Times called it
"brilliant" and a "tour de force," while the conservative Washington Times made
fun of all the blue-checked Twitter accounts losing their objectivity in ecstatic praise. As
the face of the impeachment effort, especially for liberals disengaged from the election
process, Schiff represents a glimmer of hope for domestic regime change.
We'd like to be on his side. After all, he's working hard to take down Donald Trump, one of
the worst presidents in American history. But let's not get carried away in fandom. Schiff is a
dangerous warmonger, and his efforts to fuel paranoia about Russia only serve to feed that
agenda. It would be admirable if Schiff's impeachment crusade was limited to Trump's
corruption. But something else drives him: he wants a proxy war in Ukraine with Russia, and he
has for some time.
Adam Schiff physically resembles a prosperity preacher. That is to say, he looks like a
classic dodgy American salesman, but with a beatific glow of righteousness. This creepily
wholesome look lends a corny Cold War ambiance to his constant fulmination about "the
Russians." It's hard not to listen to him without thinking of Allen Ginsberg's 1956 poem
"America":
America, it's them bad Russians
Them Russians, them Russians and them Chinamen.
And them Russians.
Assuring us that he is aware, actually, of what century this is, Schiff
said in 2015 , "Now, we're not seeing the same bipolar world we had between communism and
capitalism." (Phew!) He then added, "But we are seeing a new bipolar world, I think, where you
have democracy versus authoritarianism." Schiff has not viewed this as a mere contest of ideas:
he constantly advocated for Obama to impose tougher sanctions on Russia and give more weapons
to Ukraine.
Although delicately opposed to violence in some contexts -- he's a vegan! -- this isn't the
only war Schiff has championed. He supported the Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya wars, greater US
intervention in Syria, as well as the Saudi war with Yemen (although he has, in the past year,
turned against the latter adventure, seeming to draw the line at sawing up journalists with
bonesaws -- he is a moderate after all, plus very popular with the media), and he has
voted for nearly every possible increase in the defense budget.
As Jacobin
's own Branko Marcetic observed two years ago , Schiff's bellicosity is extensively funded
by arms manufacturers and military contractors. A Ukrainian arms dealer named Igor Pasternak
held a $2,500 per head fundraiser for Schiff in 2013, as the late Justin Raimondo reported
in a terrific analysis on Antiwar.com in 2017, at a time when Ukraine was desperately trying to
counter the Obama administration's disinterest in funding its war with Russia. Despite that
disinterest, the State Department approved some very profitable dealings for Pasternak in
Ukraine after that fundraiser.
And that's only one example. In the current cycle, donations from the war industry have
continued to flood his coffers. Many come from employees of firms with extensive Department of
Defense contracts, including Radiance Technologies and Raytheon. PACs representing the defense
industry also make a robust showing among Schiff's contributors, according to data on Open
Secrets.org; companies funneling money to Schiff -- sorry, contributing to those PACs
-- include Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Radiance, and others, including
L3Harris Technologies (which
got in big trouble with the State Department in September and had to pay $13 million in
penalties for illegal arms dealing).
Guess what these companies want? War with Ukraine. Why wouldn't they? Last
October, the United States approved a $39 million sale of anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, a
joint contract between Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. The previous year, Ukraine bought $37
million worth of missiles from the same two companies. As a missile-maker, Zacks Equity
Research has noted, Northrop Grumman also benefits richly from conflict in Ukraine, as missiles
are heavily used in cross-border wars.
Despite his enthusiastic support for state violence and cozy ties to the makers of deadly
weaponry, Schiff, an Alexander Hamilton–quoting windbag, doesn't have much crossover
appeal to the sort of people who put "These Colors Don't Run" stickers on their trucks. His
impeachment crusade only seems to reinforce Trump's support among the faithful; at this
writing, 93 percent of Republicans oppose the president's removal from office.
Welcome to the #Resistance.
Liza Featherstone is a columnist forJacobin, a freelance journalist,
and the author ofSelling Women Short: The Landmark Battle for Workers' Rights at
Wal-Mart.
This article was originally published by "Jacobin" -
"... Amidst all the anti-Russia brouhaha that has enveloped our nation , we shouldn't forget that the U.S. national-security establishment -- specifically the Pentagon, CIA, and FBI -- was convinced that Martin Luther King Jr. was a communist agent who was spearheading a communist takeover of the United States. ..."
"... State-sponsored assassinations to protect national security were among the dark-side practices that began to be utilized after the federal government was converted into a national-security state . As early as 1953, the CIA was developing a formal assassination manual that trained its agents in the art of assassination and, equally important, in the art of concealing the CIA's role in state-sponsored assassinations. ..."
"... Why did they target Kennedy? For the same reason they targeted all those other people for assassination -- they concluded that Kennedy had become a grave threat to national security and, they believed, it was their job to eliminate threats to national security. ..."
"... After the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy achieved a breakthrough that enabled him to recognize that the Cold War was just one great big racket for the national-security establishment and its army of defense contractors and sub-contractors. ..."
"... That's when JFK announced an end to the Cold War and began reaching out to the Soviets and the Cubans in a spirit of peace, friendship, and mutual coexistence. Kennedy's Peace Speech at American University on June 10, 1963, where he announced his intent to end the Cold War and normalize relations with the communist world, sealed President Kennedy's fate. ..."
Amidst all the anti-Russia brouhaha that has enveloped our nation , we shouldn't forget that the U.S. national-security establishment
-- specifically the Pentagon, CIA, and FBI -- was convinced that Martin Luther King Jr. was a communist agent who was spearheading
a communist takeover of the United States.
This occurred during the Cold War, when Americans were made to believe that there was a gigantic international communist conspiracy
to take over the United States and the rest of the world. The conspiracy, they said, was centered in Moscow, Russia. Yes, that Russia!
That was, in fact, the justification for converting the federal government to a national-security state type of governmental structure
after the end of World War II. The argument was that a limited-government republic type of governmental structure, which was the
national's founding governmental system, was insufficient to prevent a communist takeover of the United States. To prevail over the
communists in what was being called a â€cold War, a€ it would be necessary for the federal government, they said, to become a national-security
state so that it could wield the same type of sordid, dark-side, totalitarian-like practices that the communists themselves wielded
and exercised.
The conviction that the communists were coming to get us became so predominant, primarily through official propaganda and indoctrination,
especially in the national's public (i.e., government) schools, that the matter evolved into mass paranoia. Millions of Americans
became convinced that there were communists everywhere. Americans were exhorted to keep a careful watch on everyone else, including
their neighbors, and report any suspicious activity, much as Americans today are exhorted to do the same thing with respect to terrorists.
Some Americans would even look under their beds for communists. Others searched for communists in Congress and within the federal
bureaucracies, even the Army, and Hollywood as well. One rightwing group became convinced that even President Eisenhower was an agent
of the Soviet government.
In the midst of all this national paranoia, the FBI, the Pentagon, and the CIA became convinced that King was a communist agent.
When King began criticizing U.S. interventionism in Vietnam, that solidified their belief that he was a communist agent. After all,
they maintained, wouldn't any true-blue American patriot rally to his government in time of war, not criticize or condemn it? Only
a communist, they believed, would oppose his government when it was committed to killing communists in Vietnam.
Moreover, when King began advocating for civil rights, especially in the South, that constituted additional evidence, as far as
the FBI, CIA, and Pentagon were concerned, that he was, in fact, a communist agent, one whose mission was to foment civil strife
in America as a prelude to a communist takeover of America . How else to explain why a black man would be fighting for equal rights
for blacks in nation that purported to be free?
The website kingcenter.org points out:
After four weeks of testimony and over 70 witnesses in a civil trial in Memphis, Tennessee, twelve jurors reached a unanimous
verdict on December 8, 1999 after about an hour of deliberations that Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated as a result of a
conspiracy. Mrs. Coretta Scott King welcomed the verdict saying, there is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in
the assassination of my husband Martin Luther King Jr. The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented
during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal governments were deeply
involved in the assassination of my husband.â€
And why not? Isn't it the duty of the U.S. national-security state to eradicate threats to national security? What bigger threat
to national security than a person who is supposedly serving as an agent for the communists and also as a spearhead for an international
communist conspiracy to take over the United States?
State-sponsored assassinations to protect national security were among the dark-side practices that began to be utilized after
the federal government was converted into a national-security state . As early as 1953, the CIA was developing a formal
assassination manual that trained its agents
in the art of assassination and, equally important, in the art of concealing the CIA's role in state-sponsored assassinations.
In 1954, the CIA targeted the democratically elected president of Guatemala for assassination because he was reaching out
to Russia in a spirt of peace, friendship, and mutual co-existence. In 1960-61, the CIA conspired to assassinate Patrice Lumumba,
the head of the Congo because he was perceived to be a threat to U.S. national security. In the early 1960s, the CIA , in partnership
with the Mafia, the worldâ's premier criminal organization, conspired to assassinate Fidel Castro, the leader of Cuba, a country
that never attacked or invaded the United States. In 1973, the U.S. national-security state orchestrated a coup in Chile, where its
counterparts in the Chilean national-security establishment conspired to assassinate the democratically elected president of the
country, Salvador Allende, by firing missiles at his position in the national palace.
The mountain of circumstantial evidence that has accumulated since November 1963 has established that foreign officials werenâ't
the only ones who got targeted as threats to national security. As James W. Douglas documents so well in his remarkable and profound
bookÂ
JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters , the U.S. national-security establishment also targeted President John
F. Kennedy for a state-sponsored assassination as well.
Why did they target Kennedy? For the same reason they targeted all those other people for assassination -- they concluded
that Kennedy had become a grave threat to national security and, they believed, it was their job to eliminate threats to national
security.
After the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy achieved a breakthrough that enabled him to recognize that the Cold War was just one
great big racket for the national-security establishment and its army of defense contractors and sub-contractors.
That's when JFK announced an end to the Cold War and began reaching out to the Soviets and the Cubans in a spirit of peace,
friendship, and mutual coexistence. Kennedy's
Peace Speech at American University on June 10, 1963, where he announced his intent to end the Cold War and normalize relations
with the communist world, sealed President Kennedy's fate.
But what many people often forget is that one day after his Peace Speech at American University, Kennedy delivered a
major televised address to the nation defending the civil rights movement, the movement that King was leading.
What better proof of a threat to national security than that â€" reaching out to the communist world in peace and friendship and
then, one day later, defending a movement that the U.S. national-security establishment was convinced was a spearhead for the communist
takeover of the United States?
The loss of both Kennedy and King constituted conclusive confirmation that the worst mistake in U.S. history was to abandon a
limited-government republic type of governmental system in favor of a totalitarian governmental structure known as a national-security
state. A free nation does not fight communism with communist tactics and an omnipotent government. A free nation fights communism
with freedom and limited government.
There is no doubt what both John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. would have thought about a type of totalitarian-like governmental
structure that has led our nation in the direction of state-sponsored assassinations, torture, invasions, occupations, wars of aggression,
coups, alliances with dictatorial regimes, sanctions, embargoes, regime-change operations, and massive death, suffering, and destruction,
not to mention the loss of liberty and privacy here at home.
Anyone looking with sober eyes upon today's world and the feeble economic and geopolitical
underpinnings holding the system together must accept the fact that a new system WILL be created.
This is not an opinion, but a fact. We are moving towards eight billion lives on this globe and the means of
productive powers to sustain that growing population (at least in the west) has been permitted to decay terribly over
the recent half century while monetary values have grown like a hyperinflationary cancer to unimaginable proportions.
Derivatives speculation alone under the deregulated "too big to fail" banking system has resulted in over $1.5
quadrillion in nominal values which have ZERO connection to the real world (GDP globally barely accounts for $80
trillion). Over the past 5 months
$415 billion of QE bailouts have been released into the bankrupt banks
to prevent a collapse. So, economically
it's foundation of sand.
Militarily, the west has followed the earlier Roman empire of yesteryear by overextending itself beyond capacity
creating situations of global turmoil, death and unbounded resentment at the dominant Anglo American powers
controlling NATO and the Military-industrial complex.
The recent near-war with Iran at the start of 2020 put the world on a fast track towards a nuclear war with Iran's
allies Russia and China.
Culturally, the disconnection from the traditional values that gave western civilization it's moral fitness to
survive and grow has resulted in a post-truth age now spanning over three generations (from the baby boomers to
today's young adults) who have become the most confused class of people in modern history losing all discrimination
of "needs" vs "wants", "right" vs "wrong", "beauty" vs "ugliness" or even "male" and "female".
Without ranting on anymore, it suffices to say that this thing is not sustainable.
So the question is not "will we get a new system?" but rather "whom will this new system serve?"
Will this new system serve an oligarchical agenda at the expense of the nations and people of the earth or will it
serve the interests of the nations and people of the earth at the expense of the oligarchy?
Putin Revives a Forgotten Vision
President Putin's January 15 State of the Union was a breath of fresh air for this reason, as the world leader who
has closely allied his nation's destiny to China's Belt and Road Initiative, laid out a call for a new system to be
created by the five largest nuclear powers as common allies under a multi-polar paradigm.
After speaking about Russia's vision for internal improvements, Putin shifted towards the international arena
saying:
I am convinced that it is high time for a serious and direct discussion about the basic principles of a stable
world order and the most acute problems that humanity is facing. It is necessary to show political will, wisdom
and courage. The time demands an awareness of our shared responsibility and real actions."
Calling for Russia, the USA, UK, China and France to organize a new architecture that goes far beyond merely
military affairs, Putin stated:
The founding countries of the United Nations should set an example. It is the five nuclear powers that bear a
special responsibility for the conservation and sustainable development of humankind. These five nations should
first of all start with measures to remove the prerequisites for a global war and develop updated approaches to
ensuring stability on the planet that would fully take into account the political, economic and military aspects
of modern international relations."
Putin's emphasis that "the United Nations should set an example" is not naïve fantasy, nor "crypto globalist
rhetoric" as some of his critics have stated.
Putin knows that the UN has been misused by anti-nation state ideologues for a very long time. He also knows his
history better than his critics and is aware that the original mandate of the United Nations was premised upon the
defense of the sovereign nation state. Article 2.1 of the charter clearly says:
The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members."
For readers who are perhaps rightfully cynical that such organizations as the UN could ever play a truly positive
role in world affairs, it is important to recall that the UN was never intended to have any unilateral authority over
nation-states, or military power unto itself when was created in 1945.
Its purpose was intended to provide a platform for dialogue where sovereign nation-states could harmonize their
policies and overcome misunderstanding with the aim of protecting the general welfare of the people of the earth.
Articles 1.3-4 state clearly that the UN's is designed
"to achieve international co-operation in solving
international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging
respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or
religion and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends."
If the United Nations principles as enunciated
in
its pre-amble
and core articles were to ever be followed (just like America's own admirable constitution): then
wars of aggression and regime change would not be possible.
Article 2.4 directly addresses this saying:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any state".
These principles stand in stark contrast to the earlier 1919 Round Table/RIIA-orchestrated attempt at a
post-national world order under the failed League of Nations which was rightfully
put out of its misery
by nationalists of the 1920s.
FDR's 1944 vision, as Putin is well aware, was based not on "world government", but rather upon the concept of a
community of sovereign nations collaborating on vast development and infrastructure projects which were intended to
be the effect of an "internationalization" of the New Deal that transformed America in the years following the Great
Depression.
Thousands of Asian, African and South American engineers and statesmen were invited to visit the USA during the
1930s and early 1940s to study the Tennessee Valley Authority and other great New Deal water, agriculture and energy
projects in order to bring those ideas back to their countries as a driver to break out of the shackles of
colonialism both politically, culturally and economically.
In opposition to FDR, Churchill the unrepentant racist was okay with offering political independence, but never
the cultural or economic means to achieve it.
Although the world devolved into an Anglo-American alliance with FDR's death in 1945, the other Bretton Woods
Institutions which were
meant to provide
international productive credit to those large scale infrastructure projects to end colonialism
were taken over by FDR's enemies who purged the IMF and World Bank of all loyalists to FDR's international New Deal
vision throughout the years of the red scare.
Whether these corrupt financing institutions can be brought back to their original intention or whether they must
simply be replaced with new lending mechanisms such as the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, BRICS New Development
Bank or Silk Road Investment Fund remains to be seen.
What is vital to keep in mind is that Putin (just like FDR before him) knows that neither Britain nor Britain's
Deep State loyalists in America can trusted.
Yet, in spite of their mistrust, they both knew that a durable world order could only be accomplished if these
forces were reined in under a higher law imposed by the authority of truly sovereign nations, and this is why FDR's
post-war plans involved a USA-Russia-China-UK partnership to provide the impetus to global development initiatives
and achieve the goals of the Atlantic Charter.
This partnership was sabotaged over FDR's dead body as the Cold War and Truman Doctrine broke that alliance. The
goal of ending colonialism had to wait another 80 years.
At the 2007 Munich Security Conference, Putin had already laid his insight into history clearly on the table when
he said:
This universal, indivisible character of security is expressed as the basic principle that "security for one is
security for all."
As Franklin D. Roosevelt said during the first few days that the Second World War was breaking out:
When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger I consider that the
unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today's world. And this is not only because if
there was individual leadership in today's – and precisely in today's – world, then the military, political and
economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at
its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilisation."
Putin is not naïve to call for the United Nations charter to serve as the guiding light of a new military,
political, economic architecture.
Nor is he naïve to think that such untrustworthy nations as the USA, UK and France should serve in partnership
with Russia and China since Putin knows that it will be Russia and China shaping the terms of the new system and not
the collapsing basket-cases of the west whose excess bluff and bluster betrays a losing hand, which is why certain
forces have been so desperate to overthrow the poker table over the past few years.
The fact that Putin, Xi and their growing allies have not permitted this chaos agenda to unfold has not only
driven "end of history" imperialists into rage fits but also gives FDR's vision for a community of sovereign
nation-states a second chance at life.
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not
funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest
amount of support is hugely appreciated.
Connect with
Connect with
Subscribe
newest
oldest
most voted
Notify of
The big mistake was giving France, UK and the US or FUKU or FUKUS, USSR NKA Russia and China any veto
over the other independent Nations on the planet. Especially since the first two were responsible for
hobbling together the Frankenstein monster known as the United States of America that was created by
rapacious theft and genocide of the indigenous population followed by almost total ecocide and now has
been loosed upon the world it seems to accomplish the same thing under the cover of bringing it
"freedom and democracy".
Paul
,
It's a pity the experience of the League of Nations isn't examined any longer because it is
instructive. OK Congress declined to approve it so the Pilot Wilson was missing but more serious was
the problem of totally partisan and self serving decisions that made its provisions a mockery. Italy
was 'allowed' to keep on occupying Ethiopia and sanctions eg on oil were simply declined, partly
because the US supplied the oil and wasn't going to stop selling it, especially to Mussolini who was
rapidly becoming a client state of America in enormous debt.
BigB
,
Someone said it was "banal" of me to oppose 'The Western Intellectual Tradition' (TWIT). Well, here is
its vision *in extremis*. If you do not recognise it: this is 'Platonic Humanism' in all its glory.
It reads well. It is sensible and intelligible in its clearly written propositions. It has meaning and
clearly denotes real world events – right? And yet it is ultimately unintelligible and non-sensical
in an early Wittgensteinian sense of its underlying logic. If you did not immediately recognise the
subtextual vision of Lyndon LaRouche: you might want to read it again?
The underlying logic is one of economic infinity: completely decoupled from the neo-Malthusian
sustainable 'green iron cage' that prohibits the *productive* economy growing forever as per the
deluded LaRouchian proscription. Which is utterly banal: if not actually exceedingly dangerous.
This fact of life is the essential proof that not only mankind but the universe is unbounded in
its potential for constant self-perfectibility and thus ANTI-ENTROPIC in its essence.
To illustrate my point: this is from an earlier text. I never actually know where I stand: because
"anti-entropy" is laced through much of the commentary here. Which is why this text may appeal on a
superficial reading? It ticks a lot of boxes: including perpetual capitalist growth; expansion of the
SCO/BRI/BRICS/EAEU/CPEC colonisation of the Eurasian 'supercontinent'; and development of an
anti-hegemonic sovereigntist bloc. All of which seem as a fashionable vogue for the internet
progressive about town. But in multipolar alliance with Donald Trump! Infinite anti-entropic
capitalistic growth – guided by the UN Charter – with Putin, Xi AND Trump at the helm in an "alliance
for a new just economic order"? Sounds like hell to me.
My point is that perhaps we should learn to read more deeply? Perhaps at the underlying
paradigmatic logic of the text? Power is transmitted in mysterious ways. Everyone is paranoid about
"mind-control" and "hidden agendas". Well, Matthew's is a prime exemplar of hidden context perhaps
not to be uncritically assimilated? Unless, perhaps you share the vision of unlimited
self-perfectibility; infinite nuclear fusion powered bourgeois ecumenical consumerism decoupled from
ecological neo-Malthusian 'limits-to-growth'; and ANTI-ENTROPY? In which case you may be a banal
Platonist TWIT too? 🙂
LaRouche was a cultic delusionist who took cherrypicked ideas to assemble an intelligible and
sensible montage of beliefs that did not hang together. Which makes his writing absurd nonsense and a
philosophical non-entity. Any putative logical link to the real world is severed by its premises. This
piece is reduced to a mere a Trojan Horse for gibberish. It is a meaning-less 'language game'.
As unfortunate as it may seem: entropy exists as a fundamental property of the ecosphere. Resources
deplete and growth is thermodynamically limited. We need a new system: one which actually addresses
the extinction level ecological crisis we are in the midst of. Something we need to understand and
embrace: not illogically deny. This text subverts that strategic denial to its own ends. Let the
reader be aware of the paradigmatic subtext.
paul
,
Russia and China have always been status quo powers, more concerned with their own internal
development than implementing insane Neocon/ James Bond Villain-style fantasies of world domination.
This was true even during the period of communist rule. Their growth and influence in the world can
only be viewed as a positive development.
China built the infrastructure in the Third World that was
neglected during centuries of colonialism.
China builds things.
America (and its cringing satellites like Britain and France) bomb things.
Most people in Africa and elsewhere prefer building things to bombing things.
Dungroanin
,
A good piece – The UN is not fit for purpose.
The SCO already operates under a 'charter' – which goes past religion and cultural hagemony by any one
nation or peoples. Since it already represents more than half the worlds population and the majority
of its land mass – it is only a matter of time that the defunct UN is upgraded to these standards and
absorbed into it OR crashes and burns.
Today there were hundreds of thousands of Iraqis – maybe over million, in showing the US and its
allies that they really are serious about their national sovereignty and demand that the foreign
forces fuck off!
The US response? To revive the old divide and rule option. Break up Iraq into religion and
sectarian areas – using the 'never learning Charlie Brown' proxy Kurds by offering them tet another
football to kick!
While the world accelerates towards a new order which puts economic security and mutual defence at
its core, the US and its gunfighter professional gamblers resort to poker terminology – 'we are ALL
IN' in keeping the Iranians and Syrians (and Turkey?) out of the SCO to stop a nonstop link from the
Med to the Pacific and Artic to the Southern Seas.
All in! Lol. They going to lose their shirts and be overturning the table and demanding a shootout
to keep from paying up their bet.
It's a bluff and sitting with pocket rockets a simple CALL by the new, new world order.
Excellent. Worthy of wide dissemination for its first nine paragraphs alone.
BigB
,
Phillip, my friend this is not a personal attack, but – have you heard of Lyndon LaRouche? I
suggest you might want to read up on his agenda then re-read the text in its wider context? The
subtleties are not explicit: but if you are aware of LaRouche – or read some of the authors other
texts – they are obvious in the subtext.
The basic premise – unstated herein – is for Trump,
Putin, and Xi to form a wider multipolar alliance against the British economic empire (the British
Deep State infiltrators) for untrammeled infinite global economic growth – with maximum penetration
of nuclear power (eventually nuclear fission) into every economy of the world. To the ends of a
global bourgeois consumer culture serviced by the BRI intitiative. Unrestricted by neo-Malthusian
ecologists like me, who say this is impossible.
We may not always see eye to eye: but I'm pretty sure you do not envisage a hypothetically-
infinite ecumenical consumerism as humanities apex culture? Not least as I assume that you would
agree that this is actual ecological fantasy – the world is finite, as are resources – which means
this text needs to be shredded not further disseminated?
UN Charter .. "sustainable development of humankind"
One of the top priorities
must be:
Swift actions to STOP poisoning our food.
Seamus Padraig
,
A very sanguine view of FDR. To be sure, it's impossible to say with 100% certainty what he
would have done
had he survived the war, but it boggles the mind to
think that he was going to be forever cool with the idea of sharing the world with Russia and China,
when he abjectly refused to share it with Germany and Japan in his own lifetime.
And please don't believe that old canard about the Japanese wanting to take over America; it was
actually Roosevelt who precipitated the whole war with Japan, with his oil embargo and what not. He
even had advance knowledge of Pearl Harbor from multiple sources, but deliberately withheld that
intelligence from his own navy. FDR clearly wanted the attack on Pearl Harbor to be as devastating as
possible, so as to drag his recalcitrant countrymen to war, and it worked. In fact, eighty years
later, we're still at war. That's the
real
legacy of FDR, not the
long-gone New Deal, of which only Social Security survives (for now). All the other 'alphabet soup'
programs he initiated are gone.
I will always wonder wistfully how our history would have turned out had
Huey Long
become president instead.
seriouslyman
,
Everything Putin says is perfect. There is nothing bad that can be said about Russia on offguardian.
Anyone with any mild criticism of russia is a pro imperialist bastard and cannot be engaged with.
Offguardian has rightly attacked almost every significant political figure on earth from corbyn to
trump. Putin is the only person who can save us. There is no flaw in his character or politics and
anyone who suggests otherwise is a conspiracy theorist. Good on Offguardian for never publishing any
negative stories about this brilliant intelligent fair play hero who will save us all from hell.
paul
,
No, Little Greta is going to save us.
Vlad isn't going to do that, but he has done quite a good job so far of stopping the Exceptional
And Indispensable People from blowing up the planet.
This gives Greta the chance to save us all from the global warming and the polar bears.
Andy
,
Sarcasm can be an effective tool for making a point. This is an example of it not being.
Francis Lee
,
I am trying hard to assess your contribution but couldn't find anything either interesting or
relevant to say about it, other than it is little more than sarcastic rant. How does it, or is it
even meant to, increase our understanding of international relations? Who exactly makes those
claims about Putin?
What I would say about Putin is that he is simply talking like a foreign
policy realist. More power to his elbow I say; we could do with some more realism. His political
position is very similar to American foreign policy realists such John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
who to their credit put the Zionist noses (AIPAC, JINSA, ADL, AEI) out of joint with the
publication of – "The Israel Lobby". Putin's views could have come straight out of the Treaty of
Westphalia (1648) which brought an end to the Wars of the Reformation could have come straight from
the Treaty, which were based on the following precepts which of course support a multipolar not a
unipolar system. Liberal imperialism, humanitarian intervention, call it what you will is a deadly
threat to the future of mankind. In contrast multipolarism as an alternative. See below.
1. States existed within recognised borders.
2. Each states sovereignty was recognised by the others
3. Principles of non-interference were agreed.
4. Religious differences between states were tolerated.
5. States might be monarchies, republics, democracies, as was their wont
6. Permanent state interests or
raison d'etat
was the organizing
principle of interntional relations.
7. War was not entirely eliminated, yet it was mitigated by diplomacy and balance-of-power
politics.
9. The object of the balance of power was to prevent one state from becoming so powerful that it
could conquer others and destroy world order.
Sounds like straight common sense to me.
BigB
,
seriouslyman has a point. The progressive world is extremely slow to recognise the capitalist
colonisation of 70% of the Eurasian globe as an existential threat to humanity. As I have been
pointing out: capitalism does not transform to a benign humanist alternative as it travels West
to East. Russia and China's economic expansionist extractivisim is inimical to all life on
Earth. Especially as China has taken a coal-fired 'Great Leap Backwards' to maintain growth in
the face of the secular synchronised global economic slowdown.
When the very real extinction
level threat of industrialised financialised capitalism is reduced to a personification and
represented as the personality of one man – VVP – this is nothing more than a masking discourse
that conceals the globalised extinctionism of fossil fuel capitalism. Perhaps the time to
reflect on the superior personality of VVP will come when we are all gasping for our last breath
– breathing in petrol?
Capitalism thrives on such personal Fetishism. Power is the invisibilising of capitalism's
truly destructive force. No one even wants to open the discourse into what underlies Russia's
welfare capitalism. Which is infinite market mechanism extraction and quasi-eternal expansionism
of fossil fueled growth. Which will kill us all just as soon as America's big guns and bombs.
George Mc
,
You know BigB I can't help but get the feeling that behind all that polysyllabic
pontificating, everything you say comes down to a kind of masked reactionary claptrap. You
call yourself "neo-Malthusian". Well that's comparatively candid. Malthus being the most
obvious case of a capitalist apologist of the most brutal sort. And how interesting that you
are having a go at Putin here – as if to suggest that even some kind of socialist
transformation isn't going to save us. So what then? Some kind of reaching back to some
healthy sparsely populated savannah filled with Conan the barbarian types?
And this:
"Perhaps the time to reflect on the superior personality of VVP will come when we are
all gasping for our last breath – breathing in petrol?"
Seems to me you are secretly longing for that moment of last breath when you can finally
gleefully shout, "Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah – Told you so!" before croaking.
Frank
,
Sorry, but this doesn't sound much like satire.
It sounds like an 8-year-old taught you everything you know about geopolitics, and unfortunately
it all went a bit over your head.
George Mc
,
Two points:
First, I fail to see the point of pillorying Putin when the entire Western media is
already doing so.
Second, to pillory Putin on the pretence of "a plague on all their houses" takes us nicely into
that pleasant non-committal "higher sphere" where all-is-one-and-one-is-all. The old con trick of
"being reasonable" in order to sit on an all-facing fence and basically have no opinion at all.
Estaugh
,
So far, Vlad has being doing a very good job, (saving us all from Hell), and it seems, most of the
world is increasingly backing him up. That's tough on 'pro-imperialist bastards' but that's
cricket.
Video and a transcript of former OPCW engineer and
dissenter Ian Henderson's UN testimony appears at the end of this report.
A former lead investigator from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
(OPCW) has spoken out at the United Nations, stating in no uncertain terms that the scientific
evidence suggests there was no gas attack in Douma, Syria in April 2018.
The dissenter, Ian Henderson, worked for 12 years at the international watchdog
organization, serving as an inspection team leader and engineering expert. Among his most
consequential jobs was assisting the international body's fact-finding mission (FFM) on the
ground in Douma.
He told a UN Security Council session convened on January 20 by Russia's delegation that
OPCW management had rejected his group's scientific research, dismissed the team, and produced
another report that totally contradicted their initial findings.
"We had serious misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred," Henderson said, referring
to the FFM team in Douma.
The former OPCW inspector added that he had compiled evidence through months of research
that "provided further support for the view that there had not been a chemical attack."
Western airstrikes based on unsubstantiated allegations by foreign-backed jihadists
Foreign-backed Islamist militants and the Western
government-funded regime-change influence operation known as the White Helmets accused the Syrian government of
dropping gas cylinders and killing dozens of people in the city of Douma on April 7, 2018.
Damascus rejected the accusation, claiming the incident was staged by the insurgents.
The governments of the United States, Britain, and France responded to the allegations of a
chemical attack by launching airstrikes against the Syrian government on April 14. The military
assault was illegal under international law, as the countries did not have UN
authorization.
Numerous OPCW whistleblowers and leaks challenge Western government claims
In May 2019, an internal
OPCW engineering assessment was leaked to the public. The document, authored by Ian
Henderson, said the "dimensions, characteristics and appearance of the cylinders" in Douma
"were inconsistent with what would have been expected in the case of either cylinder having
been delivered from an aircraft," adding that there is "a higher probability that both
cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being delivered from
aircraft."
After reviewing the leaked report, MIT professor emeritus of Science, Technology and
International Security Theodore Postol told The Grayzone, "The evidence is overwhelming that
the gas attacks were staged." Postol also accused OPCW leadership of overseeing "compromised
reporting" and ignoring
scientific evidence .
WikiLeaks has published
numerous internal emails from the OPCW that reveal allegations that the body's management staff
doctored the Douma report.
As the evidence of internal suppression grew, the OPCW's first director-general, José
Bustani, decided to speak out. "The convincing evidence of irregular behavior in the OPCW
investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already
had," Bustani stated.
"I could make no sense of what I was reading in the international press. Even official
reports of investigations seemed incoherent at best. The picture is certainly clearer now,
although very disturbing," the former OPCW head concluded.
OPCW whistleblower testimony at UN Security Council meeting on Douma
On January 20, 2020, Ian Henderson delivered his first in-person testimony, alleging
suppression by OPCW leadership. He spoke at a UN Security Council
Arria-Formula meeting on the fact-finding mission report on Douma.
( Video of the session follows at the bottom of this article, along with a full
transcript of Henderson's testimony .)
China's mission to the UN invited Ian Henderson to testify in person at the Security Council
session. Henderson said in his testimony that he had planned to attend, but was unable to get a
visa waiver from the US government. (The Trump administration has repeatedly blocked access to
the UN for representatives from countries that do not kowtow to its interests, turning
UN visas into a political weapon in blatant violation of the international body's
headquarters agreement .)
Henderson told the Security Council in a pre-recorded video message that he was not the only
OPCW inspector to question the leadership's treatment of the Douma investigation.
"My concern, which was shared by a number of other inspectors, relates to the subsequent
management lockdown and the practices in the later analysis and compilation of a final report,"
Henderson explained.
Soon after the alleged incident in Douma in April 2018, the OPCW FFM team had deployed to
the ground to carry out an investigation, which it noted included environmental samples,
interviews with witnesses, and data collection.
In July 2018, the FFM published its
interim report , stating that it found no evidence of chemical weapons use in Douma. ("The
results show that no organophosphorous nerve agents or their degradation products were detected
in the environmental samples or in the plasma samples taken from alleged casualties," the
report indicated.)
"By the time of release of the interim report in July 2018, our understanding was that we
had serious misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred," Henderson told the Security
Council.
After this inspection that led to the interim report, however, Henderson said the OPCW
leadership decided to create a new team, "the so-called FFM core team, which essentially
resulted in the dismissal of all of the inspectors who had been on the team deployed to
locations in Douma and had been following up with their findings and analysis."
Then in March 2019, this new OPCW team released a final report, in which it claimed that
chemical weapons had been used in Douma.
"The findings in the final FFM report were contradictory, were a complete turnaround with
what the team had understood collectively during and after the Douma deployments," Henderson
remarked at the UN session.
"The report did not make clear what new findings, facts, information, data, or analysis in
the fields of witness testimony, toxicology studies, chemical analysis, and engineering, and/or
ballistic studies had resulted in the complete turn-around in the situation from what was
understood by the majority of the team, and the entire Douma [FFM] team, in July 2018,"
Henderson stated.
The former OPCW expert added, "I had followed up with a further six months of engineering
and ballistic studies into these cylinders, the result of which had provided further support
for the view that there had not been a chemical attack."
A former OPCW inspection team leader and engineering expert told the UN Security Council
that their investigation in Douma, Syria suggested no chemical attack took place. But their
findings were suppressed and reversed
The US government responded to this historic testimony at the UN session by attacking
Russia, which sponsored the Arria-Formula
meeting.
Acting US representative Cherith
Norman Chalet praised the OPCW, aggressively condemned the "Assad regime," and told the UN
that the "United States is proud to support the vital, life-saving work of the White Helmets"
– a US and UK-backed organization that collaborated extensively with ISIS and al-Qaeda
and have been involved in
numerous executions in Syrian territory occupied by
Islamist extremists .
The US government has a long history of pressuring and manipulating the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the George W. Bush
administration threatened José Bustani, the first director of the OPCW, and pressured
him to resign.
In 2002, as the Bush White House was preparing to wage a war on Iraq, Bustani made an
agreement with the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein that would have permitted OPCW inspectors
to come to the country unannounced for weapons investigations. This infuriated the US
government.
Then-Under Secretary of State John
Bolton told Bustani in 2002 that US Vice President Dick " Cheney wants
you out ." Bolton threatened the OPCW director-general, stating, "You have 24 hours to
leave the organization, and if you don't comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways
to retaliate against you We know where your kids live."
Attacking the credibility of Ian Henderson
While OPCW managers have kept curiously silent amid the scandal over their Douma report, an
interventionist media outlet called Bellingcat has functioned as an outsourced press shop,
aggressively defending the official narrative and attacking its most prominent critics,
including Ian Henderson.
Bellingcat is funded by the US government's
regime-change arm, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and is part of an initiative
bankrolled by the British Foreign Office.
Supporters of the OPCW's apparently doctored final report have relied heavily on Bellingcat
to try to discredit the whistleblowers and growing leaks. Scientific expert Theodor Postol, who
debated Higgins, has noted that
Bellingcat "have no scientific credibility at any level." Postol says he even suspects that
OPCW management may have relied on Bellingcat's highly dubious claims in its own compromised
reporting.
Higgins has no expertise or scientific credentials, and even The
New York Times acknowledged in a highly sympathetic piece that "Higgins attributed his
skill not to any special knowledge of international conflicts or digital data, but to the hours
he had spent playing video games, which, he said, gave him the idea that any mystery can be
cracked."
In his testimony before the UN Security Council, Ian Henderson stressed that he was speaking
out in line with his duties as a scientific expert.
Henderson said he does not even like the term whistleblower and would not use it to describe
himself, because, "I'm a former OPCW specialist who has concerns in an area, and I consider
this a legitimate and appropriate forum to explain again these concerns."
Russia's UN representative added that Moscow had also invited the OPCW director-general and
representatives of the organization's Technical Secretariat, but they chose not to participate
in the session.
Video of the UN Security Council session on the OPCW's Douma report
Ian Henderson's testimony begins at 57:30 in this official UN video :
Transcript: Testimony by OPCW whistleblower Ian Henderson at the UN Security Council
"My name is Ian Henderson. I'm a former OPCW inspection team leader, having served for about
12 years. I heard about this meeting and I was invited by the minister, councilor of the
Chinese mission to the UN. Unfortunately due to unforeseen circumstances around my ESTA visa
waiver status, I was not able to travel. I thus submitted a written statement, to which I will
now add a short introduction.
I need to point out at the outset that I'm not a whistleblower; I don't like that term. I'm
a former OPCW specialist who has concerns in an area, and I consider this a legitimate and
appropriate forum to explain again these concerns.
Secondly, I must point out that I hold the OPCW in the highest regard, as well as the
professionalism of the staff members who work there. The organization is not broken; I must
stress that. However, the concern I have does relate to some specific management practices in
certain sensitive missions.
The concern, of course, relates to the FFM investigation into the alleged chemical attack on
the 7th of April in Douma, in Syria. My concern, which was shared by a number of other
inspectors, relates to the subsequent management lockdown and the practices in the later
analysis and compilation of a final report.
There were two teams deployed; one team, which I joined shortly after the start of field
deployments, was to Douma in Syria; the other team deployed to country X.
The main concern relates to the announcement in July 2018 of a new concept, the so-called
FFM core team, which essentially resulted in the dismissal of all of the inspectors who had
been on the team deployed to locations in Douma and had been following up with their findings
and analysis.
The findings in the final FFM report were contradictory, were a complete turnaround with
what the team had understood collectively during and after the Douma deployments. And by the
time of release of the interim report in July 2018, our understanding was that we had serious
misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred.
What the final FFM report does not make clear, and thus does not reflect the views of the
team members who deployed to Douma -- in which case I really can only speak for myself at this
stage -- the report did not make clear what new findings, facts, information, data, or analysis
in the fields of witness testimony, toxicology studies, chemical analysis, and engineering,
and/or ballistic studies had resulted in the complete turn-around in the situation from what
was understood by the majority of the team, and the entire Douma team, in July 2018.
In my case, I had followed up with a further six months of engineering and ballistic studies
into these cylinders, the result of which had provided further support for the view that there
had not been a chemical attack.
This needs to be properly resolved, we believe through the rigors of science and
engineering. In my situation, it's not a political debate. I'm very aware that there is a
political debate surrounding this.
Perhaps a closing comment from my side is that I was also the inspection team leader who
developed and launched the inspections, the highly intrusive inspections, of the Barzah SSRC
facility, just outside Damascus. And I did the inspections and wrote the reports for the two
inspections prior to, and the inspection after the chemical facility, or the laboratory complex
at Barzah SSRC, had been destroyed by the missile strike.
That, however, is another story altogether, and I shall now close. Thank you."
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) has filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, accusing the former
Secretary of State of defamation for remarks characterizing the Democratic presidential
candidate as
a Russian asset .
Filed on Wednesday in the US District Court for the Southern District
of New York, Gabbard's attorneys allege that Clinton "smeared" Gabbard's "political and
personal reputation," according to
The Hill .
Tulsi Gabbard is suing Hillary Clinton and the first page of the filing is WILD AF
pic.twitter.com/DXHLPfy016
"Tulsi Gabbard is a loyal American civil servant who has also dedicated her life to
protecting the safety of all Americans," said Gabbard's attorney Brian Dunne in a
statement.
"Rep. Gabbard's presidential campaign continues to gain momentum, but she has seen her
political and personal reputation smeared and her candidacy intentionally damaged by Clinton's
malicious and demonstrably false remarks."
In a podcast released in October, Clinton said she thought Republicans were "grooming" a
Democratic presidential candidate for a third-party bid. She also described the candidate as
a favorite of the Russians.
Clinton did not name the candidate but it was clear she was speaking about Gabbard.
"They're also going to do third party. I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've
got their eye on somebody who's currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to
be the third-party candidate ," Clinton said.
" She's the favorite of the Russians, they have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways
of supporting her so far , and that's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might
not, because she's also a Russian asset. Yeah, she's a Russian asset, I mean totally. They
know they can't win without a third party candidate," Clinton said. -
The Hill
One of two things is wrong with America: Either the entire system is broken or is on the
verge of breaking, and we need someone to bring about radical, structural change, or -- we
don't need that at all! Which is it? Who can say? Certainly not me, and that is why I am
telling you now which candidate to vote for.
Putin “needs to keep his commie hands” off of the sovereign Independent Baptist church’s affairs
According to sources, local man Clarence Williams has urged his church’s lead pastor as well as local law enforcement to move
forward with an investigation into Russian hacking, claiming that there was ample evidence to support the theory that malicious
foreign agents infiltrated and influenced the outcome of a vote on the date for next month’s potluck at Second Baptist Church.
George Galloway was a member of the British Parliament for nearly 30 years. He presents TV
and radio shows (including on RT). He is a film-maker, writer and a renowned orator.
Whoever replaces outgoing BBC Director General Tony Hall, be sure that establishment
interests will be in safe hands. But multiple scandals the broadcaster has been involved in
damaged it quite possibly beyond repair.
... ... ...
Corbyn had to be destroyed at almost ANY cost. Their news and current affairs output (and
appointments) over the Corbyn era of 2015-2019 was as crude, and crudely effective, as any
screaming, screeching Rupert Murdoch tabloid. Perhaps they were worried the ghost of Sir
Alasdair Milne would return to haunt them in the form of his son Seumas Milne, Corbyn's
director of communications and strategy and right-hand man. The junior Milne – also
Winchester and Oxford – is a considerably harder nut to crack than anyone the BBC had
ever had to deal with before
"... "disinformation and the cost of fake news." ..."
"... "how post-truth culture has become an increasingly dangerous part of the global information environment," ..."
"... To say Stelter's involvement in the documentary attracted mockery online would be an understatement. "This is like Harvey Weinstein doing a documentary on sexual assault," lawyer and journalist Rogan O'Handley wrote. ..."
"... "HBO has hired Brian Stelter to do a documentary on Fake News. That's like hiring Bernie Madoff to teach accounting. Like hiring Michael Moore to host a fashion show. Not to mention [Stelter] is the dullest human ever on television," ..."
If you were making a documentary on fake news and wanted to get journalists involved behind
the scenes, there are a few people you may want to avoid. One of those is CNN host Brian
Stelter. The HBO network is rightly being mocked for putting Stelter – the host of a CNN
show ironically named 'Reliable Sources' – on the team for an upcoming documentary on
fake news.
According to Stelter himself, the documentary will investigate "disinformation and the
cost of fake news." The film, for which Stelter was executive producer, will dive into
"how post-truth culture has become an increasingly dangerous part of the global information
environment," according to WarnerMedia.
HBO just announced something I've been working on for a couple of years: A documentary
titled "AFTER TRUTH: DISINFORMATION AND THE COST OF FAKE NEWS." The film will premiere on TV
and online this March. Directed by @a_rossi !
To say Stelter's involvement in the documentary attracted mockery online would be an
understatement. "This is like Harvey Weinstein doing a documentary on sexual assault," lawyer
and journalist Rogan O'Handley wrote.
"HBO has hired Brian Stelter to do a documentary on Fake News. That's like hiring Bernie
Madoff to teach accounting. Like hiring Michael Moore to host a fashion show. Not to mention
[Stelter] is the dullest human ever on television," radio host Mark Simone added.
But the article was flimsy even by Russiagate standards, and so certain questions inevitably
arise. What was it really about? Who's behind it? Who's the real target?
Here's a quick answer. It was about boosting Joe Biden, and its real target was his chief
rival, Bernie Sanders. And poor, inept Bernie walked straight into the trap.
The article was flimsy because rather than saying straight out that Russian intelligence
hacked Burisma, the company notorious for hiring Biden's son, Hunter, for $50,000 a month job,
reporters Nicole Perlroth and Matthew Rosenberg had to rely on unnamed "security experts" to
say it for them. While suggesting that the hackers were looking for dirt, they didn't quite say
that as well. Instead, they admitted that "it is not yet clear what the hackers found, or
precisely what they were searching for."
So we have no idea what they were up to, if anything at all. But the Times then quoted
"experts" to the effect that "the timing and scale of the attacks suggest that the Russians
could be searching for potentially embarrassing material on the Bidens – the same kind of
information that Mr. Trump wanted from Ukraine when he pressed for an investigation of the
Bidens and Burisma, setting off a chain of events that led to his impeachment." Since Trump and
the Russians are seeking the same information, they must be in cahoots, which is what Democrats
have been saying from the moment Trump took office. Given the lack of evidence, this was
meaningless as well.
But then came the kicker: two full paragraphs in which a Biden campaign spokesman was
permitted to expound on the notion that the Russians hacked Burisma because Biden is the
candidate that they and Trump fear the most.
"Donald Trump tried to coerce Ukraine into lying about Joe Biden and a major bipartisan,
international anti-corruption victory because he recognized that he can't beat the vice
president," the spokesman, Andrew Bates, said. "Now we know that Vladimir Putin also sees Joe
Biden as a threat. Any American president who had not repeatedly encouraged foreign
interventions of this kind would immediately condemn this attack on the sovereignty of our
elections."
If Biden is the number-one threat, then Sanders is not, presumably because the Times sees
him as soft on Moscow. If so, it means that he could be in for the same neo-McCarthyism that
antiwar candidate Tulsi Gabbard encountered last October when Hillary Clinton blasted her as
"the favorite of the Russians." Gabbard had the good sense to
blast her right back.
"Thank you @Hillary Clinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and
personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally
come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a
concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know
– it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and
war machine ."
If only Sanders did the same. But instead he put out a statement filled with the usual
anti-Russian clichés:
"The 2020 election is likely to be the most consequential election in modern American
history, and I am alarmed by new reports that Russia recently hacked into the Ukrainian gas
company at the center of the impeachment trial, as well as Russia's plans to once again meddle
in our elections and in our democracy. After our intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that
Russia interfered in the 2016 election, including with thousands of paid ads on Facebook, the
New York Times now reports that Russia likely represents the biggest threat of election meddle
in 2020, including through disinformation campaigns, promoting hatred, hacking into voting
systems, and by exploiting the political divisions sewn [sic] by Donald Trump ."
And so on for another 250 words. Not only did the statement put him in bed with the
intelligence agencies, but it makes him party to the big lie that the Kremlin was responsible
for putting Trump over the top in 2016.
Let's get one thing straight. Yes, Russian intelligence may have hacked the Democratic
National Committee. But cybersecurity was so lax that others may have been rummaging about as
well. (CrowdStrike, the company called in to investigate the hack, says it found not one but
two cyber-intruders.) Notwithstanding the Mueller report, all the available evidence
indicates
that Russia did not then pass along thousands of DNC emails that Wikileaks published in July
2016. (Julian Assange's statement six months later that "our source
is not the Russian government and it is not a state party" remains uncontroverted.) Similarly,
there's no evidence that the Kremlin had anything to do with the $45,000 worth of Facebook ads
purchased by a St. Petersburg company known as the Internet Research Agency – Robert
Mueller's 2018 indictment of the IRA was completely silent
on the subject of a Kremlin connection – and no evidence that the ads, which were
politically all over the map, had a remotely significant impact on the 2016 election.
All the rest is a classic CIA disinformation campaign aimed at drumming up anti-Russian
hysteria and delegitimizing anyone who fails to go along. And now Bernie Sanders is trying to
cover his derrière by hopping on board.
It won't work. Sanders will find himself having to take one loyalty oath after another as
the anti-Russia campaign flares anew. But it will never be enough, and he'll only wind up
looking tired and weak. Voters will opt for the supposedly more formidable Biden, who will end
up as a bug splat on the windshield of Donald Trump's speeding election campaign. With
impeachment no longer an issue, he'll be free to behave as dictatorially as he wishes as he
settles into his second term.
After inveighing against billionaire's wars, he'll find himself ensnared by the same
billionaire war machine. The trouble with Sanders is that he thinks he can win by playing by
the rules. But he can't because the rules are stacked against him. He'd know that if his
outlook was more radical. His problem is not that he's too much of a socialist. Rather, it's
that he's not enough.
Money quote: "The Deep State and the media appear to believe that we are fooled by these
fraudulent investigations. We are not fooled. We are tired of the lies and the arrogance."
Notable quotes:
"... For the Deep State, hiding and destroying evidence of guilt is standard operating procedure. They simply report a "glitch" that destroyed the key evidence and that's the end of it. Or, they simply redact the portions of the record that would expose the truth. To my memory, no one ever suffers any consequences for this. Even now, Director Wray and others are tenaciously withholding evidence. ..."
"... When Anthony Weiner's laptop was found to contain over 340,000 Hillary emails in a file named "insurance", the FBI did not rejoice about finally getting the 'lost' email. No, they hid the discovery for weeks until a New York agent threatened to go public. Then, quite miraculously, Peter Strzok found a way to very quickly examine 340,000 messages and found that there was nothing at all that was incriminating. No rational person would believe that. ..."
"... The dirty cops are so confident in their ability to deceive the public that they just announced that the FISA court reforms will be managed by David Kris. Kris has been a defender of FBI misconduct and he attacked Devin Nunes for telling the truth about the FISA court. They don't even care about the appearance of fairness. They do what they want. ..."
"... Because there was nothing, and because it was known from the start that, " there is no big there, there ", the Mueller Team used several irrelevant legal actions to prolong the belief that they were closing in on Trump. Mueller arranged for their media partner, CNN, to film the early morning swat team raid on 67 year old Roger Stone's home. It was very dramatic and very un-necessary. Also, some small-time Russian troll farms were indicted so that the word "Russia" could fill the news, prolonging the desired myth. One of the indicted firms did not even exist. The others did not appear to favor any one candidate and much of their activity was after the election ..."
"... Mueller led a 40 million dollar investigation looking for a crime. That effort failed at finding any collusion, but it did play a role in the Democrats winning a majority in the House of Representatives. That then enabled another investigation of an imaginary crime for political purposes. A scripted hearsay 'whistleblower' submitted lies that allowed Adam Schiff to continue his own campaign of lies. You know the rest of the story. Trump is being falsely charged for doing what Biden bragged about doing. ..."
Many government officials with long entrenched power are unwilling to give up any of that
power. In their minds, they have a right to control our lives as they see fit, with complete
indifference to our wishes. To avoid rebellion, they need to hide this fact as much as
possible. They want the citizens to believe the lie that we are a nation of laws with equal
justice under the law. To advance this lie, they have staged many theatrical productions that
they call "investigations". They try to give us the impression that they want to expose the
facts and punish wrongdoing.
Most of the big 'investigations' in the news in recent years have not been at all what they
pretended to be. The sham investigations of Hillary's email, or the Clinton Foundation, or
Weiner's laptop, or Uranium One, or Mueller's witch hunt, or Huber's big nothing, or the IG's
whitewash, or the Schiff-Pelosi charades, have all been premeditated deceptions.
There are
three types of investigations that call for different deceptions by the Deep State.
The first type is the rare honest investigation . Examples would be the attempt to find
the truth about Fast and Furious (Obama's
gunrunning operation), or the IRS scandal (Obama's
weaponizing of government). In response to real investigations, the criminals do two
things lie and hide evidence. Key evidence, even if it is under subpoena, just disappears.
In the IRS case, Lois Lerner's relevant email and the email of 6 others involved in the
scheme was just "lost". The IRS "worked tirelessly" to find the email, but hard drives
had been destroyed and back-up drives were missing, so the subpoenaed evidence could
not be provided.
For the Deep State, hiding and destroying evidence of guilt is standard operating
procedure. They simply report a "glitch" that destroyed the key evidence and that's the end
of it. Or, they simply redact the portions of the record that would expose the truth. To my
memory, no one ever suffers any consequences for this. Even now, Director Wray and others
are tenaciously
withholding evidence.
The second type of 'investigation' is when the Deep State pretends to investigate the
Deep State . In these 'investigations' the outcome is known in advance, but the script calls
for pretending, sometimes for years, that it an honest investigation is underway.
There was nothing about the Hillary investigations that had anything to do with finding
facts. The purpose from the beginning was exoneration. Key witnesses were given immunity
and many were allowed to attend each other's interviews. There were no early morning swat
team raids to gather evidence. Evidence was destroyed with no consequences.
When Anthony Weiner's laptop was found to contain over
340,000 Hillary emails in a file named "insurance", the FBI did not rejoice about
finally getting the 'lost' email. No, they hid the discovery for weeks until a New York
agent threatened to go public. Then, quite miraculously, Peter Strzok found a way to very
quickly examine 340,000 messages and found that there was nothing at all that was
incriminating. No rational person would believe that.
The dirty cops are so comfortable about getting away with lies like this that Huber can
announce that he found no corruption, when it is readily apparent that he did not interview
key witnesses . He even turned away whistleblowers
who wanted to submit evidence. A real investigator, Charles Ortel, could have given Huber a
long list of Clinton Foundation crimes
. Like the Weiner laptop fake investigation, you don't find crimes if you don't really look
for them.
The dirty cops are so confident in their ability to deceive the public that they
just announced that the FISA court reforms will be managed by David Kris. Kris has been a
defender of
FBI misconduct and he attacked Devin Nunes for telling the truth about the FISA court.
They don't even care about the appearance of fairness. They do what they want.
IG
investigations have proven to be flimsy exonerations of Deep State criminality. Any
honest observer can see that there was a carefully organized plan by top officials to
control the outcome of the Presidential election. This corrupt plan involved lying to the
FISA court, illegal surveillance and unmasking of citizens and conspiring with media
partners to make sure lies were widely circulated to voters. The government conspirators
and the majority of the media were functioning as nothing more than a branch of Hillary's
campaign. That's a lot of power aimed at destroying Trump.
To an IG investigator, this monumental scandal was presented to us as nothing to be very
concerned about. Yes, a few minor rules were inadvertently broken and there did appear to
be some bias, but there was no reason at all to think that bias effected any actions. If
the agencies involved make a training video and set aside a day for a training meeting,
then that should satisfy us completely.
The third type of investigation involves investigating an imaginary crime for political
reasons . The Mueller investigation and the impeachment investigation are two examples of
this. Probably as a justification for illegal surveillance they were already doing, the
conspirators pretended that there was powerful evidence that Trump was colluding with Putin
to win the election. Lies about this issue propelled the country into 3 years of stories
about nothing stories and investigations about something that never happened. Never in the
history of nothing has nothing been so thoroughly covered.
Because there was nothing, and because it was known from the start that, "
there
is no big there, there ", the Mueller Team used several irrelevant legal actions to
prolong the belief that they were closing in on Trump. Mueller arranged for their media
partner, CNN, to film the early morning swat
team raid on 67 year old Roger Stone's home. It was very dramatic and very
un-necessary. Also, some small-time Russian
troll farms were indicted so that the word "Russia" could fill the news, prolonging the
desired myth. One of the indicted firms did not even exist. The others did not appear to
favor any one candidate and much of their activity was after the election .
Mueller led a 40 million dollar investigation looking for a crime. That effort
failed at finding any collusion, but it did play a role in the Democrats winning a majority
in the House of Representatives. That then enabled another investigation of an imaginary
crime for political purposes. A scripted hearsay 'whistleblower' submitted lies that
allowed Adam Schiff to continue his own campaign of lies. You know the rest of the story.
Trump is being falsely charged for doing what Biden bragged about doing.
The Deep State and the media appear to believe that we are fooled by these fraudulent
investigations. We are not fooled. We are tired of the lies and the arrogance.
We are increasingly angry that there is a double standard of justice in this country. There
is a protected class of people who are not prosecuted for their crimes. This needs to end.
The sheeple are easily led including the opposition sheeple. Two quick examples:
1. In the email scandal, Hillary was guilty, beyond a shadow of a doubt, of violating the
FOIA by conducting all State Department business via a personal email She was guilty. Yet her
team, listen up sheeple, her team made it about whether or not classified information was
transmitted. This is a gray area which could be defended. She knew she was guilty of the FOIA
violation because it was the whole reason the server was set up in the first place. Yet she
got away with it because everyone focused on the classifications of emails which was a gray
area.
2. In the Weiner / Abedin laptop matter, it is and was illegal for any of these emails to
be on a personal computer. Again, guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yet again everyone
focused on what was in the emails and not the fact that just possessing the emails was
illegal. So the FBI was able to say nothing new here and let it drop. If another group such
as the US Marshals was in charge of this investigation, Weiner / Abedin would have been fully
charged with possessing these emails. They would have been pressured to reveal why it was
named Insurance and have been asked to cut a deal.
The purpose of show trials is to fool those that don't pay attention. There are millions
of US citizens that get their news from their neighbor or a narrow set of information that is
disseminated by media that parrot their providers verbatim without challenge. Such people are
quite regularly fooled and some vote.
The double standard justice system in America is appalling and even worse than communists.
Americans really don’t have any credit to criticize communist countries. The ruling
class is no better than them.
The media and ruling classes have tried decades to brainwashed the mass to believe that
the less or even not corrupted.
They could have never pulled off the JFK assassination had the internet existed back in
1963. Time for the Epstein *********** to be posted on the internet. Even the asleep would
realize the unimaginable evil that has been controlling this world for millenia.
I am not sure about that,,we have the net now,,and although there are many of us that pay
attention and figure out their crimes and hoax's,,,,they still get away with them,,,,,,NASA
still gets 59 million a day to fake the space program,,,
Why not? They pulled off 9/11. And what do we have? The same as with the JFK murder.
People still arguing over how it was done, and ignoring the obvious, historically established
now, of who benefited and why. Grassy knoll, 2nd shooter, or directed energy weapons or
explosives, internet or not, still chasing the tail.
The US has turned into such a fake bullshit nation that nothing the people say who run the
place can be trusted. It is totally a Masonic land where money is God and the decent people
are exploited and oppressed. Free speech and democracy are only kosher if the issue is
something like Pooper-Scooper Enforcement Officer with no real money or power involved,
unless of course there is an impressive uniform which goes with the position.
The brainwashed masses are presently transfixed to their TV's watching the theatre of the
fake-impeachment pageant unfold, dutifully believing it is all real. All the performers strut
about keeping to their carefully-scripted lines. Like the establishment-hatched fake
Russia-bashing campaign, it is all theater. With the impeachment drama intended the polarize
the entire nation, the people are once-again being caresully herded into their red and blue
stalls in ensure nothing really populist, and not controlled by the establishment cabal
running things, gets off of the ground. the entire performance will be so carefully
choreographed, on a pro and anti Trump basis that it will also ensure that whomever the
ruling cabal anoints will be chosen for the top puppet job.
Like in the US midterm elections in 2018, issues involving US foreign policy were mum. In
the coming presidential election, Americans will see no real difference in the leading
contenders' position regarding foreign affairs, which most Americans in any case now believe
should be left to the military and the agencies who know best how to protect and advance
their interests. Once again, any real discussion or debate on foreign policy during the
coming election campaign will be taboo, and with the careful censorship of the alternate
media, and with no real protest from the American people, who in fact become willing
accomplices to any further unjust wars and atrocities their so-called "free" nation
commits.
Americans are brought up on Hollywood imagery, life-styles and fantasy. The corporate
media and entertainment industry is so pervasive that most of the people cannot discern the
difference between fantasy and reality, and as result of their constantly-fed addiction, they
now demand more and more theatre and even wars to satisfy their cravings. A false-flag
attack, 9/11, on their own people coming from their diabolical "owners", results in being no
more than a thrilling performance to make life seem more real. If there was any reality to
the people they would long ago have arrested the thousands of insider perps involved,
(especially deep-state ones in and out of the US), and long ago they would hung everyone of
them.
I would put it a bit differently. Trump's erraticness is a strong signal he fits to a pattern the Russians have used to depict
the US: "not agreement capable". That's what I meant by he selects for weak partners. His negotiating style signals that he is
a bad faith actor. Who would put up with that unless you had to, or you could somehow build that into your price?
I have no idea who your mythical Russians are. I know two people who did business in Russia before things got stupid and they
never had problems with getting paid. Did you also miss that "Russians" have bought so much real estate in London that they mainly
don't live in that you could drop a neutron bomb in the better parts of Chelsea and South Kensington and not kill anyone?
Pray tell, how could they acquire high end property if they are such cheats?
"It is politically important: Russia has paid off the USSR's debt to a country that no longer exists," said Mr Yuri Yudenkov,
a professor at the Russian University of Economics and Public Administration. "This is very important in terms of reputation:
the ability to repay on time, the responsibility," he told AFP.
It would have been very easy for Russia to say it cannot be held responsible for USSR's debts, especially in this case where
debt is to a non-existent entity.
In Syria, the Department of Defense was supporting one group of pet jihadis. The CIA was supporting a different group of pet
jihadis.
At times the two groups of pet jihadis were actively fighting each other. I am not sure how the DoD and CIA felt about their
respective pet jihadis fighting each other. However they felt, they kept right on arming and supporting their respective
groups ...
In a statement
, No. 10 Downing Street said: "He was clear there had been no change in the U.K.'s position on
Salisbury, which was a reckless use of chemical weapons and a brazen attempt to murder innocent
people on U.K. soil. He said that such an attack must not be repeated."
There was no immediate statement by the Kremlin, but Putin has rejected the British
allegations as baseless and Russian officials repeatedly demanded that U.K. authorities come
forward with hard evidence.
In its statement, No. 10 portrayed Johnson as unbudging in his insistence that Russia end
its extra-territorial mischief and said he had reiterated the two countries' responsibilities
as world powers.
"The Prime Minister said that they both had a responsibility to address issues of
international security including Libya, Syria, Iraq and Iran," the statement said. "The Prime
Minister said there will be no normalization of our bilateral relationship until Russia ends
the destabilizing activity that threatens the U.K. and our allies and undermines the safety of
our citizens and our collective security."
Johnson and Putin were in the German capital for an international
conference aimed at achieving a cease-fire to end a long-running civil war in Libya.
Neoconservatism started in 1953 with Henry "Scoop" Jackson, the Democratic Party US Senator
from the state of Washington (1953-1983), who became known as a 'defense' hawk, and as
"the Senator from Boeing," because Boeing practically owned him. The UK's Henry Jackson Society
was founded in 2005 in order to carry forward Senator Jackson's unwavering and passionate
endorsement of growing the American empire so that the US-UK alliance
will control the entire world (and US weapons-makers will dominate in every market).
Later, during the 1990s, neoconservatism became taken over by the Mossad and the lobbyists
for Israel and came to be publicly identified as a 'Jewish' ideology, despite its having -- and
having long had -- many champions who were 'anti-communist' or 'pro-democracy' or simply even
anti-Russian, but who were neither Jewish nor even focused at all on the Middle East.
Republicans Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and John McCain; and the Democrat, CIA Director
James Woolsey -- the latter of whom was one
of the patrons of Britain's Henry Jackson Society -- were especially prominent
neoconservatives, who came to prominence even before neocons became called "neoconservatives."
What all neocons have always shared in common has been a visceral hatred of Russians. That
comes above anything else -- and even above NATO (the main neocon organization).
During recent decades, neocons have been hating Iranians and more generally Shiites -- such
as in Syria and in Lebanon, and now also in Yemen -- and not only hating Russians.
When the Israel lobby during the 1990s and after, pumped massive resources into getting the
US Government to invade first Iraq and then Iran, neoconservatism got its name, but the
ideology itself did not change. However, there are a few neoconservatives today who are too
ignorant to know, in any coherent way, what their own underlying beliefs are, or why, and so
who are anti-Russians (that's basic for any neocon) who either don't know or else don't
particularly care that Iran and Shia Muslims generally, are allied with Russia.
Neoconservatives such as this, are simply confused neocons, people whose underlying ideology is
self-contradictory, because they've not carefully thought things through.
An example is Vox's Alex Ward, who built his career as an anti-Russia propagandist ,
and whose recent
ten-point tirade against Russia I then exposed as being false on each one of its ten points
, each of those points having been based upon mere allegations by US neocons against Russia
without any solid evidence whatsoever. Indictments, and other forms of accusations, are not
evidence for anything. But a stupid 'journalist' accepts them as if they were evidence, if
those accusations come from 'the right side' -- but not if they come from 'the wrong side'.
They don't understand even such a simple distinction as that between an indictment, and a
conviction. A conviction is at least a verdict (though maybe based on false 'evidence' and thus
false itself), but all that an accusation is an accusation -- and all accusations (in the
American legal system) are supposed to be disbelieved, unless and until there is at least a
verdict that gives the accusation legal force. (This is called "innocent unless proven
guilty.")
Mr. Ward is a Democrat -- an heir to Senator Jackson's allegedly anti-communist though
actually anti-Russian ideology -- but, since Ward isn't as intelligent as the ideology's
founder was, Ward becomes anti -neocon when a Republican-led Administration is doing
things (such as Ward there criticizes) that are even more-neocon than today's Democratic Party
itself is. In other words: 'journalists' (actually, propagandists) such as he, are more
partisan in favor of support of Democratic Party billionaires against Republican Party
billionaires, than in support of conquering Russia as opposed to cooperating with Russia (and
with all other countries). They're unaware that all American billionaires support expansion of
the US empire -- including over Yemen (to bring Yemen in, too -- which invasion Ward
incongruously opposes). But politicians (unlike their financial backers) need to pretend not to
be so bloodthirsty or so beholden to the military-industrial complex. Thus, an American doesn't
need to be intelligent in order to build his or her career in 'journalism', on the basis of
having previously served as a propagandist writing for non-profits that are mere fronts for
NATO and for Israel, and which are fronts actually for America's weapons-manufacturing firms,
who need those wars in order to grow their profits. Such PR for front-organizations for US
firms such as Lockheed Martin, is excellent preparation for a successful career in American
'journalism'. If a person is stupid, then it's still necessary to be stupid in the right way,
in order to succeed; and Ward is, and does.
This, for example, is how it makes sense that Ward had previously been employed at
the War on the
Rocks website that organized the Republican neoconservative campaign against Donald Trump
during the 2016 Republican primaries : the mega-donors to both US Parties are united in
favor of America conquering Russia. And that's why War on the Rocks had organized
Republican neocons to oppose Trump: it was done in order to increase the chances for Trump's
rabidly anti-Russia and pro-Israel competitors such as Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio to win that
nomination instead, which would then have produced the billionaires' dream contest, between
Hillary Clinton versus an equally neoconservative Republican nominee. A bipartisan
neoconservatism controls both of the American political Parties. A 'journalist' who displays
that sort of bipartisanship can't fail in America, no matter how incompetent at real journalism
he or she might be. (However, they do have to be literate . Stupid, maybe; but literate,
definitely.)
The core of America's form of capitalism has come to be the US aristocracy's bipartisan,
liberal and conservative, Democratic and Republican, form of capitalism, which isn't merely
fascist (which includes privatizing everything that can be privatized) but which is also
imperialist (which means favoring the country's perpetration of invasions and coups in order to
expand that nation's empire). The United States is now a globe-spanning empire, controlling not
merely the aristocracies in a few banana republics such as Guatemala and Honduras, but also the
aristocracies in richer countries such as France, Germany and UK, so as to extract from
virtually the entire world -- by means mainly of deception but also sometimes public threats
and clearly coercive -- unfair advantages for corporations that are within its borders, and
against corporations that are headquartered in foreign countries. America's billionaires
-- both the Democratic ones and the Republican ones -- are 100% in favor of America's
conquering the world: this ideology is entirely bipartisan, in the United States. Though
the billionaires succeeded, during the first Cold War -- the one that was nominally against
communism -- at fooling the public to think they were aiming ultimately to conquer communism,
George Herbert Walker Bush made clear, on the night of 24 February 1990, privately to the
leaders of the US aristocracy's foreign allies, that the actual goal was world-conquest, and so
the Cold War would now secretly continue on the US side , even after ending on the USS.R.
side. When GHW Bush did that, the heritage of US Senator Jackson became no longer the formerly
claimed one, of 'anti-communism', but was, clearly now and henceforth, anti-Russian. And that's
what it is today -- not only in the Democratic Party, and not only in the Republican Party, and
not only in the United States, but throughout the entire US alliance .
And this is what we are seeing today, in all of the US-and-allied propaganda-media. America
is always 'the injured party' against 'the aggressors'; and, so, one after another, such as in
Iraq, and in Libya, and in Syria, and in Iran, and in Yemen, and in China, all allies (or even
merely friends) of Russia are 'the aggressors' and are 'dictatorships' and are 'threats to
America', and only the US side represents 'democracy' . It's actually an aristocracy ,
which has deeply deceived its public, to think it's a democracy. Just as every aristocracy is
based on lies and on coercion, this one is, too -- it is no exception; it's only that this
particular empire is on a historically unprecedentedly large scale, dominating all continents.
Support that, and you're welcomed into the major (i.e., billionaire-backed) 'news' media in
America, and in its allied countries. This is America's 'democracy' . (Of course, an article such as this one is not
'journalism' in America and its allied countries; it's merely "blogging." So, it won't be found
there though it's being submitted everywhere. It will be accepted and published at only the
honest news-sites. A reader may Web-search the headline here in order to find out which ones
those are. Not many 'news'media report the institutionalized corruptness of the 'news'media;
they just criticize one-another, in the way that the politicians do, which is bipartisan -- the
bipartisan dictatorship. But the rot that's actually throughout the 'news'media, is prohibited
to be reported about and published, in and by any of them. It is totally suppressed reality.
Only the few honest news-sites will publish this information and its documentation, the links
here.)
However, actually, the first time that the term either "neoconservatism" or
"neo-conservatism" is known to have been used, was in the British magazine, The Contemporary
Review , January 1883, by Henry Dunkley, in his "The Conservative
Dilemma" where "neo-conservative" appeared 8 times, and was contrasted to traditional
"conservatism" because, whereas the traditional type "Toryism" was pro-aristocratic,
anti-democratic, and overtly elitist; the new type was pro-democratic, anti-aristocratic, and
overtly populist (which no form of conservatism honestly is -- they're all elitist):
"What is this new creed of yours? That there must be no class influence in politics? That any
half-dozen hinds on my estate are as good as so many dukes? That the will of the people is the
supreme political tribunal? That if a majority at the polls bid us abolish the Church and toss
the Crown into the gutter we are forthwith to be their most obedient servants?" "No: from
whatever point of view we consider the question, it is plain that the attempt to reconstruct
the Tory party on a Democratic basis cannot succeed." "The Tories have always been adepts at
conservation, but the things they have been most willing to conserve were not our liberties but
the restrictions put upon our liberties." "The practical policy of Conservatism would not
alter, and could not be altered much, but its pretensions would have to be pitched in a lower
key." "Here we seem to get within the smell of soup, the bustle of evening receptions, and the
smiles of dowagers. The cares which weigh upon this couple of patriot souls cannot be described
as august. It is hardly among such petty anxieties that the upholders of the Empire and the
pilots of the State are bred." "The solemn abjuration which is now proposed in the name of
Neo-conservatism resembles a charge of dynamite." He viewed neo-conservatives as being
let's-pretend populists, whose pretense at being democrats will jeopardize the Empire, not
strengthen it. Empire, and its rightness, were so deeply rooted in the rulers' psyche, it went
unchallenged. In fact, at that very time, in the 1880s, Sir Cecil Rhodes was
busy creating the foundation for the UK-US empire that now controls most of the world .
The modern pro-Israel neoconservatism arose in the
1960s when formerly Marxist Jewish intellectuals in New York City and Washington DC, who were
even more anti-communist than anti-nazi, became impassioned with the US empire being extended
to the entire world by spreading 'democracy' (and protection of Israel) as if this
Israel-protecting empire were a holy crusade not only against the Soviet Union, which was
demonized by them, but against Islam, which also was demonized by them (since they were
ethnocentric Jews and the people whose land the 'Israelis' had stolen were overwhelmingly
Muslims -- and now were very second-class citizens in their own long-ancestral and also
birth-land). This was how they distinguished themselves from "paleoconservatism" which wasn't nearly
so Messianic, but which was more overtly ethnocentric, though ethnic Christian, instead of
ethnic Jewish. The "paleoconservatives" were isolationists, not imperialists. They originated
from the opponents of America's entry into WW II against the imperialists of that time, who
were the fascists. Those American "isolationists" would have given us a world controlled by
Hitler and his Axis allies. All conservatism is absurd, but there are many forms of it, none of
which makes intelligent sense.
The roots of neoconservatism are 100% imperialistic, colonialist, supremacist, and blatantly
evil. They hate Russia because they still crave to
conquer it , and don't know how, short of nuclear annihilation, which would be extremely
dangerous, even for themselves. So, they endanger everyone.
Then CNN turned to a story that it had reported on just prior to the debate, alleging that
Sanders had told Senator Elizabeth Warren that he did not believe a woman could be elected U.S.
president. The CNN moderator ignored Sanders' assertions that he had a public record going back
decades of stating that a woman could be elected president, that he had stayed out of the race
in 2015 until Warren decided not to run, and that in fact he had told Warren no such thing.
Then came this exchange: CNN: So Senator Sanders -- Senator Sanders, I do want to be clear here, you're saying that
you never told Senator Warren that a woman could not win the election?
SANDERS: That is correct.
CNN: Senator Warren, what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not
win the election? You don't have to know that you'd be better off with free
college and Medicare for All than with yet another war to recognize the bias here.
Many viewers recognized the slant. Many even began to notice the strange double standard in
never mentioning the cost of any of the wars, but pounding away on the misleading assertions
that healthcare and other human needs cost too much. Here's a question asked by CNN on
Tuesday:
" Vice President Biden, does Senator Sanders owe voters a price tag on his health care
plan? "
There was even time for this old stand-by bit of name-calling: " Senator Sanders, you
call yourself a Democratic Socialist. But more than two-thirds of voters say they are not
enthusiastic about voting for a socialist. Doesn't that put your chances of beating Donald
Trump at risk? "
I don't think it will be long before we see Congress in the US calling for invasion of Russia
on the grounds of a lack of diversity, lack of respect for LGBTP and so forth.
"Russiagate is a hoax" Where did I hear that before?
Oh yes, from Trump about 1000 times... strange that even though he said he was innocent he
had to keep telling us every time he opened his mouth... it makes me suspicious for some
reason. That and the fact that Trump has been caught lying a few times.
Your hatred of Russia is hilarious. Doubly when Amerilards have a history of interference in
other country's governments.
America is objectively a more violent country than Russia. It isn't Russia that has
ridicously high violent crime scores despite its wealth. Invaded Afghanistan, attacked Iraq,
provided aid for Islamists who'd go on to build ISIS.
I don't recall Putin's regime achieving a higher bodycount than America under Bush with
Obama. Keep pretending Putin's some villain from childish stories like Harry Potter or Black
Panther.
America's homicide level is Notably higher than West Europe's and Far Eastern lands like
Japan. Russia's is only somewhat higher, and is notably less wealthy.
For some years Washington, an implacable enemy of Moscow, has been getting less and less
predictable. Lavrov and Kerry spend hours
locked up negotiating a deal in Syria ;
within a week the US military attacks a Syrian Army unit; "by mistake" . Who's in charge?
Now with the murder of Soleimani, possibly on a Washington-approved peace mission, Washington
has moved to another level of lawlessness and is exploring the next depth as it defies
Baghdad's order to get out. A pirate power. The outside problems for Moscow aren't getting
smaller, are they? Washington is certainly
недоговороспособны
– it's impossible to make an agreement with it and, if you should think you have done so,
it will break it. A dangerous, uncontrollable madman, staggering around blowing everything up
– is any foreign leader now to be assumed to be on Washington's murder list? Surviving
its decay is a big job indeed. The problems are getting bigger in the Final Days of the
Imperium Americanum.
"U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials are assessing whether Russia is trying to
undermine Joe Biden in its ongoing disinformation efforts with the former vice president still the
front-runner in the race to challenge President Donald Trump, according to two officials familiar
with the matter
Part of the inquiry is to determine whether Russia is trying to weaken Biden by promoting
controversy over his past involvement in U.S. policy toward Ukraine while his son worked for an
energy company there."
So how exactly does Russia, in a scene straight out of A Clockwork Orange, tap into the frontal
lobe section of the U.S. electorate and cause them to lose all confidence in their political
favorites?
"A signature trait of Russian President Vladimir Putin 'is his ability to convince people of
outright falsehoods,' William Evanina, director of the National Counterintelligence and Security
Center, said in a statement. 'In America, [the Russians are] using social media and many other
tools to inflame social divisions, promote conspiracy theories and sow distrust in our democracy
and elections.'"
Yes, somehow those dastardly Russians have outsmarted the brightest and best-paid political
strategists in Washington, D.C. by brandishing what amounts to some really persuasive memes over
social media, and for just rubles on the dollar.
The techies at Wired
went
so far
as to call this epic assault on the fragile American cranium, "meme warfare to divide
America." By way of evidence, it cited a very creative meme that screamed, "F*CK THE ELECTIONS," which
was intended, as the ironclad argument goes, to cause a number of impressionable Americans to throw up
their hands in a fit of collective exasperation and say, 'Ok, that's it. I'm staying at home on
Election Day.'
Yes, it's really that easy! Imagine all the money the Russians and their radical new
political technologies could have saved guys like casino tycoon, Sheldon Adelson, who
showered
the
Trump campaign with $100 million dollars.
Many of those divisive Russian messages wormed their way onto Facebook, purportedly, where God only
knows how many voter brains' turned to maggots and mush just staring at them. Yet one individual who
actually recalls seeing one or two of these dangerous memes was Rob Goldman, former Vice President for
Advertising on Facebook, who revealed via Twitter, another infected social media platform, some
interesting information:
"Most of the coverage of Russian meddling involves their attempt to effect the outcome of the
2016 U.S. election.
I have seen all of the Russian ads and I can say very definitively that
swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal
."
Clearly, Goldman seems to have been under the sway of some folk Russian brainwashing technique,
probably passed down from the time of Rasputin. In any case, Donald Trump himself took great
satisfaction from that particular revelation, retweeting it to his millions of minions.
Most of the coverage of Russian meddling involves
their attempt to effect the outcome of the 2016 US election. I have seen all of the Russian ads and
I can say very definitively that swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal.
Incidentally, it may or may not be relevant, but Goldman
retired
from
Facebook in October 2019 after seven years with the company.
Russia, the gift that keeps on giving
Not only have the Democrats been able to use the Russia bogeyman as their excuse for losing the
White House in 2016, they are able to summon this distant nuclear power whenever they wish to curb
internet freedoms, which is pretty much every day now.
Now, fun-loving memes are under attack and may soon go the way of the DoDo bird
("A small office of Russian trolls could derail 241 years of U.S. political history with a handful of
dank memes and an advertising budget that would barely buy you a billboard in Brooklyn," screamed
insanely
The
Guardian
). At the same time, the freedom of speech is getting
destroyed
by
vapid accusations of 'hate speech,' which, unless used to incite violence, is a totally meaningless
term used to eliminate any conversation that is undesirable to the elite.
Meanwhile,
only the mainstream media these days are
permitted
to dabble
in 'conspiracy theories'
even as their own false narratives have contributed to
the pulverization of entire nations, as was the case in Iraq, for example, which sustained a
full-blown U.S. military invasion in 2003 following debunked claims that Saddam Hussein was harboring
weapons of mass destruction. That was the mother of all conspiracy theories that was pushed
unchallenged by the mainstream media.
So back to Joe Biden.
Do intelligent Americans really need help from Russia to prove that just maybe the former Vice
President is mentally and physically unfit to stand for the White House? Probably not. From whispering
sweet nothings into the ears of any female within groping distance, to sucking on his wife's
fingertips at a political rally, something just doesn't seem altogether right upstairs with Joe Biden.
So what is the real story for dragging Russia, once again, into the internal swamp pit known as
Washington, D.C.?
The Bloomberg article provides a big hint:
"This time around, the narrative about Biden
and Ukraine is well-publicized and being advanced by Trump, his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and
the president's Republican allies in Congress."
And that "narrative" has everything to do with not only the Democrats' frozen impeachment
proceedings against the U.S. leader, which promises to have major connections to Ukraine, Joe Biden
and his son Hunter, and quite possibly dozens of other top Democrats. In other words, the Democrats
understand that pushing ahead with impeachment could be their ultimate downfall.
Although few Americans seem to remember that back in May of 2019, Trump
granted
U.S.
Attorney General William Barr "full and complete authority" to investigate exactly how claims that
Trump was 'conspiring with the Kremlin' in the 2016 presidential election had originated, the
Democrats certainly have not.
Their bogus 'Russian collusion' claim provided the rationale for a four-year-long 'witch hunt' that
began when the Democrats, relying on the flimsy findings contained in the so-called 'Steele dossier,
managed to get approval from the FISA court to spy on the Trump campaign. Now, some top-ranking
Democrats – never imagining Hillary Clinton would actually lose in 2016 – are understandably nervous
as to what Barr and his assistant, federal attorney John Durham will divulge to the public in the
coming months.
With so much riding on the line in 2020
, is anyone surprised that Bloomberg, the
news affiliate owned and operated by Democratic contender Michael Bloomberg, is now reporting "U.S.
officials are warning that Russia's election interference in 2020 could be more brazen than in the
2016 presidential race or the 2018 midterm election."
In other words, the racist ploy used by Democrats to explain their monumental defeat
in 2016 did not end with the Mueller Report.
The conspiracy theory, promulgated by a media that is in effect just another branch of the
Democratic National Committee, is being
primed to explain not only possible criminal charges
aimed at top Democrats in the coming months, but how Democrats, like Michael Bloomberg, failed once
again to beat the seemingly unstoppable incumbent, Donald Trump.
Tags
Politics
(Written on the evening of. So subject to reconsideration/revision/outright denial as we
learn more.)
I didn't expect any of it. Neither did anyone else, whatever the so-called experts
outgassing on the US Garbage Media may be pretending. I don't know what it all means. Neither
does anyone else. (Well Putin & Co do, but they keep their cards close to their chests. As
we've just seen.)
What do we know? Putin gave his annual address to the Federal Council ( Rus ) ( Eng ) and started off with how important
it was that the birthrate should be raised. Fair enough: he wants more Russians on the planet,
the government's programs have ensured that there will be quite a few more but there are still
more to come. Many programs planned; some of which will work: after all,
not everything works out as we hoped does it? He mentioned how dangerous the world is
– especially the MENA – and said at least Russia is pretty secure (as indeed it is
except against lunatics addicted to the
Book of Revelation .)
Then the constitutional stuff. He believes the Constitution needs a few tweaks. Important
officials should really be Russians and not people with a
get-out-of-jail-card/alternate-loyalty-card in their vests. Reasonable enough: they should
"inseparably connect their lives with Russia and the Russian people without any assumptions and
allowances." (Good idea actually. Can we in the West steal the idea? We vote for X but who does
he vote for?) Russian law should take precedence over decrees contaminated by the " Rules-Based
International Order" ("
we make the rules ,
you follow our orders "). The PM should be named by the Duma. (A pretty big change,
actually: let's have more details on the division of labour please. In some countries the head
of state is The Boss – USA, Russia (now), France – in others the head of government
is The Boss – Germany, Canada, Denmark. There is a serious carve up of powers question
here that has to be worked out in detail.) Constitutional changes should be approved in a
referendum. The President either should or should not be bound by the
no-three-terms-in-a-row-rule (I personally can't figure out what "этим"
refers to in "Не считаю, что
этот вопрос
принципиальный,
но согласен с
этим. Не считаю,
что этот вопрос
принципиальный,
но согласен с
этим." But, no doubt we will soon learn.)
So, a somewhat less presidential republic. Details to be decided. Many details. But I'm
confident that it's been worked out and we will learn. Putin & Co have shown us over 20
years that they don't make things up on the fly.
Then we learned that the entire government had resigned – but individuals to stay in
place until replaced. Then we learned – a fast few hours indeed! – that Dmitri
Medvedev was replaced by somebody that no one (other than Russian tax specialists) had ever
heard of: Mikhail Vladimirovich Mishustin. (
Russian Wiki entry – none in English so far.) Those cheering Medvedev's dismissal
(something predicted and hoped for by a sector of Russianologists) had to then swallow this:
not tossed out into ignominy and shame, as they wanted, but something else. Putin says that
there is a clear distinction between government and presidential concerns; defence and security
are clearly in the latter. But Medvedev has always been closely following
defence and security issues and it is suitable and appropriate that he continue to do so. So a
new position, deputy heard of the security council, will be created for him. So what are we
to make of this? Medvedev has been given the boot and a sinecure? Or he's been given a crucial
job in the new carve-up of responsibilities?
After all, Russia's problems keep getting bigger but nobody is getting any younger.
Especially the problems from outside. For some years Washington, an implacable enemy of Moscow,
has been getting less and less predictable. Lavrov and Kerry spend hours
locked up negotiating a deal in Syria ;
within a week the US military attacks a Syrian Army unit; "by mistake" . Who's in charge?
Now with the murder of Soleimani, possibly on a Washington-approved peace mission, Washington
has moved to another level of lawlessness and is exploring the next depth as it defies
Baghdad's order to get out. A pirate power. The outside problems for Moscow aren't getting
smaller, are they? Washington is certainly
недоговороспособны
– it's impossible to make an agreement with it and, if you should think you have done so,
it will break it. A dangerous, uncontrollable madman, staggering around blowing everything up
– is any foreign leader now to be assumed to be on Washington's murder list? Surviving
its decay is a big job indeed. The problems are getting bigger in the Final Days of the
Imperium Americanum.
So, maybe Moscow needs more people on the job.
So are we looking at a new division of labour in Moscow as part of managing the Transition?
(To say nothing of the – what's the word? – Thucydides trap ? ).
Mishustin looks after the nuts and bolt of Russia's economy and internal management. Medvedev
looks after defence and security – something not likely to get smaller while Putin looks
after the big picture?
But this is only the first step in The Transition and we will learn more soon.
The downplaying of Russian participation at Pyeongchang, is seemingly done to spin the image
of many Russian cheats being kept out. At the suggestion of the World Anti-Doping Agency
(WADA), the International Olympic Committee (IOC) closely vetted Russians for competition at
the 2018 Winter Olympics. In actuality, the 2018 Russian Winter Olympic participation wasn't so
off the mark, when compared to past Winter Olympiads – something which (among other
things) puts a dent into the faulty notion that Russia should be especially singled out for
sports doping.
At the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics, Russia had its largest ever Winter Olympic contingent of
232 , on account of the host nation being allowed a greater number of participants. The
168 Russian Winter Olympians at Pyeongchang is
9 less than the Russians who competed at the 2010 Winter Olympics. Going back further,
Russian Winter Olympic participation in 2006 was at
190 , with its 2002 contingent at
151 , 1998 having
122 and 1994 (Russia's first formal Winter Olympic appearance as Russia)
113 .
The aforementioned Reuters piece references a " historian ", Bill Mallon, who is keen
on using the 1992 Summer Olympic banning of Yugoslavia (then consisting of Serbia and
Montenegro) as a legitimate basis to ban Russia from the upcoming Summer Olympics.
In this instance, Alan Dershowitz's periodic reference to the " if the shoe is on the other
foot " test is quite applicable . Regarding Mallon, " historian " is put in
quotes because his historically premised advocacy is very much incomplete and overly
propagandistic.
For consistency sake and contrary to Mallon, Yugoslavia should've formally participated at
the 1992 Summer Olympics. The Olympic banning of Yugoslavia was bogus, given that the IOC and
the IOC affiliated sports federations didn't ban the US and USSR for their respective role in
wars, which caused a greater number of deaths than what happened in 1990s Bosnia. The Reuters
article at issue references a United Nations resolution for sanctions against Yugoslavia,
without any second guessing, in support of the preference (at least by some) to keep politics
out of sports as much as possible.
Mallon casually notes that Yugoslav team sports were banned from the 1992 Summer Olympics,
unlike individual Yugoslav athletes, who participated as independents. At least two of the
banned Yugoslav teams were predicted to be lead medal contenders.
Croatia was allowed to compete at the 1992 Summer Olympics, despite that nation's military
involvement in the Bosnian Civil War. During the 1992 Summer and Winter Olympics, the former
USSR participated in individual and team sports as the Unified Team (with the exception of the
three former Soviet Baltic republics, who competed under their respective nation). With all
this in mind, the ban on team sports from Yugoslavia at the 1992 Summer Olympics, under a
neutral name, appears to be hypocritical and ethically challenged.
BS aside, the reality is that geopolitical clout (in the form of might making right), is
what compels the banning of Yugoslavia, unlike superpowers engaged in behavior which isn't less
egregious. Although a major world power, contemporary Russia lacks the overall geopolitical
influence of the USSR. Historian Stephen Cohen and some others, have noted that post-Soviet
Russia doesn't get the same (for lack of a better word) respect accorded to the USSR. This
aspect underscores how becoming freer, less militaristic and more market oriented doesn't (by
default) bring added goodwill from a good number of Western establishment politicos and the
organizations which are greatly influenced by them.
On the subject of banning Russia from the Olympics, Canadian sports legal politico Dick
Pound, continues to rehash an inaccurate likening with no critical follow-up. (
An exception being yours truly .) Between
2016 and
2019 , Pound references the Olympic banning of South Africa, as a basis for excluding
Russia. South Africa was banned when it had apartheid policies, which prevented that country's
Black majority from competing in organized sports. Russia has a vast multiethnic participation
in sports and other sectors.
As previously noted , the factual premise to formally ban Russia from the Olympics remains
suspect. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is set to review Russia's appeal to have the
recommended WADA ban against Russia overturned, as Western mass media at large and sports
politicos like Pound continue to push for a CAS decision against Russia.
On 4 March 2018 it was a foggy
day
in southern England, and the MI6 Russian spy Sergei Viktorovich Skripal and his daughter Yulia stepped
out for a stroll, stopped at the local pub in Salisbury, went to lunch at a nearby restaurant, and
then took a walk in the park where they collapsed on a park bench. What had happened to them? Did they
suffer from food poisoning? Or was Sergei Skripal involved in some dark
affaire
and the
object of a hit by persons unknown, his daughter being an accidental victim?
The police received a call that day at
4:15pm reporting two people in distress. Emergency services were despatched immediately. The Skripals
were rushed to hospital, while the local police launched an investigation. It began to look like
attempted murder, but the police urged patience, saying it could take months before they might know
what had happened and who, if anyone, was responsible.
The Conservative government decided that
it did not need to wait for a police investigation. "The Russians" had tried to assassinate a former
intelligence officer turned informant for MI6. Skripal went to jail for that, but was released four
years later in an exchange of agents with the United States. Now, "the Russians," so the Tory
hypothesis goes, wanted to settle old scores. Less than 24 hours after the incident in Salisbury, the
British foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, suggested that the Russian government was the prime suspect
in what looked like an attempt gone wrong to assassinate Sergei Skripal.
On 12 March the
foreign secretary summoned
the Russian ambassador to inform him that a nerve agent, A-234, had
been used against the Skripals. How did you do it, Johnson wanted to know, or did the Russian
government lose control of its stocks of chemical weapons? He gave the Russian ambassador 24 hours to
respond. In point of fact, the Russian government does not possess any stockpiles of chemical weapons
or nerve agents, having destroyed them all as of September 2017.
Later that day, the British prime
minister, Theresa May, declared in the House of Commons that the Skripals, then said to be in a coma,
were poisoned with "a military-grade nerve agent
of a type developed by Russia
" (italics
added) called a 'novichok', a Russian word having various possible translations into English
(beginner, novice, newcomer, etc.). May claimed that since the Soviet Union was known to have produced
this chemical weapon, or nerve agent (also known as A-234), that it was "
highly likely
" that
the Russian government was guilty of the attack on the Skripals.
Here is what the prime minister said in
the House of Commons: "Either this was a direct act by the Russian State against our country. Or the
Russian government lost control of this potentially catastrophically damaging nerve agent and allowed
it to get into the hands of others." The hurried British accusations were redolent of those in 2014
alleging Russian government complicity or direct involvement in the shooting down of Malaysian
Airlines MH 17 over the Ukraine.
Within hours
of the destruction of MH 17, the United States
and its vassals, including Britain, accused Russia of being responsible.
The western
modus operandi
is
the same in the Skripal case. The Tories rushed to conclusions and issued a 24-hour ultimatum to the
Russian government to prove its innocence, or rather to admit its guilt. How was the so-called
novichok delivered to London, did President Vladimir Putin authorise the attack, did Russia lose
control of its stockpile? The prime minister and her foreign secretary had in effect declared Russia
guilty as charged. No objective police investigation, no due process, no presumption of innocence, no
evidence was necessary: it was "sentence first, verdict later", as the Red Queen declared in
Alice
in Wonderland
.
On 13 March the Russian embassy informed
the Foreign Office that the Russian Federation was not involved in any way with the Salisbury
incident. We will not respond to an ultimatum, came the reply from Moscow. The eloquent Russian
foreign ministry spokesperson, Mariia Zakharova, characterised the British démarche as a "circus
show". Actually, Foreign Office clerks must have told Boris Johnson that Russia would not respond to
such an ultimatum so that it was a deliberate British attempt to provoke a negative Russian reply.
The Russian foreign minister, Sergei
Lavrov, stated for the record that "as soon as the rumors, fed by the British leadership, about the
poisoning of Skripal appeared, we immediately requested access to this [toxic] substance so that our
experts could analyze it in accordance with the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons."
After the British ambassador visited the Russian foreign ministry on 13 March to receive the formal
Russian reply to the British ultimatum, the foreign ministry in Moscow issued a communiqué: " The
[Salisbury] incident appears to be yet another crooked attempt by the UK authorities to discredit
Russia. Any threat to take 'punitive' measures against Russia will meet with a response. The British
side should be aware of that." The Russian government in fact proposed that the alleged poisoning of
the Skripals should be examined by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in
The Hague, according to procedures to which Britain itself had agreed when the OPCW was established in
1997.
On 14 March the British government
expelled 23 Russian diplomats, and a few days later the Russian side expelled 23 British diplomats and
shuttered the offices of the British Council in Russia. At the same time, the British appealed to
their allies and to the European Union to show solidarity by expelling Russian diplomats.
Twenty-eight countries
did so, though for most it was one or two expulsions, tokenism to appease
the British. Other countries -- for example, Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, Portugal -- refused to join the
stampede. Going over the top, the United States expelled
sixty
diplomats and closed the
Russian consulate in Seattle. The Russians responded in kind with sixty expulsions and the closure of
the US consulate in St. Petersburg. Momentum seemed to be building toward a major confrontation. The
British prime minister even alluded to the possibility of
military action
.
In the meantime, President Putin weighed
in. "I guess any reasonable person [has] realised," he said, "that this is complete absurd[ity] and
nonsense. [How could] anybody in Russia allow themselves such actions on the eve of the [Russian]
presidential election and the football World Cup? This is unthinkable." In any police inquiry,
investigators look for means, motive and opportunity. On these grounds did the trail of guilt lead to
Moscow?
Momentum is sometimes like a balloon, it
blows up and then it suddenly bursts. The British case against Russia began to fall apart almost from
the time it was made. In late March the Russian newspaper
Kommersant
leaked
a British PowerPoint presentation
sent to eighty embassies in Moscow. It asserted,
inter alia
,
that the British chemical weapons facility at Porton Down had positively identified the substance,
which allegedly poisoned the Skripals, as a Novichok, "developed only by Russia". Both these
statements are false. On 3 April Porton Down stated publicly that it could
not
determine the
origin of the substance that poisoned the Skripals. It also came out that the formula for making a
so-called novichok was published in a book by a Russian dissident and chemist, Vil Mirzayanov, who now
lives in the United States. You can buy his book (published in 2008), which includes the formula, on
Amazon.com
. In fact, any number of governments or smart chemists or even bright undergraduate
chemistry students with the proper facilities could make this nerve agent. Amongst those governments
having access to the original formula are Britain and the United States. The Russian embassy in London
noted in
a published report
that "neither Russia nor the Soviet Union has ever developed an agent named
'Novichok'." The report further stated that "While Soviet scientists did work on new types of chemical
poisons, the word 'Novichok' was introduced in the West in mid-1990s to designate a series of new
chemical agents developed there on the basis of information made available by Russian expat
researchers. The British insistence to use the Russian word 'Novichok' is an attempt to artificially
link the substance to Russia."
The British PowerPoint presentation did
not stop with its two main canards. It goes on to refer to "Russian malign activity" including,
inter alia
, the "invasion" of Georgia in 2008, the "destabilisation" of the Ukraine and the
shooting down of MH17 in 2014, and interference in the US elections in 2016. All of these claims are
audacious lies
, easily deconstructed and unpacked. The referenced events are also unrelated
to the Salisbury incident and were raised in an attempt to smear the Russian Federation. In fact, the
British PowerPoint slides represent vulgar propaganda,
bourrage de crâne
, as preposterous as
any seen during the Cold War.
As Minister Lavrov pointed out, the
Skripal case should have gone for resolution to the OPCW in The Hague. Russia would then be directly
involved in the investigation and would have access to the alleged toxin, and other evidence to try to
determine what had happened and who were the perpetrators. The British government at first refused to
go to the OPCW, and then when it did, refused to authorise the Russian government to have access to
the alleged substance, which had sickened the Skripals. That idea is "perverse", said British
authorities. Actually, not at all, it is the procedure laid out in OPCW statutes, to which Britain
itself agreed but has refused to respect. When the Russian representative at the OPCW proposed a
resolution to the executive council, that it should respect its own statutes, he could not obtain the
required vote of approval. The British were
attempting to hijack
the OPCW as a potential tool against the Russian Federation. Thus far, that stratagem has not worked.
On 12 April the OPCW released
a
report
stating that it had "confirm[ed] the findings of the United Kingdom relating to the
identity of the toxic chemical that was used in Salisbury ." The
report said
nothing
about the origin of the so-called "toxic chemical". The British
accusation against Russia thus remained unsubstantiated.
What I could not understand when I read
the OPCW communiqué, is why the Skripals were still alive. The OPCW says that the toxic chemical used
against the Skripals was "of high purity". Was it a nerve agent? Oddly, the OPCW published report
avoids a straight answer. If it was a nerve agent, being of "high purity," it should have been instant
acting and killed the Skripals almost immediately. Yet both have survived at the time of this writing.
Something does not make sense. Of course, there could be a simple explanation for this puzzling
mystery.
On 14 April, Minister Lavrov at
a
meeting in Moscow
provided the answer. The substance used to attack the Skripals was laced with a
substance know as BZ which incapacitates rather than kills and takes longer to work than an instant
acting nerve agent which kills immediately. The United States, Britain and other NATO countries have
developed this toxin and put it into service; the Soviet Union never did so. Traces of A-234 were also
identified, but according to experts, such a concentration of the A-234 agent would cause death to
anyone affected by it. "Moreover,"
according to the Russian embassy in London
, "considering its high volatility, the detection
of this substance in its initial state (pure form and high concentration) is extremely suspicious
as the samples have been taken several weeks since the poisoning," Could Britsh authorities have
tampered with the samples? The public OPCW report gives no details, and refers only to a "toxic
chemical". Nor did the report say that the OPCW had submitted specimens of the substance to a
well-known Swiss
lab
, which promptly reported back its surprising results. The OPCW authorities thus lied when they
said that the tests "confirmed" the British identify of the "toxic chemical".
Unless
Porton
Down knew that the substance used against the Skripals was a BZ type toxin, and so informed the OPCW,
or, unless the Tory government lied in claiming publicly that it was a novichok nerve agent. The
British attempted hijacking of the OPCW has compromised its independence, for the public report issued
on 12 April is misleading. Moreover, since the BZ toxin is made by the US, Britain and other NATO
countries, it begs the same questions, which the Tories put to Moscow: how did the perpetrators obtain
the BZ toxin and bring it to Salisbury, did MI5 or MI6 authorise
a false flag attack
against the Skripals, or was it authorised by the British cabinet or by the
prime minister alone? Or did British authorities lose control of their stockpiles? The trail of
evidence does not lead to Moscow; it leads to London.
A
prima facie
case can be made
that the British government is lying about the Skripal
affaire
. Suspicion always falls upon
those who act deviously, who hide behind clever turns of phrase and procedural and rhetorical
smokescreens. British authorities are now saying that they have other top secret evidence, which
explains everything, but unfortunately it can't be publicised. Nevertheless, the British government
appears to have leaked it to the press.
The Times
published a story about a covert Russian lab producing nerve agents and it spread like wild fire
across the Mainstream Media.
The Daily Mirror
put out a story about a Russian secret assassins' training manual. These
stories are laughable. Is the Tory government that desperate? Is the British "everyman" that gullible?
The secret assassin's manual reminds me
of the 1924 "Zinoviev Letter", a counterfeit document produced by White Russians in Germany,
purporting to demonstrate Soviet interference in British elections and planning for a socialist
revolution. It was early days of "fake news". Parliamentary elections were underway in October 1924
and the Tories used the letter to attack the credibility of the Labour party. It was whipping up the
red scare, and it worked like a charm. The Tories won a majority government. Soviet authorities
claimed that the letter was bogus and they demanded a third party, independent investigation to
ascertain the truth, just as the Russian government has done now. In 1924, the Tories refused, and
understandably so, since they had a lot to hide. It took seventy-five years to determine that "the
letter" was in fact counterfeit.
The Tories are again acting as if they
have something to hide. It is
déjà vu.
Will it take seventy-five years to get at the truth?
Are there any honest British cops, judges, civil servants ready to reveal the truth?
There is other evidence to suggest that
the British narrative on the Salisbury incident is bogus. The London Metropolitan Police have sought
to prevent any outside contact with the Skripals. They have taken away a recovered Yulia Skripal to an
unknown location. They have until now denied Russian consular authorities access to a Russian citizen
in violation of British approved consular agreements. Is there any chapter of international law, which
the British government now respects? British authorities have denied access to Yulia Skripal's family
in Russia; they have denied a visa to Yulia's cousin, Viktoria, to visit with her. Are British spooks
grooming Yulia, briefing her to stay on the Tory narrative? Is she being manipulated like some kind of
Manchurian Candidate? Have they induced her to betray her country in exchange for emoluments, a new
identity in the United States, a house, a BMW and money? Are they playing upon her loyalty to her
father? Based on
a statement
attributed to Yulia by the London Metropolitan Police, it
begins to look that way
. Or, is the message, sounding very British and official, quite simply a
fake? The Russian embassy in London suspects that it is. What is certain is that British authorities
are acting as though they have something to hide. Even
German
politicians, amongst others, have criticised the British rush to indict Russia. Damage control is
underway. Given all the evidence, can any person with reasonable abilities to think critically believe
anything
the Tories are saying about the Salisbury affair?
"They are liars. And they know that they
are liars," the late Egyptian writer and Nobel laureate Naguib Mahfouz once wrote: "And we know that
they are liars. Even so, they keep lying ." Mahfouz was not writing about the British, but all the
same, he could have been. Are not his well-known lines apposite to the present government in London?
The Tories are trying doggedly to
maintain control of the narrative. Stakes are high for if it eventuates that the Tories have lied
deliberately for political gain, at the risk of destabilising European, indeed world peace and
security, the Tory government should be forced to resign and new elections, called. Then, the British
electorate can decide whether it wants to be governed by reckless, mendacious Tory politicians who
risk to provoke war against the Russian Federation.
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture
Foundation.
Tags:
May
OPCW
United Kingdom
Print this article
Michael Jabara Carley
April 18, 2018 |
World
The Skripal Affair: A Lie Too Far?
On 4 March 2018 it was a foggy
day
in southern England, and the MI6 Russian spy Sergei Viktorovich Skripal and his daughter Yulia
stepped out for a stroll, stopped at the local pub in Salisbury, went to lunch at a nearby
restaurant, and then took a walk in the park where they collapsed on a park bench. What had
happened to them? Did they suffer from food poisoning? Or was Sergei Skripal involved in some
dark
affaire
and the object of a hit by persons unknown, his daughter being an
accidental victim?
The police received a call that day
at 4:15pm reporting two people in distress. Emergency services were despatched immediately. The
Skripals were rushed to hospital, while the local police launched an investigation. It began to
look like attempted murder, but the police urged patience, saying it could take months before
they might know what had happened and who, if anyone, was responsible.
The Conservative government decided
that it did not need to wait for a police investigation. "The Russians" had tried to assassinate
a former intelligence officer turned informant for MI6. Skripal went to jail for that, but was
released four years later in an exchange of agents with the United States. Now, "the Russians,"
so the Tory hypothesis goes, wanted to settle old scores. Less than 24 hours after the incident
in Salisbury, the British foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, suggested that the Russian
government was the prime suspect in what looked like an attempt gone wrong to assassinate Sergei
Skripal.
On 12 March the
foreign secretary summoned
the Russian ambassador to inform him that a nerve agent, A-234,
had been used against the Skripals. How did you do it, Johnson wanted to know, or did the
Russian government lose control of its stocks of chemical weapons? He gave the Russian
ambassador 24 hours to respond. In point of fact, the Russian government does not possess any
stockpiles of chemical weapons or nerve agents, having destroyed them all as of September 2017.
Later that day, the British prime
minister, Theresa May, declared in the House of Commons that the Skripals, then said to be in a
coma, were poisoned with "a military-grade nerve agent
of a type developed by Russia
"
(italics added) called a 'novichok', a Russian word having various possible translations into
English (beginner, novice, newcomer, etc.). May claimed that since the Soviet Union was known to
have produced this chemical weapon, or nerve agent (also known as A-234), that it was "
highly
likely
" that the Russian government was guilty of the attack on the Skripals.
Here is what the prime minister
said in the House of Commons: "Either this was a direct act by the Russian State against our
country. Or the Russian government lost control of this potentially catastrophically damaging
nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others." The hurried British accusations
were redolent of those in 2014 alleging Russian government complicity or direct involvement in
the shooting down of Malaysian Airlines MH 17 over the Ukraine.
Within hours
of the
destruction of MH 17, the United States and its vassals, including Britain, accused Russia of
being responsible.
The western
modus operandi
is the same in the Skripal case. The Tories rushed to conclusions and issued a 24-hour ultimatum
to the Russian government to prove its innocence, or rather to admit its guilt. How was the
so-called novichok delivered to London, did President Vladimir Putin authorise the attack, did
Russia lose control of its stockpile? The prime minister and her foreign secretary had in effect
declared Russia guilty as charged. No objective police investigation, no due process, no
presumption of innocence, no evidence was necessary: it was "sentence first, verdict later", as
the Red Queen declared in
Alice in Wonderland
.
On 13 March the Russian embassy
informed the Foreign Office that the Russian Federation was not involved in any way with the
Salisbury incident. We will not respond to an ultimatum, came the reply from Moscow. The
eloquent Russian foreign ministry spokesperson, Mariia Zakharova, characterised the British
démarche as a "circus show". Actually, Foreign Office clerks must have told Boris Johnson that
Russia would not respond to such an ultimatum so that it was a deliberate British attempt to
provoke a negative Russian reply.
The Russian foreign minister,
Sergei Lavrov, stated for the record that "as soon as the rumors, fed by the British leadership,
about the poisoning of Skripal appeared, we immediately requested access to this [toxic]
substance so that our experts could analyze it in accordance with the Convention on the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons." After the British ambassador visited the Russian foreign
ministry on 13 March to receive the formal Russian reply to the British ultimatum, the foreign
ministry in Moscow issued a communiqué: " The [Salisbury] incident appears to be yet another
crooked attempt by the UK authorities to discredit Russia. Any threat to take 'punitive'
measures against Russia will meet with a response. The British side should be aware of that."
The Russian government in fact proposed that the alleged poisoning of the Skripals should be
examined by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague,
according to procedures to which Britain itself had agreed when the OPCW was established in
1997.
On 14 March the British government
expelled 23 Russian diplomats, and a few days later the Russian side expelled 23 British
diplomats and shuttered the offices of the British Council in Russia. At the same time, the
British appealed to their allies and to the European Union to show solidarity by expelling
Russian diplomats.
Twenty-eight countries
did so, though for most it was one or two expulsions, tokenism to
appease the British. Other countries -- for example, Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, Portugal -- refused to
join the stampede. Going over the top, the United States expelled
sixty
diplomats and
closed the Russian consulate in Seattle. The Russians responded in kind with sixty expulsions
and the closure of the US consulate in St. Petersburg. Momentum seemed to be building toward a
major confrontation. The British prime minister even alluded to the possibility of
military action
.
In the meantime, President Putin
weighed in. "I guess any reasonable person [has] realised," he said, "that this is complete
absurd[ity] and nonsense. [How could] anybody in Russia allow themselves such actions on the
eve of the [Russian] presidential election and the football World Cup? This is unthinkable." In
any police inquiry, investigators look for means, motive and opportunity. On these grounds did
the trail of guilt lead to Moscow?
Momentum is sometimes like a
balloon, it blows up and then it suddenly bursts. The British case against Russia began to fall
apart almost from the time it was made. In late March the Russian newspaper
Kommersant
leaked
a British PowerPoint presentation
sent to eighty embassies in Moscow. It asserted,
inter
alia
, that the British chemical weapons facility at Porton Down had positively identified
the substance, which allegedly poisoned the Skripals, as a Novichok, "developed only by Russia".
Both these statements are false. On 3 April Porton Down stated publicly that it could
not
determine the origin of the substance that poisoned the Skripals. It also came out that the
formula for making a so-called novichok was published in a book by a Russian dissident and
chemist, Vil Mirzayanov, who now lives in the United States. You can buy his book (published in
2008), which includes the formula, on
Amazon.com
. In fact, any number of governments or smart chemists or even bright
undergraduate chemistry students with the proper facilities could make this nerve agent. Amongst
those governments having access to the original formula are Britain and the United States. The
Russian embassy in London noted in
a published report
that "neither Russia nor the Soviet Union has ever developed an agent
named 'Novichok'." The report further stated that "While Soviet scientists did work on new types
of chemical poisons, the word 'Novichok' was introduced in the West in mid-1990s to designate a
series of new chemical agents developed there on the basis of information made available by
Russian expat researchers. The British insistence to use the Russian word 'Novichok' is an
attempt to artificially link the substance to Russia."
The British PowerPoint presentation
did not stop with its two main canards. It goes on to refer to "Russian malign activity"
including,
inter alia
, the "invasion" of Georgia in 2008, the "destabilisation" of the
Ukraine and the shooting down of MH17 in 2014, and interference in the US elections in 2016. All
of these claims are
audacious lies
, easily deconstructed and unpacked. The referenced
events are also unrelated to the Salisbury incident and were raised in an attempt to smear the
Russian Federation. In fact, the British PowerPoint slides represent vulgar propaganda,
bourrage de crâne
, as preposterous as any seen during the Cold War.
As Minister Lavrov pointed out, the
Skripal case should have gone for resolution to the OPCW in The Hague. Russia would then be
directly involved in the investigation and would have access to the alleged toxin, and other
evidence to try to determine what had happened and who were the perpetrators. The British
government at first refused to go to the OPCW, and then when it did, refused to authorise the
Russian government to have access to the alleged substance, which had sickened the Skripals.
That idea is "perverse", said British authorities. Actually, not at all, it is the procedure
laid out in OPCW statutes, to which Britain itself agreed but has refused to respect. When the
Russian representative at the OPCW proposed a resolution to the executive council, that it
should respect its own statutes, he could not obtain the required vote of approval. The British
were
attempting to
hijack
the OPCW as a potential tool against the Russian Federation. Thus far, that stratagem
has not worked. On 12 April the OPCW released
a report
stating that it had "confirm[ed] the findings of the United Kingdom relating to the
identity of the toxic chemical that was used in Salisbury ." The
report said
nothing
about the origin of the so-called "toxic chemical". The British
accusation against Russia thus remained unsubstantiated.
What I could not understand when I
read the OPCW communiqué, is why the Skripals were still alive. The OPCW says that the toxic
chemical used against the Skripals was "of high purity". Was it a nerve agent? Oddly, the OPCW
published report avoids a straight answer. If it was a nerve agent, being of "high purity," it
should have been instant acting and killed the Skripals almost immediately. Yet both have
survived at the time of this writing. Something does not make sense. Of course, there could be a
simple explanation for this puzzling mystery.
On 14 April, Minister Lavrov at
a meeting in Moscow
provided the answer. The substance used to attack the Skripals was laced
with a substance know as BZ which incapacitates rather than kills and takes longer to work than
an instant acting nerve agent which kills immediately. The United States, Britain and other NATO
countries have developed this toxin and put it into service; the Soviet Union never did so.
Traces of A-234 were also identified, but according to experts, such a concentration of the
A-234 agent would cause death to anyone affected by it. "Moreover,"
according to the Russian embassy in London
, "considering its high volatility, the detection
of this substance in its initial state (pure form and high concentration) is extremely
suspicious as the samples have been taken several weeks since the poisoning," Could Britsh
authorities have tampered with the samples? The public OPCW report gives no details, and refers
only to a "toxic chemical". Nor did the report say that the OPCW had submitted specimens of the
substance to a
well-known
Swiss lab
, which promptly reported back its surprising results. The OPCW authorities thus
lied when they said that the tests "confirmed" the British identify of the "toxic chemical".
Unless
Porton Down knew that the substance used against the Skripals was a BZ type toxin,
and so informed the OPCW, or, unless the Tory government lied in claiming publicly that it was a
novichok nerve agent. The British attempted hijacking of the OPCW has compromised its
independence, for the public report issued on 12 April is misleading. Moreover, since the BZ
toxin is made by the US, Britain and other NATO countries, it begs the same questions, which the
Tories put to Moscow: how did the perpetrators obtain the BZ toxin and bring it to Salisbury,
did MI5 or MI6 authorise
a false flag attack
against the Skripals, or was it authorised by the British cabinet or by
the prime minister alone? Or did British authorities lose control of their stockpiles? The trail
of evidence does not lead to Moscow; it leads to London.
A
prima facie
case can be
made that the British government is lying about the Skripal
affaire
. Suspicion always
falls upon those who act deviously, who hide behind clever turns of phrase and procedural and
rhetorical smokescreens. British authorities are now saying that they have other top secret
evidence, which explains everything, but unfortunately it can't be publicised. Nevertheless, the
British government appears to have leaked it to the press.
The Times
published a story about a covert Russian lab producing nerve agents and it spread like wild fire
across the Mainstream Media.
The Daily Mirror
put out a story about a Russian secret assassins' training manual.
These stories are laughable. Is the Tory government that desperate? Is the British "everyman"
that gullible?
The secret assassin's manual
reminds me of the 1924 "Zinoviev Letter", a counterfeit document produced by White Russians in
Germany, purporting to demonstrate Soviet interference in British elections and planning for a
socialist revolution. It was early days of "fake news". Parliamentary elections were underway in
October 1924 and the Tories used the letter to attack the credibility of the Labour party. It
was whipping up the red scare, and it worked like a charm. The Tories won a majority
government. Soviet authorities claimed that the letter was bogus and they demanded a third
party, independent investigation to ascertain the truth, just as the Russian government has done
now. In 1924, the Tories refused, and understandably so, since they had a lot to hide. It took
seventy-five years to determine that "the letter" was in fact counterfeit.
The Tories are again acting as if
they have something to hide. It is
déjà vu.
Will it take seventy-five years to get at
the truth? Are there any honest British cops, judges, civil servants ready to reveal the truth?
There is other evidence to suggest
that the British narrative on the Salisbury incident is bogus. The London Metropolitan Police
have sought to prevent any outside contact with the Skripals. They have taken away a recovered
Yulia Skripal to an unknown location. They have until now denied Russian consular authorities
access to a Russian citizen in violation of British approved consular agreements. Is there any
chapter of international law, which the British government now respects? British authorities
have denied access to Yulia Skripal's family in Russia; they have denied a visa to Yulia's
cousin, Viktoria, to visit with her. Are British spooks grooming Yulia, briefing her to stay on
the Tory narrative? Is she being manipulated like some kind of Manchurian Candidate? Have they
induced her to betray her country in exchange for emoluments, a new identity in the United
States, a house, a BMW and money? Are they playing upon her loyalty to her father? Based on
a statement
attributed to Yulia by the London Metropolitan Police, it
begins to look that way
. Or, is the message, sounding very British and official, quite
simply a fake? The Russian embassy in London suspects that it is. What is certain is that
British authorities are acting as though they have something to hide. Even
German
politicians, amongst others, have criticised the British rush to indict Russia.
Damage control is underway. Given all the evidence, can any person with reasonable abilities to
think critically believe
anything
the Tories are saying about the Salisbury affair?
"They are liars. And they know that
they are liars," the late Egyptian writer and Nobel laureate Naguib Mahfouz once wrote: "And we
know that they are liars. Even so, they keep lying ." Mahfouz was not writing about the British,
but all the same, he could have been. Are not his well-known lines apposite to the present
government in London?
The sheer arrogance and wilful blindness expressed in the US State Department press statement
and WaPo staffer Louisa Loveluck's tweets are astounding beyond belief. It's as if the
entire capital city of the US has become a mental asylum / Hotel California , where one
can enter but never leave spiritually and morally, though one can take many physical trips in
and out of the madhouse.
Iraq definitely does need the S-300 missile defense systems. The most pressing issue
though is whether the Iraqis will suffer the delays Syria suffered in acquiring those systems
even after paying for them.
Time now is of the essence. Iraqi operators need to be trained in those systems. Syria may
be able to supply some training but at the risk of letting down its guard in sending some of
its operators to Baghdad and exposing them to US drone attacks.
They really are able to turn white into black and black into white.
Notable quotes:
"... 1) Occurs as Iran is on brink of war with USA?; 2) Indications of USA using info war tactics; 3) airliner owner by Kolomoisky? 4) No communication with tower? 5) USA and Israel history of duplicity and narrative management (example: MH-17). ..."
"... NATO has weaponized aircraft accident investigations. Lawfare in combination with state terrorism. ..."
"... The Ukies know how to obliterate a debris field. MH-17 -- They used artillery for months to keep OSCE and Dutch officials away, and despite the locals working to protect the deceased and the debris, body parts have been found years later. ..."
There were also clear sightings of a missile to bring down TWA 800. Except it didn't. As an
Navy Pilot , flight instructor and 737 captain this does not at 1st or 2nd glance appear to
be a missile strike. Catastropic engine failure is my bet. They made most of the turn back to
the airport before losing integrity or loss of thrust.
On Wednesday, Boeing's shares plummeted by 2.3 percent ($3.4bn) after the Ukrainian Boeing
737-800 aircraft crashed in Tehran due to encountering a technical glitch.
On Thursday, the stock rose by 3 percent after unnamed Pentagon officials claimed that
the Ukrainian passenger plane was most likely brought down by anti-aircraft missiles, and
US President Donald Trump implicitly supported the claim. This has been read by analysists
as an attempt to manipulate the stock market; a measure that would both overshadow Trump's
failure in Iraq and save Boeing from bankruptcy.
I didn't find the article on TASS. Maybe it was in its Russian version, or in its
TV/Radio/Podcast version.
I don't discard a terrorist attack from the inside, or sabotage of the plane by the
Ukrainian government. What I think is missile attack can be pretty much discarded: the
evidence the Iranians already have through their air control data discard any possibility, by
sheer logic alone, that that was the case.
Unless, of course, the Iranians are lying. But then there isn't any cui bono for Iran to
lie about it (if it was a mistake they wanted to cover, they could blame a random independent
militia so as to give plausible deniability) with the technical malfunction argument, and now
Russia's foreign minister Ryabkov is on the boat with it - so I don't see the cui bono for
Russia either.
Perseus wore a magic cap so that the monsters he hunted down might not see him. Some of
you choose to draw the magic cap down over your eyes and ears so as to make-believe that
there are no monsters in Iran.
"Some of you choose to draw the magic cap down over your eyes and ears so as to
make-believe that there are no monsters in Iran."
No, it is a lot easier than that.
Most of us dont get paid to post bs about the imperial enemies like you, and most off us
still know how to use our brain.
That is it, nothing more nothing less.
Rob@2 - What do you make of the loss of ADS-B? Could a catastrophic engine failure take out
both power buses? The ADS-B transceiver? I know a the turbine blades turn into little missile
blades when they decide to leave the engine, but I have no idea of the way power is
transferred when either bus or the standby goes down. I assume automatic? Are the transfer
switches anywhere near the engines? Does the APU automatically fire up? I assume the ADS-B
box is in the electronics bay, but where is the antenna?
Thanks b! As I commented towards the end of the previous thread on this topic, the mundane
evidence has already been shown. IMO, if a missile or bomb was employed, the Iranians would
be yelling louder than anyone and the denials would be coming from BigLie Media instead of
accusations. And as I answered psychohistorian, the massive coverage by BigLie media serves
as narrative distraction from what's being obfuscated--casualties taken by Outlaw US Empire
troops and the BDA presented by Iranian Military.
In that regard, The
Saker's update sticks to the important facts of the now escalated ongoing war between
Iran and the Evil Empire.
Sorry, but there's good reasons to suspect foul play - as I and others have explained on the
last thread.
1) Occurs as Iran is on brink of war with USA?; 2) Indications of USA using info war
tactics; 3) airliner owner by Kolomoisky? 4) No communication with tower? 5) USA and Israel
history of duplicity and narrative management (example: MH-17).
<> <> <> <>
Also: IMO it's dangerous for Iran to invite experts from a group of Western countries.
What is likely to happen is that all the Western experts will be pressure to disagree with
Iran's findings. CIA knows that people will believe the "group of experts!" over Iran.
I don't know how anal Iran is about keeping track of ordinance but they must be pretty
certain as to whether they downed the plane or not! Looks like they are being transparent and
open. If they come out of this proving engine failure or something else then this could be a
great pr coup.
There would be a lot of egg on many faces trying to explain how the intelligence is wrong yet
again. I look forward to watching trudeau walk that back. Hopefully!
One explanation is the Boeing was used as a human shield, a military plane hides behind a
slow moving plane when detected. The ukrainians did it with the MH17 and the israeli with the
russian plane and tried it with the attack on damascus. In both cases there was a lot of
dis-info and blaming right away. But the iranian would have known what the target was, and
mentioned it, so very unlikely.
Another question is the possibility a smaller missile only damaged the plane, also very
unlikely.
Head of Iran Civil Aviation Organization Ali Abedzadeh exaggerates: "From a scientific
viewpoint, it is impossible that a missile hit the Ukrainian plane."
"We can say that the airplane, considering the kind of the crash and the pilot's efforts to
return it to Imam Khomeini airport, didn't explode in the air. So, the allegation that it was
hit by missiles is totally ruled out," the official noted.
Dude, when you're in Wyoming and see critter tracks down by the creek, you would assume it
was Martians rather than antelope? Get real. The Ukie blew a crappy GE engine...they have
this characteristic...
Stay real, use Occam's Razor + physical evidence. Otherwise it's distraction and
TBS...
Craig Murray has been tracking a propagandist Wikipedia editor called "Philip Cross", here
is the main article, but there are others on his site The Philip Cross
Affair
ICAO is in contact with the States involved and will assist them if called upon. Its
leadership is stressing the importance of avoiding speculation into the cause of the tragedy
pending the outcomes of the investigation ...
ICAO may be a worthy organization (some staff changes seem to be warranted), but isn't it
a bit too much?! If this is a sincere wish of democratically elected heads of democratic
nations that they want to form a harmonious chorus and speculate, then no mundane power can
stop them. BTW, what is wrong with Zelensky that he did not join? PTSD after the brutal
telephonies calls? I would add it to the list of proven damages to the security of those
several states that will be debated in the Senate. [end of snark, "several states" is the
entity named in the so-called Constitution of The United States of America].
The flight originated in Teheran, bound for Kiev, but where was it before it arrived in Iran?
It could have been sabotaged anywhere; then easy, right, to set off an onboard bomb by remote
control from the ground? I'm sure Iran is crawling with Mosssad/MI6/CIA spooks.
So you turn a blind eye to atrocities committed by other countries or peoples because the
US government is responsible for the most? Did you even complete your high school education
with that sort of reasoning? I never absolved the US or any other country. Simpletons like
you seem to live in a black and white world in which one side must be chosen over the other.
I feel unfortunate for b or anyone else who frequents this blog who does not view the world
in such a profoundly problematic way.
I am far more informed about Iranian politics, history, culture and religion than most
people here. Please don't allow your hate for the USA, well justified, to cloud your
judgment.
NATO has weaponized aircraft accident investigations. Lawfare in combination with state
terrorism.
It's time for new rules and regulations. ICAO Annex 13 was drafted in different times. A
rule based order is ancient history.
People should be able to chose their destination, route and carrier based on personal
preferences like price and comfort, not on factors like the latest or next conflict zone,
corruption in the countries along the route, military and political adventurism, etc.
- As said before: I didn't believe for one second that that ukrainian plane was shot down. It
would have given the US simply another stick to beat up the iranian government. I assume the
iranians are smart enough to know that. They simply don't want to escalate the situation
more. Although Iran has now the "moral high ground" it is still (very) vulnerable in a number
of ways.
- I think the ukrainian tourists were small traders. I.e. buy stuff e.g. clothing and other
"merchandise" in Teheran, bring it into the Ukraine and then sell that "merchandise" in
Ukraine with a (big) profit.
We have a distinguished professor in our midst! Quite unlike the lowly regular
professors or inconsequential adjunct instructors that normally grace these pages. Let me
kick back and get a tan from the brilliance pouring out of this one! Us high latitude types
have to get our Vitamin D wherever we can.
As for my lack of criticism of Iran's government, that's the business of the Iranian
people and none of my own. The Evil Empire attacking Iran? That, unfortunately, is everyone's
business whether they want it to be or not.
Why is it that these wise guys from the West (Americans mostly) feel it is their duty to
criticize everyone else's governments and cultures when the examples they are setting
themselves are so appallingly bad? Maybe these distinguished critics of other peoples'
ways of life feel that it is easier to fix those other peoples' societies than it is to fix
their own. After all, they apparently feel that fixing other countries just requires some
number of bombs, while fixing their own country... where do they even start? How do you fix
perfection?
I'd be curious to know whether the flight crew on board Flight PS752 had had sufficient rest.
Three hours of resting do not seem like sufficient time but that depends on the journey the
plane made to Tehran, the duration of that journey and where it started. Was the plane also
checked for signs of wear and tear during the three-hour-plus pause?
Are UIA's owners (among them Ihor Kolomoisky) working their employees and hardware assets
too hard and too cheaply as well?
Yes. I think so too. Looks like the engine ran at reduced thrust as they turned, and then
failed entirely at below minimum control speed, with the expected result, asymmetrical stall,
yaw, roll, bang.
There are pictures of severe erosion of what looks like compressor wheel from, presumably,
ingestion of foreign material. Crap on the runway probably, and pencil-whipped maintenance, I
should imagine.
journey80@26 - Kiev is Ukrainian Airlines main hub. The 737 arrived from Kiev earlier that
morning and was returning there.
Jen@36 - No reason to do anything but a cursory safety check at Tehran. The airline's
mechanics are in Kiev - anything beyond a normal pre-flight check involving maintenance would
be done there, not Tehran. I doubt the crew was rested. That's not how UAI rolls on it's hub
round-trips.
UAI is also bleeding money like crazy. They're nearly bankrupt and stole the money they
collect from passengers for the Ukraine Civil Aviation Authority fees. Tens of millions USD.
The new CEO promises to fix everything somehow. I guess by overworking crews, skipping
maintenance and crappy service. Those are always money-savers for cheap, poorly-run airlines
(prior to bankruptcy). Too bad. Supposedly it wasn't that bad of an airline when they first
added passenger service to their existing cargo ops a decade ago, but has been going downhill
ever since.
"Some real gems you got following your blog b." So why are you here?
Ocams razor... bookies odds... planes fall out o the sky from time to time for all sorts of
reasons not related to malicious activity. What are the odds of this occurring in Iran
shortly after an Iran strike on a US base.
The US has and does use terrorist tactics such as shooting down passenger jets. Trump
threatened Iran with retribution against cultural sites and so forth (terrorist actions).
Fifty two targets of fifty two ways of getting back at Iran.
What are the odds US would down a passenger jet in Iran within hours of Iran's strike against
their base.
I have to go with US terrorist actions for that one. Similar to the protests in Iraq. The
people had genuine grievances as do all good color revolutions but the were just too
advantageous for the US for it not to be a made in the US color revolution style protest. We
now know from the Iraq PM that is exactly what it was.
The odds are unrelated unless there's agency. No agency has been credibly proposed. You know
this is so, as the probability maths in se have been discussed previously @ MoA.
But of course, the US does murder all over the place, so if there is agency, then I tend
to agree with the idea that "they" or their cohort in zionishland may be causative. What are
the "odds" that the engine shown has severe blade erosion? Again 100% . Engine swallows scrap
off the tarmac...a dependent relation, drop junk in engine, blades damaged, run at 100%, 100%
"chance" of engine failure.
Repeating the essence of the matter of odds>
"Two events are independent, statistically independent, or stochastically independent if
the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of occurrence of the other
(equivalently, does not affect the odds). Similarly, two random variables are independent if
the realization of one does not affect the probability distribution of the other."
ie without a dependent relationship the odds are whatever the odds are for engine failure
and crash. And the other odds don't exist, because those events, the shooting, was not random
or accidental. The odds of Iran firing rockets in reprisal was dependent on the US attacks,
ie 100%
But if you're building engines at GE, or obsolete defective airplanes in Seattle, then of
course the odds are that you devoutly wish it was a rocket up the tailpipe... Pay-day's come
Friday, and all of that...
I know NYT is a sham, and believe me I held my intellectual nose as I went into its site.
It's not somewhere I frequent at all.
I did think about the point you made too, but there are 2 issues:
1) In the other 2 videos we see the plane as it's already burning, we don't see it in its
"before" state. For me it's reasonable to imagine the hit on the impact caused some initial
burning which was extinguished due to wind, and then started back up again a few moments
after the NYT video ended and before the other 2 videos began.
2) If the NYT video is indeed doctored (and for me it would be a pretty convincing
doctor), why wouldn't the creator simply keep the light going until the end of the vid?
Iran will announce the cause of the Ukrainian Boeing 737 crash after the accident
investigation commission meeting on Saturday, the Fars News agency reported on Thursday,
citing a source familiar with the matter.
"Tomorrow, after the meeting of the civil aviation accident investigation
commission, the cause of the crash of the Ukrainian passenger plane will be announced", the
source said.
Domestic and foreign parties, whose citizens died in the crash, will take part in the
Saturday meeting, the outlet added. They will announce the reason for the accident after
reviewing the preliminary report.
[.]Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko asked that the media not spread "unconfirmed"
information on Friday, pleading with reporters to "reduce the level of speculation" while
the probe continues. The experts are still analyzing evidence, looking at the bodies of the
victims and the wreckage in hope of gaining insight into what took down Ukraine
International Airlines Flight PS752, killing all 176 people on board.[,]
If no one had engaged with nine-drongos the thread would not have been disrupted and perhaps
a useful dialog about the plane crash could have ensued. Those who did swallow the hook are
just as guilty the original whatabouter of making this thread useless - good job. I would say
exercise some discipline but that would be a waste of breath given the insecurities about
their beliefs too many here apparently have. Letting some arsehole spout uninterrupted is a
better indication of your point of view than anger, hysteria or ad hominem. Your stupidity
has caused a thread to fail.
The Ukies know how to obliterate a debris field. MH-17 -- They used artillery for months to
keep OSCE and Dutch officials away, and despite the locals working to protect the deceased
and the debris, body parts have been found years later.
#57 posted by Poor Ramin Mazaheri who works for Press TV and has had many articles published
on The Saker. He would describe the Iranian economy as socialist with Iranian charters. The
link to the article below is an excellent source for information on Iran's economy.
What comes as a surprise to me is ICAO seems to have some integrity. It seems the US and
friends haven't completely taken it over.
You can judge someone by their friends. NATO and the terrorists in Idlib have backed the
killing of Soleimani. Who seems to enjoy killing civilians? The US just droned killed 60
civilians in Afghanistan. Information provided by the Iraqi prime minister showed the US is
willing to use snipers and paid protesters to tear Iraq apart. They utterly destroyed Mosul
and Raqqa without regard for civilians. The Syrian government has tried to avoid civilian
deaths, which is why those who want to cause chaos in the region always accuses them of
targeting civilians. So the US would have no problem getting MEK to or some other group to
shoot the plane down but I'm leaning against that scenario.
The US has been planning to control oil for a long time. In 1975 a feasibility study was
prepared for the Special Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on International
Relations on "Oil fields as military objectives", better described as bringing Democracy to
the Middle East. Well, they did that sorta in Iraq, and now the Iraq government has politely
asked the US to leave and the Iranians have demonstrated to them why they should leave. I'm
not sure if the Ukrainian plane crashing is the next move the US has made in this great game,
but I would put my money on shoddy management of the Ukrainian plane. Why not, the country is
barely functioning. I doubt the plane was hit with a missle. More likely the US can't pass up
an opportunity for stirring trouble and the MSM has no problem memory holing another lie.
For MI6 this level of detachment from reality is stunning
Notable quotes:
"... "The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to prevent President Trump from publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election meddling investigation. ... much of the espionage performed on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil throughout 2016." ..."
"... "Gregory R. Copley, editor and publisher of Defense & Foreign Affairs, posited that Sergei Skripal is the unnamed Russian intelligence source in the Steele dossier. ... In Skripal's pseudo-country-gentleman retirement, the ex-GRU-MI6 double agent was selling custom-made "Russian intelligence"; he had fabricated "material" that went into the Steele dossier..." ..."
That shed some light on the common origin of MH17, Russiagate and Scripal propaganda campaigns connecting all three with British
government's psy-op operation called The ' Integrity Initiative ' which builds 'cluster' or contact groups of trusted journalists,
military personal, academics and lobbyists within foreign countries. These people get alerts via social media to take action when
the British center perceives a need.
And among others participants, William Browder is listed too:
Members of the Atlantic Council, which has a contract to censor Facebook posts , appear on several cluster lists. The UK core
cluster also includes some prominent names like tax fraudster William Browder , the daft Atlantic Council shill Ben Nimmo and
the neo-conservative Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum. One person of interest is Andrew Wood who handed the Steele
'dirty dossier' to Senator John McCain to smear Donald Trump over alleged relations with Russia. A separate subcluster of so-called
journalists names Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch of the London Times, Neil Buckley from the FT and Jonathan Marcus of the
BBC.
Here is one interesting comment from MoA:
Anya, Nov 24, 2018 11:57:00 AM
The British government has been running a serious meddling into the US affairs:
"The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to prevent President Trump from
publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election meddling investigation. ... much of the espionage performed
on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil
throughout 2016."
"Gregory R. Copley, editor and publisher of Defense & Foreign Affairs, posited that Sergei Skripal is the unnamed
Russian intelligence source in the Steele dossier. ... In Skripal's pseudo-country-gentleman retirement, the ex-GRU-MI6
double agent was selling custom-made "Russian intelligence"; he had fabricated "material" that went into the Steele dossier..."
For M16 to expose this level of stupidity is stunning.
"... "There ain't room in this internet for the both of us," growled one CNN anchor on the air Monday evening. "There simply aren't enough people out there for us to fool with our fake news stories and The Babylon Bee to fool with their satire. There isn't enough clickbait and outrage traffic to go around. " ..."
CNN has slammed the world's best satire site, The Babylon Bee, after CNN executives
realized that "fake news" articles on the website were getting at least as much social media
traction as their own.
"There ain't room in this internet for the both of us," growled one CNN anchor on the air
Monday evening. "There simply aren't enough people out there for us to fool with our fake
news stories and The Babylon Bee to fool with their satire. There isn't enough clickbait and
outrage traffic to go around. "
"They're obviously amateurs over there at The Bee," said Brian Stelter.
"A lot of times, their reporting comes true. If you're gonna do fake news, do it right --
100% fake, guaranteed, 24/7. They really should learn from the pros over here at CNN."
Is there a chorus of politicians singing in there about how lazy they are, and how they
never bothered to verify Browder' story? The story is indeed remarkable, but not in the way
that first appears.
Stephen Fry / @stephenfry
You may or may not know the remarkable story of @Billbrowder and the #MagnitskyAct - find
out the startling truth by listening to
#MagnitskytheMusical by the wondrous @JohnnyFlynnHQ & @roberthudson - @BBCRadio3 7.30 Sun
12th Jan
Book and lyrics by Robert Hudson
Music and lyrics by Johnny Flynn
12 January 2020
О 1 hour, 34 minutes
Johnny Flynn and Robert Hudson bring us a musical based on the
incredible story of an American venture capitalist, a Russian tax
advisor, a crazy heist, the Trump Tower meeting and the very rule of
law.
Blending music and satire, the story explores the truths and fictions
surrounding the origins and aftershocks of the Magnitsky Act; global
legislation which allows governments to sanction those who they see
as offenders of human rights.
It tells the story of a tax adviser's struggle to uncover a huge tax
fraud, his imprisonment by the very authorities he is investigating,
and the American financier's crusade for justice.
Johnny Flynn, Paul Chahidi and members of the cast perform songs in
a epic story that explores democracy, corruption, and how we
undervalue the law at our peril.
Bill Paul Chahidi Sergei Johnny Flynn Jamie Fenella
Woolgar Natalia Ellie Kendrick Kuznetsov Gus Brown Guard Clive Hayward Silchenko Ian
Conningham Jared Will Kirk Fisherman Neil McCaul Judge Jessica Turner
Additional singing by Sinead Maclnnes, Laura Christy, Scarlett
Courtney and Lucy Reynolds.
The cellist is Joe Zeitlin. Sound is by Peter Ringrose.
Directed by Sasha Yevtushenko.
The Ukraine wants to do the 737 accident investigation. Why? To delegate it to the Dutch, get
Bellingcat involved and blame it on Russia?
I am sure Bellingcat will find some shitty video online of a Russian Buk that backed up
all the way from Kursk to Tehran without nobody else noticing it. Putin's niece was driving
it by direct order from the Kremlin!
Mike Pence will blame Iran for MH17 and Iraq will be sanctioned for it. Don't you just love the rule based order?
"We have learned today from #Iraq Prime Minister AdilAbdl Mahdi how @realDonaldTrump uses
diplomacy:
#US asked #Iraq to mediate with #Iran. Iraq PM asks #QassemSoleimani to come and talk to him
and give him the answer of his mediation, Trump &co assassinate an envoy at the airport."
@ChuckOrloski
At the time I thought that it might be justified, if Al Qaida actually did 9/11. Now I know
that Al Qaida was and is a CIA operation and have my doubts regarding its involvement in
9/11.
Even if it was, that was on direct orders of its American handlers.
What's more, now I
know for sure that the US government spreads shameless lies, so you can't believe anything it
says. In fact, you can safely assume that everything it says is a lie and be right 99.9% of
the time.
So, I did not see it as a war crime back then, but I do now.
America's three principal adversaries signify the shape of the world to come: a post-Western
world of coexistence. But neoliberal and neocon ideology is unable to to accept global
pluralism and multipolarity, argues Patrick Lawrence.
Special to Consortium News
The Trump administration has brought U.S. foreign policy to the brink of crisis, if it has
not already tipped into one. There is little room to argue otherwise. In Asia, Europe, and the
Middle East, and in Washington's ever-fraught relations with Russia, U.S. strategy, as reviewed
in my
previous column , amounts to little more than spoiling the efforts of others to negotiate
peaceful solutions to war and dangerous standoffs in the interests of an orderly world.
The bitter reality is that U.S. foreign policy has no definable objective other than
blocking the initiatives of others because they stand in the way of the further expansion of
U.S. global interests. This impoverished strategy reflects Washington's refusal to accept the
passing of its relatively brief post–Cold War moment of unipolar power.
There is an error all too common in American public opinion. Personalizing Washington's
regression into the role of spoiler by assigning all blame to one man, now Donald Trump,
deprives one of deeper understanding. This mistake was made during the steady attack on civil
liberties after the Sept. 11 tragedies and then during the 2003 invasion of Iraq: namely that
it was all George W. Bush's fault. It was not so simple then and is not now. The crisis of U.S.
foreign policy -- a series of radical missteps -- are systemic. Having little to do with
personalities, they pass from one administration to the next with little variance other than at
the margins.
Let us bring some history to this question of America as spoiler. What is the origin of this
undignified and isolating approach to global affairs?
It began with that hubristic triumphalism so evident in the decade after the Cold War's end.
What ensued had various names.
There was the "end of history" thesis. American liberalism was humanity's highest
achievement, and nothing would supersede it.
There was also the "Washington consensus." The world was in agreement that free-market
capitalism and unfettered financial markets would see the entire planet to prosperity. The
consensus never extended far beyond the Potomac, but this sort of detail mattered little at the
time.
The neoliberal economic crusade accompanied by neoconservative politics had its intellectual
ballast, and off went its true-believing warriors around the world.
Happier days with Russia. (Eric Draper)
Failures ensued. Iraq post–2003 is among the more obvious. Nobody ever planted
democracy or built free markets in Baghdad. Then came the "color revolutions," which resulted
in the destabilization of large swathes of the former Soviet Union's borderlands. The 2008
financial crash followed.
I was in Hong Kong at the time and recall thinking, "This is not just Lehman Brothers. An
economic model is headed into Chapter 11." One would have thought a fundamental rethink in
Washington might have followed these events. There has never been one.
The orthodoxy today remains what it was when it formed in the 1990s: The neoliberal crusade
must proceed. Our market-driven, "rules-based" order is still advanced as the only way out of
our planet's impasses.
A Strategic and Military Turn
Midway through the first Obama administration, a crucial turn began. What had been an
assertion of financial and economic power, albeit coercive in many instances, particularly with
the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, took on further strategic and military dimensions. The
NATO bombing campaign in Libya, ostensibly a humanitarian mission, became a regime-change
operation -- despite Washington's promises otherwise. Obama's "pivot to Asia" turned out to be
a neo-containment policy toward China. The "reset" with Russia, declared after Obama appointed
Hillary Clinton secretary of state, flopped and turned into the virulent animosity we now live
with daily. The U.S.-cultivated coup in Kiev in 2014 was a major declaration of drastic turn in
policy towards Moscow. So was the decision, taken in 2012 at
the latest , to back the radical jihadists who were turning civil unrest in Syria into a
campaign to topple the Assad government in favor of another Islamist regime.
Spoilage as a poor excuse for a foreign policy had made its first appearances.
I count 2013 to 2015 as key years. At the start of this period, China began developing what
it now calls its Belt and Road
Initiative -- its hugely ambitious plan to stitch together the Eurasian landmass, Shanghai
to Lisbon. Moscow favored this undertaking, not least because of the key role Russia had to
play and because it fit well with President Vladimir Putin's Eurasian Economic
Union (EAEU), launched in 2014.
Belt and Road Initiative. (Lommes / CC BY-SA 4.0)
In 2015, the last of the three years I just noted, Russia intervened militarily and
diplomatically in the Syria conflict, in part to protect its southwest from Islamist extremism
and in part to pull the Middle East back from the near-anarchy then threatening it as well as
Russia and the West.
Meanwhile, Washington had cast China as an adversary and committed itself -- as it
apparently remains -- to regime change in Syria. Three months prior to the treaty that
established the EAEU, the Americans helped turn another case of civil unrest into a regime
change -- this time backing not jihadists in Syria but the crypto-Nazi militias in Ukraine on
which the government now in power still depends.
That is how we got the U.S.-as-spoiler foreign policy we now have.
If there is a president to blame -- and again, I see little point in this line of argument
-- it would have to be Barack Obama. To a certain extent, Obama was a creature of those around
him, as he acknowledged in his interview
with Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic toward the end of his second term. From
that
"Anonymous" opinion piece published in The New York Times on Sept. 5, we know Trump
is too, to a greater extent than Obama may have feared in his worst moments.
The crucial question is why. Why do U.S. policy cliques find themselves bereft of
imaginative thinking in the face of an evolving world order? Why has there been not a single
original policy initiative since the years I single out, with the exception of the
now-abandoned 2015 accord governing Iran's nuclear programs? "Right now, our job is to create
quagmires until we get what we want," an administration official
told The Washington Post 's David Ignatius in August.
Can you think of a blunter confession of intellectual bankruptcy? I can't.
Global 'Equals' Like Us?
There is a longstanding explanation for this paralysis. Seven decades of global hegemony,
the Cold War notwithstanding, left the State Department with little to think about other than
the simplicities of East-West tension. Those planning and executing American diplomacy lost all
facility for imaginative thinking because there was no need of it. This holds true, in my view,
but there is more to our specific moment than mere sclerosis within the policy cliques.
As I have argued numerous times elsewhere, parity between East and West is a 21st century
imperative. From Woodrow Wilson to the post-World War II settlement, an equality among all
nations was in theory what the U.S. considered essential to global order.
Now that this is upon us, however, Washington cannot accept it. It did not count on
non-Western nations achieving a measure of prosperity and influence until they were "just like
us," as the once famous phrase had it. And it has not turned out that way.
Can't we all just get along? (Carlos3653 / Wikimedia)
Think of Russia, China, and Iran, the three nations now designated America's principal
adversaries. Each one is fated to become (if it is not already) a world or regional power and a
key to stability -- Russia and China on a global scale, Iran in the Middle East. But each
stands resolutely -- and this is not to say with hostile intent -- outside the Western-led
order. They have different histories, traditions, cultures, and political cultures. And they
are determined to preserve them.
They signify the shape of the world to come -- a post-Western world in which the Atlantic
alliance must coexist with rising powers outside its orbit. Together, then, they signify
precisely what the U.S. cannot countenance. And if there is one attribute of neoliberal and
neoconservative ideology that stands out among all others, it is its complete inability to
accept difference or deviation if it threatens its interests.
This is the logic of spoilage as a substitute for foreign policy. Among its many
consequences are countless lost opportunities for global stability.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International
Herald Tribune, is a columnist, essayist, author, and lecturer. His most recent book is Time
No Longer: Americans After the American Century (Yale). Follow him @thefloutist. His web
site is www.patricklawrence.us. Support his work via www.patreon.com/thefloutist .
If you valued this original article, please consider
making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this
one.
adversary: – one's opponent in a contest, conflict or dispute.
& I ask this
"Is it really thus"
"Why must it be thus"
How can China be an adversary of the USA when all their manufactured goods come from
China.
example:- a water distiller – manufactured in & purchased from China retails for
AU$70 odd.
The very same item manufactured in China – but purchased from the USA retails for
US$260 plus.
China should be a most welcome guest at the dinner table of the USA.
R Davis , September 20, 2018 at 04:28
While i'm here – where did China get all their surveillance equipment from –
the place is locked down tighter than a chicken coop plagued by foxes.
relevant article – CRAZZ FILES – Bone Chilling Footage Shows the Horrific
Tyranny Google is Now Secretly Fostering in China.
In my opinion Google is not trying to keep information out of China – BUT –
preventing information from get out of China – to the world at large.
A lockdown as severe as this – tells us that there is something seriously bad happening
inside China.
Maybe even a mass genocide
This analysis is correct as far as it goes. However, what is lacking is an analysis of the
lunatic monetary ideology that has looted the physical economy of the U.S. by putting
enormous fake profits of speculative instruments in the hands of our "elites." It is the post
industrial, information age economy which must be transformed by very painful loss of control
by these putative elites if the world is to survive their insane geopolitics. What the
Chinese are doing by rapid build up of worldwide infrastructure needs to be replicated here.
The only way of doing so is first by ending the Wall St./City of London derivatives nightmare
and then by issuing trillions of credits needed for that very purpose.
Agreed, you speak wisely of the root of the problem. Those who create and distribute money
make ALL the rules and dominate the political and media landscape.
This really is an excellent analysis. I would highlight the following point:
"There is a longstanding explanation for this paralysis. Seven decades of global hegemony,
the Cold War notwithstanding, left the State Department with little to think about other than
the simplicities of East-West tension. Those planning and executing American diplomacy lost
all facility for imaginative thinking because there was no need of it. This holds true, in my
view, but there is more to our specific moment than mere sclerosis within the policy cliques
"
Conformism and its consequences, probably derived in part from Puritanism and further
cemented by the alternating racisms of anti-indigenous and anti black attitudes- the history
of the lynch mob and various wars against the poor which ended up in the anti-communist
frenzies of the day before yesterday constitute the backbone of American history- is the
disease which afflicts Washington.
Don Bacon , September 14, 2018 at 18:03
You don't mention corruption and profiteering, which go hand-in-hand with American
Exceptionalism and the National Security State (NSS) formed in 1947. The leader of the world
which is also an NSS requires enemies, so the National Security Strategy designates enemies,
a few of them in an Axis of Evil. Arming to fight them and dreaming up other reasons to go to
war, including a war on terror of all things, bring the desired vast expenditures, trillions
of dollars, which translate to vast profits to those involved.
This focus on war has its roots in the Christian bible and in a sense of manifest destiny
that has occupied Americans since before they were Americans, and the real Americans had to
be exterminated. It certainly (as stated) can't be blamed on certain individuals, it's
predominate and nearly universal. How many Americans were against the assault by the
Coalition of the Willing upon Iraq? Very few.
Homer Jay , September 14, 2018 at 22:09
"How many Americans were against the assault by the Coalition of the Willing upon Iraq?
Very few."
Are you kidding me? Here is a list of polls of the American public regarding the Iraq War
2003-2007;
Even in the lead up the war when the public was force fed a diet comprised entirely of
State Dept. lies about WMDs by a sycophantic media, there was still a significant 25-40
percent of the public who opposed the war. You clearly are not American or you would remember
the vocal minority which filled the streets of big cities across this country. And again the
consent was as Chomsky says "manufactured." And it took only 1 year of the war for the
majority of the public to be against it. By 2007 60-70% of the public opposed the war.
Judging from your name you come from a country whose government was part of that coalition
of the willing. So should we assume that "very few" of your fellow country men and women were
against that absolute horror show that is the Iraq war?
Don Bacon , September 14, 2018 at 23:05
You failed to address my major point, and instead picked on something you're wrong on.
PS: bevin made approximately the same point later (w/o the financial factor).
"Conformism and its consequences, probably derived in part from Puritanism and further
cemented by the alternating racisms of anti-indigenous and anti black attitudes- the history
of the lynch mob and various wars against the poor which ended up in the anti-communist
frenzies of the day before yesterday constitute the backbone of American history- is the
disease which afflicts Washington."
Homer Jay , September 17, 2018 at 14:47
Respectfully, Your data backs up my comment/data. And to your larger point, again we must
be careful when describing such attitudes as "American", a country with a wide range of
attitudes/ beliefs. To suggest we are all just a war mongering mob is bigoted. You probably
will say that's defensive but it's also right. And making the recklessly inaccurate claim
that "very few" Americans opposed the war in Iraq, without taking into account the
disinformation campaign that played into the initial consent, needs to corrected more than
once.
Sari , September 14, 2018 at 15:15
I just encountered (via Voltairenet) "The Pentagon's New Map," a book written by Thomas
Barnett, an assistant once to Admiral Arthur K. Cebrowski (now deceased). Barnett wrote an
earlier article for the March 2003 Esquire entitled "Why the Pentagon Changes Its Map: And
Why We'll Keep Going to War" ( https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a1546/thomas-barnett-iraq-war-primer/
) describing their ideas which are introduced thusly:
"Since the end of the cold war, the United States has been trying to come up with an
operating theory of the world -- and a military strategy to accompany it. Now there's a
leading contender. It involves identifying the problem parts of the world and aggressively
shrinking them. Since September 11, 2001, the author, a professor of warfare analysis at the
U.S. Naval War College, has been advising the Office of the Secretary of Defense and giving
this briefing continually at the Pentagon and in the intelligence community. Now, he gives it
to you."
His basic premise: "Show me where globalization is thick with network connectivity,
financial transactions, liberal media flows, and collective security, and I will show you
regions featuring stable governments, rising standards of living, and more deaths by suicide
than murder. These parts of the world I call the Functioning Core, or Core. But show me where
globalization is thinning or just plain absent, and I will show you regions plagued by
politically repressive regimes, widespread poverty and disease, routine mass murder, and --
most important -- the chronic conflicts that incubate the next generation of global
terrorists. These parts of the world I call the Non-Integrating Gap, or Gap."
One more quote gives you the "Monarch Notes" edition: "Think about it: Bin Laden and Al
Qaeda are pure products of the Gap -- in effect, its most violent feedback to the Core. They
tell us how we are doing in exporting security to these lawless areas (not very well) and
which states they would like to take "offline" from globalization and return to some
seventh-century definition of the good life (any Gap state with a sizable Muslim population,
especially Saudi Arabia).
If you take this message from Osama and combine it with our military-intervention record
of the last decade, a simple security rule set emerges: A country's potential to warrant a
U.S. military response is inversely related to its globalization connectivity."
Of course, we all recognize how much prevarication currently exists in "implementing" this
strategy, but I would suggest that, very likely, the Pentagon is, indeed, following this "New
Map." And, yes, this "map" shows us why the U.S. has been continually at war since 9/11 and
subbornly refuses to leave Syria, Iraq, and the Middle East with their apparent justification
being "Might Makes Right." Thierry Mayssen (Voltairenet) aptly describes the Gap states as
"reservoirs of resources" driven into perpetual war, destabilization, and chaos by a
preeminently overwhelming hegemonic U.S. military.
I had to laugh. One of Barnett's reasons in promulgating this new "map" involves the
continued stability of the Core; however, what do we see today? Huge waves of immigration
greatly destabilizing every aspect of Europe and chaos and destabilization flooding the U.S.
via false/contrived polarization in every sphere of life. BUT! The military has "a Map!"
Psssstt!! Who's "creating" the Gap? Who has funded and armed Al Qaeda/DAESH/ISIS in the
Middle East? We'll need GPS to keep up with the Pentagon's "new map!"
Archie1954 , September 14, 2018 at 14:39
I have often wondered why the US was unable to accept the position of first among equals.
Why does it have to rule the World? I know it believes that its economic and political
systems are the best on the planet, but surely all other nations should be able to decide for
themselves, what systems they will accept and live under? Who gave the US the right to make
those decisions for everyone else? The US was more than willing to kill 20 million people
either directly or indirectly since the end of WWII to make its will sovereign in all nations
of the World!
Bob Van Noy , September 14, 2018 at 21:54
Archie 1954, because 911 was never adequately investigated, our government was
inappropriately allowed to act in the so-called public interest in completely inappropriate
ways; so that in order for the Country to set things right, those decisions which were made
quietly, with little public discussion, would have to be exposed and the illegalities
addressed. But, as I'm sure you know, there are myriad other big government failures also
left unexamined, so where to begin?
That is why I invariably raise JFK's Assassination as a logical starting point. If a truly
independent commission would fix the blame, we could move on from there. Sam F., on this
forum, has mentioned a formal legal undertaking many times on this site, but now is the time
to begin the discussion for a formal Truth And Reconciliation Commission in America Let's
figure out how to begin.
So,"Who gave the US the right to make those decisions for everyone else?", certainly not
The People
Jill Stein said if elected she would boycott all countries guilty of human rights abuses
and she included Saudi Arabia and Israel. She also said she would form a 9/11 commission
comprised of those independent people and groups currently reporting on this travesty.
Meanwhile we have the self-proclaimed "progressive" talk show hosts such as Thom Hartmann,
defending the PNAC NEOCONS while making Stein persona non grata and throwing real progressive
candidates under the bus.
The PNAC NEOCONS understood the importance of creating a galvanizing, catastrophic and
catalyzing event but the alternative media is afraid to call a spade a spade, something about
the truth being too risky to ones career, I assume.
See much more at youtopia.guru
Bob Van Noy , September 17, 2018 at 09:19
Lee Anderson thank you for your response, I agree and I appreciate the link suggestion,
I'm impressed and will read more
didi , September 14, 2018 at 13:49
It is always the unintended consequences. Hence I disagree with some of your views. A
president who takes actions which trigger unintended/unexpected consequences can be held
accountable for such consequences even if he/she could not avert the consequences. It is also
often true that corrections are possible when such consequences begin to appear. Given our
system which makes only presidents powerful to act on war, peace, and foreign relationships
there is no escaping that they must be blamed only.
A very good article. Spoiler and bully describe US foreign policy, and foreign policy is
in the driver's seat while domestic policy takes the pickings, hardly anything left for the
hollowed-out society where people live paycheck to paycheck, homelessness and other assorted
ills of a failing society continue to rise while oligarchs and the MIC rule the
neofeudal/futile system. When are we going to make that connection of the wasteful
expenditure on military adventurism and the problem of poverty in the US? The Pentagon
consistently calls the shots, yet we consistently hear about unaccounted expenditures by the
Pentagon, losing amounts in the trillions, and never do they get audited.
nondimenticare , September 14, 2018 at 12:18
I certainly agree that the policy is bereft, but not for all of the same reasons. There is
the positing of a turnaround as a basis for the current spoiler role: "What had been an
assertion of financial and economic power, albeit coercive in many instances, particularly
with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, took on further strategic and military
dimensions."
To substantiate this "crucial turn," Lawrence makes the unwarranted assumption that the
goal post Soviet Union was simply worldwide free-market capitalism, not global domination:
"Failures ensued. Iraq post–2003 is among the more obvious. Nobody ever planted
democracy or built free markets in Baghdad"; and the later statement that the US wanted the
countries it invaded to be "Just like us."
Though he doesn't mention (ignores) US meddling in Russia after the collapse of the USSR,
I presume from its absence that he attributes that, too, to the expansion of capital. Indeed,
it was that, but with the more malevolent goal of control. "Just like us" is the usual
"progressive" explanation for failures. "Controlled by us" was more like it, if we face the
history of the country squarely.
That is the blindness of intent that has led to the spoiler role.
Unfettered Fire , September 14, 2018 at 11:15
Is it really so wise to be speaking in terms of nationhood after we've undergone 50 years
of Kochian/libertarian dismantlement of the nation-state in favor of bank and transnational
governance? Remember the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski:
"The "nation-state" as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the
principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and
planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state." ~
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, 1970
"Make no mistake, what we are seeing in geopolitics today is indeed a magic show. The
false East/West paradigm is as powerful if not more powerful than the false Left/Right
paradigm. For some reason, the human mind is more comfortable believing in the ideas of
division and chaos, and it often turns its nose up indignantly at the notion of "conspiracy."
But conspiracies and conspirators can be demonstrated as a fact of history. Organization
among elitists is predictable.
Globalists themselves are drawn together by an ideology. They have no common nation, they
have no common political orientation, they have no common cultural background or religion,
they herald from the East just as they herald from the West. They have no true loyalty to any
mainstream cause or social movement.
What do they have in common? They seem to exhibit many of the traits of high level
narcissistic sociopaths, who make up a very small percentage of the human population. These
people are predators, or to be more specific, they are parasites. They see themselves as
naturally superior to others, but they often work together if there is the promise of mutual
benefit."
Your comment is astute and valuable, and consequently deserves to be signed with your real
name, so that you can be identified as someone worth listening to.
Don Bacon , September 14, 2018 at 17:44
Screen names don't matter, content does.
OlyaPola , September 15, 2018 at 11:34
"Screen names don't matter, content does."
Apparently not for some where attribution is sought and the illusion of trust the source
trust the content is held, leading to curveballs mirroring expectations whilst serving the
purposes of others.
""The "nation-state" as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the
principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and
planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state." ~
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, 1970"
The date of publication is of significance as was Mr. Paul Craig Roberts' Alienation in
the Soviet economy of 1971, as was Mr. Andrei Amalrik's "Can the Soviet Union last until 1984
published in 1969.
The period 1968 – 1973 was one significant trajectory in the half-life of "we the
people hold these truths to be self-evident" which underpinned and maintained the "nation
state" misrepresented/branded as the "United States of America" through a change in the
assays of the amalga mutual benefit/hold these truths to be self-evident.
The last hurrah of the "red experts" – Mr. Brezhnev and associates – despite
analyses/forecasts from various agencies agreed, detente based on spheres of influence
facilitating through interaction/complicity various fiats including but not restricted to
fiat currency, fiat economy, fiat politics all dependent on mutations of "we the people hold
these truths to be self-evident".
This interaction also facilitated processes which accelerated the demise of the "Soviet
Union" and its continuing transcendence by the Russian Federation – the choice of title
being a notice of intent that some interpreted as the "End of History" whilst others
interpreted as lateral opportunity facilitated by the hubris of the "End of History".
The "red experts" were not unique in their illusions; another pertinent example is the
strategy of the PLO in maintaining the illusion of the two state solution/"Oslo accords"
facilitating the continuing colonial project branded as "Israel".
Mr. Brzezinski was one of the others who interpreted the "End of History" as linear
opportunity where the assay of amalga of form could be changed to maintain content/function
which was/is to "still" control all the players.
However in any interactive system neither omniscience nor sole agency/control is possible,
whilst by virtue of interaction the complicity of all can be encouraged in various ways to
facilitate useful outcomes in furtherance of purpose, whilst illusions of the "End of
History" and the search for the holy grail of "Full Spectrum Dominance" acted as both
accelerators and multipliers in the process of encouragement, whilst obscuring this process
in open sight through the opponents' amalga of reliance on "plausible belief based in part on
projection", "exceptionalism" and associated hubris.
The "nation state" subsuming illusions of mutual benefit and mutual purpose has always
been a function of the half-lives of components of its ideological facades and practices
– sexual intercourse wasn't invented in 1963 and "The "nation-state" as a fundamental
unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force" wasn't initiated
in 1970.
Unfettered Fire , September 14, 2018 at 13:43
"In our society, real power does not happen to lie in the political system, it lies in the
private economy: that's where the decisions are made about what's produced, how much is
produced, what's consumed, where investment takes place, who has jobs, who controls the
resources, and so on and so forth. And as long as that remains the case, changes inside the
political system can make some difference -- I don't want to say it's zero -- but the
differences are going to be very slight." ~ Noam Chomsky
Yet there is a thread that leads through US foreign policy. It all started with NSC 68.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSC_68 . Already in
the 1950's, leading bankers were afraid of economic depression which would follow from a
"peace dividend" following the end of WWII. To avoid this, and to avoid "socialism", the only
acceptable government spending was on defense. This mentality never ended. Today 50% of
discretionary govenmenrt spending is on the military. http://www.unz.com/article/americas-militarized-economy/
. We live in a country of military socialism, in which military citizens have all types of
benefits, on condition they join the military-industrial-complex. This being so, there is no
need for real "intelligence", there is no need to "understand" what goes on is foreign
countries, there no need to be right about what might happen or worry about consequences.
What is important is stimulate the economy by spending on arms. From Korean war, when the US
dropped more bombs than it had on Nazi Germany, through Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya
etc etc the US policy was a winning one not for those who got bombed (and could not fight
back) but for the weapons industry and military contractors. Is the NYTimes ever going to
discuss this aspect? Or any one in the MSM?
All that and we constantly have to endure the bankster/MIC-controlled media proclaiming
everyone who joins the military as "heroes" defending our precious"freedoms." The media mafia
is evil.
Walter , September 14, 2018 at 09:26
The "why" behind the US foreign policies was spoken with absolute honest clarity in the
"Statement of A. Wess Mitchell
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs" to the Senate on August 21
this year. The transcript is at :
"It continues to be among the foremost national security interests of the United States to
prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers. The central aim of the
administration's foreign policy is to prepare our nation to confront this challenge by
systematically strengthening the military, economic and political fundamentals of American
power. "
Tellingly the "official" State Department copy is changed and omits the true spoken
words
I would propose that the zionish aspect exists due to the perceived necessity of "Forward
Operating Base Israel" lookit a map, Comrade The ISIS?Saudi?Zionist games divides the New
Silk Road and the Eurasian land mass and exists to throttle said pathways.
Interestingly the latter essay is attributed to Eldar Ismailov and Vladimer Papava
Brother Comrade Putin knows the game. The US has to maintain the fiction for the public
that it does not know the game, and is consequently obliged to maintain a vast public
delusion, hence "fake news" and all the rest.
OlyaPola , September 14, 2018 at 13:49
"I would propose that the zionish aspect exists due to the perceived necessity of "Forward
Operating Base Israel" lookit a map, Comrade"
Some have an attraction to book-ends.
Once upon a time the Eurasian book-ends were Germany and Japan, and the Western Asian
book-ends Israel and Saudi Arabia.
This "strategy" is based upon the notion that bookend-ness is a state of inertia which in
any interactive system is impossible except apparently to those embedded in "we the people
hold these truths to be self-evident".
Consequently some have an attraction to book-ends.
Walter , September 15, 2018 at 12:31
If I understand you correctly, then yes, some imagine that a static situation can exist.
This a natural but delusional way of seeing the world, of course – especially because
Chin and Rus are able to liquidate any counter-forces that attempt to create or maintain
"book-ends.
The actual spoken words to the Senate of Mr. Michell are very significant, as the removal
of them from the ostensibly real, but actually false, State Department "Transcript" implies.
Foolish Mr. Michell! He accidentally spoke the true objective of US foreign policy and also
the domestic objective – total bamboozlement of the US population "prepare the country
for " (Obvious, world war against the Heartland states that fail to "cooperate"
(surrender).
People ought to read the pdf what Michell actually spoke all of it and consider the
logical implications. Michell has a big mouth Good. He confirms the dark truths
The guilty according to circumstantial evidence has confessed his guilt so to say;
confirming the crime
An Israeli-Saudi "Greater Israel" dividing Syria between Saud and zion is of course a goal
that in effect would be a "book-end".
Too late now as it is clear that Syrian skies are probably going to soon be "no-fly-zone"
for foreign invaders
Then will come the "pitch-forks", as Napoleon's retreat from Moscow illustrated
OlyaPola , September 16, 2018 at 04:25
"If I understand you correctly, then yes, some imagine that a static situation can exist.
This a natural but delusional way of seeing the world"
Absolutes including stasis don't exist but the belief of others in book-ends including
extensive foreign bases are lands of opportunities for others facilitating pitch forking
without extensive travel.
Consequently some perceive that the opponents have hopes and wishes which they seek to
represent as "strategies" and "tactics" and some opportunities of lateral challenge derived
there-from.
Some would hold that the opponents' have a greater assay of the rubbing sticks school of
thermo-dynamics in "their" amalga of perception, in some regards even less perceptive than
Heraclitus although Heraclitus lived in his time/interactions as the interaction below
suggests.
One of the consequences is the opponents tendency to bridge doubt by belief to attain
comfort through iteration and subsequent projection, facilitating lateral opportunities for
others with greater perception of fission/metamorphosis/transcendence including the
"unintended consequences" -at least in the opponents' perception – without resort to
Mr. Heisenberg's deliberations, leading to some of the opponents resorting to snake-oil sales
techniques suggesting that their intent/purpose was always what they perceived to be the
concept/construct "chaos".
A further illustration of this and how it was/is not limited to present opponents citing
trajectories during the period 1968 – 1973 and some subsequent consequences was
broadcast through this portal on the 14th of September 2018 but not "published" possibly in
ignorance of Mr. Bulgakov's contention that manuscripts don't burn.
The examples used were detente on the bases of spheres of influence agreed by the
Politburo despite contrary advice from many agencies, the strategy of the PLO and half-life
of these beliefs in the strategies of Hamas.
Detente on the basis of sphere of influence facilitated fiat currency, fiat politics, and
fiat re-branding – "neo-liberalism" -, colonial projects in Western Asia, and how
opening Pandora's box was/is only perceived as wholly a disadvantage for those seeking to
deny lateral process (Stop the Empires War on Russia slogan being a useful example) and those
not so immersed helped facilitate the ongoing transcendence of the "Soviet Union" by the
Russian Federation – the title being a notice of intent that opponents perceived as the
"End of History" as functions of their framing and projection.
OlyaPola , September 16, 2018 at 07:51
Some hold that New York, New York was so good they named it twice, whilst some others
wonder whether they named it twice to make it easier for the inhabitants to locate.
Following the precautionary principle I attach below a further illustration of :
" . the opponents have hopes and wishes which they seek to represent as "strategies" and
"tactics" and some opportunities of lateral challenge derived there-from ..
"One of the consequences is the opponents tendency to bridge doubt by belief to attain
comfort through iteration and subsequent projection, facilitating lateral opportunities for
others with greater perception of fission/metamorphosis/transcendence including the
"unintended consequences" -at least in the opponents' perception – without resort to
Mr. Heisenberg's deliberations, leading to some of the opponents resorting to snake-oil sales
techniques suggesting that their intent/purpose was always what they perceived to be the
concept/construct "chaos".
which was alluded to in the "unpublished" broadcast which referenced
1. "The "nation-state" as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the
principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and
planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state." ~
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, 1970.
2. Mr. P.C. Roberts' Alienation in the USSR (1971)
3. Mr Andrei Amalrik's Can the Soviet Union last until 1984 (1969).
in illustration of interactive amalga which some call Russiagate, presumably because the
water had flowed but apparently not under the bridge.
The recent US presidential election process including the "outcomes" were relatively easy
to predict
and required no encouragement from outside – doing "nothing" being a trajectory of
doing for those not trapped in the can do/must do conflation.
Some don't understand Russian very well and so instead of understanding Mr. Putin's remark
that Mr. Trump was "colourful" which has connotations to some with facility in the Russian
culture/language, some sought to bridge doubt by belief to attain expectation on the basis of
"plausible belief".
An increasing sum of some are no longer so immersed as illustrated in
whilst perceptual frames often have significant half-lives.
exiled off mainstreet , September 14, 2018 at 00:42
This is a great series of articles and the comments, including those having reservations,
are intelligent. Since those comments appearing not to appear later seem to have appeared,
mechanical difficulties of some sort seem to have been what occurred. I hope Mr. Tedesky, one
of the most valued commentators writing in the comments, continues his work.
Patrick Lawrence's essay makes perfect sense only when it is applied to US foreign policy
since the end of WW2. It is conventional wisdom that the US is now engaged in Cold War 2.0.
In fact, Cold War 2.0 is an extension of Cold War 1.0. There was merely a 20 year interregnum
between 1990 and 2010. Most analysts think that Cold War 1.0 was an ideological war between
"Communism" and "Democracy". The renewal of the Cold War against both Russia and China
however shows that the ideological war between East and West was really a cover for the
geopolitical war between the two. Russia, China and Iran are the main geopolitical enemies of
the US as they stand in the way of the global, imperialist hegemony of the US. In order to
control the global periphery, i.e. the developing world and their emerging economies, the US
must contain and defeat the big three. This was as true in 1948 as it is in 2018. Thus,
what's happening today under Trump is no different than what occurred under Truman in 1948.
Whatever differences exist are mere window dressing.
Rob Roy , September 15, 2018 at 00:16
Mr. Etler,
I think you are mostly right except in the first Cold War, the Soviets and US Americans were
both involved in this "war." What you call Cold War 2.0 is in the minds and policies of only
the US. Russian is not in any way currently like the Soviet Union, yet the US acts in all
aspects of foreign attitude and policy as though that (very unpleasant period in today's
Russians' minds) still exists. It does not. You says there was "merely a 20 year interregnum"
and things have picked up and continued as a Cold War. Only in the idiocy of the USA,
certainly not in the minds of Russian leadership, particularly Putin's who now can be
distinguished as the most logical, realistic and competent leader in the world.
Thanks to H. Clinton being unable to become president, we have a full blown Russiagate which
the MSM propaganda continues to spread. There is no Cold War 2.0. It's a fallacy to create a
false flag for regime change in Russia. Ms. Clinton, the Kagan family, the MIC, etc., figure
if we can take out Yanukovich and replace him with Fascists/Nazis, what could stop us from
doing the same to Russia. The good news: all empires fail.
Maxwell Quest , September 13, 2018 at 13:41
"This is the logic of spoilage as a substitute for foreign policy. Among its many
consequences are countless lost opportunities for global stability."
Mr. Lawrence is much too accommodating with his analysis. Imagine, linking US "foreign
policy" in the same thought as "global stability", as if the two were somehow related. On the
contrary, "global instability" seems to be our foreign policy goal, especially for those
regions that pose a threat to US hegemony. Why? Because it is difficult to extract a region's
wealth when its population is united behind a stable government that can't be bought off.
Conjuring up Heraclitus..Time is a River, constantly changing. And we face downstream,
unable to see the Future and gazing upon the Past.
The attempt has an effect, many effects, but it cannot stop Time.
The Russian and the Chinese have clinched the unification of the Earth Island, "Heartland"
This ended the ability to control global commerce by means of navies – the methods of
the Sea Peoples over the last 500 years are now failed. The US has no way of even seeing this
fact other than force and violence to restore the status quo ante .
Thus World War, as we see
Recollecting Heraclitus again, the universe is populated by opposites as we see, China and
Russia represent a cathodic opposite to the US
OlyaPola , September 14, 2018 at 09:38
"Conjuring up Heraclitus "
"And we face downstream, unable to see the Future and gazing upon the Past."
Time is a synonym of interaction the perception of which and opportunities derived
therefrom being functions of analysing interactions which require notions and analyses of
upstream-perceived transition point (similar to the concept/construct zero)-downstream
lateral processes, which Heraclitus perceived and practiced.
Heraclitus lived in a previous time/interaction and the perception and uses of
thermodynamics have laterally changed since Heraclitus' time.
Omniscience can never exist in any lateral system, but time/interaction has facilitated
the increase of perceptions and lateral opportunities to facilitate various futures and their
encouragement through processes of fission – the process of strategy formulation,
strategy implementation, strategy evaluation, and strategy modulation refers.
Framing including attempts to deny agency to others and hence interaction thereby denying
time, leads to strategic myopia, and when outcomes vary from expectations/hopes/wishes lead
the myopic to attempt to bridge doubt by belief to attain comfort.
Categorical imperatives are kant facilitating can't, best left to Kant, although
apparently some are loathe to agree.
"The US has no way of even seeing this fact other than force and violence to restore the
status quo ante ."
The temporary socio-economic arrangement misrepresented/branded as "The United States of
America" has a vested interest in seeking to deny time/interaction including through
"exceptionalism" and a history of flailings and consequences derived therefrom.
"Recollecting Heraclitus again, the universe is populated by opposites as we see, China
and Russia represent a cathodic opposite to the US "
As above, Heraclitus lived in a previous time and the perception and uses of
thermodynamics have laterally changed since Heraclitus' time although apparently not
informing the perceptions and practices of some.
Understandably Heraclitus sometimes relied within his framing on notions of moments of
stasis/absolutes (steady states) such as opposites, where as like in all areas of
thermo-dynamics a more modern framework would include the notions of amalga with varying
interactive half-lives.
It would appear that your contribution is also subject to such "paradox" as in "China and
Russia represent a cathodic opposite to the US "
Perhaps a more illuminating but more complex formulation would be found in :
"In other parts of planet earth the assay of amalga and their varying interactive
half-lives differ from those asserted to exist within the temporary socio-economic
arrangements misrepresented/branded as "The United States of America" thereby facilitating
opportunities to transcend coercive relationships such as those practiced by the temporary
socio-economic arrangements misrepresented/branded as "The United States of America", by
co-operative socio-economic relations conditioned by the half-lives of perceptions and
practices derived therefrom.
In part that contributed and continues to contribute to the lateral process of
transcendence of the "Soviet Union" by the Russian Federation previously leading to a limited
debate whether to nominate Mr. Brezhinsky, Mr.Clinton, Mr. Fukuyama or Mr. Wolfowitz for the
Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts facilitating the transcendence of the temporary
socio-economic arrangements misrepresented/branded as "The United States of America".
Jeff Harrison , September 13, 2018 at 13:29
I guess I missed this one, Patrick. Great overview but let me put it in a slightly
different context. You start with the end of the cold war but I don't. I could go all the way
back to the early days of the country and our proclamation of manifest destiny. The US has
long thought that it was the one ring to rule them all. But for most of that time the
strength of individual members of the rest of the world constrained the US from running amok.
That constraint began to be lifted after the ruling clique in Europe committed seppuku in
WWI. It was completely lifted after WWII. But that was 75 years ago. This is now and most of
the world has recovered from the world wide destruction of human and physical capital known
as WWII. The US is going to have to learn how to live with constraints again but it will take
a shock. The US is going to have to lose at something big time. Europe cancelling the
sanctions? The sanctions on Russia don't mean squat to the US but it's costing Europe
billions. This highlights the reality that the "Western Alliance" (read NATO) is not really
an alliance of shared goals and objectives. It's an alliance of those terrified by fascism
and what it can do. They all decided that they needed a "great father" to prevent their
excesses again. One wonders if either the world or Europe would really like the US to come
riding in like the cavalry to places like Germany, Poland, and Ukraine. Blindly following
Washington's directions can be remarkably expensive for Europe and they get nothing but
refugees they can't afford. Something will ultimately have to give.
The one thing I was surprised you didn't mention was the US's financial weakness. It's
been a long time since the US was a creditor nation. We've been a debtor nation since at
least the 80s. The world doesn't need debtor nations and the only reason they need us is the
primacy of the US dollar. And there are numerous people hammering away at that.
Gerald Wadsworth , September 13, 2018 at 12:59
Why are we trying to hem in China, Russia and Iran? Petro-dollar hegemony, pure and
simple. From our initial deal with Saudi Arabia to buy and sell oil in dollars only, to the
chaos we have inflicted globally to retain the dollar's rule and role in energy trading, we
are finding ourselves threatened – actually the position of the dollar as the sole
trading medium is what is threatened – and we are determined to retain that global
power over oil at all costs. With China and Russia making deals to buy and sell oil in their
own currencies, we have turned both those counties into our enemies du jour, inventing every
excuse to blame them for every "bad thing" that has and will happen, globally. Throw in
Syria, Iran, Venezuela, and a host of other countries who want to get out from under our
thumb, to those who tried and paid the price. Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and
more. Our failed foreign policy is dictated by controlling, as Donald Rumsfeld once opined,
"our oil under their sand." Oil. Pure and simple.
Maxwell Quest , September 13, 2018 at 14:18
I agree, Gerald. Enforcing the petro-dollar system seems to be the mainspring for much of
our recent foreign policy militarism. If it were to unravel, the dollar's value would tank,
and then how could we afford our vast system of military bases. Death Star's aren't cheap, ya
know.
Maxwell Quest , September 13, 2018 at 15:33
I agree, Gerald. Along with ensuring access to "our" off-shore oil fields, enforcing the
petro-dollar system is equally significant, and seems to be the mainspring for much of our
recent foreign policy militarism. If this system were to unravel, the dollar's value would
tank, and then how could we afford our vast system of military bases which make the world
safe for democracy? Death Star's aren't cheap, ya know.
Anonymous Coward , September 13, 2018 at 22:40
+1 Gerald Wadsworth. It's not necessarily "Oil pure and simple" but "Currency Pure and
Simple." If the US dollar is no longer the world's currency, the US is toast. Also note that
anyone trying to retain control of their currency and not letting "The Market" (private
banks) totally control them is a Great Devil we need to fight, e.g. Libya and China. And note
(2) that Wall Street is mostly an extension of The City; the UK still thinks it owns the
entire world, and the UK has been owned by the banks ever since it went off tally sticks
MichaelWme , September 13, 2018 at 12:18
It's called the Thucydides trap. NATO (US/UK/France/Turkey) have said they will force
regime change in Syria. Russia says it will not allow regime change in Syria. Fortunately, as
a Frenchman and an Austrian explained many years ago, and NATO experts say is true today,
regime change in Russia is a simple matter, about the same as Libya or Panamá. I
forget the details, but I assume things worked out well for the Frenchman and the Austrian,
and will work out about the same for NATO.
Putin said years ago, and I cannot quote him, but remember most of it, that it doesn't
matter who is the candidate for President, or what his campaign promises are, or how sincere
he is in making them, whenever they get in office, it is always the same policy.
Truer words were never spoken, and it is the reason why I know, at least, that Russia did
not interfere in the US elections. What would be the point, from his viewpoint, and it is not
only just his opinion. You cannot help but see at this point that that he said is obviously
true.
TJ , September 13, 2018 at 13:47
What an excellent point. Why bother influencing the elections when it doesn't matter who
is elected -- the same policies will continue.
Bart Hansen , September 13, 2018 at 15:43
Anastasia, I saved it: From Putin interview with Le Figaro:
"I have already spoken to three US Presidents. They come and go, but politics stay the
same at all times. Do you know why? Because of the powerful bureaucracy. When a person is
elected, they may have some ideas. Then people with briefcases arrive, well dressed, wearing
dark suits, just like mine, except for the red tie, since they wear black or dark blue ones.
These people start explaining how things are done. And instantly, everything changes. This is
what happens with every administration."
rosemerry , September 14, 2018 at 08:02
Pres. Putin explained this several times when he was asked about preferring Trump to
Hillary Clinton, and he carefully said that he would accept whoever the US population chose,
he was used to dealing with Hillary and he knew that very little changed between
Administrations. This has been conveniently cast aside by the Dems, and Obama's disgraceful
expulsion of Russian diplomats started the avalanche of Russiagate.
Great to see Patrick Lawrence writing for Consortium News.
He ends his article with: "This is the logic of spoilage as a substitute for foreign
policy. Among its many consequences are countless lost opportunities for global stability.
"
Speaking of consequences, how about the human toll this foreign policy has taken on so
many people in this world. To me, the gravest sin of all.
Bob Van Noy , September 13, 2018 at 08:46
I agree with Patric Lawrence when he states "Personalizing Washington's regression into
the role of spoiler by assigning all blame to one man, now Donald Trump, deprives one of
deeper understanding." and I also agree that 'Seven decades of global hegemony have left the
State Department, Cold War notwithstanding, left the State Department with little to think
about other than the simplicities of East-West tension.' But I seriously disagree when he
declares that: "The crisis of U.S. foreign policy -- a series of radical missteps -- are
systemic. Having little to do with personalities, they pass from one administration to the
next with little variance other than at the margins.'' Certainly the missteps are true, but I
would argue that the "personalities" are crucial to America's crisis of Foreign Policy. After
all it was likely that JFK's American University address was the public declaration of his
intention to lead America in the direction of better understanding of Sovereign Rights that
likely got him killed. It is precisely those "personalities" that we must understand and
identify before we can move on
Skip Scott , September 13, 2018 at 09:35
Bob-
I see what you're saying, but I believe Patrick is also right. Many of the people involved
in JFK's murder are now dead themselves, yet the "system" that demands confrontation rather
than cooperation continues. These "personalities" are shills for that system, and if they are
not so willingly, they are either bribed or blackmailed into compliance. Remember when
"Dubya" ran on a "kinder and gentler nation" foreign policy? Obama's "hope and change" that
became "more of the same"? And now Trump's views on both domestic and foreign policy
seemingly also doing a 180? There are "personalities" behind this "system", and they are
embedded in places like the Council on Foreign Relations. The people that run our banking
system and the global corporate empire demand the whole pie, they would rather blow up the
world than have to share.
Bob Van Noy , September 13, 2018 at 14:42
You're completely right Skip, that's what we all must recognize and ultimately react to,
and against.
Thank you.
JWalters , September 13, 2018 at 18:46
I would add that human beings are the key components in this system. The system is built
and shaped by them. Some are greedy, lying predators and some are honest and egalitarian. Bob
Parry was one of the latter, thankfully.
JWalters , September 13, 2018 at 18:30
Skip, very good points. For those interested further, here's an excellent talk on the
bankers behind the manufacutured wars, including the role of the Council on Foreign Relations
as a front organization and control mechanism. "The Shadows of Power; the CFR and decline of America" https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6124&v=wHa1r4nIaug
Joe Tedesky , September 13, 2018 at 09:42
Bob, you are right. I find it most interesting and sad at the same time that in Woodward's
new book 'Fear' that he describes a pan 'almost tragic incident' whereas Trump wanted to sign
a document removing our missiles and troops out of S Korea, but save for the steady hand of
his 'anonymous' staffers who yanked the document off his presidential desk . wow, close one
there we almost did something to enforce a peace. Can't have that though, we still have lots
to kill in pursue of liberty and freedom and the hegemonic way.
Were these 'anonymous' staffers the grandchildren of the staffers and bureaucracy that
undermined other presidents? Would their grandparents know who the Gunmen were on the grassy
knoll? Did these interrupters of Executive administrations fudge other presidents dreams and
hopes of a peaceful world? And in the end were these instigators rewarded by the war
industries they protected?
The problem is, is that this bureaucracy of war has out balanced any other rival agency,
as diversity of thought and mission is only to be dealt with if it's good for military
purposes. Too much of any one thing can be overbearingly bad for a person, and likewise too
much war means your country is doing something wrong.
Bob Van Noy , September 13, 2018 at 14:51
Many thanks Joe, I admire your persistence. Clearly Bob Woodward has been part of the
problem rather than the solution. The swamp is deep and murky
JWalters , September 13, 2018 at 18:36
Bob and Joe, here's a solid review of Woodward's book Fear that points out his
consistent service to the oligarchy, including giving Trump a pass for killing the Iran deal.
Interesting background on Woodward in the comments as well. https://mondoweiss.net/2018/09/woodward-national-security/
will , September 15, 2018 at 22:30
people have been pointing out that Woodward is the exact kind of guy the CIA would recruit
since shortly after Watergate.
The document Gary Cohen removed off Trump's desk –
which you can read here – states an intent to end a free trade agreement with South
Korea.
"White House aides feared if Trump sent the letter, it could jeopardize a top-secret US
program that can detect North Korean missile launches within seven seconds."
Sounds like Trump wanted to play the "I am such a great deal maker, the GREATEST deal
maker of all times!" game with the South Koreans. Letter doesn't say anything about
withdrawing troops or missiles.
Funny how ***TOP-SECRET US PROGRAMS*** find their way into books and newspapers these
days, plentiful as acorns falling out of trees.
You're welcome, Joe. These things get confusing. Who knows anymore what is real and what
isn't?
Trump did indeed say something about ending military exercises and pulling troops out of
South Korea. His staff did indeed contradict him on this. It just wasn't in relation to the
letter Cohn "misplaced," AFAIK.
Nobody asked me, but if they did, I'd say the US interfered enough in Korean affairs by
killing a whole bunch of 'em in the Korean War. Leave'em alone. Let North and South try to
work it out. Tired of hearing about "regime change.'
Bob once again my comment disappeared I hope someone retrieves it. Joe
Joe Tedesky , September 13, 2018 at 12:24
Here's what I wrote:
Bob, you are right. I find it most interesting and sad at the same time that in Woodward's
new book 'Fear' that he describes a pan 'almost tragic incident' whereas Trump wanted to sign
a document removing our missiles and troops out of S Korea, but save for the steady hand of
his 'anonymous' staffers who yanked the document off his presidential desk . wow, close one
there we almost did something to enforce a peace. Can't have that though, we still have lots
to kill in pursue of liberty and freedom and the hegemonic way.
Were these 'anonymous' staffers the grandchildren of the staffers and bureaucracy that
undermined other presidents? Would their grandparents know who the Gunmen were on the grassy
knoll? Did these interrupters of Executive administrations fudge other presidents dreams and
hopes of a peaceful world? And in the end were these instigators rewarded by the war
industries they protected?
The problem is, is that this bureaucracy of war has out balanced any other rival agency,
as diversity of thought and mission is only to be dealt with if it's good for military
purposes. Too much of any one thing can be overbearingly bad for a person, and likewise too
much war means your country is doing something wrong.
Joe Tedesky , September 13, 2018 at 12:24
Again
Bob, you are right. I find it most interesting and sad at the same time that in Woodward's
new book 'Fear' that he describes a pan 'almost tragic incident' whereas Trump wanted to sign
a document removing our missiles and troops out of S Korea, but save for the steady hand of
his 'anonymous' staffers who yanked the document off his presidential desk . wow, close one
there we almost did something to enforce a peace. Can't have that though, we still have lots
to kill in pursue of liberty and freedom and the hegemonic way.
Were these 'anonymous' staffers the grandchildren of the staffers and bureaucracy that
undermined other presidents? Would their grandparents know who the Gunmen were on the grassy
knoll? Did these interrupters of Executive administrations fudge other presidents dreams and
hopes of a peaceful world? And in the end were these instigators rewarded by the war
industries they protected?
The problem is, is that this bureaucracy of war has out balanced any other rival agency,
as diversity of thought and mission is only to be dealt with if it's good for military
purposes. Too much of any one thing can be overbearingly bad for a person, and likewise too
much war means your country is doing something wrong.
Joe Tedesky , September 13, 2018 at 14:03
Thanks for retrieving my comments sorry for the triplicating of them. Joe
Joe Tedesky , September 13, 2018 at 12:25
3 of my comments disappeared boy does this comment board have issues. I'm beginning to
think I'm being targeted.
Deniz , September 13, 2018 at 17:58
Dont take it personally, I see it more of a lawnmower than a scalpel.
rosemerry , September 14, 2018 at 08:36
My comment has disappeared too-it was a reply to anastasia.
Kiwiantz , September 13, 2018 at 08:20
Spoiler Nation of America! You got that dead right! China builds infrastructure in other
Countries & doesn't interfere with the citizens & their Sovereignty. Contrast that
with the United Spoiler States of America, they run roughshod over overs & just bomb the
hell out of Countries & leaves devastation & death wherever they go! And there is
something seriously wrong & demented with the US mindset concerning, the attacks on 9/11?
In Syria the US has ended up arming & supporting the very same organisation of Al
QaedaTerrorists, morphed into ISIS, that hijacked planes & flew them into American
targets! During 2017 & now in 2018, it defies belief how warped this US mentality is when
ISIS can so easily & on demand, fake a chemical attack to suck in the stupid American
Military & it's Airforce & get them to attack Syria, like lackeys taking orders from
Terrorist's! The US Airforce is the airforce of Al Qaeda & ISIS! Why? Because the US
can't stomach Russia, Syria & Iran winning & defeating Terrorism thus ending this
Proxy War they started! Russia can't be allowed to win at any cost because the humiliation
& loss of prestige that the US would suffer as a Unipolar Empire would signal the decline
& end of this Hegemonic Empire so they must continue to act as a spoiler to put off that
inevitable decline! America can't face reality that it's time in the sun as the last Empire,
is over!
Sally Snyder , September 13, 2018 at 07:57
Here is what Americans really think about the rabid anti-Russia hysteria coming from
Washington:
Washington has completely lost touch with what Main Street America really believes.
Waynes World , September 13, 2018 at 07:37
Finally some words of truth about how we want our way not really democracy. A proper way
to look at the world is what you said toward the end a desire to make people's lives
better.
mike k , September 13, 2018 at 07:14
Simply put – the US is the world's biggest bully. This needs to stop. Fortunately
the bully's intended victims are joining together to defeat it's crazy full spectrum
dominance fantasies. Led by Russia and China, we can only hope for the success of the
resistance to US aggression.
This political, economic, military struggle is not the only problem the world is facing
now, but is has some priority due to the danger of nuclear war. Global pollution, climate
disaster, ecological collapse and species extinction must also be urgently dealt with if we
are to have a sustainable existence on Earth.
OlyaPola , September 13, 2018 at 04:39
Alpha : "America's three principal adversaries signify the shape of the world to come: a
post-Western world of coexistence. But neoliberal and neocon ideology is unable to to accept
global pluralism and multipolarity, argues Patrick Lawrence."
Omega: "Among its many consequences are countless lost opportunities for global
stability."
Framing is always a limiter of perception.
Among the consequences of the lateral trajectories from Alpha to Omega referenced above,
is the "unintended consequence" of the increase of the principal opponents, their resolve and
opportunities to facilitate the transcendence of arrangements based on coercion by
arrangements based on co-operation.
Opening Pandora's box was/is only perceived as wholly a disadvantage for those seeking to
deny lateral process.
John Chuckman,
Wow. Thanks! I have just begun reading your commentaries this week and I am impressed with
how clearly you analyze and summarize key points about many topics.
Thank you so much for writing what are often the equivalent of books, but condensed into
easy to read and digest summaries.
I have ordered your book and look forward to reading that.
"... That is if the MSM get their way! Maybe I am being overoptimistic, but Russia - as a permanent member of the UNSC and a member of the OPCW - will do everything in it's powers to pursue this matter, and it seems quite possible they will be able to force it onto the main agenda within 2020. If that happens it will be impossible for the MSM to push it under the rug. ..."
"... The other aspect it is that the MSM ability to suppress this news is dependent on behaviour of the MSM community in its totality, and the relationship to reader plausibility ..."
"... What determines whether one MSM decides to break the pack and publish news on OPCW? Well, for one thing, MoA articles can influence individual journalists and individual editors! ..."
B, under the "major stories covered" title you should include Skripal, about which you wrote
many important articles; I believe ultimately - like OPCW and Russiagate - it will prove to
be history-making event in terms of impact on public perceptions of media and the ability of
the media to control public opinion. Probably eventually whistleblowers will come forward
like the OPCW, and only thin will it have it's maximum impact.
(Well, the original event was 2018 not 2019, but some of the reports were in 2019
anyway)
My predictions on these issue for next year are:
...
Mainstream media have suppressed all news about the OPCW scandal. This will only change if
major new evidence comes to light.
That is if the MSM get their way! Maybe I am being overoptimistic, but Russia - as a
permanent member of the UNSC and a member of the OPCW - will do everything in it's powers to
pursue this matter, and it seems quite possible they will be able to force it onto the main
agenda within 2020. If that happens it will be impossible for the MSM to push it under the
rug.
The other aspect it is that the MSM ability to suppress this news is dependent on
behaviour of the MSM community in its totality, and the relationship to reader plausibility.
There are a few factors that could influence this independently of major new evidence, such
as the behaviour of a few outlier MSM's that decide to release information (and whether or
not that information then takes off in the public consciousness); pressure that could build
up in social media calling for the MSM to respond and attacking MSM credibility; or other
forms of pressure from the public calling on the MSM to respond. It is therefore a dynamic
that is not entirely predictable.
Both of the above are distinct from the emergence of new major evidence, although both
cases would seem likely to provoke new revelations in turn.
What determines whether one MSM decides to break the pack and publish news on OPCW? Well,
for one thing, MoA articles can influence individual journalists and individual editors!
Journalist Alexander Petrakov in his article he stated that the Russian Federation is a lot
of evidence of innocence Russia and militias DND in the collapse of the Malaysian "Boeing".
"Your problem is that you have lived your whole life if there are rules. But there are no
rules." Lorne Malvo (series "Fargo", 2014)
Intelligence agencies recruit pornographers to lead their disinformation operations,
apparently because porn purveyors are so lacking in ethics they will tell public lies about
anything
Optimists probably should not read any further, as well as those who think that the higher
you sit the better you know. As well as pacifists, all those for thom "peace, friendship, and
chewing gum" has the absolute value, some kind of religion. I can't convince those types for
sure.
So I address this article to those who like me understand that it's time to start to think
independently, be skeptical. And do not absorb blindly what TV talk heads are saying, no matter
in what country you currently live and you nationality.
After the terrible catastrophe Malaysian liner we can see two major hypothesis, two points
of views and two "truth": one is Russian position and the second version promoted by Ukraine
and supported by the USA (or vice versa).
Which one you should believe more? The one that promoted by MSM of G7 countries or one that
is promoted Russian MSM by and some other from the "the rest of the world". The answer, in
fact, already evident. The "world-at-large" typically assumes that the "truth" is the view
represented by CNN, Fox News and Euronews. The one that is written on the pages of The New York
Times and republished by referring to "an unnamed source in the state Department" (or our very
special Jen Psaki) Washington Post.
I personally am confident that most of as see that despite is growing evidence of innocence
of rebels in the terrible tragedy the rest of the world these days and hours sees and hears
another, "alternative" hypothesis only.
"Civilized world" talk about "persuasive evidence" of the guilt of the Russian Federation
and the rebels of Donbass. Of evidence, however, is weak and contradictive. But it does not
matter. If you repeat a lie clearly and firmly, with honest eyes on a brave face of various and
sundry talking heads let's say one thousand times - people will say it's the fact; that it is
the axiom based on which events need to interpreted. This isan all trick but it works. "Why,
everybody knows about it", "all about this and they say".
This basic factor here is the power of PR. It is like artillery in was and as Napoleon noted
God is firmly on the side of those with better artillery. Repetition lead to adoption of
information and gradually a person begins to perceive it as his/her own point of view.
Especially if the same information is provided by the whole spectrum of media outlets - TV,
radio, Internet, and newspapers.
The average American, European, Japanese or Australian are brainwashed and belave that the
rebels robbed the dead people on the aircraft and then cash credit card dead in Russia. While
adding sure that this is "Russian rebels." As these "Russian rebels" learn or pick up in the
open field access codes, passwords to the cards are for some reason forgotten. And why? In a
democratic and free world video information rules and does not require any critical thinking:
many of wisdom is much grief...
In each of the first CNN necessarily adds that "Russia is hampered the investigation", but
it owes "effective and really help Ukraine," and that it "remained days or even hours, to show
good will".
How can "interfere" investigation on foreign territory nobody elaborates. And why...
everything is clear.
Then this phantasmagoria was added to the story of the companies Dutch and Malay over which
bogumiles... and again refrain is "Russian".
From the first day of Maidan in the focus of the world media was not Ukraine, and Russia -
all of us. Saying "Russia", "Russian" we have formed a new image in the eyes of the whole
world". First it was the image of aggressor, now it is the image of criminal, terrorist. Not
only conqueror, but the murderer.
And we are from the last bum up to the first person in the state did not understand, did not
want to understand that our actions, words, "signals" nothing depends on it. Because no matter
what he says and does Putin. It is important that will show and tell CNN.
Imagine that you are playing chess. On the table is a chess Board, the figures are placed in
the proper order. You sit down and make a move, then another. All as it should be. And your
opponent starts to move the pieces in random order. Then do sweeps them away from the Board and
yells at the whole audience that he won, and you're a cheater and a crook, but when you open
your mouth begins to beat you Board on the head.
So even if the Kremlin together wore embroidered shirts and jumped around the flag "right
sector, the world would have seen more. That will show and tell him free and NeroLive media.
That's why I did not believe and do not believe that our "restraint" someone and something to
"keep" and anybody, and I will convince.
We talked about the inhumanity, the horrors of the moods of Nazism in Ukraine elites in the
US and Europe. Told those who everyone knows and understands. And who simply don't care. This
same "Russians" harness, hammer, rape, blow up, shoot... the "Russian barbarians", not
"civilized people".
Maidan created the project "Banderovskiy-oligarachat" in Ukraine" and far right nationists
were allowed to do this by the west and after the victory pumped hatred to Russia to the skies.
To suspteinit they badly need a flase flag operation like MH17 to present Russians as the
monsters.
Unfortunately Russia was caught by this false flag operation with hands down and initially
tired to play by the rules of the normal world. But that faith that the West will dela tih
Russia bases on common rules applicable in notmal world fell a few days ago from a height of 10
km and shattered into many tiny fragments.
Ukraine IMHO originally I wrote about this in March, April, may and not designed it as a
trap. It might be an unfortunate incident due to decrepit state of Ukrainian air defense forces
(but the question why they moved them to this area remain in this case unanswered). But as soon
the shooing happened the plan emerge to blame it on Russia. To present it as an act of genocide
by Russian mercenaries.
But most importantly, it was to become a stage on which the imagies of the wreckage were
used to project the horror and disgust on Russia. They want to punish, to destroy us any cost
and any methods from economic to military.
We tried to convince ourselves of the last already strength (and many still do)that any -
even the most secret of our intervention, give a reason for the aggression against us. As if it
were a "pretext" for example, you cannot create a virtual, on the computer and then show around
the world. Or not to create artificially: blowing up the plane, the train, the city, nuclear
will dance...
Remember, as Secretary Powell was shaking in the UN powder with Siberian ulcer" from Saddam.
"The plague" was then washing powder. The country was bombed to the stage of democracy, and
Powell... apologized sparingly in his memoirs.
Remember about the plots of terrible Serbian concentration camps in 1994, in Srebrenica.
It's people came out in Europe on the streets and demanded to bomb, to punish, to stop. When
the "bombed, punished, stopped, it became clear that terrible place belonged... to Bosnian
Muslims of Izetbegovica, and dying people were just Serb prisoners. At that time anybody
especially did not even apologize.
Finally, remember about the shocking footage of atrocities troops Gaddafi, killing women,
children and the elderly. Already when Gaddafi was executed so that the footage was dashed
against this background, and Libya drowned in real blood, it turned out that all the
"atrocities" were shot in Qatar at a local Studio. Filmed venerable Hollywood Directors "at the
request of the sheikhs".
Why the attack with "Boeing". No, this is not an excuse to enter NATO troops (it different
enough to sign a bilateral agreement on military assistance, and then to show images of the
"Russian occupation of Kyiv"). This is a PR-move, information technology.
In the history blown up with "Boeing" are three possible answers, but the whole world hears
only one - it blew up "Russians" militias and the Russian Federation, we all are responsible
for that. No matter what the investigation has just begun, which is not examined a "black
boxes". Tube Powell is already lying on the table Obama, and the "free media" ready to show
people the terrible Serbian concentration camp".
Russian experts have already talked about all the falsifications. Posted we have trumps,
evidence. Only the world could see and hear more. About "Russian", nadrugalas over the dead and
robbed them. And about the "Russian" the terrorists of Donbass.
The testimony of our experts, Ministers, diplomats referred to as "doubtful" and "require
additional verification". Brad Avakov, screeching Poroshenko and all the hysteria over the
possessed Yatseniuk called "serious" and "convincing" evidence. It's hard, it's really not want
to believe we are living by the rules that don't exist. But it is a reality. And other reality
and never will.
The verdict is still pending, but already discussed future sanctions and made the first
proposal for "punishing Russia". Began policy - real and cynical, as usual.
What will be after the judgment has already announced the verdict?
Kiev junta now at the level of negotiations with heads of state and official requests of the
international organization requires to recognize the militias and their educated patterns -
terrorist network. As soon as the version on the guilt of the rebels is recognized by the
Western countries, LNR and DND declared outside the law from the point of view of the
international law.
Then Ukraine will likely together with one of the permanent members of the UN security
Council (USA, France or the United Kingdom) requests to enter into the conflict zone "blue
helmets of the United Nations, but not for peace, and for "police" transactions - by analogy
with African countries, where the UN staff often help governments to disarm or destroy
terrorist groups. No "cultivation and separation of the parties in such cases is not
performed.
The composition of the police corps, representatives of Russia, as we all understanding,
will not turn on. We now state - sponsor and accomplice of terrorists." As Iran, for
example.
How many will vote for our country - I don't know and guess not want. If you support a
resolution sadly, the South-East will be cleared by the Ukrainian guards and legalized under
the UN flag armies of Western countries. Around the Crimea they will also be created land and
then Maritime cordon.
If you use the right of veto, the world media will announce that we are "proved" his guilt
and continue to cover terrorists and murderers".
Sanctions against Russia in any of these scenarios would multiply and they will be really
ambitious, hard and long. States sponsoring terrorism "South stream" is not build and Mistral
they do not sell. And we are so seriously to sanctions not prepared, more talked about it on
TV. Of course, we will survive, but we have very hard and difficult.
Ukraine will begin to arm to the teeth as she bids to join NATO despite the fact that NATO
Charter prohibits to NATO countries with unsolved territorial problems from joining. They will
assign the status of associate member bloc.
But nothing is finished. Because first we were framed as aggressors. And the rest of the
world believed. Now we were framed as terrorists. And as soon as the "civilized world" would
believe it will become a logical last move: to put us beasts.
"... Bellingcat is an alleged group of amateur on-line researchers who have spent years shilling for the U.S. instigated war against the Syrian government, blaming the Douma chemical attack and others on the Assad government, and for the anti-Russian propaganda connected to, among other things, the Skripal poisoning case in England, and the downing of flight MH17 plane in Ukraine. ..."
"... The Intercept , along with its parent company First Look Media, recently hosted a workshop for pro-war, Google-funded organization Bellingcat in New York. The workshop, which cost $2,500 per person to attend and lasted five days, aimed to instruct participants in how to perform investigations using "open source" tools -- with Bellingcat's past, controversial investigations for use as case studies Thus, while The Intercept has long publicly promoted itself as an anti-interventionist and progressive media outlet, it is becoming clearer that – largely thanks to its ties to Omidyar – it is increasingly an organization that has more in common with Bellingcat, a group that launders NATO and U.S. propaganda and disguises it as "independent" and "investigative journalism." ..."
In the 1920s, the influential American intellectual Walter Lippman argued that the average
person was incapable of seeing or understanding the world clearly and needed to be guided by
experts behind the social curtain. In a number of books he laid out the theoretical foundations
for the practical work of Edward Bernays , who developed "public relations" (aka propaganda) to
carry out this task for the ruling elites. Bernays had honed his skills while working as a
propagandist for the United States during World War I, and after the war he set himself up as a
public relations counselor in New York City.
There is a fascinating exchange at the beginning of Adam Curtis's documentary, The
Century of Self , where Bernays, then nearly 100 years old but still very sharp, reveals
his manipulative mindset and that of so many of those who have followed in his wake. He says
the reason he couldn't call his new business "propaganda" was because the Germans had given
propaganda a "bad name," and so he came up with the euphemism "public relations." He then adds
that "if you could use it [i.e. propaganda] for war, you certainly could use it for peace." Of
course, he never used PR for peace but just to manipulate public opinion (he helped engineer
the CIA coup against the democratically elected Arbenz government in Guatemala in 1954 with
fake news broadcasts). He says "the Germans gave propaganda a bad name," not Bernays and the
United States with their vast campaign of lies, mainly aimed at the American people to get
their support for going to a war they opposed (think weapons of mass destruction). He sounds
proud of his war propaganda work that resounded to his credit since it led to support for the
"war to end all wars" and subsequently to a hit movie about WWI , Yankee Doodle Dandy
, made in 1942 to promote another war, since the first one somehow didn't achieve its lofty
goal.
As Bernays has said in his book Propaganda ,
The American motion picture is the greatest unconscious carrier of propaganda in the world
today.
He was a propagandist to the end. I suspect most viewers of the film are taken in by these
softly spoken words of an old man sipping a glass of wine at a dinner table with a woman who is
asking him questions. I have shown this film to hundreds of students and none has noticed his
legerdemain. It is an example of the sort of hocus-pocus I will be getting to shortly, the sly
insertion into seemingly liberal or matter-of-fact commentary of statements that imply a
different story. The placement of convincing or confusing disingenuous ingredients into a truth
sandwich – for Bernays knew that the bread of truth is essential to conceal untruth.
In the following years, Bernays, Lippman, and their ilk were joined by social "scientists,"
psychologists, and sundry others intent on making a sham out of the idea of democracy by
developing strategies and techniques for the engineering of social consensus consonant with the
wishes of the ruling classes. Their techniques of propaganda developed exponentially with the
development of technology, the creation of the CIA, its infiltration of all the major media,
and that agency's courting of what the CIA official Cord Meyer called in the 1950s "the
compatible left," having already had the right in its pocket. Today most people are, as is
said, "wired," and they get their information from the electronic media that is mostly
controlled by giant corporations in cahoots with government propagandists. Ask yourself: Has
the power of the oligarchic, permanent warfare state with its propaganda and spy networks
increased or decreased over your lifetime. The answer is obvious: the average people that
Lippman and Bernays trashed are losing and the ruling elites are winning.
This is not just because powerful propagandists are good at controlling so-called "average"
people's thinking, but, perhaps more importantly, because they are also adept – probably
more so – at confusing or directing the thinking of those who consider themselves above
average, those who still might read a book or two or have the concentration to read multiple
articles that offer different perspectives on a topic. This is what some call the professional
and intellectual classes, perhaps 15-20 % of the population, most of whom are not the ruling
elites but their employees and sometimes their mouthpieces. It is this segment of the
population that considers itself "informed," but the information they imbibe is often sprinkled
with bits of misdirection, both intentional and not, that beclouds their understanding of
important public matters but leaves them with the false impression that they are in the
know.
Recently I have noticed a group of interconnected examples of how this group of the
population that exerts influence incommensurate with their numbers has contributed to the
blurring of lines between fact and fiction. Within this group there are opinion makers who are
often journalists, writers, and cultural producers of some sort or other, and then the larger
number of the intellectual or schooled class who follow their opinions. This second group then
passes on their received opinions to those who look up to them.
There is a notorious propaganda outfit called Bellingcat , started by an unemployed
Englishman named Eliot Higgins, that has been funded by The Atlantic Council, a think-tank with
deep ties to the U.S. government, NATO, war manufacturers, and their allies, and the National
Endowment for Democracy (NED), another infamous U.S. front organization heavily involved in
so-called color revolution regime change operations all around the world, that has just won the
International Emmy Award for best documentary. The film with the Orwellian title, Bellingcat: Truth in a Post-Truth World, received its Emmy at a recent ceremony in New
York City.
Bellingcat is an alleged group of amateur on-line researchers who have spent years
shilling for the U.S. instigated war against the Syrian government, blaming the Douma chemical
attack and others on the Assad government, and for the anti-Russian propaganda connected to,
among other things, the Skripal poisoning case in England, and the downing of flight MH17 plane
in Ukraine.
It has been lauded by the corporate mainstream media in the west. Its support for
the equally fraudulent White Helmets (also funded by the US and the UK) in Syria has also been
praised by the western corporate media while being dissected as propaganda by many excellent
independent journalists such as Eva Bartlett, Vanessa Beeley, Catte Black, among others. It's
had its work skewered by the likes of Seymour Hersh and MIT professor Theodore Postol, and its
US government connections pointed out by many others, including Ben Norton and Max Blumenthal
at The Gray Zone. And now we have the mainstream media's wall of silence on the leaks from the
Organization for the Prohibition on Chemical Weapons (OPCW) concerning the Douma chemical
attack and the doctoring of their report that led to the illegal U.S. bombing of Syria in the
spring of 2018. Bellingcat was at the forefront of providing justification for such bombing,
and now the journalists Peter Hitchens, Tareq Harrad (who recently resigned from Newsweek after accusing the publication of suppressing his revelations about the OPCW
scandal) and others are fighting an uphill battle to get the truth out.
Yet Bellingcat: Truth in a Post-Truth World won the Emmy , fulfilling Bernays'
point about films being the greatest unconscious carriers of propaganda in the world today.
Who presented the Emmy Award to the film makers, but none other than the rebel journalist
Chris Hedges . Why he did so, I don't know. But that he did so clearly sends a message to those
who follow his work and trust him that it's okay to give a major cultural award to a propaganda
outfit. But then, perhaps he doesn't consider Bellingcat to be that.
Nor, one presumes, does The Intercept , the billionaire Pierre Omidyar owned
publication associated with Glen Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill, and also read by many
progressive-minded people. The Intercept that earlier this year disbanded the small
team that was tasked with reviewing and releasing more of the massive trove of documents they
received from Edward Snowden six years ago, a minute number of which have ever been released or
probably ever will be. As
Whitney Webb pointed out , last year The Intercept hosted a workshop for
Bellingcat. She wrote:
The Intercept , along with its parent company First Look Media, recently
hosted a workshop for pro-war, Google-funded organization Bellingcat in New York. The
workshop, which
cost $2,500 per person to attend and lasted five days, aimed to instruct participants in
how to perform investigations using "open source" tools -- with Bellingcat's past, controversial
investigations for use as case studies Thus, while The Intercept has long
publicly promoted itself as an anti-interventionist and progressive media outlet, it is
becoming clearer that – largely thanks to its ties to Omidyar – it is
increasingly an organization that has more in common with Bellingcat, a group that launders
NATO and U.S. propaganda and disguises it as "independent" and "investigative
journalism."
Then we have Jefferson Morley , the editor of The Deep State, former Washington
Post journalist, and JFK assassination researcher, who has written a praiseworthy review of the
Bellingcat film and who supports Bellingcat. "In my experience, Bellingcat is credible," he
writes in an Alternet article, "Bellingcat
documentary has the pace and plot of a thriller."
Morley has also just written an article for Counterpunch –
"Why the Douma Chemical Attack Wasn't a 'Managed Massacre'" – in which he disputes
the claim that the April 7, 2018 attack in the Damascus suburb was a false flag operation
carried out by Assad's opponents. "I do not see any evidence proving that Douma was a false
flag incident," he writes in this article that is written in a style that leaves one guessing
as to what exactly he is saying. It sounds convincing unless one concentrates, and then his
double messages emerge. Yet it is the kind of article that certain "sophisticated" left-wing
readers might read and feel is insightful. But then Morley, who has written considerably about
the CIA, edits a website that advertises itself as "the thinking person's portal to the world
of secret government," and recently had an exchange with former CIA Director John Brennan where
"Brennan put a friendly finger on my chest," said in February 2017, less than a month after
Trump was sworn in as president, that:
With a docile Republican majority in Congress and a demoralized Democratic Party in
opposition, the leaders of the Deep State are the most -- perhaps the only -- credible check
in Washington on what Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) calls Trump's "
wrecking ball presidency ."
Is it any wonder that some people might be a bit confused?
"I know what you're thinking about," said Tweedledum; "but it isn't so, nohow."
"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it
would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."
As a final case in point, there is a recent book by Stephen Kinzer , Poisoner in Chief:
Sidney Gottlieb And The CIA Search For Mind Control, t he story of the chemist known as
Dr. Death who ran the CIA's MK-ULTRA mind control project, using LSD, torture, electric shock
therapy, hypnosis, etc.; developed sadistic methods of torture still used in black sites around
the world; and invented various ingenious techniques for assassination, many of which were
aimed at Fidel Castro. Gottlieb was responsible for brutal prison and hospital experiments and
untold death and suffering inflicted on all sorts of innocent people. His work was depraved in
the deepest sense; he worked with Nazis who experimented on Jews despite being Jewish
himself.
Kinzer writes in depth about this man who considered himself a patriot and a spiritual
person – a humane torturer and killer. It is an eye-opening book for anyone who does not
know about Gottlieb, who gave the CIA the essential tools they use in their "organized crime"
activities around the world – in the words of Douglass Valentine, the author of The
CIA as Organized Crime and The Phoenix Program . Kinzer's book is good history on
Gottlieb; however, he doesn't venture into the present activities of the CIA and Gottlieb's
patriotic followers, who no doubt exist and go about their business in secret.
After recounting in detail the sordid history of Gottlieb's secret work that is nauseating
to read about, Kinzer leaves the reader with these strange words:
Gottlieb was not a sadist, but he might well have been . Above all he was an instrument of
history. Understanding him is a deeply disturbing way of understanding ourselves.
What possibly could this mean? Not a sadist? An instrument of history? Understanding
ourselves? These few sentences, dropped out of nowhere, pull the rug out from under what is
generally an illuminating history and what seems like a moral indictment. This language is pure
mystification.
Kinzer also concludes that because Gottlieb said so, the CIA failed in their efforts to
develop methods of mind control and ended MK-ULTRA's experiments long ago. Why would he believe
the word of a man who personified the agency he worked for: a secret liar? He writes,
When Sydney Gottlieb brough MK-ULTRA to its end in the early 1960s, he told his CIA
superiors that he had found no reliable way to wipe away memory, make people abandon their
consciences, or commit crimes and then forget them.
As for those who might think otherwise, Kinzer suggests they have vivid imaginations and are
caught up in conspiracy thinking: "This [convincing others that the CIA had developed methods
of mind control when they hadn't] is Sydney Gottlieb's most unexpected legacy," he asserts. He
says this although Richard Helms, the CIA Director, destroyed all MK-Ultra records. He says
that Allen Dulles, Gottlieb, and Helms themselves were caught up in a complete fantasy about
mind control because they had seen too many movies and read too many books; mind control was
impossible, a failure, a myth, he maintains. It is the stuff of popular culture, entertainment.
In an interview with Chris Hedges, interestingly posted by Jefferson Morley at his website, The Deep State , Hedges agrees with Kinzer. Gottlieb, Dulles, et al. were all deluded.
Mind control was impossible. You couldn't create a Manchurian Candidate; by implication,
someone like Sirhan Sirhan could not have been programmed to be a fake Manchurian Candidate and
to have no memory of what he did, as he claims. He could not have been mind-controlled by the
CIA to perform his part as the seeming assassin of Senator Robert Kennedy while the real killer
shot RFK from behind. People who think like this should get real.
Furthermore, as is so common in books such as Kinzer's, he repeats the canard that JFK and
RFK knew about and pressured the CIA to assassinate Fidel Castro. This is demonstrably false,
as shown by the Church Committee and the Assassinations Record Review Board, among many others.
That Kinzer takes the word of notorious liars like Richard Helms and the top-level CIA
operative Samuel Halpern is simple incredible, something that is hard to consider a mistake.
Slipped into a truth sandwich, it is devoured and passed on. But it is false. Bullshit meant to
deceive.
But this is how these games are played. If you look carefully, you will see them widely.
Inform, enlighten, while throwing in doubletalk and untruths. The small number of people who
read such books and articles will come away knowing some history that has no current relevance
and being misinformed on other history that does. They will then be in the know, ready to pass
their "wisdom" on to those who care to listen. They will not think they are average.
But they will be mind controlled, and the killer cat will roam freely without a bell, ready
to devour the unsuspecting mice.
Edward Curtin is a writer whose work has appeared widely. He teaches sociology at
Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. His website is http://edwardcurtin.com/
What Armstrong fails to connect is the need for the first to be accomplished so that the
second has a chance of complete success: Russia's political-economy needed resuscitating and
strong-arming in the case of the kleptocrats for Russia's condition to be as bright as it is
on the dawn of a new decade 1/5 of the way into the 21st Century.
Armstrong also tarries at length with Putin's 2007 Munich speech wherein Putin made one
very prescient observation: "It is a world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And
at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also
for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within."
Armstrong uses Putin's observation made after the Outlaw US Empire's failed attempt to
prolong its Unipolar Moment in Iraq after it attacked itself to cause that conlict to show
the self-inflicted damage has yet to stop:
"Do we not see this today? The USA is tearing itself apart over imagined Russian
collusion, imagined Russian electoral interference and real Ukrainian corruption. And,
meanwhile, the forever wars go on and on."
In 2016, I thought there was an excellent chance the D-Party would splinter in a manner
similar to 1860 that was generated by both bottom->up and top->down forces. And in
light of the court decision allowing the DNC to name whomever it wants as its POTUS and VEEP
candidates regardless of both primary and convention balloting, IMO that possibility is even
greater as like 2016 the DNC will not--cannot--anoint Sanders as its POTUS candidate. But all
that's the subject for another comment.
The dynamics of geopolitics has allowed the China/Russia team and its allies to usher the
EU into Eurasian integration over the next decade while exposing the Outlaw US Empire as
nothing but a Ponzi Scheme that will collapse upon itself at some point in time.
"2020 will be a year of milestone significance. We will finish building a moderately
prosperous society in all respects and realize the first centenary goal. 2020 will also be a
year of decisive victory for the elimination of poverty....
"Human history, like a river, runs forever, witnessing both peaceful moments and great
disturbances. We are not afraid of storms and dangers and barriers. China is determined to
walk along the road of peaceful development and will resolutely safeguard world peace and
promote common development. We are willing to join hands with people of all countries in
the world to build together the Belt and Road Initiative, and push forward the building of a
community with a shared future for mankind, and make unremitting efforts for the creation of
a beautiful future for mankind ." [My Emphasis]
Clearly, China has grasped the leadership role abandoned by the Outlaw US Empire for
promoting humanity, Trump and Pompeo's daily actions giving China's position a continual
boost.
Putin's New
Year speech is short but emphasizes his key points. Do note that for Russians the New
Year celebration is akin to the West's Christmas (or perhaps was is the better verb):
"Friends, we always prepare for the New Year in advance and, despite being busy, we
believe that the warmth of human relations and companionship are the most important thing. We
strive to do something important and useful for other people and to help those who require
our support, to make them happy by giving them presents and our attention.
"Such sincere impulses, pure thoughts and selfless generosity are the true magic of the
New Year holiday. It brings out the best in people and transforms the world filling it with
joy and smiles.
"Uplifting New Year's feelings and wonderful impressions have been living in us since
childhood and come back every New Year, when we hug our loved ones, our parents, prepare
surprises for our children and grandchildren, decorate the New Year tree with them and unpack
once again paper cut-outs, baubles and glass garlands. These, sometimes ancient, but beloved
family trinkets give their warmth to the younger generations."
His preamble is nationalist; his message paternalistic and humanist.
IMO, the Scrooges of the Outlaw US Empire's Current Oligarchy haven't a chance versus the
likes of Putin, Xi and their likeminded allies.
I'll leave my fellow barflies with this 32 year-old music video that IMO well
expresses the heart sets of Putin, Xi, and those of us who want to share the world they're
trying to build instead of what the Outlaw US Empire's trying to pull down and destroy.
Last week, we
considered how the Bush and Obama administrations worked in tandem – wittingly or
unwittingly, but I'm betting on the former – to move forward with the construction of a
US missile defense system smack on Russia's border following the attacks of 9/11 and Bush's
decision to scrap the ABM Treaty with Moscow.
That aggressive move will go down in the (non-American) history books as the primary reason
for the return of Cold War-era atmosphere between Washington and Moscow. Currently, with the
mainstream news cycle top-heavy with 24/7 'Russiagate' baloney, many people have understandably
forgotten that it was during the Obama administration when US-Russia relations really hit rock
bottom. And it had nothing to do with Hillary Clinton's home computer getting allegedly
compromised by some Russia hackers.
The year is 2008; welcome to the international peace tour – although 'farce tour'
would be much more accurate. Fatigued by 8 long years of Bush's disastrous war on terror, with
over 1 million dead, maimed or on the run, the world has just let out a collective sigh of
relief as Barack Obama has been elected POTUS. Due to Obama's velvety delivery, and the fact
that he was not George W. Bush, he was able to provide the perfect smokescreen as far as
Washington's ulterior motives with regards to Russia were concerned; the devious double game
America was playing required a snake-oil salesman of immeasurable skill and finesse.
Just months into his presidency, with 'hope and change' hanging in the air like so many
helium balloons, Obama
told a massive crowd in Prague that, "To reduce our warheads and stockpiles, we will
negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians this year. President Medvedev
and I began this process in London, and will seek a new agreement by the end of this year that
is legally binding and sufficiently bold (Applause!)."
It would take another 8 years for the world – or at least the awakened part – to
come to grips with the fact that America's 'first Black president' was just another
smooth-talking, Wall Street-bought operator in sheep clothing. In the last year of the Obama
reign, it has been conservatively estimated that some 26,000 bombs of various size and power
were duly dropped against enemies in various nations. In other words, nearly three bombs every
hour, 24 hours a day.
But more to the point, US-Russia relations on Obama's watch experienced their deepest
deterioration since the days of the US-Soviet standoff. In fact, with the benefit of hindsight,
we can say that the 44th US president picked up almost seamlessly where Bush left off, and then
some. Initially, however, it looked as though relations with Russia would improve as Obama
announced
he would "shelve" the Bush plan for ground-based interceptors in Poland and a related radar
site in the Czech Republic. Then, the very same day, he performed a perfect flip-flop into the
geopolitical pool, saying he would deploy a
sea-based variety – which is every bit as lethal as the land version, as then Secretary
of Defense Robert Gates
admitted – instead of a land-locked one.
Following that announcement, Obama appeared intent on lulling Moscow into a false sense of
security that the system was somehow less dangerous than the Bush model, or that the Americans
would eventually agree and cooperate with them in the system. In March 2009, a curious thing
happened at the same time relations between the two global nuclear powers were hitting the
wall. A
meeting – more of a photo opportunity than any significant summit – took place
between then-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
in Geneva. To the delight of the phalanx of photographers present, Clinton, in a symbolic
gesture of "resetting relations" with Russia, produced a yellow box with a red button and the
Russian word "peregruzka" printed on it.
"You got it wrong," Lavrov said to general laughter. "It should be "perezagruzka" [reset],"
he corrected somewhat pedantically. "This says 'peregruzka,' which means 'overcharged.'"
Clinton gave a very interesting response, especially in light of where we are today in terms
of the bilateral breakdown: "We won't let you do that to us, I promise. We mean it and we look
forward to it."
As events would prove, the US State Department's 'mistaken' use of the Russian word for
'overcharged' instead of 'reset' was far closer to the truth. After all, can anybody remember a
time in recent history, aside from perhaps the Cuban Missile Crisis, when US-Russia relations
were more "overcharged" than now? In hindsight, the much-hyped 'reset' was an elaborate ploy by
the Obama administration to buy as much time as possible to get a strategic head start on the
Russians.
It deserves mentioning that the fate of the New START Treaty (signed into force on April 8,
2010), the nuclear missile reduction treaty signed between Obama and
then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, hung in the balance on mutual cooperation between the
nuclear powers. Nevertheless, it became clear the Obama sweet talk was just a lot of
candy-coated nothing.
What is truly audacious about the Obama administration's moves is that it somehow believed
Moscow would radically reduce its ballistic missile launch capabilities, as prescribed in the
New START treaty, at the very same time the United States was building a mighty sword along the
entire length of its Western border.
The Obama administration clearly underestimated Moscow, or overestimated Obama's charm
powers.
By the year 2011, after several years of failed negotiations to bring Russia onboard the
system, Moscow's patience was clearly over. During the G-8 Summit in France, Medvedev
expressed frustration with
the lack of progress on the missile defense system with the US.
"When we ask for the name of the countries that the shield is aimed at, we get silence," he
said. "When we ask if the country has missiles (that could target Europe), the answer is
'no.'"
"Now who has those types of missiles (that the missile defense system could counter)?"
"We do," Medvedev explained. "So we can only think that this system is being aimed against
us."
In fact, judging by the tremendous strides Russia has made in the realm of military
technologies over a very short period, it is apparent the Kremlin understood from the outset
that the 'reset' was an elaborate fraud, designed to cover the administration's push to Russian
border.
As I wrote last week on these pages: "In March, Putin stunned the world, and certainly
Washington's hawks, by announcing
in the annual Address to the Federal Assembly the introduction of advanced weapons systems
– including those with hypersonic capabilities – designed to overcome any missile
defense system in the world.
These major developments by Russia, which Putin emphasized was accomplished "without the
benefit" of Soviet-era expertise, has fueled the narrative that "Putin's Russia" is an
aggressive nation with "imperial ambitions," when in reality its goal was to form a bilateral
pact with the United States and other Western states almost two decades ago post 9/11.
As far as 'Russiagate', the endless probe into the Trump administration for its alleged
collusion with Russia in the 2016 election, not a shred of incriminating evidence has ever been
provided that would prove such a thing occurred. And when Putin offered
to cooperate with Washington in determining exactly what happened, the offer was rebuffed.
In light of such a scenario, it is my opinion that the Democrats, fully aware –
despite what the skewed media polls erringly
told them – that Hillary Clinton stood no chance of beating the Republican Donald
Trump in the 2016 presidential contest, set about crafting the narrative of 'Russian collusion'
in order to not only delegitimize Trump's presidency, possibly depriving him of a second term
in 2010, but to begin the process of severely curtailing the work of 'alternative media,' which
are in fact greatly responsible for not only Trump's victory at the polls, but for exposing the
dirt on Clinton's corrupt campaign.
These alternative media sites have been duly linked to Russia in one way or another as a
means of silencing them. Thus, it is not only Russia that has been victimized by the lunacy of
Russiagate; every single person who stands for the freedom of speech has
suffered a major setback one way or another.
Part I of this story is available
here . The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the
Strategic Culture Foundation. Tags: Cold War George W. Bush Obama RussiagateSTART
Conventional wisdom would have us believe that Russia became America's sworn enemy in the
aftermath of the 2016 presidential election. As is often the case, however, conventional wisdom
can be illusory.
In the momentous 2016 showdown between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, a faraway dark
kingdom known as Russia, the fantastic fable goes, hijacked that part of the American brain
responsible for critical thinking and lever pulling with a few thousand dollars' worth of
Facebook and Twitter adverts, bots and whatnot. The result of that gross intrusion into the
squeaky clean machinery of the God-blessed US election system is now more or less
well-documented history brought to you by the US mainstream media: Donald Trump, with some
assistance from the Russians that has never been adequately explained, pulled the presidential
contest out from under the wobbly feet of Hillary Clinton.
For those who unwittingly bought that work of fiction, I can only offer my sincere
condolences. In fact, Russiagate is just the latest installment of an anti-Russia story that
has been ongoing since the presidency of George W. Bush.
Act 1: Smokescreen
Rewind to September 24 th , 2001. Having gone on record as the first global
leader to telephone George W. Bush in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Putin showed
his support went beyond mere words. He announced a five-point plan to support America in the
'war against terror' that included the sharing of intelligence, as well as the opening of
Russian airspace for US humanitarian flights to Central Asia.
In the
words of perennial Kremlin critic, Michael McFaul, former US ambassador to Russia, Putin's
"acquiescence to NATO troops in Central Asia signaled a reversal of two hundred years of
Russian foreign policy. Under Yeltsin, the communists, and the tsars, Russia had always
considered Central Asia as its 'sphere of influence.' Putin broke with that tradition."
In other words, the new Russian leader was demonstrating his desire for Russia to have, as
Henry Kissinger explained it some seven years
later, "a reliable strategic partner, with America being the preferred choice."
This leads us to the question for the ages: If it was obvious that Russia was now fully
prepared to enter into a serious partnership with the United States in the 'war on terror,'
then how do we explain George W. Bush announcing the withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty just three months later? There are some things we may take away from that move, which
Putin tersely and rightly
described as a "mistake."
First, Washington must not have considered a security partnership with Moscow very
important, since they certainly understood that Russia would respond negatively to the decision
to scrap the 30-year-old ABM Treaty. Second, the US must not considered the 'war on terror'
very serious either; otherwise it would not have risked losing Russian assistance in hunting
down the baddies in Central Asia and the Middle East, geographical areas where Russia has
gained valuable experience over the years. This was a remarkably odd choice considering that
the US military apparatus had failed spectacularly to defend the nation against a terrorist
attack, coordinated by 19 amateurs, armed with box cutters, no less. Third, as was the case
with the
decision to invade Iraq, a country with nodiscernible connection to the events of 9/11, as
well as the imposition of the pre-drafted
Patriot Act on a shell-shocked nation, the decision to break with Russia seems to have been a
premeditated move on the global chessboard. Although it would be hard to prove such a claim, we
can take some guidance from Rahm Emanuel, former Obama Chief of Staff, who notoriously advised,
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Pb-YuhFWCr4
So why did Bush abrogate the ABM Treaty with Russia? The argument was that some "rogue
state," rumored to be Iran, might be tempted to launch a missile attack against "US interests
abroad." Yet there was absolutely no logic to the claim since Tehran was inextricably bound by
the same principle of "mutually assured destruction" (MAD) as were any other states that
tempted fate with a surprise attack on US-Israeli interests. Further, it made no sense to focus
attention on Shia-dominant Iran when the majority of the terrorists, allegedly acolytes of
Osama bin Laden, reportedly hailed from Sunni-dominant Saudi Arabia. In other words, the Bush
administration happily sacrificed an invincible relationship with Russia in the war on terror
in order to guard against some external threat that only nominally existed, with a missile
defense system that was largely unproven in the field. Again, zero logic.
However, when it is considered that the missile defense system was tailor-made by America
specifically with Russia in mind, the whole scheme begins to make more sense, at least from a
strategic perspective. Thus, the Bush administration used the attacks of 9/11 to not only
dramatically curtail the civil rights of American citizens with the passage of the Patriot Act,
it also took the first steps towards encircling Russia with a so-called 'defense system' that
has the capacity to grow in effectiveness and range.
For those who thought Russia would just sit back and let itself be encircled by foreign
missiles, they were in for quite a surprise. In March 2018, Putin stunned the world, and
certainly Washington's hawks, by announcing
in the annual Address to the Federal Assembly the introduction of advanced weapons systems
– including those with hypersonic capabilities – designed to overcome any missile
defense system in the world.
These major developments by Russia, which Putin emphasized was accomplished "without the
benefit" of Soviet-era expertise, has fueled the narrative that "Putin's Russia" is an
aggressive nation with "imperial ambitions," when in reality its goal was to form a bilateral
pact with the United States and other Western states almost two decades ago post 9/11.
Now, US officials can only wring their hands in angst while speaking about an "aggressive
Russia."
"Russia is the most significant threat just because they pose the only existential threat to
the country right now. So we have to look at that from that perspective,"
declared Air Force Gen. John Hyten, commander of US Strategic Command, or STRATCOM.
Putin reiterated in his Address, however, that there would have been no need for Russia to
have developed such advanced weapon systems if its legitimate concerns had not been dismissed
by the US.
"Nobody wanted to talk with us on the core of the problem," he said. "Nobody listened to us.
Now you listen!"
To be continued: Part II: Reset, or 'Overcharged' The views of individual
contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation. Tags:
Deep State
Russiagate
"... Imagine millions of government employees paid for by America's tax payer class, involved in covert operations undermining nation states for the benefit of war mongering shadow overlords counting on more never ending chaos feeding their hunger for power. ..."
"... This isn't Orwell's 1984, this Team America on opioids. ..."
"... Senior OPCW official had orders from US/ the Donald. Remember that the Donald bombed Syria based on this fake report , after a false flag done by Al Qaeda's artistic branch, the White Helmets. ..."
"... Pray, do tell where are the consequences for these literal demons that engaged in war crimes? It is quite clear: as long as you are a member of the establishment, you can do whatever the f*ck you want. ..."
"... Third rate script, third rate actors and crooked investigators. TPTB seem to have a plan worked out. Their problem now is that we, the hoi-polloi, have seen it all before, many times, and we can now recognise ******** when it's used to try to influence us. ..."
"... If this is not lamentable enough, the OPCW – whose final report came to more than a hundred pages and which even issued an easy-to-read precis version for journalists – now slams shut its steel doors in the hope of preventing even more information reaching the press. ..."
"... Instead of these pieces concentrating on the whistleblower how about putting a little heat on the 50 lying bastards who initiated the coverup? ..."
"... The destruction of the countries of the Middle East for the sake of a dwarf with giant ambitions is the most stupid thing the United States has done over the past 30 years in its foreign policy. And yes, all the wars in the Middle East were grounded in lies. And the Americans paid for it all from start to finish. When Americans realize that they need to defend their national interests, and not other people's national interests, maybe something in the Middle East will change for the better. True, I am afraid that with the hight level of stupidity and shortsightedness that is common among Americans, the United States is more likely to be destroyed faster. No offense. ..."
"... And I propose to remember the Syrian Christians who were destroyed by the Saudi Wahhabis, hired by the CIA with the money of American taxpayers and at the request of Israel. Until the Americans begin to investigate the activities of the CIA (and this activity causes the United States only harm), the responsibility for this genocide (you heard right) will be on the American nation. It turns out that in the Middle East you are primarily destroying Christians. How interesting, why such zeal. ..."
"... According to whistleblower testimony and leaked documents, OPCW officials raised alarm about the suppression of critical findings that undermine the allegation that the Syrian government committed a chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. Haddad's editors at Newsweek rejected his attempts to cover the story. "If I don't find another position in journalism because of this, I'm perfectly happy to accept that consequence," Haddad says. "It's not desirable. But there is no way I could have continued in that job knowing that I couldn't report something like this." ..."
"... New leaks continue to expose a cover-up by the OPCW – the world's top chemical weapons watchdog – over a critical event in Syria. Documents, emails, and testimony from OPCW officials have raised major doubts about the allegation that the Syrian government committed a chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. The leaked OPCW information has been released in pieces by Wikileaks. The latest documents contain a number of significant revelations – including that that about 20 OPCW officials voiced concerns that their scientific findings and on-the-ground evidence was suppressed and excluded. ..."
Wikileaks has released their fourth set of leaks from the OPCW's Douma investigation,
revealing new details about the alleged deletion of important information regarding the
fact-finding mission.
RELEASE: OPCW-Douma Docs 4. Four leaked documents from the OPCW reveal that toxicologists
ruled out deaths from chlorine exposure and a senior official ordered the deletion of the
dissenting engineering report from OPCW's internal repository of documents. https://t.co/ndK4sRikNk
"One of the documents is an e-mail exchange dated 27 and 28 February between members of the
fact finding mission (FFM) deployed to Douma and the senior officials of the OPCW. It includes
an e-mail from Sebastien Braha, Chief of Cabinet at the OPCW , where he instructs that an
engineering report from Ian Henderson should be removed from the secure registry of the
organisation," WikiLeaks writes. Included in the email is the following directive:
" Please get this document out of DRA [Documents Registry Archive] And please remove all
traces, if any, of its delivery/storage/whatever in DRA.'"
According to Wikileaks, the main finding of Henderson, who inspected the sites in Douma, was
that two of the cylinders were most likely manually placed at the site, rather than
dropped.
"The main finding of Henderson, who inspected the sites in Douma and two cylinders that were
found on the site of the alleged attack, was that they were more likely manually placed there
than dropped from a plane or helicopter from considerable heights. His findings were omitted
from the official final OPCW report on the Douma incident," the Wikileaks report said.
It must be remembered that the U.S. launched an attack on Damascus, Syria on April 14, 2018
over alleged chemical weapons usage by pro-Assad forces at Douma.
Another document released Friday is minutes from a meeting on 6 June 2018 where four staff
members of the OPCW had discussions with "three Toxicologists/Clinical pharmacologists, one
bioanalytical and toxicological chemist" (all specialists in chemical weapons, according to the
minutes).
Minutes from an OPCW meeting with toxicologists specialized in chemical weapons: "the
experts were conclusive in their statements that there was
no correlation between symptoms and chlorine exposure". https://t.co/j5Jgjiz8UY pic.twitter.com/vgPaTtsdQN
The purpose of this meeting was two-fold. The first objective was "to solicit expert advice
on the value of exhuming suspected victims of the alleged chemical attack in Douma on 7 April
2018". According to the minutes, the OPCW team was advised by the experts that there would be
little use in conducting exhumations. The second point was "To elicit expert opinions from the
forensic toxicologists regarding the observed and reported symptoms of the alleged
victims."
More specifically, " whether the symptoms observed in victims were consistent with exposure
to chlorine or other reactive chlorine gas."
According to the minutes leaked Friday: "With respect to the consistency of the observed and
reported symptoms of the alleged victims with possible exposure to chlorine gas or similar, the
experts were conclusive in their statements that there was no correlation between symptoms and
chlorine exposure ."
The OPCW team members wrote that the key "take-away message" from the meeting was "that the
symptoms observed were inconsistent with exposure to chlorine and no other obvious candidate
chemical causing the symptoms could be identified".
The isisrahell have such long hand to pull the plug any stories implicating their crime in
progress otherwise they can put out some bs spins as bombshell reporting about US lies in
Afghanistan war on their wapo for public for those who read it was nothing important revealed
except being a misdirected na
If you want to pay off that student loan you're going to print what they tell you to
print. You're going to inject kids with what they tell you to inject them with. You're going
to think what they tell you to think or you're going to spend your days in a Prole bar
drinking Blatz.
yes, an attack was launched, 50 missiles I believe, after loud warnings that it was
coming, and none of them actually hit anything significant ... this is the way the game is
played .... the good news is that the missiles cost $50 million, and now they will have to be
replaced, by the Pentagon, first borrowing the money through the US Treasury offerings, and
then paying for them from new money printed by the Federal Reserve. capische?
That`s the way it`s always been, it`s the eternal war of good against evil.
And when one evil enemy is defeated, it`s necessary to create a new evil enemy, how else
can the Establishment Elite make money from war, death and destruction.
It's really very awkward & telling how ***** these bunch of western nations are
looking tough on taking out poor defenceless country like Syria on ******** & at the
satried to ease real kickass Russian as you described when they launch the attacks
I kind wish the US & their Zionist clown launch such huge attacks on Iran based on
false flag
I really wanted these evil aggressive powers to taste what it is like to get bombed back
even one they used to throw on multiple weaker nations freely with nothing to fear as
retribution etc
This organisations are all set up in Europe and US run by the filthiest filth on earth who
still think they have God given right to imperial rule over the world.
Your military-industrial-intelligence complex at work, creating justification for more
funding, like always - and who cares if people die as a result? Like Soros said, if they
didn't do it, someone else would. (do I need /sarc?).
They don't like to be shown to be in charge, just to be in charge. And if you think this
is a function of the current admin, you've been slow in the head and deaf and blind for quite
some time.
I've watched since Eisenhower, and "it's always something". Doesn't matter what color the
clown in chief's tie is.
Imagine millions of government employees paid for by America's tax payer class, involved
in covert operations undermining nation states for the benefit of war mongering shadow
overlords counting on more never ending chaos feeding their hunger for power.
This isn't Orwell's 1984, this Team America on opioids.
Senior OPCW official had orders from US/ the Donald. Remember that the Donald bombed Syria based on this fake report , after a false flag done
by Al Qaeda's artistic branch, the White Helmets.
Pray, do tell where are the consequences for these literal demons that engaged in war
crimes? It is quite clear: as long as you are a member of the establishment, you can do
whatever the f*ck you want. Why do we even follow the law, then? Given the precedent that is
being set, we might as well not have any.
Well, they are looking forward to using all those Israeli weapons, er, uh, products, that
local law enforcement has purchased...so watch out for Co-Intel Pro elicitation going
forward....?
Everybody knows the Golem (USA) does Isn'treal's bidding in Syria and elsewhere in the
Near East. Hopefully they keep hammering in the fact that this "gas attack" was an obvious
set-up to use as a pretext (flimsy itself on the face of it) to brutalize Assad and Syria on
behalf of Isn'treal.
The whole thing is built on ******* lies. Worst part about it is, nothing will happen.
Only official news is to believed. You see it and it is a lie. they tell you to believe
it. A lot of people casually believe whatever is spoken on TV. They become teachers and are
taught in college what is right and wrong. We only have a few years before all the brain dead
are in charge and robotically following the message like zombies with no brain
Third rate script, third rate actors and crooked investigators. TPTB seem to have a plan worked out. Their problem now is that we, the hoi-polloi, have
seen it all before, many times, and we can now recognise ******** when it's used to try to
influence us.
It is difficult to underestimate the seriousness of this manipulative act by the OPCW.
In a response to the conservative author Peter Hitchens, who also writes for the Mail on
Sunday – he is of course the brother of the late Christopher Hitchens – the
OPCW admits that its so-called technical secretariat "is conducting an internal
investigation about the unauthorised [sic] release of the document".
Then it adds: "At this time, there is no further public information on this matter and
the OPCW is unable to accommodate [sic] requests for interviews". It's a tactic that until
now seems to have worked: not a single news media which reported the OPCW's official
conclusions has followed up the story of the report which the OPCW suppressed.
And you bet the OPCW is not going to "accommodate" interviews. For here is an
institution investigating a war crime in a conflict which has cost hundreds of thousands of
lives – yet its only response to an enquiry about the engineers' "secret" assessment
is to concentrate on its own witch-hunt for the source of the document it wished to keep
secret from the world.
If this is not lamentable enough, the OPCW – whose final report came to more than
a hundred pages and which even issued an easy-to-read precis version for journalists
– now slams shut its steel doors in the hope of preventing even more information
reaching the press.
The destruction of the countries of the Middle East for the sake of a dwarf with giant
ambitions is the most stupid thing the United States has done over the past 30 years in its
foreign policy. And yes, all the wars in the Middle East were grounded in lies. And the
Americans paid for it all from start to finish. When Americans realize that they need to
defend their national interests, and not other people's national interests, maybe something
in the Middle East will change for the better. True, I am afraid that with the hight level of
stupidity and shortsightedness that is common among Americans, the United States is more
likely to be destroyed faster. No offense.
And I propose to remember the Syrian Christians who were destroyed by the Saudi Wahhabis,
hired by the CIA with the money of American taxpayers and at the request of Israel. Until the
Americans begin to investigate the activities of the CIA (and this activity causes the United
States only harm), the responsibility for this genocide (you heard right) will be on the
American nation. It turns out that in the Middle East you are primarily destroying
Christians. How interesting, why such zeal.
According to whistleblower testimony and leaked documents, OPCW officials raised alarm
about the suppression of critical findings that undermine the allegation that the Syrian
government committed a chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. Haddad's
editors at Newsweek rejected his attempts to cover the story. "If I don't find another
position in journalism because of this, I'm perfectly happy to accept that consequence,"
Haddad says. "It's not desirable. But there is no way I could have continued in that job
knowing that I couldn't report something like this."
New leaks continue to expose a cover-up by the OPCW – the world's top chemical
weapons watchdog – over a critical event in Syria. Documents, emails, and testimony
from OPCW officials have raised major doubts about the allegation that the Syrian government
committed a chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. The leaked OPCW
information has been released in pieces by Wikileaks. The latest documents contain a number
of significant revelations – including that that about 20 OPCW officials
voiced concerns that their scientific findings and on-the-ground evidence was suppressed and
excluded.
This is, without a doubt, a major global scandal: the OPCW, under reported US pressure,
suppressing vital evidence about allegations of chemical weapons. But that very fact exposes
another global scandal: with the exception of small outlets like The Grayzone, the mass media
has widely ignored or whitewashed this story. And this widespread censorship of the OPCW
scandal has just led one journalist to resign. Up until recently, Tareq Haddad was a reporter
at Newsweek. But in early December, Tareq announced that he had quit his position after
Newsweek refused to publish his story about the OPCW cover up over Syria.
Here's a key point - on June 12, Assange announces that Wikileaks will soon be releasing
info pertinent to Hillary. HE DOES NOT SAY THAT HE WILL BE RELEASING DNC EMAILS.
And yet, on June 14, Crowdstrike reports a Russian hack of the DNC servers - and a day later, Guccifer
2.0 emerges and proclaims himself to be the hacker, takes credit for the upcoming Wikileaks
DNC releases, publishes the Trump oppo research which Crowdstrike claimed he had taken, and
intentionally adds "Russian footprints" to his metadata.
So how did Crowdstrike and G2.0 know
that DNC EMAILS would be released?
Because, as Larry postulates, the US intelligence
community had intercepted communications between Seth Rich and Wikileaks in which Seth had
offered the DNC emails (consistent with the report of Sy Hersh's source within the FBI).
So
US intelligence tipped off the DNC that their emails were about to be leaked to Wikileaks.
That's when the stratagem of attributing the impending Wikileaks release to a Russian hack
was born - distracting from the incriminating content of the emails, while vilifying the Deep
State's favorite enemies, Assange and Russia, all in one neat scam.
"... The destruction of Syria and Libya created massive refugee flows which have proved that the European Union was totally unprepared to deal with such a major issue. On top of that, the latest years, we have witnessed a rapid rise of various terrorist attacks in Western soil, also as a result of the devastating wars in Syria and Libya. ..."
"... Whenever they wanted to blame someone for some serious terrorist attacks, they had a scapegoat ready for them, even if they had evidence that Libya was not behind these attacks. When Gaddafi falsely admitted that he had weapons of mass destruction in order to gain some relief from the Western sanctions, they presented him as a responsible leader who, was ready to cooperate. Of course, his last role was to play again the 'bad guy' who had to be removed. ..."
"... Despite the rise of Donald Trump in power, the neoliberal forces will push further for the expansion of the neoliberal doctrine in the rival field of the Sino-Russian alliance. ..."
"... We see, however, that the Western alliances are entering a period of severe crisis. The US has failed to control the situation in Middle East and Libya. The ruthless neo-colonialists will not hesitate to confront Russia and China directly, if they see that they continue to lose control in the global geopolitical arena. The accumulation of military presence of NATO next to the Russian borders, as well as, the accumulation of military presence of the US in Asia-Pacific, show that this is an undeniable fact. ..."
The start of current decade revealed the most ruthless face of a global neo-colonialism. From Syria and Libya to Europe and Latin
America, the old colonial powers of the West tried to rebound against an oncoming rival bloc led by Russia and China, which starts
to threaten their global domination.
Inside a multi-polar, complex terrain of geopolitical games, the big players start to abandon the old-fashioned, inefficient direct
wars. They use today other, various methods like
brutal proxy
wars , economic wars, financial and constitutional coups, provocative operations, 'color revolutions', etc. In this highly
complex and unstable situation, when even traditional allies turn against each other as the global balances change rapidly, the forces
unleashed are absolutely destructive. Inevitably, the results are more than evident.
Proxy Wars - Syria/Libya
After the US invasion in Iraq, the gates of hell had opened in the Middle East. Obama continued the Bush legacy of US endless
interventions, but he had to change tactics because a direct war would be inefficient, costly and extremely unpopular to the American
people and the rest of the world.
The result, however, appeared to be equally (if not more) devastating with the failed US invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US
had lost total control of the armed groups directly linked with the ISIS terrorists, failed to topple Assad, and, moreover, instead
of eliminating the Russian and Iranian influence in the region, actually managed to increase it. As a result, the US and its allies
failed to secure their geopolitical interests around the various pipeline games.
In addition, the US sees Turkey, one of its most important ally, changing direction dangerously, away from the Western bloc. Probably
the strongest indication for this, is that Turkey, Iran and Russia decided very recently to proceed in an agreement on Syria without
the presence of the US.
Yet, the list of US failures does not end here. The destruction of Syria and Libya created massive refugee flows which have
proved that the European Union was totally unprepared to deal with such a major issue. On top of that, the latest years, we have
witnessed a rapid rise of various terrorist attacks in Western soil, also as a result of the devastating wars in Syria and Libya.
Evidence from
WikiLeaks has shown that the old colonial powers have started a new round of ruthless competition on Libya's resources.
The usual story propagated by the Western media, about another tyrant who had to be removed, has now completely collapsed. They don't
care neither to topple an 'authoritarian' regime, nor to spread Democracy. All they care about is to secure each country's resources
for their big companies.
The Gaddafi case is quite interesting because it shows that
the Western
hypocrites were using him according to their interests .
Whenever they wanted to blame someone for some serious terrorist attacks, they had a scapegoat ready for them, even if they
had evidence that Libya was not behind these attacks. When Gaddafi falsely admitted that he had weapons of mass destruction in order
to gain some relief from the Western sanctions, they presented him as a responsible leader who, was ready to cooperate. Of course,
his last role was to play again the 'bad guy' who had to be removed.
Economic Wars, Financial Coups – Greece/Eurozone
It would be unthinkable for the neo-colonialists to conduct proxy wars inside European soil, especially against countries which
belong to Western institutions like NATO, EU, eurozone, etc. The wave of the US-made major economic crisis hit Greece and Europe
at the start of the decade, almost simultaneously with the eruption of the Arab Spring revolutionary wave and the subsequent disaster
in Middle East and Libya.
Greece was the easy victim for the global neoliberal dictatorship to impose catastrophic measures in favor of the plutocracy.
The Greek experiment enters its seventh year and the plan is to be used as a model for the whole eurozone. Greece has become also
the model for the looting of public property, as happened in the past with the East Germany and the
Treuhand Operation
after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
While Greece was the major victim of an economic war, Germany used its economic power and control of the European Central Bank
to impose unprecedented austerity, sado-monetarism and neoliberal destruction through silent financial coups in
Ireland ,
Italy and
Cyprus . The Greek political establishment collapsed with the rise of SYRIZA in power, and the ECB was forced to proceed
in an open financial coup against
Greece when the current PM, Alexis Tsipras, decided to conduct a referendum on the catastrophic measures imposed by the ECB, IMF
and the European Commission, through which the Greek people clearly rejected these measures, despite the propaganda of terror inside
and outside Greece. Due to the direct threat from Mario Draghi and the ECB, who actually threatened to cut liquidity sinking Greece
into a financial chaos, Tsipras finally forced to retreat, signing another catastrophic memorandum.
Through similar financial and political pressure, the Brussels bureaufascists and the German sado-monetarists along with the IMF
economic hitmen, imposed neoliberal disaster to other eurozone countries like Portugal, Spain etc. It is remarkable that even the
second eurozone economy, France,
rushed to
impose anti-labor measures midst terrorist attacks, succumbing to a - pre-designed by the elites - neo-Feudalism, under
the 'Socialist' François Hollande, despite the intense protests in many French cities.
Germany would never let the United States to lead the neo-colonization in Europe, as it tries (again) to become a major power
with its own sphere of influence, expanding throughout eurozone and beyond. As the situation in Europe becomes more and more critical
with the ongoing economic and refugee crisis and the rise of the Far-Right and the nationalists, the economic war mostly between
the US and the German big capital, creates an even more complicated situation.
The decline of the US-German relations has been exposed initially with the
NSA interceptions
scandal , yet, progressively, the big picture came on surface, revealing a
transatlantic
economic war between banking and corporate giants. In times of huge multilevel crises, the big capital always intensifies
its efforts to eliminate competitors too. As a consequence, the US has seen another key ally, Germany, trying to gain a certain degree
of independence in order to form its own agenda, separate from the US interests.
Note that, both Germany and Turkey are medium powers that, historically, always trying to expand and create their own spheres
of influence, seeking independence from the traditional big powers.
A wave of neoliberal onslaught shakes currently Latin America. While in Argentina, Mauricio Macri allegedly took the power normally,
the constitutional
coup against Dilma Rousseff in Brazil, as well as, the
usual actions
of the Right opposition in Venezuela against Nicolás Maduro with the help of the US finger, are far more obvious.
The special weight of these three countries in Latin America is extremely important for the US imperialism to regain ground in the
global geopolitical arena. Especially the last ten to fifteen years, each of them developed increasingly autonomous policies away
from the US close custody, under Leftist governments, and this was something that alarmed the US imperialism components.
Brazil appears to be the most important among the three, not only due to its size, but also as a member of the BRICS, the team
of fast growing economies who threaten the US and generally the Western global dominance. The constitutional coup against Rousseff
was rather a sloppy action and reveals the anxiety of the US establishment to regain control through puppet regimes. This is a well-known
situation from the past through which the establishment attempts to secure absolute dominance in the US backyard.
The importance of Venezuela due to its oil reserves is also significant. When Maduro tried to approach Russia in order to strengthen
the economic cooperation between the two countries, he must had set the alarm for the neocons in the US. Venezuela could find an
alternative in Russia and BRICS, in order to breathe from the multiple economic war that was set off by the US. It is characteristic
that the economic war against Russia by the US and the Saudis, by keeping the oil prices in historically low levels, had significant
impact on the Venezuelan economy too. It is also known that the US organizations are funding the opposition since Chávez era, in
order to proceed in provocative operations that could overthrow the Leftist governments.
The case of Venezuela is really interesting. The US imperialists were fiercely trying to overthrow the Leftist governments since
Chávez administration. They found now a weaker president, Nicolás Maduro - who certainly does not have the strength and personality
of Hugo Chávez - to achieve their goal.
The Western media mouthpieces are doing their job, which is propaganda as usual. The recipe is known. You present the half truth,
with a big overdose of exaggeration.
The establishment
parrots are demonizing Socialism , but they won't ever tell you about the money that the US is spending, feeding the
Right-Wing groups and opposition to proceed in provocative operations, in order to create instability. They won't tell you about
the financial war conducted through the oil prices, manipulated by the Saudis, the close US ally.
Regarding Argentina, former president, Cristina Kirchner, had also made some important moves towards the stronger cooperation
with Russia, which was something unacceptable for Washington's hawks. Not only for geopolitical reasons, but also because Argentina
could escape from the vulture funds that sucking its blood since its default. This would give the country an alternative to the neoliberal
monopoly of destruction. The US big banks and corporations would never accept such a perspective because the debt-enslaved Argentina
is a golden opportunity for a new round of huge profits. It's
happening right
now in eurozone's debt colony, Greece.
'Color Revolutions' - Ukraine
The events in Ukraine have shown that, the big capital has no hesitation to ally even with the neo-nazis, in order to impose the
new world order. This is not something new of course. The connection of Hitler with the German economic oligarchs, but also with
other major Western companies, before and during the WWII, is well known.
The most terrifying of all however, is not that the West has silenced in front of the decrees of the new Ukrainian leadership,
through which is targeting the minorities, but the fact that the West allied with the neo-nazis, while according to some information
has also funded their actions as well as other extreme nationalist groups during the riots in Kiev.
Plenty of indications show that US organizations have 'put their finger' on Ukraine. A
video , for
example, concerning the situation in Ukraine has been directed by Ben Moses (creator of the movie "Good Morning, Vietnam"), who is
connected with American government executives and organizations like National Endowment for Democracy, funded by the US Congress.
This video shows a beautiful young female Ukrainian who characterizes the government of the country as "dictatorship" and praise
some protesters with the neo-nazi symbols of the fascist Ukranian party Svoboda on them.
The same organizations are behind 'color revolutions' elsewhere, as well as, provocative operations against Leftist governments
in Venezuela and other countries.
Ukraine is the perfect place to provoke Putin and tight the noose around Russia. Of course the huge hypocrisy of the West can
also be identified in the case of Crimea. While in other cases, the Western officials were 'screaming' for the right of self-determination
(like Kosovo, for example), after they destroyed Yugoslavia in a bloodbath, they can't recognize the will of the majority of Crimeans
to join Russia.
The war will become wilder
The Western neo-colonial powers are trying to counterattack against the geopolitical upgrade of Russia and the Chinese economic
expansionism.
Despite the rise of Donald Trump in power, the neoliberal forces will push further for the expansion of the neoliberal doctrine
in the rival field of the Sino-Russian alliance. Besides, Trump has already shown his hostile feelings against China, despite
his friendly approach to Russia and Putin.
We see, however, that the Western alliances are entering a period of severe crisis. The US has failed to control the situation
in Middle East and Libya. The ruthless neo-colonialists will not hesitate to confront Russia and China directly, if they see that
they continue to lose control in the global geopolitical arena. The accumulation of military presence of NATO next to the Russian
borders, as well as, the accumulation of military presence of the US in Asia-Pacific, show that this is an undeniable fact.
Gossufer2.0 and CrowdStrike are the weakest links in this sordid story. CrowdStrike was nothing but FBI/CIA contractor.
So the hypothesis that CrowdStrike employees implanted malware to implicate Russians and created fake Gussifer 2.0 personality
is pretty logical.
Notable quotes:
"... Not one piece of corroborating intelligence. It is all based on opinion and strong belief. There was no human source report or electronic intercept pointing to a relationship between the GRU and the two alleged creations of the GRU--Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com. Now consider the spin that Robert Mueller put on this opinion in his report on possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Mueller bluffs the unsuspecting reader into believing that it is a proven fact that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks were Russian assets. But he is relying on a mere opinion from a handpicked group of intel analysts working under the direction of then CIA Director John Brennan ..."
"... In October 2015 John Brennan reorganized the CIA . As part of that reorganization he created a new directorate--DIRECTORATE OF DIGITAL INNOVATION. Its mission was to "manipulate digital footprints." In other words, this was the Directorate that did the work of creating Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks. One of their specialties, creating Digital Dust. ..."
"... We also know, thanks to Wikileaks, that the CIA was using software specifically designed to mask CIA activity and make it appear like it was done by a foreign entity. Wikipedia describes the Vault 7 documents : ..."
"... Exhibit A in the case is this document created and later edited in the ubiquitous Microsoft Word format. Metadata left inside the file shows it was last edited by someone using the computer name "Феликс Эдмундович." That means the computer was configured to use the Russian language and that it was connected to a Russian-language keyboard. More intriguing still, "Феликс Эдмундович" is the colloquial name that translates to Felix Dzerzhinsky, the 20th Century Russian statesman who is best known for founding the Soviet secret police. (The metadata also shows that the purported DNC strategy memo was originally created by someone named Warren Flood, which happens to be the name of a LinkedIn user claiming to provide strategy and data analytics services to Democratic candidates.) ..."
"... Why would the CIA do this? The CIA knew that Podesta's emails had been hacked and were circulating on the internet. But they had no evidence about the identity of the culprit. If they had such evidence, they would have cited it in the 2017 ICA. ..."
"... The U.S. intelligence community became aware around May 26, 2016 that someone with access to the DNC network was offering those emails to Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Julian Assange and people who spoke to him indicate that the person was Seth Rich. Whether or not it was Seth, the Trump Task Force at CIA was aware that the emails, which would be embarrassing to the Clinton campaign, would be released at some time in the future. Hence the motive to create Guccifer 2.0 and pin the blame on Russia. ..."
"... The only source for the claim that Russia hacked the DNC is a private cyber security firm, CrowdStrike. ..."
"... Time for the common sense standard again. Crowdstrike detected the Russians on the 6th of May, according to CEO Dimitri Alperovitch, but took no steps to shutdown the network, eliminate the malware and clean the computers until 34 days later, i.e., the 10th of June. That is 34 days of inexcusable inaction. ..."
"... The actions attributed to DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 should be priority investigative targets for U.S. Attorney John Durham's team of investigators. This potential use of a known CIA tool, developed under Brennan with the sole purpose to obfuscate the source of intrusions, pointing to another nation, as a false flag operation, is one of the actions and issues that U.S. Attorney John Durham should be looking into as a potential act of "Seditious conspiracy. It needs to be done. To quote the CIA, I strongly assess that the only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential election was the CIA, not the GRU. ..."
"... LJ bottom line: "The only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential election was the CIA, not the GRU." ..."
"... ICA which seemed to have been framed to allow journalists or the unwary to link the ICA with more rigorous standards used by more authentic assessments? ..."
"... With the Russians not having the advantages that the NSA does (back doors in all US-designed network hardware/software and taps all over the internet), would Russia reveal anything unless it involved an immediate major national security threat. I doubt that would cover Trump. ..."
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report insists that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks were created by Russia's military intelligence organization,
the GRU, as part of a Russian plot to meddle in the U.S. 2016 Presidential Election. But this is a lie. Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks
were created by Brennan's CIA and this action by the CIA should be a target of U.S. Attorney John Durham's investigation. Let me
explain why.
Let us start with the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment aka ICA. Only three agencies of the 17 in the U.S. intelligence
community contributed to and coordinated on the ICA--the FBI, the CIA and NSA. In the preamble to the ICA, you can read the following
explanation about methodology:
When Intelligence Community analysts use words such as "we assess" or "we judge," they are conveying an analytic assessment or
judgment
To be clear, the phrase,"We assess", is intel community jargon for "opinion". If there was actual evidence or source material
for a judgment the writer of the assessment would state, "According to a reliable source" or "knowledgeable source" or "documentary
evidence."
Pay close attention to what the analysts writing the ICA stated about the GRU and Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks:
We assess with high confidence that the GRU used the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and WikiLeaks to release US victim data
obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets.
Guccifer 2.0, who claimed to be an independent Romanian hacker, made multiple contradictory statements and false claims
about his likely Russian identity throughout the election. Press reporting suggests more than one person claiming to be Guccifer
2.0 interacted with journalists.
Content that we assess was taken from e-mail accounts targeted by the GRU in March 2016 appeared on DCLeaks.com starting
in June.
We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks.
Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self-proclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did
not contain any evident forgeries.
Not one piece of corroborating intelligence. It is all based on opinion and strong belief. There was no human source report or
electronic intercept pointing to a relationship between the GRU and the two alleged creations of the GRU--Guccifer 2.0 persona and
DCLeaks.com. Now consider the spin that Robert Mueller put on this opinion in his report on possible collusion between the Trump
campaign and the Russians. Mueller bluffs the unsuspecting reader into believing that it is a proven fact that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks
were Russian assets. But he is relying on a mere opinion from a handpicked group of intel analysts working under the direction of
then CIA Director John Brennan.
Here's Mueller's take (I apologize for the lengthy quote but it is important that you read how the Mueller team presents this):
DCLeaks
"The GRU began planning the releases at least as early as April 19, 2016, when Unit 26165 registered the domain dcleaks.com
through a service that anonymized the registrant.137 Unit 26165 paid for the registration using a pool of bitcoin that it had
mined.138 The dcleaks.com landing page pointed to different tranches of stolen documents, arranged by victim or subject matter.
Other dcleaks.com pages contained indexes of the stolen emails that were being released (bearing the sender, recipient, and date
of the email). To control access and the timing of releases, pages were sometimes password-protected for a period of time and
later made unrestricted to the public.
Starting in June 2016, the GRU posted stolen documents onto the website dcleaks.com, including documents stolen from a number
of individuals associated with the Clinton Campaign. These documents appeared to have originated from personal email accounts
(in particular, Google and Microsoft accounts), rather than the DNC and DCCC computer networks. DCLeaks victims included an advisor
to the Clinton Campaign, a former DNC employee and Clinton Campaign employee, and four other campaign volunteers.139 The GRU released
through dcleaks.com thousands of documents, including personal identifying and financial information, internal correspondence
related to the"Clinton Campaign and prior political jobs, and fundraising files and information.140
GRU officers operated a Facebook page under the DCLeaks moniker, which they primarily used to promote releases of materials.141
The Facebook page was administered through a small number of preexisting GRU-controlled Facebook accounts.142
GRU officers also used the DCLeaks Facebook account, the Twitter account @dcleaks__, and the email account [email protected]
to communicate privately with reporters and other U.S. persons. GRU officers using the DCLeaks persona gave certain reporters
early access to archives of leaked files by sending them links and passwords to pages on the dcleaks.com website that had not
yet become public. For example, on July 14, 2016, GRU officers operating under the DCLeaks persona sent a link and password for
a non-public DCLeaks webpage to a U.S. reporter via the Facebook account.143 Similarly, on September 14, 2016, GRU officers sent
reporters Twitter direct messages from @dcleaks_, with a password to another non-public part of the dcleaks.com website.144
The dcleaks.com website remained operational and public until March 2017."
Guccifer 2.0
On June 14, 2016, the DNC and its cyber-response team announced the breach of the DNC network and suspected theft of DNC documents.
In the statements, the cyber-response team alleged that Russian state-sponsored actors (which they referred to as "Fancy Bear")
were responsible for the breach.145 Apparently in response to that announcement, on June 15, 2016, GRU officers using the persona
Guccifer 2.0 created a WordPress blog. In the hours leading up to the launch of that WordPress blog, GRU officers logged into
a Moscow-based server used and managed by Unit 74455 and searched for a number of specific words and phrases in English, including
"some hundred sheets," "illuminati," and "worldwide known." Approximately two hours after the last of those searches, Guccifer
2.0 published its first post, attributing the DNC server hack to a lone Romanian hacker and using several of the unique English
words and phrases that the GRU officers had searched for that day.146
That same day, June 15, 2016, the GRU also used the Guccifer 2.0 WordPress blog to begin releasing to the public documents
stolen from the DNC and DCCC computer networks.
The Guccifer 2.0 persona ultimately released thousands of documents stolen from the DNC and DCCC in a series of blog posts
between June 15, 2016 and October 18, 2016.147 Released documents included opposition research performed by the DNC (including
a memorandum analyzing potential criticisms of candidate Trump), internal policy documents (such as recommendations on how to
address politically sensitive issues), analyses of specific congressional races, and fundraising documents. Releases were organized
around thematic issues, such as specific states (e.g., Florida and Pennsylvania) that were perceived as competitive in the 2016
U.S. presidential election.
Beginning in late June 2016, the GRU also used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to release documents directly to reporters and other
interested individuals. Specifically, on June 27, 2016, Guccifer 2.0 sent an email to the news outlet The Smoking Gun offering
to provide "exclusive access to some leaked emails linked [to] Hillary Clinton's staff."148 The GRU later sent the reporter a
password and link to a locked portion of the dcleaks.com website that contained an archive of emails stolen by Unit 26165 from
a Clinton Campaign volunteer in March 2016.149 "That the Guccifer 2.0 persona provided reporters access to a restricted portion
of the DCLeaks website tends to indicate that both personas were operated by the same or a closely-related group of people.150
The GRU continued its release efforts through Guccifer 2.0 into August 2016. For example, on August 15, 2016, the Guccifer
2.0 persona sent a candidate for the U.S. Congress documents related to the candidate's opponent.151 On August 22, 2016, the Guccifer
2.0 persona transferred approximately 2.5 gigabytes of Florida-related data stolen from the DCCC to a U.S. blogger covering Florida
politics.152 On August 22, 2016, the Guccifer 2.0 persona sent a U.S. reporter documents stolen from the DCCC pertaining to the
Black Lives Matter movement.153"
Wow. Sounds pretty convincing. The documents referencing communications by DCLeaks or Guccifer 2.0 with Wikileaks are real. What
is not true is that these entities were GRU assets.
In October 2015 John Brennan reorganized the CIA . As part of that reorganization he created a new directorate--DIRECTORATE
OF DIGITAL INNOVATION. Its mission was to "manipulate digital footprints." In other words, this was the Directorate that did the
work of creating Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks. One of their specialties, creating Digital Dust.
We also know, thanks to Wikileaks, that the CIA was using software specifically designed to mask CIA activity and make it
appear like it was done by a foreign entity. Wikipedia describes the
Vault 7 documents :
Vault 7 is a series of documents that WikiLeaks began to publish on 7 March 2017, that detail activities and capabilities of the
United States' Central Intelligence Agency to perform electronic surveillance and cyber warfare. The files, dated from 2013–2016,
include details on the agency's software capabilities, such as the ability to compromise cars, smart TVs,[1] web browsers (including
Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Mozilla Firefox, and Opera Software ASA),[2][3][4] and the operating systems of most smartphones (including
Apple's iOS and Google's Android), as well as other operating systems such as Microsoft Windows, macOS, and Linux[5][6
One of the tools in Vault 7 carries the innocuous name, MARBLE.
Hackernews explains the purpose and function
of MARBLE:
Dubbed "Marble," the part 3 of CIA files contains 676 source code files of a secret anti-forensic Marble Framework, which is basically
an obfuscator or a packer used to hide the true source of CIA malware.
The CIA's Marble Framework tool includes a variety of different algorithm with foreign language text intentionally inserted into
the malware source code to fool security analysts and falsely attribute attacks to the wrong nation.
Marble is used to hamper[ing] forensic investigators and anti-virus companies from attributing viruses, trojans and hacking attacks
to the CIA," says the whistleblowing site.
"...for example by pretending that the spoken language of the malware creator was not American English, but Chinese, but then
showing attempts to conceal the use of Chinese, drawing forensic investigators even more strongly to the wrong conclusion," WikiLeaks
explains.
So guess what
gullible techies "discovered" in mid-June 2016? The meta data in the Guccifer 2.0 communications had "Russian fingerprints."
We still don't know who he is or whether he works for the Russian government, but one thing is for sure: Guccifer 2.0 -- the nom
de guerre of the person claiming he hacked the Democratic National Committee and published hundreds of pages that appeared to prove
it -- left behind fingerprints implicating a Russian-speaking person with a nostalgia for the country's lost Soviet era.
Exhibit A in the case is this document created and later edited in the ubiquitous Microsoft Word format. Metadata left inside
the file shows it was last edited by someone using the computer name "Феликс Эдмундович." That means the computer was configured
to use the Russian language and that it was connected to a Russian-language keyboard. More intriguing still, "Феликс Эдмундович"
is the colloquial name that translates to Felix Dzerzhinsky, the 20th Century Russian statesman who is best known for founding the
Soviet secret police. (The metadata also shows that the purported DNC strategy memo was originally created by someone named Warren
Flood, which happens to be the name of a LinkedIn user claiming to provide strategy and data analytics services to Democratic candidates.)
Just use your common sense. If the Russians were really trying to carry out a covert cyberattack, do you really think they
are so sloppy and incompetent to insert the name of the creator of the Soviet secret police in the metadata? No. The Russians are
not clowns. This was a clumsy attempt to frame the Russians.
Why would the CIA do this? The CIA knew that Podesta's emails had been hacked and were circulating on the internet. But they
had no evidence about the identity of the culprit. If they had such evidence, they would have cited it in the 2017 ICA.
The U.S. intelligence community became aware around May 26, 2016 that someone with access to the DNC network was offering
those emails to Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Julian Assange and people who spoke to him indicate that the person was Seth Rich.
Whether or not it was Seth, the Trump Task Force at CIA was aware that the emails, which would be embarrassing to the Clinton campaign,
would be released at some time in the future. Hence the motive to create Guccifer 2.0 and pin the blame on Russia.
It is essential to recall the timeline of the alleged Russian intrusion into the DNC network. The only source for the claim
that Russia hacked the DNC is a private cyber security firm, CrowdStrike. Here is the timeline for the DNC "hack."
Here are the facts on the public record. They are at odds with the claims of the Intelligence Community:
It was
29 April 2016 , when the DNC claims it became aware its servers had been penetrated. No claim yet about who was responsible.
And no claim that there had been a prior warning by the FBI of a penetration of the DNC by Russian military intelligence.
According to CrowdStrike founder , Dimitri Alperovitch, his company first supposedly detected the Russians mucking around
inside the DNC server on 6 May 2016. A CrowdStrike intelligence analyst reportedly told Alperovitch that:
Falcon had identified not one but two Russian intruders: Cozy Bear, a group CrowdStrike's experts believed was affiliated
with the FSB, Russia's answer to the CIA; and Fancy Bear, which they had linked to the GRU, Russian military intelligence.
The Wikileaks data shows that the last message copied from the DNC network is dated Wed, 25 May 2016 08:48:35.
10 June 2016 --CrowdStrike waited until 10 June 2016 to take concrete steps to clean up the DNC network. Alperovitch told
Esquire's Vicky Ward that: 'Ultimately, the teams decided it was necessary to replace the software on every computer at the DNC.
Until the network was clean, secrecy was vital. On the afternoon of Friday, June 10, all DNC employees were instructed to leave
their laptops in the office."
On June 14, 2016 , Ellen Nakamura, a Washington Post reporter who had been briefed by computer security company hired by the
DNC -- Crowdstrike--, wrote:
Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to the
entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security
experts who responded to the breach.
The intruders so thoroughly compromised the DNC's system that they also were able to read all email and chat traffic, said
DNC officials and the security experts.
The intrusion into the DNC was one of several targeting American political organizations. The networks of presidential
candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were also targeted by Russian spies, as were the computers of some Republican political
action committees, U.S. officials said. But details on those cases were not available.
15 June, 2016 , an internet "personality" self-described as Guccifer 2.0 surfaces and claims to be responsible for the hacks
but denies being Russian. The people/entity behind Guccifer 2.0:
Used a Russian VPN service provider to conceal their identity.
Created an email account with AOL.fr (a service that exposes the sender's IP address) and contacted the press (exposing his
VPN IP address in the process).
Contacted various media outlets through this set up and claimed credit for hacking the DNC, sharing copies of files purportedly
from the hack (one of which had Russian error messages embedded in them) with reporters from Gawker, The Smoking Gun and other
outlets.
Carried out searches for terms that were mostly in English, several of which would appear in Guccifer 2.0's first blog post.
They chose to do this via a server based in Moscow. (this is from the indictment,
"On or about June 15, 2016, the Conspirators logged into a Moscow-based server used and managed by Unit 74455")
Created a blog and made an initial blog post claiming to have hacked the DNC, providing links to various documents as proof.
Carelessly dropped a "Russian Smiley" into his first blog post.
Managed to add the name "Феликс Эдмундович" (which translates to Felix Dzerzhinsky, also known as "Iron Felix") to the metadata
of several documents. (Several sources went beyond what the evidence shows and made claims about Guccifer 2.0 using a Russian
keyboard, however, these claims are just assumptions made in response to the presence of cyrillic characters.)
The only thing that the Guccifer 2.0 character did not do to declare its Russian heritage was to take out full page ads in the
New York Times and Washington Post. But the "forensic" fingerprints that Guccifer 2.0 was leaving behind is not the only inexplicable
event.
Time for the common sense standard again. Crowdstrike detected the Russians on the 6th of May, according to CEO Dimitri Alperovitch,
but took no steps to shutdown the network, eliminate the malware and clean the computers until 34 days later, i.e., the 10th of June.
That is 34 days of inexcusable inaction.
It is only AFTER Julian Assange announces on 12 June 2016 that WikiLeaks has emails relating to Hillary Clinton that DCLeaks or
Guccifer 2.0 try to contact Assange.
The actions attributed to DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 should be priority investigative targets for U.S. Attorney John Durham's
team of investigators. This potential use of a known CIA tool, developed under Brennan with the sole purpose to obfuscate the source
of intrusions, pointing to another nation, as a false flag operation, is one of the actions and issues that U.S. Attorney John Durham
should be looking into as a potential act of "Seditious conspiracy. It needs to be done. To quote the CIA, I strongly assess that
the only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential election was the CIA,
not the GRU.
LJ bottom line: "The only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential
election was the CIA, not the GRU."
Larry, thanks -- vital clarifications and reminders. In your earlier presentation of this material did you not also distinguish
between the way actually interagency assessments are titled, and ICA which seemed to have been framed to allow journalists or
the unwary to link the ICA with more rigorous standards used by more authentic assessments?
Thank you Larry. You have discovered one more vital key to the conspiracy. We now need the evidence of Julian Assange. He is kept
incommunicado and He is being tortured by the British in jail and will be murdered by the American judicial system if he lasts
long enough to be extradited.
You can be sure he will be "Epsteined" before he appears in open court because he knows the source of what Wikileaks published.
Once he is gone, mother Clinton is in the clear.
I can understand the GRU or SVR hacking the DNC and other e-mail servers because as intelligence services that is their job, but
can anyone think of any examples of Russia (or the Soviet Union) using such information to take overt action?
With the Russians
not having the advantages that the NSA does (back doors in all US-designed network hardware/software and taps all over the internet),
would Russia reveal anything unless it involved an immediate major national security threat. I doubt that would cover Trump.
Looks like CrowdStrike was was to plant the evidence of the Russian hack
Notable quotes:
"... All the evidence we're accumulating clearly says and implies, the US government -- namely the FBI, CIA, the DOJ, and of course State Department -- all these people involved in this hack, bought a dossier and all of the information going forward to the FISA court. ..."
"... All of them knew that this was a fake from the very beginning, because this Guccifer 2.0 character was fabricating it. They were using him plus the Internet Research Agency [IRA] as "supposed trolls of the Russian government". ..."
"... Well, when they sent their lawyers over to challenge that in a court of law, the government failed to prove they had any connection with the Russian government. ..."
"... Then the entire Rosenstein indictment is also a fabrication and a fake and a fraud for the same reasons. The judges seem to be involved in trying to keep this information out of the public domain. ..."
BILL BINNEY: I basically have always been saying that all of this Russian hack never
happened, but we have some more evidence coming out recently.
We haven't published it yet, but what we have seen is that there are at least five items
that we've found that were produced by Guccifer 2.0 back on June 15th, where they had the
Russian fingerprints in them, suggesting the Russians made the hack. Well, we found the same
five items published by Wikileaks in the Podesta emails.
Those items do not have the Russian fingerprints, which directly implies that Guccifer 2.0
was inserting these into the files to make it look like the Russians did this hack. Taking that
into account with all the other evidence we have; like the download speeds from Guccifer 2.0
were too fast, and they couldn't be managed by the web.
And that the files he was putting together and saying that he actually hacked, the two files
he said he had were really one file, and he was playing with the data; moving it to two
different files to claim two hacks.
Taking that into account with the fabrication of the Russian fingerprints, it leads us back
to inferring that in fact the marble framework out of the Vault 7 compromise of CIA hacking
routines was a possible user in this case.
In other words, it looked like the CIA did this, and that it was a matter of the CIA making
it look like the Russians were doing the hack. So, when you look at that and also look at the
DNC emails that were published by Wikileaks that have this phat file format in them, all 35,813
of these emails have rounded off times to the nearest even second.
That's a phat file format property; that argues that those files were, in fact, downloaded
to a thumb drive or CD-rom and physically transported before Wikileaks posted them. Which again
argues that it wasn't a hack.
So, all of the evidence we're finding is clearly evidence that the Russians were not in fact
hacking; it was probably our own people. It's very hard for us to get this kind of information
out. The mainstream media won't cover it; none of them will. It's very hard. We get some
bloggers to do that and some radio shows.
Also, I put all of this into a sworn affidavit in the Roger Stone case. I did that because
all of the attack on him was predicated on him being connected with this Russian hack which was
false to being with.
All the evidence we're accumulating clearly says and implies, the US government --
namely the FBI, CIA, the DOJ, and of course State Department -- all these people involved in
this hack, bought a dossier and all of the information going forward to the FISA
court.
All of them knew that this was a fake from the very beginning, because this Guccifer 2.0
character was fabricating it. They were using him plus the Internet Research Agency [IRA] as
"supposed trolls of the Russian government".
Well, when they sent their lawyers over to challenge that in a court of law, the
government failed to prove they had any connection with the Russian government.
They basically were chastised by the judge for fabricating a charge against this company.
So, if you take the IRA and the trolls away from that argument, and Guccifer 2.0, then the
entire Mueller report is a provable fabrication; because it's based on Guccifer 2.0 and the
IRA.
Then the entire Rosenstein indictment is also a fabrication and a fake and a fraud for
the same reasons. The judges seem to be involved in trying to keep this information out of the
public domain.
So, we have a really extensive shadow government here at work, trying to keep the
understanding and knowledge of what's really happening away from the public of the United
States. That's the really bad part. And the mainstream media is a participant in this; they're
culpable.
His dissent from the consensus view that Russia interfered with the 2016 US election
appears to be based on Russian disinformation."
They provide no footnote or linked-to source for their allegation
Ever since Binney went public criticizing U.S. intelligence agencies, they have been trying
to discredit him.
Thus far, however, their efforts have been nothing more than insinuations against his
person, without any specific allegation of counter-evidence that discredits any of his actual
assertions.
Martin Usher ,
The "Russia" thing was never able to differentiate between "Russians" and "the Russian
state". Its a product of a Cold War mindset that can't conceive of that country without it
being 150 million puppets all controlled by string from an office in the Kremlin. In reality
its just another country, one that offers goods and services to the world just like anywhere
else. So while we just assume that a company like SCL (Cambridge Analytica's parent) would
have personnel from and offices in many countries and have contracts with various political
parties in many countries we just can't seem to get our heads around the idea that a company
operating inside -- or even headquartered -- in Russia isn't automatically some kind of
Kremlin front. (Well, yes, it could be but the same way that a company in the UK could be a
front for the UK government, e.g. the Gateside Mill story in Scotland's Daily Record).
Another factor that might come into play is the idea that 'analytics', the key to business
on the Internet, is actually nothing more than a sophisticated form of traffic analysis, a
well known espionage tool. Any government worth its salt that's likely to be on the receiving
end of a propaganda campaign would be very interested in understanding the reach of such a
tool and learning how to manage that reach. So its possible that if we find the Russian
government taking out advertisements on Facebook through a front company to 'influence'
people its likely that they're more interested in evaluating that reach than the simplistic
view that they're 'trying to influence an election' (its not as if foreign interests or even
governments ever try to influence elections)(color revolution, anyone?). Allowing unfettered
access by these tools to one's nation is a bit like taking down one's defenses -- fine if
you're happy with vassal state ("ally") status but not if you're potentially an adversary --
so its important to know how to control it, no less important than having a decent air
defense system.
And in a further retort to all this nonsense, Harold Wilson, the last socialist leader of the
Labour Party back in the 1970s, won four general elections, a feat that's never been
repeated by any party leader.
This does directly relate to this thread, because the Americans overthrew Wilson. Just as they have done now with Corbyn. You really need to take your country back, whether you're a Brit or American.
paul ,
We are fortunate that there are still persons of integrity even in the spook organisations
– Binney, Kyriakou, Manning, Snowden. Without them and Assange a lot of this
criminality would never have seen the light of day.
Jack_Garbo ,
Diagnosing the disease does not imply the cure has been found. You simply know how much
sicker you are. Not helpful.
Nothing has changed despite all the revelations of intelligence shenanigans. Apologies do not
cure the patient when they're still spreading the disease. In fact, the opposite.
paul ,
Wikipedia holds out the begging bowl to anybody who uses it now.
I don't know why – they get plenty of CIA and Soros money.
All they've got to do now is wheel out the psychopath and war criminal, Tony Blair, to say:
"it's the Russians wot dunnit".
Oh my God
Jen ,
They don't need to, they have Tony Blair's fellow Brit psycho Boris Johnson to go on
autopilot and blame the Russians the moment something happens and just before London Met
start their investigations.
ZigZagWanderer ,
@ 1.15.58 "Intelligence community has become a self licking ice cream cone"
Larry Johnson and Bill Binney always worth listening to. Try to find the time.
Antonym ,
True except for Trump. Just look how hard deep state tries to unseat him.
Damaging your own puppet is not normal for a puppeteer.
J_Garbo ,
I suspected that Deep State has at least two opposing factions. The Realistists want him to
break up the empire, turn back into a republic; the Delusionals want to extend the empire,
continue to exploit and destroy the world. If so, the contradictions, reversals, incoherence
make sense. IMO as I said.
Gary Weglarz ,
I predict that all Western MSM will begin to accurately and vocally cover Mr. Binney's
findings about this odious and treasonous U.S. government psyop at just about the exact time
that – "hell freezes over" – as they say.
The purpose of manufactured hysteria in the US is to obfuscate the issues important to the
Deep State like destroying the first amendment, renewing the 'Patriot' act, extremely
increasing the war/hegemony budget, etc.
The unimportant internecine squabbles of the 'two parties' strengthens the false
perception that there is a choice when voting.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
© Getty Images / David McNew / Staff 203 Follow RT on 
John Ratcliffe © REUTERS/Loren Elliott 64 3 Follow RT on 
FBI Deputy Director David Bowdich announces charges against 'six Russsian intelligence
officers' at the Department of Justice, October 19, 2020. © Andrew Harnik/Pool via
REUTERS 14 Follow RT on 
TheGhostOfJamesOtisJr 17 minutes ago (Edited)
deFLorable
hillbilly 28 minutes ago (Edited) remove link
FILE PHOTOS. © Reuters / Kyle Grillot ; Reuters / Carlo Allegri 428 18 Follow RT on
U.S. Attorney General William Barr delivers remarks in Washington, U.S., October 3, 2019.
© REUTERS/Tom Brenner 50 Follow RT on 
Who Gets Hurt When the World Stops Using Cash
Films Hit Festivals Trying to Create Buzz Without a Crowd
A Timely Collection of Vital Writing by Audre Lorde
Prof. Stephen F. Cohen © Getty Images via AFP / Eugene Gologursky 118 Follow RT on
Will the Mueller report make the New Cold War even worse? (by Stephen Cohen)
© Sputnik / Valery Melnikov 90 Follow RT on 
'Full & transparent' investigation: NATO & EU leaders demand Russia investigates
'attack' on opposition figure Navalny
FILE PHOTO: Alexei Navalny's campaign shows Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny attending
a meeting of an action group to support his nomination as a candidate for Russian presidency in
Moscow, Russia, 24 December 2017 © Getty Images / Evgeny Feldman for Alexei Navalny's
Campaign /Anadolu Agency 39 Follow RT on 
navalny
Verified
1,773 posts
·
1.9m followers
![]({"default":{"load":"defer","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17JxQi.img?h=100&w=100&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=t&l=f"}})
Trump falsely claims coronavirus is "disappearing" and Russia
![]({"default":{"load":"defer","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17IMkn.img?h=100&w=100&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=t&l=f"}})
Coronavirus updates: School district says 100 students, staff positive for COVID-19
![a group of people standing next to a person in a suit and tie: Joseph R. Biden Jr. last week in Wilmington, Del. A new intelligence assessment said Russia continues to interfere in the election on President Trump's behalf, while China prefers Mr. Biden.]({"default":{"load":"default","w":"80","h":"45","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17HDgI.img?h=450&w=799&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f"},"size3column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"35","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17HDgI.img?h=351&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f"},"size2column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"35","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17HDgI.img?h=351&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f"}})
© Michelle V. Agins/The New York Times Joseph R. Biden Jr. last week in Wilmington, Del. A
new intelligence assessment said Russia continues to interfere in the election on President
Trump's behalf, while China prefers Mr. Biden.
![a group of people posing for a picture: Trump supporters in Ohio on Thursday, during the president's visit to a factory in Clyde.]({"default":{"load":"default","w":"80","h":"45","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17HOTh.img?h=450&w=799&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=710&y=584"},"size3column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"35","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17HOTh.img?h=351&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=710&y=584"},"size2column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"35","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17HOTh.img?h=351&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=710&y=584"}})
© Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times Trump supporters in Ohio on Thursday, during the
president's visit to a factory in Clyde.
much about it that screams of a policy flak who knows how to
present things as facts when they are anything but, and lead you into the piece already
believing that (a) Britain has been the victim of more than one attack by Russia, (b) that a
country supposedly friendless, without allies and with its economy reeling and staggering from
punishing sanctions still somehow has sufficient power to not only grip Europe, but to squeeze
it until it squeaks, and (c) Britain can do something about it.
passer-by, who helpfully attended them, just happened
to be none other than the senior medical officer in the British Army, and she was in no way
affected although she wore no protection than perhaps rubber gloves. Nick Bailey also wore
gloves, because it was cold. The next version had him entering the Skripal home – where
he was contaminated – via the back door. But the assassins had unhelpfully smeared the
poison on the front doorknob. Shit! So, unable to bring the assassins and the Skripals and Nick
Bailey all together at the same doorknob within the same period of lethality, the story was
changed again. Bailey had actually nipped next door, borrowed the spare key – the
existence of which was completely unknown to anyone prior to the television broadcast –
from a neighbour, and entered by the front door, where he became contaminated. It was touch and
go there for awhile, but he went home 18 days later, none the worse for his brush with one of
the deadliest nerve agents known to man. A nerve agent which, incidentally, was not known to
the elimination of other possibilities to have killed anyone. Dawn Sturgess died later, in
Amesbury, after spraying pure Novichok on her wrists from a fake perfume bottle, we are told.
But Dawn Sturgess was a known drug addict, Novichok as an aerosol spray would have taken effect
within seconds but she was not stricken for hours, and the medium of infection was not
discovered until three days after her death, sitting conspicuously on Charles Rowley's kitchen
counter, although the house had already been searched. Perfectly intact and waiting to be
discovered, although Charles Rowley's brother reported that the bottle had broken in his
brother's hands as Sturgess handed it back to him, which was how he became contaminated.
Another insultingly full-of-bullshit story that would not survive press scrutiny for an hour if
it had been Russia reporting a poisoning by British agents in Russia.
matsb
Jul
9, 2020 at 3:39 pm
Russian
rocket engines
I will be shocked if the
judge does anything about it beyond a slap on the wrist an an admonition not to get caught
again.
Explain, would you? Maybe I
didn't read carefully enough.
thanks larry.. what are the
chances seth rich was an intel asset?
Very unlikely that he was an
intel asset.
Sid Finster,
In fairness to the FBI, they
didn't say there were no emails, they said they used a search of CRS and that didn't identify
any emails. It isn't clear to me from what was provided in this post whether the search would
have included records from the WFO.
The sorry fact is this: Out
here in places like my town in flyover country, I could mention Seth Rich and no one would have
the slightest idea who he was and why he should get justice--or at least that the truth about
his life and death should be told.
Diana Croissant
David H et al
January 20, 2020 © Photo: Wikimedia The New York
Times caused a mini-commotion last week with a front-page 
Strategic Culture
Search
World
The Skripal Affair: A Lie Too Far?
Michael Jabara Carley
Print this article
What Poland Has to Hide About the Origins of World War II
To the top
